Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to support the confirmation of U.S. district judge Ralph Erickson to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Erickson received the support of both of his home State Senators, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican John Hoeven. Both Hoeven and Heitkamp submitted their blue slips for Mr. Erickson, and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to advance his nomination to the full Senate. I hope Mr. Erickson's confirmation reinforces the importance of bipartisanship and the importance of maintaining the blue slip process. The Judiciary Committee has used the blue slip process since at least 1917, and the process is integral to maintaining the bipartisan nature of the Senate. Under both Presidents Obama and George W. Bush, even when a party had unified control of the Presidency and the Senate, if a home State Senator objected to a nominee, the nomination did not proceed. There have been recent discussions to suspend the blue slip tradition in order to force nominations through the Judiciary Committee. I encourage my colleagues to reject any such measures and to continue in the blue slip tradition.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the people and leaders of Taiwan on their National Day to take place on October 10. The United States and Taiwan have a long history of mutual trade and friendship that has promoted prosperity and security on both sides of the Pacific. The United States-Taiwan bilateral relationship continues to grow based on our shared democratic values and common strategic interests. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the people of Taiwan on their success and thanking them for their continued efforts to work with the United States on economic growth and security cooperation. The people of both the United States and Taiwan have much to celebrate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Patrice Gordon in honor of her retirement this week after 29 years of exceptional service to the Congress at the Congressional Budget Office. She began her congressional career in CBO's Natural Resources and Commerce Division in 1988 after receiving her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Maryland. Since that time, Patrice has been recognized as one of CBO's best when it comes to focusing on details, ensuring analyses are thorough and correct, and questioning any gaps in reasoning. She is a critical thinker with an encyclopedic mind for details. Throughout her career, she has balanced her keen analytic approach with humility and kindness, becoming a mentor to many young analysts and helping them hone their quantitative skills. She is a valued colleague to everyone who has worked closely with her. In the mid-1990s, Patrice and a few other colleagues at CBO took on the task of implementing requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and soon she would end up supervising all of CBO's work on private-sector mandates. Throughout her tenure, she helped distill the principles that guide CBO's analyses of Federal mandates, ensuring that the agency's work was consistent with the previsions of UMRA. During that time, she also reviewed virtually every bill reported by a congressional committee, including bills that regulate the transportation of snakes on airplanes to healthcare reform and bankruptcy regulation. Patrice has probably read more than 10,000 bills during her time at the Congressional Budget Office. In short, over the past 29 years, the Congressional Budget Office and Congress have been fortunate to enjoy the dedication and insight that Patrice has brought to her work. I understand she is looking forward to playing more competitive bridge and perhaps even tuning up a clarinet and saxophone to jazz up her time away from cost estimates and mandate analyses. I know my Senate colleagues join me in extending our appreciation to Patrice for her service to our Nation and our very best wishes for a happy and productive retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Now that we have decided not to vote on that legislation, it is essential that this Senate move forward expeditiously to take up bipartisan legislation that has been in the works through Senator Alexander and Senator Murray. Those conversations were bearing fruit. They were productive until the Senate decided to veer off, once again, to try to pass legislation that would have destroyed the Affordable Care Act. But now that we have decided not to go down that path, we have to quickly come back to those bipartisan talks and adopt some commonsense measures to strengthen the insurance system in a smart and targeted way. There were many commonsense ideas that are part of those discussions, including making more permanent the so-called cost-sharing provisions, which help to lower the costs of healthcare and help to reduce the premiums, the copays, and the deductibles, and the reinsurance provisions that also have that effect, as well as discussions about how we might be able to streamline waivers within the Medicaid system without sacrificing or jeopardizing the important principles and protections that Medicaid provides on a national level. We know we have to move quickly on this front because insurance companies all over the country have already started or are on the brink of starting the process of announcing their premiums. Unless this Senate takes action, we are going to see many high premiums. So we have to move quickly. As we do, the White House needs to stop their efforts to undermine and sabotage the Affordable Care Act. On day one of his Presidency, President Trump adopted an Executive order that began to sabotage that program. We are already seeing the impact when it comes to some of the early premium announcements we have seen from insurance companies that offer insurance in the exchanges. That decision--that early Executive order--has created a big spike. So the President needs to act right away to assure the folks who provide healthcare throughout the country that he is going to stop the sabotage and begin to make sure that we stabilize those markets. It is under his control to say today, if he wanted, that he will continue those cost- sharing payments until the Senate and the House adopt permanent legislation to address those issues. So it is really important that the Trump administration take those actions now to avert increasing premiums in the exchanges in the days to come. It is also essential that the Senate move forward on that legislation. I hope we will also move forward with the continuation and some strengthening and modifications of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Again, there is bipartisan agreement