Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I support the Omnibus appropriations bill before us today. While this bill is not perfect, it is a strong statement of priorities, especially in light of the misguided and dangerous cuts that President Trump proposed for fiscal year 2018. As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, I thank the chairman and vice chairman and their staffs for their thoughtful work on this bill and their careful consideration of Senators' requests and priorities. This bill contains many critical investments for my home State of Maryland, including maintenance for the Port of Baltimore, millions for the Chesapeake Bay Program and other programs that support Bay clean- up, a $6 million increase for the Appalachian Regional Commission, $125 million for the Purple Line, and full funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The bill also contains a critical down payment for the consolidation of the FBI headquarters and a commitment to full funding in fiscal year 2018. Prince George's County, MD, is home to two of the sites in contention to house the headquarters and the FBI's nearly 11,000 employees. While President Trump as proposed cuts to medical research at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, this omnibus bill increases funding by $2 billion to find new cures and treatments. The bill continues critical NASA missions that are being worked on in Maryland, including the PACE Program, earth science, and the James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. While the bill cuts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it does so less than what the Trump administration has proposed, and it continues funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System weather satellite program and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program, which will help improve weather forecasting and warn about natural disasters. There is also important funding for oceanic and atmospheric research and the Sea Grant program, which has been a partner in Chesapeake Bay restoration. The bill slightly increases National Science Foundation funding and supports critical energy research at the Department of Energy. While funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology received a small cut, the final funding level is higher than what the House of Representatives initially proposed, and the bill includes support for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. We were also able to preserve funding in this bill that communities across Maryland use to support economic development, affordable housing, and safety. That includes the Community Development Block Grant, TIGER transportation grants, housing vouchers and housing capital funds, the HOME Partnership Program, Community Oriented Policing grants, and SAFER and FIRE grants for firefighters. I am pleased that this bill includes investments to improve relationships between communities and police, which will be helpful as Baltimore works to implement its consent decree. We also included critical funding for afterschool programs and community schools, preserved funding for workforce training and Pell grants, and will finally allow students to access Pell year-round so that they can finish school more quickly. As with any compromise, this bill is not perfect. As this is the first appropriations bill since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, I would have liked it to include greater investments in funding for title I, special education, teacher professional development, and student support and academic enrichment grants. The bill also continues a few riders that interfere in the District of Columbia's ability to use its funds as it sees fit. Finally, the bill is notable for the things that it does not include. Congress has rejected draconian cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department. There is important funding for border security, but not for a wasteful and ineffective border wall. In addition, Democrats successfully blocked many poison-pill riders from the bill that would have harmed our environment, banned funding for Planned Parenthood and other women's health programs, and rolled back important consumer protections. With the passage of the omnibus bill, we will avoid a dangerous government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a simple question for my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues: Why is it that this Senate is working to pass a law which will deny millions of our fellow Americans access to the kind of retirement saving plans which we have access to as U.S. Senators? Why are we doing that? I know all of us recognize that we have a retirement savings crisis in this country. Too many Americans are saving too little for their retirement years. We should be making it easier for people to put aside some savings for their retirement rather than making it harder. Yet this legislation will indisputably make it harder for millions of Americans to put aside the kind of savings for their retirement that Members of the U.S. Senate enjoy. All of us know there are really about three legs to the retirement stool. The fundamental basic piece is the Social Security savings. That is the bedrock of the retirement system, but we all know that living off of a Social Security retirement benefit by itself is very difficult. After all, the average monthly Social Security benefit as of January of this year was $1,360 a month. That is the average. That means there are a lot below it and a lot above it. I can tell you, $1,360 a month and below is really difficult for somebody to get by on in terms of housing costs, medical costs, and other costs people are facing today. That is why we need to strengthen Social Security, not weaken it. The second leg of the retirement stool for most Americans for much of our history in the postwar period was a defined benefit plan through our employers, where employers--especially large employers--would provide their employees a retirement benefit of a set amount over a fixed period of time during retirement. So that was something people could rely on. As we all know, we have seen that leg of the three-legged stool be dramatically cut down. It is not the practice of most businesses today to offer defined benefit plans. The third leg of that stool has been personal savings, the ability of people to put aside a little money for their future. Just a few years ago, we had a big wake-up call from the General Accountability Office, where they looked at retirement around the country and concluded that almost 50 percent of households of age 55 and older have no retirement savings in vehicles such as 401(k) plans and IRAs. That same GAO report found that 57 percent of workers' entire household savings and investments was less than $25,000. More striking was that almost one- third of American workers had less than $1,000 in total savings. One- third of American workers had less than $1,000 in total savings. We also know that 55 million Americans today do not have access to tax-benefited, tax-incentive retirement plans like 401(k)s enjoyed by those who work for major businesses. In fact, as all of us know, Members and employees of the U.S. Senate have access to 401(k) plans. If you work for a large business or a corporation of the United States, chances are you are going to get a 401(k)-type plan which allows you to deduct immediately through your paycheck funds for the purposes of your retirement savings. Of course, many businesses also have some matching and incentive for those savings. So when we have a situation where 55 million Americans don't have access to those kind of savings plans--which are an increasingly important part of retirement security because of the fact that defined benefit retirement has gone down so dramatically--most people would ask: How do we incentivize? How do we incentivize more savings? One innovative solution is in a growing number of States, as of now, five States, including the State of Maryland. What the State of Maryland and other States determined was that it is not that small employers or medium-sized employers don't want to provide their employees with access to these plans. They do. They want to be able to offer that kind of benefit, but there is a cost, an infrastructure cost. There is a burden to providing those kind of tax-preferred vehicles for retirement savings to their employees. That is why they are not provided. So what the States have done is, they have developed platforms which allow those small businesses or medium-sized businesses, on a totally voluntary basis, to sign up so their employees can benefit from these tax-preferred savings vehicles--just like Members of the U.S. Senate, just like most people who work for large corporations. In Maryland, we have hundreds of thousands of Marylanders who were signing up for these--a lot of people work for small businesses, a lot of people work for startups, a lot of younger workers who are mobile and going from one place to another--because this allows them, no matter which employer they go to, to make sure they can access that vehicle. All it requires is the employers to sign up for this platform which makes this retirement savings easier. What is really strange here is that in Maryland, this has been a totally bipartisan exercise--totally bipartisan. We had Republican State senators, Democratic State senators, members of our house of delegates, our Republican Governor signing the bill because everyone recognized that this was kind of a good thing to encourage these savings opportunities to more Marylanders. So why in the world would we, in the U.S. Senate, be passing a resolution which knocks down the ability of States to provide these kind of savings platforms? I have to say I have not heard an answer on the floor of the Senate. In fact, I have heard very few Senators coming to defend the vote we are apparently going to take at 5 o'clock. I know for sure that Candidate Donald Trump did not campaign on the idea of making it more difficult for hard-working Americans to save for their retirement. That was not something he talked about on the campaign trail. In fact, I thought a lot of his campaign message was how he was identifying with struggling working families and wanted to make life easier for those working families. That is what States like Maryland are trying to do--make it easier for people who work for small businesses and medium-sized businesses to put aside a little bit of their savings for their retirement because, as I indicated, right now, if you look at the different pillars of retirement, you have Social Security and you have very little or a dwindling amount through a defined benefit. Really, what we are left with are personal savings. It is pretty alarming to see people in this Senate charging ahead to try to eliminate the ability of States to do this. A few weeks ago, this Senate voted to deny municipalities the ability to do this. That was a very bad decision. Let's not compound a bad decision by taking this right away from the States. After all, I hear from my colleagues all the time that States are the laboratory of democracy. This is where experimentation should take place. This has been a successful experiment. It has been a successful experiment in five States. It also doesn't cost the Federal taxpayer one dime--not one dime. It is a very low-cost option for the States that enact these through their own democratic process in the States. As I said, this has been a bipartisan process in these States. I really hope people will take a deeper look at what we are going to be voting on at 5 o'clock today because I have heard a lot of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle justifiably talk about the retirement crisis we have in this country. Yet this Senate is poised to vote on a piece of legislation that will make saving for retirement more difficult for tens of millions of Americans. So exactly what is it we are going to vote on? Well, the Obama administration wanted to make it clear that States had the authority to establish these platforms to help with savings because there was some ambiguity under Federal retirement law whether States could do it. They adopted a rule that made it clear that States would have this option, and States have moved ahead. Now this Senate is talking about undoing the rule that provided clarity so the States could move forward and offer these retirement platforms. I really hope this Senate will not vote today to take away this ability of States to help millions of our fellow Americans provide more money for their retirement savings. I will close where I started. How can any Member of this Senate look their constituents in the face and say to their constituents that they voted to take away a retirement savings option from their constituents when they have that savings option here as Senators? In the U.S. Senate, like a lot of other large organizations, we have retirement savings plans and we have 401(k) plans. So it is difficult to understand how in good conscience Senators who enjoy the benefit of that kind of plan can pull the plug on the ability of States to offer that same kind of savings plan--in fact, not even as good, but at least that savings platform to millions of our fellow citizens and say to small- and medium-sized businesses that want to offer this benefit but find it a little too costly--to deny them the option of signing up for these State plans. So I hope every Senator will examine his or her conscience on this and make the decision that they want to make sure their constituents can have access to at least some kind of the same benefit they have as a U.S. Senator. I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose the confirmation of Jay Clayton to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission. When the stock market crashed in 1929, public confidence in the markets plummeted as well. Investors large and small lost their life's savings. Congress responded with laws to help rebuild public faith in the markets. Thus in the wake of the Great Depression, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Congress designed the SEC to see that investors and the markets have reliable information and clear rules for honest dealing. The SEC's job is to make sure that brokers, dealers, and exchanges put investors' interests first. The SEC ensures that companies offering securities for investment tell the public the truth about their businesses, the securities they are selling, and the risks involved. Congress took pains to create the SEC to have some distance from Wall Street. The law provides that no Commissioner can engage in any business or employment other than serving as Commissioner. The law prohibits any Commissioner from participating in any stock transactions of a type that the Commission regulates. Mr. Clayton has extensive experience working in capital markets. He has represented a long list of financial firms. His numerous conflicts may make him captive to the industry that President Trump nominated him to police. One of his better-known clients is Goldman Sachs. The Department of Justice found that Goldman Sachs falsely assured investors that sound mortgages backed securities that Goldman sold, when Goldman knew that these securities were full of mortgages that were likely to fail. During his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Clayton about Goldman Sachs' $5 billion settlement with the Department of Justice. I asked Mr. Clayton if he felt that Goldman Sachs had been engaged in shady practices, but Mr. Clayton said only that he felt the case stood on its own. I cannot comprehend why Mr. Clayton demurred on this topic. We should all be able to agree that if a firm pays $5 billion in a settlement, it was engaged in shady practices, to say the least. Duriing Mr. Clayton's confirmation hearing, he said that he is ``100 percent committed to rooting out any fraud and shady practices in our financial system.'' If he is confirmed, I hope he stands by that pledge. The SEC, investors, and the American people need an independent voice. They need a politically independent voice, as well as a voice that can be independent enough to make tough enforcement decisions about the financial firms it regulates. I have serious doubts that Mr. Clayton can be that voice; thus I oppose his nomination.