on that proposal. We need to move forward right away with the support for community health centers because that authority will also expire. I hope we will then get on with the business of putting into law the agreement in principle that was reached by President Trump and the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate to provide protections for the Dreamers. As we all know, the President lit the 6-month fuse on these young people who were brought here through no fault of their own, and it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that these young people, who have grown up knowing only America as their country and who have grown up pledging allegiance to the flag, not face the threat of deportation 6 months from now. That is what they are facing as of this moment. The Senate should act quickly to pass the bipartisan Dream Act. I hope we will also move forward in a bipartisan way on the important issue of tax reform because I think all of us agree that our Tax Code could be simplified. There is a lot of junk in our Tax Code that has been put there by powerful special interests who were able to hire high-priced lobbyists to exempt themselves from certain tax provisions that all other Americans have to pay. We need to clear out that underbrush and make other important reforms, and we can simplify the Tax Code. As we do that, I was very much hoping that we would take the advice of our colleague, Senator McCain, who said we need to get back to the regular order. We need to get back to the Senate conducting its business in a transparent manner. We need to have hearings. We need to bring witnesses from all different perspectives and points of view to testify as to the impact of tax reform proposals. We short-circuited that process when it came to healthcare, and the result was a healthcare bill that the overwhelming majority of the American people rejected, including every single patient advocacy organization that weighed in on that bill--from the American Cancer Society to the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. We have seen that very long list, with all of the healthcare providers, from the nurses to the doctors to the hospitals. Hospitals in rural areas, suburban areas, and urban areas all said that the healthcare bill that did not go through the regular process and did not go through the regular order was deeply flawed and would hurt America. We should learn a lesson from that. The lesson we should learn is that tax reform, which also has an incredibly wide-reaching impact on our economy and on our country, should go through the regular order of debate. It is very alarming to see that, as of now, it appears that the process on tax reform is going to go through the same short-circuited effort as we saw with respect to healthcare, because what we have seen is that the Senate Budget Committee, on which I am proud to serve, will soon--maybe as early as next week--be taking up a budget bill that will include what are known as budget reconciliation instructions, which would provide for a tax cut that would be deficit-financed. What does that mean? It means that we would be cutting taxes and not paying for them. We would be cutting taxes and putting it on the American credit card and, as a result, dramatically increasing our debt. In fact, the reports indicate that the proposal will actually green-light a $1.5 trillion increase in the Federal deficit. Now, I have heard our Republican colleagues in the House and in the Senate for years talk about the fact that the debt is a huge burden overhanging on our economy. The debt is a big problem, and we need to deal with it. In fact, a few months ago, Leader McConnell said that any tax overhaul plan would ``have to be revenue-neutral'' because of the ``alarming $20 trillion Federal debt.'' Yet, just months after that statement, we are told that we are probably going to get a proposal that would actually green-light--open the door--to increasing the Federal debt by $1.5 trillion in order to provide a tax cut. Now, the Democrats have put forward some principles for tax reform that I believe reflect the views of the American public. What we have said is this. No. 1, tax reform should be there to help the middle class and working families with some relief, and we should not be providing millionaires in the top 1 percent with yet another tax cut windfall. That should not be the priority of the country. In fact, Secretary Mnuchin, when he was testifying during his confirmation hearings, put forward something that we called the Mnuchin rule, which said that there should be no net tax cut for the very wealthy. So we have adopted that as one of our principles for tax reform. We have also said what Leader McConnell said a few months ago, that tax reform should not add to the deficit and debt. We shouldn't pass that burden on to taxpayers and future generations to pay the interest on that debt. Finally, we have said that it should go through the regular order, as Senator McCain indicated, where we have that debate in an open forum so that everybody can understand the impact and have their say before people try to rush it through the Senate in a short period of time. So I hope that is what we will do. These reports that we are talking about short-circuiting the process are alarming. Then, we just heard within the last few days that, in addition to creating a process that would fast-track tax cuts that could go overwhelmingly to the wealthy and add to our deficit, this reconciliation bill will be written in a way that might allow us to try to fast-track the destruction of the Affordable Care Act again. We have finished this debate for this fiscal year, but suggestions are that it will open the door to destroying the Affordable Care Act through that fast-track, so-called reconciliation process in the months ahead. So we would have in one piece of legislation a proposal that says: Let's cut taxes for very wealthy people, and it will add to the deficit, but we are also going to try to reduce the deficit a little bit by cutting healthcare for millions of Americans. We thought we just had that debate, and we thought the American public just weighed in on that debate. The result of the American public's weighing in was very clear, and that is why we are not voting on that this week in the Senate. We should not open the door again to that kind of fast-track process that could do such grave harm to the healthcare of the American people. So I hope that when it comes to tax reform, we will take a different path. As I indicated, there are things we can and should do to simplify our Tax Code. What we should not do is what we have seen in the past. What we saw in the past in the early 2000s was this