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of the Department of Labor. Our Nation's Labor Secretary has a responsibility to protect the safety and legal rights of the American workforce. From prosecuting civil rights violations to monitoring workplace safety, the Department of Labor ensures fair treatment. The Labor Secretary must also evaluate our economy and advocate for fair and equal pay and benefits for American workers. The Department provides the data and expertise for policymakers, employers, and workers to make economic decisions. Unfortunately, Mr. Acosta's testimony on these points at his confirmation hearing was disappointing. He would not commit to support updating overtime rules to make sure that employees get fair pay for the hours they work. He would not commit to prioritize closing the gender pay gap. He would not commit to keeping workplace safety inspectors on the job. Moreover, when Mr. Acosta led the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush Administration, the GAO reported that there was a ``significant drop in the enforcement of several major antidiscrimination and voting rights laws.'' The Secretary of Labor must be a vigilant defender of the rights of workers. In a Cabinet where too many department heads are looking out for millionaires and billionaires, we need a Secretary of Labor who will look out for the American worker. I am not convinced that Mr. Acosta will do that job.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I supported Rod Rosenstein's nomination to become Deputy Attorney General. Throughout his 27-year career, Mr. Rosenstein has earned a reputation as a fair and focused administrator of justice. He has served in Maryland in both Republican and Democratic administrations and has earned the distinction of being the longest serving U.S. attorney in the country. I had the honor to introduce Mr. Rosenstein to the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing. He has aggressively prosecuted not only dangerous gangs and criminals in Maryland but also elected officials who violated the people's trust. He has shown impartiality in these investigations, and his successful prosecutions have led to ethics reforms that increased transparency and public confidence in Maryland. When Mr. Rosenstein and I met recently, I asked him if he supported the consent decree negotiated between the Obama administration and the city of Baltimore. He assured me that, if the court formally entered the consent decree, he would support its implementation. Attorney General Sessions, however, has frequently expressed skepticism about consent decrees. Baltimore is the only city to invite the Justice Department to conduct a thorough, methodical analysis of its police department in order to foster transparency and increase trust between police officers and Baltimore city residents. As the former U.S. attorney in Maryland, Mr. Rosenstein is well acquainted with the challenges that the city faces. He has prosecuted corruption charges against Baltimore city police officers and should recognize the importance of reform and effective community policing. I trust Mr. Rosenstein will keep his promise to support the consent decree. In addition to being a top-notch lawyer, Mr. Rosenstein is known for the professional manner in which he runs his current office. In his letter of support, Maryland's Attorney General Brian Frosh notes that Mr. Rosenstein ``inherited an office in turmoil'' when he became Maryland's U.S. attorney, but with a ``steady hand and superb management,'' created a department that is now universally respected. Those skills will be put to the test immediately. Mr. Rosenstein will assume the office of Deputy Attorney General at a tumultuous time for the Justice Department. His job will be to serve justice, not political leaders. As Mr. Rosenstein and I discussed, the question for him is the same that then-Senator Sessions posed to Sally Yates during her hearing to become Deputy Attorney General. Senator Sessions said: ``You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about.'' Senator Sessions then asked: ``Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?'' Like Sally Yates, Mr. Rosenstein said that he would be willing to put his job on the line to uphold the integrity of the Department of Justice. I believe that any investigation into the ties between the Trump administration and Russian interference in our elections will require the appointment of an independent special counsel, and I have also joined my fellow Senators in calling for a nonpartisan commission. I also made clear to Mr. Rosenstein that, if the FBI Director did, in fact, request that the Justice Department deny President Trump's unsubstantiated claims that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower, then the Justice Department has a duty to immediately let the public know the truth. It is vitally important that the American public have faith that our laws apply equally to all Americans, regardless of rank or position. Rod Rosenstein has applied that principle faithfully during his time as U.S. attorney in Maryland. It is essential that he apply the same principle at the Department of Justice.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I support the nomination of George Sonny Perdue to be the next Secretary of Agriculture. While I have reservations about some of his record and views, particularly about climate change, Governor Perdue has expressed the collaborative spirit that I believe will make him an effective Secretary and partner to Congress in our effort to support America's farmers and rural communities. During his confirmation hearing, Governor Perdue committed to support issues of great importance to Maryland: the Chesapeake Bay, conservation programs, agricultural research, and rural development. Governor Perdue recognized the Chesapeake Bay as a national priority. He acknowledged that it is essential for USDA to work with State and local governments, as well as landowners, on conservation and bay protection. He agreed to work with Congress and the States to dedicate appropriate resources to nutrient reduction and water quality improvements in the bay. I also encouraged him to work with me to support small- and medium-sized farms and to keep our 1,890 Historically Black Colleges and Universities strong, and he committed to do so. Governor Perdue voiced support for the critical Federal assistance that the Department's rural development agency provides to rural communities in Maryland and the Nation as a whole. He also committed to working with Congress to improve broadband and telecommunications infrastructure in rural America. Governor Perdue faces a budget that cuts the Department 21 percent, completely eliminates the Water and wastewater loan program and reduces staffing at USDA service center agencies. The budget's $17.9 billion cut would harm those the Department serves and the people who work there. I expect Governor Perdue to keep his word to be a forceful advocate for his Department. I have concerns about ethics controversies during Mr. Perdue's tenure as Governor of Georgia and his climate change skepticism. If the Senate confirms Governor Perdue, I will pay close attention to his actions as Secretary. Governor Perdue has made a number of commitments to support agriculture and environmental conservation in Maryland, and I intend to hold him to them.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about one of the most important responsibilities we have here in the U.S. Senate: considering the President's nominee to the Supreme Court. It is a vote with consequences that will far outlast this Presidential administration. It is a vote with implications that will outlast all of our time here in the Senate. It will certainly be one of the most consequential decisions each one of us makes. That is because any one of the nine individuals named to the Supreme Court with a lifetime appointment can change the course of our Nation. In just the past few years, we have seen that. We have witnessed a series of 5-to-4 decisions that changed the trajectory of our society-- decisions that gutted section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and resulted in numerous States enacting discriminatory laws designed to limit access to the ballot box, especially for African-American and minority voters. The 5-to-4 Citizens United decision overturned the law of the land and Supreme Court precedent in order to empower corporations to spend unlimited sums of money in support of candidates for public office, corroding the fabric of our democracy. There were decisions that limit a woman's access to safe and affordable birth control and reaffirm the legal fiction that for-profit corporations should have the same rights as real people. There was a decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act, and a decision that--with a single vote--gave every American the right to marry the person they love. The decision of a single Supreme Court Justice can indeed change the trajectory of our judiciary and of our society for generations. Now my Republican colleagues rightly note that this weighty decision begins with the President. They have routinely said it is the President's right to choose his judicial nominees, and that is true. I have one question for them: Where were they last year when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States? They were AWOL. Shortly after Justice Scalia passed away and before President Obama even named his nominee, the Senate Republican leader announced that he would leave the seat open--and he did--for an unprecedented 293 days. For 293 days, one of the most qualified and mainstream nominees in our history languished without even a hearing. Many Senators refused even to meet with him. For 293 days, Democrats in this Chamber and people from all over the country called upon this Senate to do its job and consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. The response? Nothing--a total abdication of this Senate's constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. But, unfortunately, this Chamber's failure to live up to its responsibility to consider the Garland nomination is just one piece of a larger assault on the independence of our judiciary. President Trump has made it clear that he sees our Nation's judges not as a separate and coequal branch, but an unwelcome challenge to his power. He has called the courts broken and political. When he faced trial for scamming thousands of students at Trump University, he charged that the Federal judge overseeing that case could not be impartial. Why? Because, he said, he was Hispanic--a charge that was, in the words of the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the ``textbook definition'' of racism. When the Trump administration first tried to impose its Muslim ban, only to be blocked by a Federal court, did President Trump display respect for the rule of law? No. He fired his acting Attorney General, Sally Yates and accused her of having ``betrayed'' the Department of Justice. He went on to say that if any future harm occurs, it is the fault of the courts, and called them obstructionists for not bending to his will. They are not supposed to bend to the will of the Executive. President Trump's disdain for the courts makes it all the more important that the open seat on the Supreme Court be filled by somebody who is seen as an impartial administrator of justice--someone who does not have a set political ideology. Unfortunately, Neil Gorsuch does not meet that important test. His record and his testimony shows that he applies a very cramped reading of the law and consistently--time and again--sides with powerful corporate interests against the rights of workers, consumers, and individuals. When he had an opportunity during the hearings to explain that bias, he chose instead to evade the questions and answer with platitudes, not substance. While he is undoubtedly a skilled lawyer, his record reveals that he is outside of the judicial mainstream. His decisions have closed the doors of justice to working people, to people with disabilities, and to individuals seeking to protect their rights. In one opinion, Judge Gorsuch was the only judge who thought that TransAm Trucking company was right when they fired a driver whose only offense was finding safety when the heat in his truck broke down in subzero temperatures, and he began to show signs of hypothermia. The driver said he could not feel his lower body, his fingers were becoming numb, and he experienced slurred speech while waiting for hours for help from his company. Judge Gorsuch was the only judge who thought that Federal regulations protected the trucking company and not the truckdriver trying to avoid freezing to death. It makes me doubt that Judge Gorsuch considers the real-world consequences of this ruling. Judge Gorsuch also sided against working people and defended powerful corporations. In his opinion in Hobby Lobby, he came down on the side of corporate