fast-track procedure used to pass tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans. In fact, after that tax cut was put in place, what went up was the income of the top 1 percent. What went up was the deficit and the debt, and everybody else was left flat or sinking. So that would be a terrible mistake. For example, we are told that part of this will be eliminating entirely the so-called estate tax. Right now, the estate tax only applies to estates over $11 million, for couples--over $11 million. So 0.2 percent of Americans are impacted by the estate tax, and they are the wealthiest of the very wealthy. Yet this proposal says we are going to actually increase the debt by $1.5 trillion in order to make room for tax cuts that benefit the top two-tenths of 1 percent of the American public. That is heading in the wrong direction. I am pretty confident that, at least, in my State of Maryland, the overwhelming majority of our citizens would be very much opposed to that effort. What always happens is that, when it comes to cutting taxes for the very wealthy or for powerful special interests, many of our Republican colleagues here forget about all the talk about the importance of the deficit and debt. It is OK to run up a $1.5 trillion debt on top of our already high debt in order to provide tax cuts. But then, when those debts go up, always the conversation comes around to cutting--cutting our investments in education; cutting Medicare, turning it into a voucher program, as various Republican budgets in the House and Senate have proposed over the years; cutting Medicaid, which is what the Graham-Cassidy bill would have done and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it is over a $1 trillion cut, and that is before it went over a total cliff in the outyears. So let's, please, colleagues, learn the lesson from how this healthcare fiasco unfolded. When it comes to things like tax reform, let's proceed in a bipartisan way. Let's begin in the coming week to get back to the bipartisan discussions on healthcare, so that as we head into the fall, people are not going to experience wounds that are inflicted by the lack of action by this Congress--by this Senate and this House. I thank you, Mr. President. I hope we can get back to regular order at some point in time and really do the people's work the way it is intended to be done--in an open, transparent, and bipartisan way.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, we had some good news--or I should say the American public had some good news today in the announcement from the Republican leader that the Senate will not be proceeding to debate what is known as the Graham-Cassidy legislation, the latest version of TrumpCare, which would have had a devastating impact on our healthcare system and created harm throughout the country and in my State of Maryland. In fact, I know millions of Marylanders will be breathing a sigh of relief as a result of this decision. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the personal testimonials of Marylanders who, in the last few days, have sent to me their very powerful stories about how the Graham- Cassidy legislation would have harmed their loved ones.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by saying a few words about what is happening in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands where, in front of our eyes on the television sets, we see a growing humanitarian crisis that needs our urgent attention. Hurricane Maria has left unimaginable devastation. Less than half of the population of Puerto Rico has potable water. Cell service is out on 95 percent of the island, making it difficult to contact loved ones and call emergency services, and only 5 percent of the power grid in Puerto Rico is working. My office has been fielding hundreds of calls from across the State of Maryland, some from constituents who are eager and desperate to reach their loved ones, others from fellow Americans who are watching the devastation and who are asking us to act quickly. We all know that in the runups to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Texas and Florida braced for impact. We here in the Senate quickly organized to promise we would deliver the resources they would need to rebuild. We provided an emergency downpayment, and we gave them assurances that we would also stand ready to provide assistance when it comes to rebuilding. We need to make that same urgent commitment to the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, our fellow Americans. The administration needs to bring to bear its full resources from the military, to the Army Corps, to FEMA to deliver critical supplies and access to people in all parts of those areas. We have heard that we might get an emergency request for appropriations in a week or two. We need to move much more quickly, given the urgency of the situation; 3.5 million of our fellow Americans should not be left to languish without water or power. That is not who we are. We need all hands on deck, and we need them now, so I hope we will move on to that.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I could not support Noel Francisco's confirmation to serve as the 47th Solicitor General of the United States. I do not believe Mr. Francisco can serve as a check on this administration and this President. Created in 1870 and colloquially referred to as the ``10th Supreme Court Justice,'' the Solicitor General represents the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General culls through thousands of cases a year and selects which cases the Department of Justice will appeal. Although the Solicitor General is the third highest ranked office in the Department of Justice, it is the Solicitor General alone who selects and approves every appeal. This heavy responsibility requires that the Solicitor General use sound legal judgment and resist pressure from and maintain independence from the President and Cabinet- level members. History contains examples of Solicitors General who deferred to the President while constructing legal strategy and Presidents who were directly involved with shaping legal arguments. President Eisenhower personally wrote handwritten notes on his Solicitor General's briefs before they were submitted to the Supreme Court. President Eisenhower's notes softened the Solicitor General's tone regarding the expediency of desegregation after the seminal Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education. At this unique time in history, we cannot have a Solicitor General who will serve as a rubberstamp for this administration's policies. President Trump has shown a disregard and contempt for not only the rule of law but also for our constitutional separation of