power against the rights of workers. He argued that not only do corporations have rights to religious liberty, but those rights can supersede--can trump--the rights of ordinary working Americans. He was the architect of an opinion that severely limited a woman's access to basic reproductive healthcare. In yet another ruling, Judge Gorsuch prevented an autistic child from getting a proper public school education. His opinion on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act severely limited the options for parents of children with disabilities and the quality of public school education they could receive. His reasoning in that case was overturned by the Supreme Court literally as he was testifying in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not merely was his decision overturned, it was overturned unanimously--eight to nothing. According to the justices that Judge Gorsuch hopes to serve with, his standard would have cut children with disabilities out of high-quality education. As the Supreme Court said in that case: ``For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to sitting idly, awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.'' That is what the Court said. Fortunately for children with disabilities and their families, and for the sake of justice, they did not adopt the Gorsuch reasoning. Finally, Judge Gorsuch has spent his career arguing against the so- called Chevron standard. In essence, this means that when it comes to Federal rules designed to protect the public health and safety, he believes that the opinions of judges like himself should outweigh the opinions of experts in these subjects in our civil service. This view was rejected by none other than Judge Scalia. It is much more in line with the thinking of Steve Bannon, a man whose stated goal is to deconstruct the Federal rules that protect the health and safety of the American people. Again, Judge Gorsuch is not in the mainstream. And let's make no mistake, he was never intended to be a mainstream nominee. Candidate Trump established several litmus tests. He said he wanted a nominee who was opposed to a woman's right to reproductive choice and someone who would have the support of the NRA. Donald Trump then subcontracted out the nomination process to rightwing conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. He asked them to compile a list of nominees who they liked. Neil Gorsuch was on that list. So it should be no surprise that an analysis that appeared in the New York Times concluded that Neil Gorsuch would be the second most conservative member of the current Supreme Court, and an analysis in the Washington Post concluded he would be the most rightwing member of the Court. And once President Trump selected Neil Gorsuch, the rightwing money machine went into action. Since that moment, money has flooded our airwaves, with more than $10 million spent in support of this nomination. Never before has our country witnessed a multimillion dollar campaign for the Supreme Court. When pressed, Judge Gorsuch said he had no idea who or why anybody would spend that much money to make sure he sits on the highest Court. I think we know why from looking at his record. They want someone who consistently rules in favor of large corporate special interests against the rest of us. There is a better way. Typically, the White House will consult with Members of both parties, Republicans and Democrats, before settling on a nominee. This time that courtesy was not extended to Democrats. If it had been, we could be talking today about a bipartisan nominee--someone who would uphold equal justice under the law for every American. The rules do not need to change; the nominee needs to be changed. Our Nation's independent judiciary is under attack. Our President demonizes judges whenever he feels challenged, and now special interest groups have begun funding millions of dollars into a campaign, reducing our solemn constitutional duty to a set of slick campaign ads. That is why we need a new nominee--one who has the support of 60 members of this Chamber. I will oppose this nomination and insist that this nominee be held to the 60-vote standard to show he can get a consensus of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the majority is continuing its assault on women's reproductive healthcare rights, this time using the Congressional Review Act to reverse a rule and tear a hole in our safety net for access to family planning and preventative healthcare. The resolution before us would overturn the Department of Health and Human Services' rule, which reinforces regulations that prevent States from denying title X funds to health clinics like Planned Parenthood, even though none of these funds are used for abortions. Repealing this rule would limit access to healthcare, which would harm public health in communities that rely on this funding. Congress created the Title X Family Planning Program with bipartisan support in 1970 to help provide comprehensive basic primary, family planning, and preventative services to uninsured and low-income people. It continues to be the only Federal grant dedicated to providing family planning and preventive service. Recipients of the grants use the program's funding to provide basic healthcare, such as cancer screenings, HIV testing, and family planning counseling to 4 million women and men. Both public and private entities run title X service sites. These sites broaden access to healthcare services in rural parts of our country. Often, they are the only option for the populations they serve. About 40 percent of women who use title X service sites say that they are their primary healthcare service provider. Despite the benefits of the funding, States have taken actions that discriminate against family planning clinics. Texas, for example, slashed its family planning budget by 65 percent. As a result, Texas forced a quarter of its family planning providers to close their doors to patients in need. To ensure that States do not discriminate against family planning providers, the Obama administration issued a rule that forbids States from withholding title X funding for family planning providers for any reason other than being unable to deliver effective services. This rule prevents States like Texas from attempting to defund needed providers like Planned Parenthood. This rule protects access to vital preventive services that provide a safety net for our country's most vulnerable patients. All people should have a right to affordable, high-quality healthcare. Reversing this rule will deny critical healthcare services to women, men, and their families. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I was just listening to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, and I think there are things we can do to improve the healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act. I am glad that the House soundly defeated the so-called TrumpCare bill, RyanCare, whatever you want to call it, but many of us have called for more competition in the exchanges through things like a public option. Also, I think all of us can agree that we need to reduce the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, and I think there are other things we can do. I welcome that discussion. Mr. President, I am here now to talk about something else that is currently being done to help millions of Americans save for their retirement, to provide for a secure retirement. I know all of us have been involved over the years in debates about how we can strengthen our retirement security program for all Americans. We really have a three- legged stool here. One is Social Security. That is a bedrock of our retirement system. We need to make sure that we strengthen it, and we need to make sure that it is there for all future generations. Second, many Americans have the opportunity to have a retirement plan through their employer where their employer guarantees them a certain defined benefit, a certain income stream when they retire. And the third leg of this stool has been Americans' private savings, and we want to encourage more Americans to put aside those funds so that they can care for themselves and their families when they are no longer working. That is what brings me to the floor today. Many big employers-- including, I should say, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and the government--provide their employees with things like 401(k) plans. These are ways that people can put aside some of their income as they earn it, but put it aside tax-free for their retirement. And many millions of Americans--again, especially those who work for large employers--have that benefit. But if you work for a smaller employer or even a midsized employer, there is a very good chance that you do not have easy access to those 401(k) plans, to those retirement vehicles that are so essential to saving for retirement. In fact, there are about 55 million Americans, according to studies by both the AARP as well as the Brookings Institution--about 55 million of our fellow Americans who do not have access to those 401(k) vehicles and other kinds of savings vehicles through their employers. So in response to this problem, a number of States--five States, to be specific so far, including the State of Maryland--and some municipalities have come up with creative solutions that allow small- and medium-sized employers--those who are not currently offering those retirement vehicles directly--these State plans allow their employees to put aside a little money for their retirement and get the same tax- preferred benefits as people who work for big companies. The reason small and medium-sized companies don't always provide the same retirement savings accounts as big companies is that it can impose a burden and costs on those small employers. So States have developed these other creative platforms to do it. In my State of Maryland, this was an incredibly bipartisan process. Republican State legislators and Democratic State legislators came together and put together this State plan. The Republican Governor of Maryland, Governor Hogan, signed the legislation. Today, about 1 million Marylanders--including a lot of young people who work for startups and other small businesses that don't have the wherewithal to provide these retirement savings platform--are benefiting by platforms which have been created to put money aside for their retirement. People are taking personal responsibility for their retirement. People who didn't have that opportunity before through their employers now have this vehicle to do it. It doesn't cost the Federal Government one penny. Taxpayers at the Federal level don't have to put anything in it. It is relatively low cost for the States and municipalities as well. They have to just create a platform, and they have people from across their States or municipalities benefiting from them. In order for States to do that, they needed one small change in Federal law. Under the administration of President Obama, the Department of Labor made this fix to the Federal law which allowed these States and municipalities to develop these platforms that helped millions of Americans benefit from these tax savings accounts--just like, I would point out, every Senator in this body has access to those kind of savings accounts. So I have a very simple question: Why in the world is it somehow a priority for this Senate to take away the access States have given to their residents and deny them that opportunity to take personal responsibility to put aside funds--tax-preferred funds--in these savings accounts to plan for their future? Why would we come down and say we are not going to allow this to happen anymore? I thought this was the kind of experimentation we want to see at the State level and this is the kind of savings that we want people to do to take responsibility for their own retirement. Yet here we are about to come down with a big foot and say: No, you can't do that. I am trying to figure out who is opposing this. I have been looking in my office for letters from people who are actually going to take responsibility for coming forward to say they want to deny this opportunity to save for millions of Americans--an opportunity that every Senator here has. It is easy for us. We are part of a big employer, the U.S. Government. We have 401(k) accounts, and so do people who work for big corporations. We need to extend that same opportunity to people who work for small employers and midsized employers that don't have the capacity and wherewithal to take that upon themselves, but they want their employees to benefit from these vehicles. So they have worked with States and municipalities to allow it to happen. Why would we ever want to pull the plug on that and deny our fellow Americans those opportunities to save for their future? I can't figure out for the life of me how this somehow became a partisan issue here in the Congress. It wasn't partisan in the State of Maryland. Everybody got together and worked this out. Everyone agreed this was good for the people of Maryland. So I ask our colleagues here to look at this as an opportunity to help encourage activities in our States that allow people to take the personal responsibility for their future that we are asking them to do. I ask all of our colleagues, really, to take a close look at this and to try to figure out why it is a bad idea to encourage States and municipalities, working with local employers--both small and medium- sized employers--to do what we have done in Maryland, what other States are doing, and what States can do going forward if we don't come down and slam the brakes on this innovative idea to help more Americans put aside money for their retirement. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose the resolution to repeal the Federal Communications Commission's rule to protect consumers from having their data sold by internet service providers, or ISPs, without their permission. Passing this resolution of disapproval would represent yet another victory for big business and a defeat for hard-working Americans who use the internet to do their job, connect with friends, or read the news. The internet started as a system to facilitate communication among academic and military networks. In 1995, less than 1 percent of the world used it. Today more than 87 percent of Americans and more than 40 percent of the world's population use the internet. Today the internet has become nearly indispensable. Increasingly, our toasters, refrigerators, and cars can connect to the internet, but legislation has been slow to keep up with technology. Every website we visit and every link we click leaves an unintended trail that tells a story about our lives. ISPs can collect information about our location, children, sensitive information, family status, financial information, Social Security numbers, web browsing history, and even the content of communications. ISPs sell this highly sensitive and highly personal data to the highest bidder without any consent or knowledge. Recognizing that telecommunications companies have little incentive to tell consumers what they are doing with their personal data, the FCC promulgated a rule to make sure that consumers can protect their privacy though transparency, choice, and data security. The rule's name explains its purpose: ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.'' The FCC rule would not stop companies from selling consumers' information, but the rule would require ISPs to get consumers' consent before using, disclosing, or allowing others to access this information. As former FCC Chairman Wheeler said, ``It's the consumers' information. How it is used should be the consumers' choice.'' With this resolution, Congressional Republicans are telling 9 out of 10 Americans that they should not be able to decide how private corporations collect, disclose, and sell their personal data. This resolution puts the special interests of data users above those of consumers. I oppose the resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, our Ambassador to Israel is one of our most consequential diplomatic posts. Israel is our greatest friend and ally in the Middle East and one of our closest partners in the world. The bonds between our peoples have been unbreakable from Israel's beginning. Israel is a bastion of democracy and prosperity in a violent and unstable region, where Israel faces relentless threats to its security. It is imperative that our Ambassador to Israel have an even temperament, the utmost of integrity, and the ability to forge unity across entrenched divisions. I have a profound and steadfast commitment to Israel and to the Jewish community. That is why I am so concerned with David Friedman's nomination to become Ambassador to Israel. Mr. Friedman appears to have few, if any, of the qualities needed for this position. He is an extraordinarily polarizing figure who has expressed views far outside of the longstanding bipartisan consensus on Israel. His body of published work makes clear his extreme positions. Mr. Friedman has asserted that Israel cannot trust the majority of American Jews. He has accused the entire State Department--an institution he now seeks to join--of anti-Semitism. He has called our coalition allies and partners in the fight against the Islamic State ``cowards,'' ``hypocrites,'' and ``freeloaders.'' Given his radical and divisive rhetoric, I do not believe that he is capable of forging unity at home or stability abroad. Furthermore, Mr. Friedman has written that he does not believe in a two-state solution. For decades, through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, the United States and the international community have held that the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Mr. Friedman's position on the two-state solution, coupled with his offensive statements, led five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel to urge the Senate not to confirm him. Shimon Peres, one of Israel's greatest leaders, once said, ``Our problem is not to submit to the differences but to overcome them.'' Americans and Israelis deserve nothing less than an Ambassador who lives up to this ethos, one who seeks to strengthen Israel by advancing peace in the region. Given Mr. Friedman's public statements, I doubt that he can be that person. For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration clarified employers' continuing duty to keep records of work-related injuries and illnesses. Today the congressional majority is using the Congressional Review Act to both repeal this rule and prevent OSHA from doing anything similar. I support the rule and oppose the resolution to repeal it. In 1970, Congress found that workplace injuries and illnesses result in lost production, lost wages, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments. In response, Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to ensure that employers provide workers with safe and healthful workplaces. To carry out the law, Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations requiring employers to make and maintain accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses. In the legislative history of the law, the House Committee on Education and Labor found that State reporting requirements varied widely and concluded that Congress had an ``evident Federal responsibility'' to provide for ``accurate, uniform reporting standards.'' The report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare found that ``full and accurate information is a fundamental precondition for meaningful administration of an occupational safety and health program.'' In 1971, OSHA issued its first recordkeeping regulations. OSHA revised these regulations in 2001 to make the recordkeeping system easier to use. OSHA's recordkeeping regulations require employers to keep records of certain injuries and illnesses in the workplace and to make that information available to employees, OSHA, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employers must record work-related injuries and illnesses resulting in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work activity or job transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or a diagnosis of a significant injury or illness by a doctor or other healthcare professional. Accurate injury and illness records give employers information that they need. The records make employers more aware of the kinds of injuries and illnesses that occur and the hazards that contribute to them. That allows employers to identify and correct hazardous workplace conditions. Injury and illness records thus help employers to manage workplace safety and health more effectively. Similarly, injury and illness records give workers information that they can use. Workers who are aware of the hazards around them are more likely to follow safe work practices and to report workplace hazards. That contributes to the overall level of safety and health in the workplace. As the UAW said in its letter opposing the resolution to disapprove of the rule: ``Accurate injury and illness records are critically important for workers and their families. Having the necessary tools to collect complete and accurate data on work-related injuries and illnesses is a key component in reducing, mitigating, and eliminating hazards and deaths in the workplace.'' Injury and illness records give OSHA an important source of information for smart enforcement. The records allow OSHA to focus its inspection on the hazards that the data reveal. The records allow OSHA to help identify the most dangerous types of worksites and the most common safety and health hazards. As the American Public Health Association wrote: ``Public health professionals understand the critical importance of accurate information to help identify hazards in order to develop and implement better health and safety protections. One important source of that information is the records some employers are required to keep on work- related injuries and illnesses. These records are invaluable for employers, workers and OSHA to monitor the cause and trends of injuries and illnesses. Such data is essential for determining appropriate interventions to prevent other workers from experiencing the same harm.'' In 2012, in the case of AKM LLC doing business as Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the law does not permit OSHA to impose a recordkeeping obligation on employers that continues beyond the expiration of the law's 6-month statute of limitations. While OSHA disagreed with the court's ruling, it agreed that its recordkeeping regulations needed clarification. So OSHA issued its rule amending its recordkeeping regulations to clarify that the duty to make and maintain accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses is an ongoing obligation. OSHA made clear that the duty to record an injury or illness continues, as long as the employer is required to keep records of the recordable injury or illness and does not expire just because the employer failed to create the necessary records when it was first required to do so. The new rule adds no new compliance obligations. It does not require employers to make records of any injuries or illnesses for which records are not currently required to be made. The rule clarifies that, if an employer fails to record an injury or illness within 7 days, the obligation to record continues on past the 7th day. If the employer records the injury on some later day, the violation ceases at that point, and OSHA would need to issue any citation within 6 months of the cessation of the violation. Every Presidential administration since 1972 has supported OSHA's interpretation of the law. Repealing the rule would lessen OSHA's enforcement ability. It would allow employers to get away with systematic underreporting of injuries over many years, and it would decrease worker safety. As the AFL-CIO wrote in its letter opposing the resolution: ``Without the new rule, it will be impossible for OSHA to effectively enforce recordkeeping requirements and assure that injury and illness records are complete and accurate. In the absence of enforcement, there is no question that the underreporting of injuries, already a widespread problem, will get much worse, undermining safety and health and putting workers in danger.'' And as National Nurses United wrote: ``By revoking OSHA's authority to enforce recordkeeping requirements, this Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution denudes the agency of the tools necessary to identify and target patterns of workplace hazards . . . . The elimination of OSHA's ability to enforce rules on workplace safety records allows--and even incentivizes--employers to obscure ongoing workplace hazards.'' Good decisionmaking relies on good information. OSHA's regulation helps to ensure that employers keep good records. The pending resolution to repeal that rule goes in the wrong direction, and thus I oppose the resolution and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose this outrageous resolution, which would overturn a Fish and Wildlife Service ecosystem management rule for the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This resolution is a cruel measure that has horrified many of my constituents, and I share their strong opposition. The purpose of our National Wildlife Refuge System is to protect wildlife across the country. It does so by maintaining sustainable populations and balanced ecosystems. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is a stunning habitat that attracts hikers, fishers, hunters, and photographers to take in the beauty of the landscape and enjoy the wildlife there. The Fish and Wildlife Service rule simply codifies scientifically based wildlife management practices. It does not affect subsistence hunting by rural and Native Alaskans. By overturning this rule, Congress would permit extreme and cruel hunting practices that include killing wolves and pups in their dens and trapping, baiting, and using airplanes to scout and shoot bears and cubs. This so-called predator control is unnecessary and indefensible. Most Alaskans oppose these extreme practices. The resolution of disapproval would impede the Federal Government's ability to manage 76 million acres of public lands that Congress set aside for all Americans. The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with balancing multiple needs in wildlife refuges and conserving natural diversity. Overturning its rules to allow a small minority of hunters to use cruel and inhumane practices in a wildlife refuge is wrong. I oppose this resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, never before has a sitting President so maligned our intelligence community. President Trump has repeatedly belittled and ridiculed the work of intelligence officials, calling their assessments of Russia's hack into U.S. elections ``fake news.'' Over Twitter, President Trump accused intelligence officers of executing a Nazi-like smear campaign against him. President Trump has sided with the likes of Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence community. More disturbingly, President Trump seems to hold shallow views on critical intelligence questions like torture. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump constantly vowed to reinstate torture, asserting that only ``stupid people'' would think otherwise. In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Trump admitted that he was ``surprised'' that Defense Secretary Mattis opposed torture, while adding that he would be ``guided by'' mass sentiments on torture. Mr. Trump's pronouncements on torture are dangerous, irresponsible, and rally our enemies. Senator Dan Coats has an enormous challenge ahead of him. President Trump removed the Director of National Intelligence from the National Security Council, marginalizing the intelligence community's essential role in informing national security decisions. President Trump reportedly plans to hire a New York billionaire with close ties to Steve Bannon to conduct a review of the intelligence agencies, a core responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence, and Senator Coats' hardline assessments of Russia may meet with skepticism in a White House that views Putin so favorably. I am encouraged by Senator Coats' willingness to work with the Congress in a bipartisan manner, particularly on probes related to Russia's hack into our election. I expect Senator Coats to maintain his commitment to follow the law on enhanced interrogation techniques and not to seek to change them. For these reasons, I support his nomination to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, in a few short months, President Trump has undermined U.S. credibility and our standing abroad. He has called for a nuclear arms race, asserted the United States should reinvade Iraq to take its oil, lavished praise on Vladimir Putin, and slandered stalwart allies like Australia and Germany. He has issued two Muslim bans--a move lauded by the Islamic State and condemned by top military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials of both parties. President Trump has put our national security apparatus under enormous stress. He has appointed Steve Bannon, an extremist with the explicit ambition to ``destroy the state,'' to the National Security Council--the highest body charged with protecting the state. He has failed to nominate officials for dozens of crucial national security positions, hobbling our ability to respond to a future national security crisis. He has repeatedly denigrated our intelligence agencies, rejecting findings that clearly demonstrated Russia's role in his election. He has accused the FBI of breaking the law by wiretapping Trump Tower, a groundless claim for which he has offered no proof. LTG H.R. McMaster is a respected military strategist with a reputation for an independent mind. He has demonstrated throughout his career that he is willing to challenge and criticize U.S. leadership, irrespective of party. He does not appear to be sympathetic to the view of President Trump or Steve Bannon that the United States is at war with the entire Muslim world. Instead, while commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, General McMaster told his soldiers: ``Every time you treat an Iraqi disrespectfully, you are working for the enemy.'' I am concerned with General McMaster's handling of sexual assault allegations against two of his cadets at West Point. McMaster's reluctance to interfere with the training of these cadets, despite allegations of sexual assault, was in violation of Army policy. I am a strong supporter of efforts to reform the military's handling of sexual assault, which is why I cosponsored legislation in the House to pass new legal protections for victims of assault in the military. While I remain deeply concerned with the large number of military officials in senior positions in the Trump administration, I support General McMaster's retaining his rank while he serves as National Security Advisor. I do so with the hope that General McMaster will remain faithful to his reputation for dissent, will challenge President Trump when he takes a dangerous approach to the world, will restore order to the National Security Council, and will steward a foreign policy that makes America safer.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 42 today, a bill in search of a problem. Back in 2012, Congress passed legislation to extend temporary unemployment insurance as our country worked to recover from the recession. That legislation included a bipartisan compromise that allowed States to drug test people applying for unemployment compensation if they were fired from their previous job for drug use or they were pursuing employment in a field that regularly required drug testing for safety reasons. The Department of Labor was charged with determining those occupations. This guidance is critical because courts have twice ruled against States who implemented blanket testing for TANF benefits. Without probably cause, they ruled that such testing violated constitutional rights. By overriding the Department of Labor's rule, States are left in confusion. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that the authority to drug test is important to help save money in the program. There is no clear evidence that this is the case. There is also no convincing evidence of rampant drug use among beneficiaries. States have engaged in drug testing for TANF recipients with remarkably few results. In Oklahoma in 2015, nearly 90 percent of those required to take a drug test had a negative result for drug use. In fiscal year 2014, Utah's drug testing returned just 18 positive results. As of 2016, only 0.1 percent of all applicants for Tennessee's cash assistance program tested positive. We all acknowledge an opioid crisis in our communities. Instead of using resources to help people access treatment programs, we are debating creating costly drug testing programs that have failed to produce significant results in States where they have been tried. Over in the House, they are considering TrumpCare, which would erode drug treatment coverage. We should be working to address this tragedy, not spending time on wasteful and damaging measures like these. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the so- called healthcare bill coming out of the House of Representatives which has been supported by the President. We just yesterday got the report from the Congressional Budget Office which analyzes this legislation and its impact on Americans. What we find in great detail and with great clarity is that this TrumpCare legislation is a huge tax windfall to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of affordable healthcare for tens of millions of our fellow citizens. It is time the Senate begin to pay attention to what is happening in this legislation. Someone might look at this and now call it not ``TrumpCare'' but ``Trump doesn't care'' because what we find out is that in the very first year, in 2018, 14 million Americans will lose their health coverage--14 million in the very first year this is implemented. Those are moms, dads, kids, people of all ages--our fellow Americans. Just 2 years after that, beginning in 2020, we are going to see 21 million of our fellow citizens lose their access to health coverage. Let me be clear. When we say they lose their access to affordable care, we are talking about compared to what they have right now under the Affordable Care Act, under ObamaCare. So in the year 2020, 21 million Americans who have access to affordable care through the Affordable Care Act are going to lose it, and within 10 years, that will rise to 24 million of our fellow citizens. Not only are those millions of Americans going to lose their health care in the early years of this new plan, people are going to see their premiums spike in the individual market. We have heard understandable complaints about the increase in premiums in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. There are commonsense things we can do to fix it. Many of us have put forward proposals to do that, but this will actually dramatically spike up to 20 percent premiums in those markets in the early years. Who gets especially hard hit? Well, older Americans. Americans between 47 years old and 64 years old, before they are old enough to receive Medicare but when they are old enough to be potentially experiencing many healthcare issues. In fact, if you look at the Congressional Budget Office report, and I know people sometimes gloss over the fine print, but table 4 indicates that if you are a 64-year-old with an income of $26,000 a year, your premium is going to increase from $1,700 a year to a whopping $14,600 per year. That is in the Congressional Budget Office report, but you know what, AARP, they believe it. They are on full alert, letting Americans throughout the country know how damaging this will be to older Americans who will, all of a sudden, see their premiums, their copays, and their deductibles going through the roof. It is going to become absolutely unaffordable for those older Americans to get health insurance. On top of that, despite what we all know is an opioid crisis in the country, an epidemic of substance abuse and addiction, despite that, this TrumpCare bill actually eliminates the Medicaid funding specifically to deal with opioid addiction. I know many members of the Senate and the House have been going back home, going to all parts of their States, urban areas, suburban and rural areas, to talk about the scourge of opioid addiction, and many have been talking about the fact that the Senate was able to work to increase funding to address those addiction issues, but this House bill, this TrumpCare bill, actually eliminates the Medicaid Program for opioid abuse and addiction. The list of horribles goes on and on. They claim you are going to be able to get coverage--no problem if you have preexisting conditions or whatever. The reality is, let's say you have a job, let's say you lose your job, let's say you lose your income because you lost your job, you only have 63 days to turn around and get insurance, which may not be affordable. If you are not able to find your insurance, an affordable insurance plan in those 63 days, when you finally do, they are going to charge you a 30-percent penalty. So you lost your job. You have no income so you can't afford insurance. Yet, when you are finally in a position to do it, they are going to charge you a penalty of 30 percent. The more you dig into this TrumpCare legislation, the more things like that you find out. It is really important that the American people know what is in it as we debate this important issue. Women's health. The TrumpCare bill directly goes after women's access to affordable healthcare, including their defunding of Planned Parenthood. I think all of us know that in many parts of our country, Planned Parenthood clinics are the only viable source of healthcare for women who are looking for cancer screening, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and other preventive healthcare measures. As we read this report from the Congressional Budget Office that just came out yesterday, we are getting a better idea of why the House of Representatives was so eager to rush this through the committees-- rushed it through the Ways and Means Committee, rushed it through the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House--because apparently it is a lot easier to vote for a piece of legislation when you don't know the consequences. Apparently it is easier to say yes to this bill when you don't know that it will deny healthcare coverage to 24 million Americans, spike premiums over the next couple of years, eliminate other important coverages for our fellow Americans, but people don't have that excuse anymore. They tried to rush it through. They got it through those two committees. Willful ignorance allowed them to have those votes and it passed those committees, but now we have, from the Congressional Budget Office, a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the impact on our fellow Americans. It hurts. It hurts a lot. Now, I recall, and I think the American public recalls, that during the campaign on ``60 Minutes,'' Candidate Trump said: I'm going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody is going to be taken care of much better than they are taken care of now. Well, you tell that to the 14 million Americans who are going to lose their health insurance in 2018. You tell that to the 64-year-old who would be paying $14,000 in premiums a year, up from $1,700 under the Affordable Care Act. You tell that to people who are suffering from opioid abuse in all parts of our country when the Medicaid Program no longer has to provide coverage for substance abuse. That is not taking care of ``everybody.'' That is leaving tens of millions of Americans behind. That was during the campaign. Here is what we heard from President Trump in January, this year. He is going to provide ``insurance for everybody.'' That is just not so, unless what you are saying is we are going to offer you a totally unaffordable insurance plan. By the way, if you happen to have enough money, you can pay for it. It is kind of like saying to somebody: You know what, that Rolls Royce or that Lamborghini, that is available for purchase, but most of us just don't have the money to afford that kind of purchase. In that theoretical sense, you may argue that health insurance is available, but the Congressional Budget Office did not look at theories. They looked at facts. They looked at the impact on real Americans and concluded that 14 million would lose their access in 2018, rising to 24 million over the next decade. Despite the fact that on March 9 President Trump tweeted that ``it will end in a beautiful picture,'' that is not a beautiful picture for tens of millions of Americans who will be left behind by this series of broken promises, broken promises and betrayal from President Trump. As he campaigned around the country, he promised coverage for everybody, affordable coverage. We would all love it. Now we have the hard facts. So it was quite a spectacle to see the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, trying to run away from the facts in the Congressional Budget Office report. He got up and said, you know, he does not really believe the Congressional Budget Office report. Well, the reality is that Tom Price, when he was Congressman Price, when he was the chairman on the House Budget Committee, along with Senator Enzi, helped pick the current Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Keith Hall. I know that because I was the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. I was part of the interview process. You know, they let us come along, but the reality is, at the end of the day, he was picked by Secretary Tom Price. Here is what Tom Price said about the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. He said: Keith Hall-- That is the Director-- will bring an impressive level of economic expertise and experience to the Congressional Budget Office. Throughout his career, he has served in both the public and private sector under Presidents of both parties and in roles that make him well suited to lead the Congressional Budget Office. He goes on to praise the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. I know the Presiding Officer and our colleagues have experience understanding how important it is to have a nonpartisan referee in the Congressional Budget Office. Otherwise, it is anything goes. Senators get to make up their own facts. I know we have a White House and a President that has invented the term ``alternative facts'' and ``alternative reality'' and ``alternative universe,'' but here in the Congress, we have prided ourselves in knowing there is some referee on the field when it comes to the Congressional Budget Office. We don't agree with every single conclusion they have, but we don't work to discredit them. It really is a discredit to the Secretary of HHS that having praised and picked the current Director of CBO, he would now attack that institution simply because he does not like the results of their analysis. I would not like the results either because they show how devastating TrumpCare is for the American people. It shows what a total betrayal of the President's promises TrumpCare is to the American people. It is not just the Congressional Budget Office analysis that has reached that conclusion. He is going to also go after AARP because they are on full alert, and they are calling all their members to say this is a really bad bill for tens of millions of Americans, especially older Americans, people in the range of 47 years old to 64 years old, before they get on Medicare. The American Hospital Association and hospitals in all parts of our country, and especially rural hospitals, areas Candidate Trump campaigned heavily in, are letting their members know the devastating consequences of this TrumpCare bill. The American Medical Association, the people who are providing health care to our fellow citizens, they are letting people know how damaging this will be. So we have a wide array of Americans who are in the position, and it is their job to provide health care to the American public, who say: Whoa, this is harmful to your health. This is a danger to the healthcare of the American people. It is not simply the numbers, it is also the people and faces behind those numbers. From Maryland, I got a note from Jenny from Salisbury. That is in Eastern Maryland. That is a rural part of our State. She said: I have a rare progressive lung disease. With good care I may live 30 more years. Without it, I may live 5 or 10, sick and disabled. I remember high-risk pools and preexisting conditions exclusions. I need the ACA. I may die without it and I am afraid for my life. Here is Gail from Annapolis: I'm very concerned with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It helps the disability community. Our adult daughter who has a severe cognitive disability will be relying on Medicaid for health services after my husband retires this summer at age 70 with a second-time recurrence of lymphoma. I don't know what you can do, but this is a concern as aging parents find their special-needs adult child may not have coverage as she loses her family's ability to support her healthcare. The letters go on and on from all parts of Maryland and all parts of the country. What adds insult to injury is that all these Americans are going to be harmed, the 24 million who will lose their healthcare coverage, those who will experience spikes in their premiums and copays, the older Americans--47 to 64--who are going to see gigantic increases in their costs so they are not going to be able to afford healthcare anymore, those in rural areas and urban areas in all parts of our country who are suffering from opioid abuse but Medicaid is no longer going to cover it. All of that harm is being done to tens of millions of our fellow citizens in order to give this huge tax break to the wealthiest Americans and special interests, including insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. The Congressional Budget Office report is pretty clear--$590 billion in tax cuts. Do you know what the top one-tenth of 1 percent income earners will get in terms of tax cuts? An average tax cut of $200,000. Millionaires will get an average tax cut of $50,000. There is even a provision in here that says to insurance companies: We are going to subsidize the bonuses you pay to CEOs. You are now going to be able to deduct the multimillion-dollar bonuses you pay to your CEOs. We are going to do that so that fewer people can have health coverage. We get rid of the fee on insurance companies that helps to provide access to millions of Americans. It is simply grotesque that we see this legislation getting as far as it has. We know why they tried to move it so quickly without a Congressional Budget Office report--because this report is devastating. It should be the final nail in the coffin of TrumpCare, and we should all, frankly, be a little embarrassed by a proposal that provides $590 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and some of the most powerful special interests at the expense of healthcare for so many of our fellow citizens. We have to say no to this plan. We have to say no to TrumpCare. And let's get about doing our business. There are some issues we can deal with, with the Affordable Care Act, but you don't destroy it while giving these tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans in order to do our job.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, is a major part of the Department of Health and Human Services. A third of the Nation--more than 100 million Americans--get access to quality healthcare through CMS's programs-- Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. CMS also includes the Center for Medicare and Medicare Innovation and several other activities to improve access and affordability in our Nation's health system for all Americans--regardless of income, gender, or health status. President Trump, Secretary Price, and congressional Republicans seek to drastically restructure our Nation's healthcare, threatening to leave millions without coverage. In the face of that threat, we need a CMS Administrator who knows how to lead CMS and is willing to do whatever she can to protect Americans' healthcare. After hearing from several organizations that deal directly with CMS and familiarizing myself with President Trump's nominee, I cannot support the nomination of Seema Verma for this important role. Ms. Verma does not have the experience or appropriate knowledge needed to head this vital agency. Her limited scope of experience with just Medicaid, lack of familiarity with Medicare, and willingness to restructure CMS's rules that protect millions are cause for deep concern. If confirmed, Ms. Verma would manage 85 percent of the HHS's $1 trillion budget, which in turn is more than a quarter of the Federal Government's, and Ms. Verma would oversee 4,000 employees. Running CMS requires significant experience with healthcare and is best done by a person who has held significant positions in private industry and government. But nothing in Ms. Verma's career shows her to have the skills to operate a budget or team of this magnitude. She has never managed a large organization and has little experience with Medicare. Ms. Verma has operated a small, 10-person company, SVC, Inc., and consulted on various State Medicaid programs. Her experience is inadequate for the important role for which President Trump nominated her. The next CMS Administrator will have an important voice forming healthcare policy. HHS Secretary Price has been on the forefront of efforts to slash Medicaid and turn Medicare into a voucher program. President Trump, Secretary Price, and congressional Republicans have made it a priority to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We need a CMS Administrator who will provide a reality check in the face of these reckless proposals. We need a CMS Administrator who will work to uphold President Trump's promise that ``there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.'' Ms. Verma, however, could not make that commitment during her Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing. To the contrary, during her hearing, Ms. Verma expressed openness to block-granting Medicaid or instilling per-capita caps--putting the coverage of nearly 70 million vulnerable Americans at stake. These policies would end the Federal guarantee of matching funds to States and would dramatically cut Federal funding to States. Analyzing a 2012 congressional Republican block grant proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that, for States to manage their Medicaid programs at reduced funding levels, they would have to limit Medicaid eligibility, reduce benefits, cut payment rates, or increase out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries. These proposals would result in the denial of healthcare and long-term care to millions of vulnerable Americans. We need a leader at CMS who will defend the historic gains of the Affordable Care Act The Affordable Care Act set standards for consumer protection and significantly expanded coverage. Repeal could cause 22 million Americans--and 400,000 Marylanders--to lose quality, affordable health coverage. Repeal would imperil new access to life saving substance-use-disorder and mental health treatment Repeal would endanger coverage for children who now have access to comprehensive health services. Repeal could significantly raise premiums and erode consumer protections for Americans who have coverage outside of the Marketplace. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans must provide maternity care as an essential health benefit. But during her nomination hearing, Mrs. Verma said that, while some women want maternity coverage, ``some women might not choose that,'' signaling her view that the law should not require insurance companies to provide this critical coverage. This is unacceptable. Ms. Verma's position would put the health of mothers and families at risk and drive up costs for plans that did provide the coverage. We will not turn back the clock to when maternity coverage was optional. We need an Administrator who will stand with mothers and families on this issue. Because of Ms. Verma's lack of adequate healthcare experience and her willingness to consider rash policies that are far out of the mainstream, I do not believe that she is equipped to appropriately advise the President and Secretary on these policies that affect millions of Americans. I will not support her nomination to head CMS.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, one of the most significant bipartisan accomplishments of the last Congress was the Every Student Succeeds Act, the long-overdue reauthorization of K-12 education law. The Every Student Succeeds Act returned more flexibility to States while ensuring accountability to ensure that every child gets a quality education. Today, however, the majority has brought before the Senate a measure that would take a step backward. This Congressional Review Act resolution would repeal Department of Education regulations that the Department put in place to give States and school districts clarity about their responsibilities under the law and guidance to ensure that students receive their guaranteed civil rights protections. The regulations resulted from of a year of stakeholder feedback. States are already using this guidance to write their State plans. If we pass this resolution today, we would pull the rug out from under the very local stakeholders that we promised to empower with the Every Student Succeeds Act. Passing this resolution would disrupt their planning process and interfere with their operations. This resolution would also hurt our most vulnerable students by weakening accountability and protections for students with disabilities and students of color. As the National Disability Rights Center has said, ``To rescind these regulations would not only be a disservice to the spirit of ESSA and diminish the efficacy of the law, but would also serve to undermine the equity of educational opportunity for all students, including students with disabilities.'' The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights concurred, arguing: ``The underlying accountability and state plan regulation will help states, districts, and schools to faithfully implement the law and meet their legal obligations to historically marginalized groups of students. . . .'' The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also opposes repealing this regulation, saying: ``Just as we believe the Every Student Succeeds Act incorporates our principles, we believe the [accountability] regulations do as well. And they provide states with the clarity they need to move forward.'' The Every Student Succeeds Act was the result of years of painstaking work and bipartisan compromise. The implementing regulation was the product of stakeholder input. We should not undermine that important progress and throw our education system into chaos with this resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today, we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the founding of Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory. I am fortunate to represent Maryland, a State that plays a leading role in science, technology, and innovation. From NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Maryland is at the frontier of discovery and innovation. Among Maryland's leaders in space, science, and innovation is the Applied Physics Laboratory, or APL From its humble beginnings in a converted auto dealership in Silver Spring, MD, to its current state-of-the-art facility in Howard County, APL has designed, built, and launched countless spacecraft and instruments. Like the Goddard Space Flight Center, APL provides a great economic boost for Maryland, employing thousands of Marylanders and generating $1 billion in annual revenues. APL serves both civil and national security clients, in areas from homeland protection and undersea warfare to missile systems and biomedicine. Early on the morning of July 14, 2015, along with representatives from NASA and the Southwest Research Institute, and my old friend Dr. Tom Krimigis, I was able to visit APL to witness the Pluto flyby of the spacecraft New Horizons. I waited eagerly as New Horizons flew 7,800 miles above the surface of Pluto, making it the first spacecraft to explore the dwarf planet. The excitement and pride in the room was palpable. Maryland and the Applied Physics Laboratory were once again playing a critical role in the history of human discovery. I am grateful for the work that APL has done. And I look forward to the work that APL will continue to do, well into the future. I join my Colleague, Senator Ben Cardin, in sponsoring a resolution congratulating the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab on the 75th anniversary of the Lab's founding. Humanity has long asked: From where did we come? And are we alone? Places like APL will help us answer fundamental questions like these. I am proud to represent them here in the U.S. Senate, and I look forward to working with them to keep science, space, and space technology strong and vibrant in Maryland and the United States for years to come. I congratulate APL, Johns Hopkins, and its many partners as they celebrate this important milestone.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose H.J. Res. 58, another Congressional Review Act resolution that would roll back an agency's efforts to implement a law and prevent it from doing its job in the future. In this case, we are considering eliminating Department of Education regulations on teacher preparation programs. In the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress required States to assess and identify low-performing teacher preparation programs to ensure that every teacher graduates ready for the classroom. Following a process that began in 2011, the Department of Education released a draft rule in 2014. That draft wasn't perfect and needed more flexibility for States and institutions of higher education. After an extended comment period, the Department revised the rule 2 years later. Though it may not satisfy everyone, the final rule provides clarity in line with Congress's direction. Congress has the opportunity, with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, to improve upon these provisions. We can build on the State-driven assessment that this rule provides and further refine the system to make sure that data is being used to better prepare a more diverse class of teachers for our schools. If the Trump administration does not want to wait for further legislation, it can engage in a new rulemaking, but as with all Congressional Review Act resolutions, this resolution is a meat ax rather than a scalpel. It repeals the rule and prevents the Department from carrying out its responsibility to ensure high-quality teacher preparation programs. This is simply the wrong approach, and I urge a no vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, we have now had a little more than 24 hours to get a peek at the Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Now we know why they kept it in hiding for as long as they did--because it is a total mess and it will wreak havoc on the healthcare system in the United States of America and severely harm millions of Americans. After 7 years in waiting, is this really the best they can do? The first thing people need to know about the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act--let's be clear. This is no replacement. This is a fake replacement. The first thing they need to know about it is, it will strip away affordable healthcare for millions of Americans in order to give the wealthiest households a huge tax cut. How big is that tax cut? First of all, it goes to households who make over $250,000 a year. Here is the thing. The richer you are, the more money you make over $250,000 a year, the bigger the tax cut you are going to get under the Republican healthcare plan, under TrumpCare. In fact, if you are a millionaire, you are going to get a tax cut, on average, of about $50,000--to be precise, a $49,370 average tax cut for millionaires. If you are in the top one-tenth percent of American households, you are going to get, on average, a $200,000 tax cut under the Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. That is great news if your name is Donald Trump or you are one of the billionaires or millionaires in his Cabinet. It is great news if you have loads of money. I want to be clear. I have nothing against millionaires. The more millionaires, the better in terms of growth in the economy, but certainly at this point in time, they don't need a tax cut, and they certainly shouldn't have a tax cut when the impact of that is to harm tens of millions of Americans and hurt their healthcare. I guess we are beginning to learn exactly what President Trump meant when he said that his healthcare was going to be ``much better.'' Yes, if you are one of those folks in the top one-tenth percent of American income earners, if you are in the wealthiest strata of this country, you are going to get a big tax break. So I guess it is much better for you from that perspective. You know whom else this is going to be better for? It is going to be better for insurance companies and their CEOs. It is really hard to believe, but if you look at the House bill--and now I know why it was under lock and key for so long. If you look at it, you are going to find that their plan gives insurance companies a new tax break when they pay their CEOs multimillion-dollar bonuses. In fact, the bigger the bonus the healthcare company pays to the CEO, the bigger tax break the corporation gets, the more American taxpayers will be subsidizing those bonuses for those insurance CEOs. So you know what, you are a CEO of an insurance company, you raise the premiums, the company makes more money, and you get a bigger bonus. Taxpayers foot the bill in terms of larger taxpayer subsidies to those CEOs. All in all, when you add up all the tax breaks for these CEOs and the insurance companies and the wealthiest Americans, it is a tax break windfall of $600 billion. That is the number by the experts in the Joint Committee on Taxation here in the Congress. These are the nonpartisan experts who look at legislation and determine what the fiscal impact will be. What they say is that the TrumpCare bill will provide tax breaks in the amount of $600 billion over the next 10 years. I guess that is what President Trump must have been referring to the other day when he tweeted about his ``wonderful new healthcare bill.'' It will be wonderful for those who are getting those big tax breaks. We know who the winners are. Who are the losers? Well, just about everybody else ends up on the short end of the stick--just about everybody else in America. That is why you are seeing such strong opposition coming from all over the country. First, there are the millions of Americans who are going to lose their healthcare coverage altogether because they can't possibly afford to pay the huge additional premiums and copays and deductions they would be faced with under these plans that would be offered. Then there are tens of millions of more who will pay much more for much less coverage. Older Americans are going to be especially hard hit, which is why we are all hearing from AARP. You know AARP--they sometimes give their opinion, they weigh in a little bit here and there, but they are out full force against this TrumpCare bill because it is going to have a very negative impact on seniors in America. They call it a sweetheart deal to big drug companies and other special interests. They argue--and we will talk about how it will weaken Medicare. They say it is going to impose an age tax on older Americans, and that is what it does. In fact, they calculate the following: The change in structure will dramatically increase premiums for older consumers. We estimate that the bill's changes to current law's tax credits could increase premium costs for a 55-year-old earning $25,000 by more than $2,300 a year. For a 64-year-old earning $25,000 that increase rises to more than $4,400 a year. A year extra--$4,400 more a year for that 64-year-old earning $25,000 to pay for their health insurance, the health insurance they have today. Then they calculate that it will be $5,800 more for a 64-year- old earning $15,000. In other words, compared to the Affordable Care Act, the less income you have, the more you are going to be paying under TrumpCare than you are paying today under ObamaCare, under the Affordable Care Act. We are also hearing from groups that fight for the rights of people with disabilities from all over the country, that are against this legislation because of its impact on Medicaid and the impact those cuts to Medicaid will have on people with disabilities throughout the country. We are also hearing about the impact on Medicare. One of the promises Candidate Trump made was that he wasn't going to do anything that would harm Medicare. That is what he said then, but, in fact, in January, Congress received a letter from the Medicare actuaries. These are the professionals who look at the impact of various proposals on the Medicare system. What they concluded was, this proposal to provide tax cuts to wealthy Americans would actually reduce the life of the Medicare program by 3 years. Here is what they are proposing. We are going to give a tax cut--and one of the tax cuts means that wealthy Americans will not have to pay a portion of their Medicare taxes. That portion of their Medicare taxes today goes into the Medicare trust fund. You say to those wealthy Americans: We are going to give you a tax break that is going back in your pockets. That means it is no longer going into the Medicare trust fund. That shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund. That is the view, that is the opinion, those are the facts stated by the actuaries for Medicare. As you begin to reduce the life of the Medicare Program, there will be more and more pressure to go to the plan that has been much discussed, especially by House Republicans, to turn Medicare into a voucher program. The AARP raises this issue, as well, in their letter. If you are going to start cutting down on the Medicare trust fund, if you are reducing the revenues going into that trust fund because you are giving wealthier Americans this tax cut, obviously, there is less money in that program to pay for the bills of Medicare. One of the ideas that has been pushed is: All right, let's save money for Medicare by transferring the risks Medicare currently takes onto the backs of seniors. So we are going to start giving them a voucher, a voucher that does not keep pace with the rising costs of Medicare. That means that over time, seniors have to pay a lot more, get a lot less in healthcare, and that is how they save the Medicare plan money. Make no mistake, by providing a tax cut, and particularly the tax cut to the wealthy paying into the Medicare Program right now, you are hurting Medicare. I know that the President says he is a terrific negotiator, just a terrific negotiator, and I have here a book by Trump, ``The Art of the Deal.'' I don't know whether Donald Trump is a good negotiator or a bad negotiator, but what I know is this: When you look at this TrumpCare plan, whoever did the negotiating was negotiating on behalf of very wealthy special interests at the expense of people in the rest of the country. So all the talk we heard throughout the campaign and since about looking after the little guy, all the talk we heard about the middle class being squeezed, which is very real out there in America, all the talk we heard about struggling Americans, when you look at TrumpCare, it hurts exactly those people. If President Trump was negotiating this deal, he got a great deal for the billionaires and millionaires who are in his Cabinet. They are going to see a great tax break windfall. I mean, I would like to get a calculator and take a look at what the size of the tax break will be to the members of the Trump Cabinet because it is going to be huge. But ordinary Americans are going to take it on the chin. They are going to be very badly hurt, which is why apparently people are trying to rush this through the Congress so quickly. First, it was in some remote room, and you needed bloodhounds to go out to try to find out where it was, and now we know why it was kept so secret--because it is such a bad deal for the American people. Now that it is in the light of day and the details are coming out and we are getting more and more letters from groups from around the country--AARP, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, hundreds of other groups. The letters are pouring in. What is the response? Let's try to get this through the Congress as fast as possible before the word gets out even farther around the country. It is ironic because I remember that during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, which took months and months--I mean, it took over 7 or 8 months--our Republican colleagues accused us of moving too quickly, of not having sufficient debate and input. Yet what we are seeing right now, now that the bill has come out of hiding, is an effort to try to move that bill through the House in a matter of weeks without any hearings. And then we are hearing over here in the Senate that the plan will be--and maybe the Republican leader can clarify this at some point, but the plan will be to not send it to any of the committees in the Senate for a review but to try to bring it up immediately here on the floor of the Senate without any committee consideration, totally outside the regular order, flying directly in the face of the complaints that were made many years ago, when the process took well over 7 months, went through all the committees, and was thoroughly deliberated throughout the country. Today I am looking at some of the publications, and I see Republican colleagues preemptively criticizing the Congressional Budget Office for what it might say about what TrumpCare is going to cost the American people. Mr. President, I know you and our colleagues know that CBO is the referee on which we all rely. I know some people like to make up their own alternative facts, but you need to have some referee here in Congress when it comes to budget issues because otherwise people just make up whatever numbers they want. It is also important to know that the current head of the Congressional Budget Office is somebody who was jointly selected by the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In other words, the current head of the CBO was picked by the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees. It is very important that we have that nonpartisan referee in these discussions. Yet, in the House of Representatives, they are acting on TrumpCare right now in committees without even the benefit of the analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Apparently, they are afraid of what it might be and what it might say. If people want to defend this TrumpCare proposal, they are obviously free to do it, but we should do it in the regular order, and we should do it based on information from sources like the Congressional Budget Office so people can have all the facts when they make these decisions which will impact the American people. One fact we know right now is the fact that I mentioned at the outset, which is from the Joint Tax Committee, the nonpartisan experts, saying that TrumpCare will provide a $600 billion tax cut windfall. We also know it is a fact from the Medicare Actuary that by providing very wealthy Americans with this tax break, you are going to take some years off of the life of the Medicare Program. Those are real facts. So when I look at this deal, whoever negotiated this deal was clearly looking out for the very wealthiest in this country. That is where the facts lead. Again, I don't know if President Trump is a good negotiator or a bad negotiator. What I do know is that if he negotiated this TrumpCare deal, he was negotiating on behalf of the millionaires and billionaires in his Cabinet. He was negotiating on behalf of the insurance companies that are now going to get a tax break for the multimillion-dollar bonuses they pay to the CEOs. The larger the bonus, the bigger the tax break under this bill. I know he wasn't negotiating for everyday working Americans and certainly not for older Americans or Americans with disabilities. That is why the AARP and others are weighing in so strongly against this. We are going to have a little more time to debate here in the Senate, apparently, than in the House, but I would hope we would send this through the regular order because it requires a thorough vetting of the facts, and the American people deserve that kind of transparency and accountability in this process. I am absolutely confident that when the American people get a good look at this deal, they will know it is a very bad deal for the country and for millions of Americans. I hope we will get on with that process. I hope the bill will never arrive in the Senate. I hope the folks in the House will recognize that it is a bad deal for the country and go back to the drawing board because when I heard the mantra ``repeal and replace'' and when I heard President Trump say that replacement was going to be much better and cover more people for less cost, I think people took that seriously. Now when they actually take a look at TrumpCare, as it is emerging from the House, they see something very different. They see something that is, quote, wonderful for the 1 percent of Americans who are going to get a tax cut, but it is really lousy for everybody else in the country. We need to defeat this charade. This is not a replacement. This is a fake. The American people are catching on quickly. That is why it is very important that we not try to rush this through, that we have an opportunity to discuss it in the light of day. I am absolutely confident that if we do the right thing in terms of a full democratic debate, TrumpCare will go down.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose today's resolution to overturn the Bureau of Land Management planning 2.0 rule. The Bureau of Land Management is charged with ensuring responsible use of public lands, which requires extensive land use planning to balance priorities like recreation, conservation, and energy development. Planning 2.0 simply updates outdated planning processes that date back 30 years to provide greater community input and transparency. This is intended to create plans that work better for all users, including local communities. It is also meant to reduce the time it takes to complete the planning process. Under the new rule, the public is involved in the planning process early to avoid costly and time-consuming disputes later. The rule allows for the use of current technology like geospatial data to allow for more science-based decisionmaking. Developing planning 2.0 took 2 years and included consideration of more than 6,000 public comments. With today's resolution, we would abandon modernization that makes it easier for the public and State and local governments to be involved in the Federal planning process and revert to rules that were written in 1983. A wide range of sportsmen groups, including the Izaak Walton League of America, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited have asked us to preserve Planning 2.0. They write: ``Stakeholders from across the multiple-use spectrum agreed that the previous BLM planning process could be improved. Under the outdated process, opportunities for public involvement were too few, and the public didn't learn about agency plans until they were already proposed.'' If we pass this resolution today, BLM will have to go back to that outdated process and would be prohibited from proposing a rule that is substantially similar to planning 2.0. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, over the years, Congress has enacted laws to make workplaces safer and fairer and to raise wages for American workers. These laws protect American workers. These laws make America more productive. And these laws help to preserve good, safe, middle-class jobs. The Fair Labor Standards Act introduced the 40-hour workweek, established a national minimum wage, and guaranteed time-and-a-half for overtime. The Occupational Safety and Health Act ensures that employers keep the workplace free from hazards like toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, or unsanitary conditions. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by employers because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The American with Disabilities Act prohibits unjustified discrimination based on disability. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires affirmative action to employ qualified individuals With disabilities. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids employment discrimination against older workers. The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act requires equal opportunity and affirmative action for veterans. The Equal Pay Act addressed wage disparities based on gender. The Family and Medical Leave Act requires covered employers to provide employees job-protected unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. The Davis-Bacon Act requires paying the local prevailing wages on public works projects. And the National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining for better terms and work conditions, and take collective action including strike if necessary. These laws are already on the books. It is already against the law for Federal contractors to violate them. The obligation to comply with basic workplace protections applies to employers, whether they are government contractors or not and that obligation will remain in force regardless of what Congress does on the rule today. At issue today is a rule that simply requires contractors to share information about their history of compliance with workplace protections in the last 3 years before getting a Federal contract. The rule does not impose any new compliance obligations on government contractors. It has long been a tenet of Federal Government contracting that it is better to contract with responsible contractors that abide by the law, including labor laws. It also furthers economy and efficiency. Many studies find a strong correlation between labor law compliance and performance. One study found that from 2005 to 2009, one quarter of the companies that committed the top workplace violations and later received Federal contracts had significant performance problems on their contracts. It is not surprising that employers that abide by the law also do a better job on their contracts. In the mid-1990s, however, the Government Accountability Office, then known as the General Accounting Office, found that the Government had awarded Federal contracts worth more than $60 billion to companies that had violated the National Labor Relations Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act. More than 10 years later, the GAO found that the pattern continued. GAO found that almost two-thirds of the largest wage-and-hour violations and almost 40 percent of the largest workplace health-and-safety penalties issued between 2005 and 2009 were made against companies that went on to receive new Government contracts. Between 2007 and 2012, 49 Federal contractors responsible for large violations of Federal labor laws were forced to pay more than $91 million in back wages. To help address this problem, in August of last year, the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and NASA jointly issued the rule that we are talking about today. The rule amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement Executive Order 13,673 on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces. That Executive order was designed to increase efficiency and cost savings in Federal contracting by increasing contractor compliance with labor laws. At the same time last August, the Department of Labor issued guidance to help Federal agencies implement the Executive Order and the rule. The rule also prohibited companies with contracts larger than $1 million from denying employees who are the victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or discrimination their day in court by forcing them to arbitrate these claims. The rule helps to provide a level playing field for businesses that play by the rules. By requiring disclosure of violations, it encourages contractors to pay fair wages and provide safe workplaces. The rule helps to ensure that the government awards Federal contracts and the taxpayer dollars that fund them to responsible employers that comply with workplace safety laws, antidiscrimination laws, sexual harassment laws, and minimum wage and overtime laws. Without the rule, millions of taxpayer dollars would go to businesses that break these laws. After my home State of Maryland implemented a living wage standard for contractors, the average number of bids for State contracts actually increased by nearly 30 percent. Nearly half of contractors interviewed by the State government said that the new standards encouraged them to bid, because the standards leveled the playing field. Under the Federal rule, prospective contractors report the information themselves. The vast majority of contractors adhere to labor laws. If a prospective contractor does not have any violations, it simply checks a box. Companies that do business with the government employ one in five Americans, so this rule improves the lives of millions of workers. In September of last year, Donald Trump delivered a speech on jobs at the New York Economic Club. In that speech, Mr. Trump advocated what he called ``a new policy of Americanism.'' ``Under this American System,'' Mr. Trump said, ``every policy decision we make must pass a simple test: Does it create more jobs and better wages for Americans?'' The rule at issue today passes that test. It helps to create better wages for Americans. And repealing the rule would flunk the test that Mr. Trump laid out last year. Nonetheless, once again the Republican majority seeks to employ the blunt instrument of the Congressional Review Act to repeal that rule today. Some critics label the Fair Pay rule as a ``blacklisting'' rule. But the rule does not require a contracting officer to deny any contract based on a history of labor violations. The rule simply provides information to contracting officers to help them make decisions that about whether a contractor is responsible. The goal of the rule is to encourage companies to come into compliance--not to bar them. Enacting this Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution could effectively stop any new rules on the disclosure of labor law violations or the consideration of labor law violations as a requirement for Federal procurement contracts. Enacting this resolution will send the wrong message to companies who are tempted to skirt the law. And enacting this resolution will make it more likely that Federal dollars once again go to law-breaking contractors. This resolution goes in the wrong direction, and thus I oppose it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Governor Rick Perry to be Secretary of the Department of Energy, a Department that he called for eliminating in 2011. After briefings on the Department's mission and programs, Governor Perry came to ``regret'' that position, but his short education on his prospective job is not enough to prepare him for its complexity and importance. The Department of Energy is a home of innovation and, critically, the Federal agency that manages the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal. The last two Secretaries of Energy were physicists. According to the Dallas Morning News: ``In all of the department's missions, science is front and center. But during his 14 years as governor, Perry built a questionable record when it comes to science. He has a pattern of supporting offbeat medical theories while dismissing the established science on climate change. And his record of using public funds to boost technology and research in Texas is littered with poor management and allegations of cronyism.'' In one example, a 2010 Dallas Morning News investigation discovered mismanagement and political influence in the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, which Governor Perry established to provide funding to high-tech startups. The Dallas Morning News reported that the fund awarded more than $16 million to companies with connections to large campaign donors. A company in which an old college friend and donor invested received $2.75 million. Another company, where an investor had given more than $400,000 to Governor Perry's campaigns, received $1.5 million. A company founded by a former Perry appointee got $4.5 million. The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Texas House Speaker made the Emerging Technology Fund's decisions based on input from an advisory committee that operated in secret and did not take minutes. Its recommendations to the Governor were not public. This unusual decisionmaking process, with ultimate power vested in elected officials rather than technical experts, is deeply troubling. As Secretary of Energy, Governor Perry would be charged with managing a number of grant and loan programs aimed at developing the next generation of energy technologies. Governor Perry has also failed to commit to funding for ARPA-E and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These programs are essential to ensuring that the United States is a leader in the 21st century energy economy and confronts the critical challenge of climate change. I am deeply concerned by Governor Perry's limited experience with our Nation's nuclear program. While he did advocate a low-level nuclear waste repository in his State, he has no experience with nuclear weapons. His inexperience is particularly problematic when the President he would serve has also appeared confused by issues surrounding the nuclear triad and has inaccurately said that the United States has ``fallen behind on nuclear weapons capacity.'' The United States is engaged in a $1 trillion program to refurbish our nuclear weapons systems, a process that should be tightly controlled. We should be reducing, not expanding, the number of nuclear weapons in the world. President Trump has questioned the New START Treaty, a critical tool to decrease nuclear weapons in both the United States and Russia. He glibly and irresponsibly called for ``an arms race,'' even though the United States and Russia already control 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and each have enough to destroy the world many times over. The Secretary of Energy needs to have a clear vision to manage our nuclear arsenal and ensure that the President fully understands our capabilities and their implications for national security and international peace. There is nothing in Governor Perry's record or testimony that indicates that he is prepared for this job. Governor Perry may have considered the Department of Energy insignificant enough to forget during his Presidential run, but its mission is essential to the safety and security of the American people. Between our national labs and research and loan programs, it fosters greater economic competitiveness and discovers new technologies to drive energy independence and solutions to climate change. I do not believe that Governor Perry is prepared to manage the Department and provide thoughtful counsel to the President, and thus I must vote against his nomination today.