powers. Frederick William Lehmann, Solicitor General during the Taft administration said that ``the Government wins its point when justice is done in its courts.'' As acting-Solicitor General, Mr. Francisco defended the President's travel ban before the Ninth Circuit, in which he argued that Presidential authority regarding immigration is ``largely immune from judicial control.'' Mr. Francisco's lead in defending President Trump's Executive orders are deeply concerning. We need a Solicitor General that can say no to the President and resist positions advocated by the administration's hardliners when they fall outside of defensible legal boundaries. I do not believe Mr. Francisco can act as an independent check, and I could not support his confirmation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I first thank the Democratic leader for his efforts to work and reach out to the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, as we move forward to try to take some sensible steps to improve our healthcare system, not try to blow up the entire healthcare system. Just last month, the overwhelming majority of the American people sighed a great sigh of relief when this Senate voted down the earlier TrumpCare proposal that would have destroyed the Affordable Care Act and which would have had a devastating impact on the entire American healthcare system. We all recall, at that point in time, Senator McCain gave a powerful and impassioned speech on this floor about the importance of the Senate going through the regular order, about working in a transparent way, in a bipartisan way, to improve and strengthen our healthcare system--not another cynical, partisan effort to ram through a piece of legislation that impacts hundreds of millions of our fellow Americans. For a time, it seemed we were making headway on that front. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray and the HELP Committee are working together, holding hearings, bringing people from all points of view in front of that committee to testify about how we can improve and strengthen our current system. Now, instead of heading down that bipartisan path, we are seeing another last-ditch effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act and, in the process, wreak incredible damage to our entire healthcare system. The latest incarnation of TrumpCare is the Graham-Cassidy legislation. Make no mistake, in many ways, this is far worse than the earlier proposals we have seen. It would end the Medicaid expansion program, which in my State of Maryland actually has provided more affordable care to more Marylanders than the exchanges that were established under the Affordable Care Act. It will dramatically cut the funds under the Medicaid Program through a block grant proposal that gives very little, given the huge responsibilities that the State has. It will give a green light to States throughout the country to eliminate the really important patient protections, protections against discrimination based on preexisting conditions like diabetes or asthma or whatever it may be, and it will give a blank check to those who want to eliminate the important essential benefit provisions that provide important coverage guarantees for women's health and so many other important areas like mental health and substance abuse. Doctors in this country take a very simple oath, the Hippocratic oath, which says: First, do no harm. This piece of legislation--this latest incarnation of TrumpCare--will do devastating harm to our healthcare system, and you don't have to take my word for it. As more and more groups learn about this piece of legislation--and they are just looking at the details--they are beginning to phone into our offices and to send us emails and texts. I can assure you that Members will see the same outpouring of opposition to this bill that they saw to the earlier ones. Already we have seen strong statements of opposition from the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the list goes on and on, and it just started. It is important for us to remember that these are not Republican groups. They are not Democratic groups. They have no partisan affiliation at all. Their only interest is to protect patients in this country, and we should have the same interest in protecting the health of our constituents. It is not just the patient advocacy groups that are already strongly opposed to this. Those who provide healthcare in our system to our loved ones--to our parents, to our children--are coming out strongly opposed to this already. Here is what the Children's Hospital Association has to say about the Graham-Cassidy provision: Their legislation would slash funding for Medicaid, the nation's largest health care program for children, by one- third, reducing access and coverage for more than 30 million children in the program. Furthermore, the legislation weakens important consumer safeguards, and as a result, millions of children in working families would no longer be assured that their private insurance covers the most basic of services without annual and lifetime limits. . . . And they go on. That is the Children's Hospital Association. Those are the hospitals that every day are caring for kids throughout this country, and they are not alone in already opposing this legislation. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses Association--in short, all of those organizations representing all those people out there who are providing healthcare to our fellow Americans, to our constituents--are opposed to this bill. AARP, which, of course, represents millions--in fact, tens of millions--of older Americans is strongly opposed to this bill because, once again, it opens the door toward age discrimination in the amount of the premiums that are charged. Older Americans and elderly Americans will see their premiums go through the roof under this proposal, and that is why AARP is also strongly opposed. So just when we thought we were at a point where we were going to focus on a bipartisan basis on improving our healthcare system, which has a whole lot of room for improvement, just when we began to see bipartisan hearings and legislation possibly emerge from the HELP Committee, we now see this last-ditch effort on the floor of the Senate to do what other bills had tried to do but in an even worse fashion. We are hearing already from Americans--not with political hats on, not with Republican hats on or Democratic hats on or Independent hats on, not with political hats on at all, just people who care about the healthcare of the people of this country--and they are resoundingly opposed to this. So let's not try and ram something through here in the next 2 weeks to try to meet an artificial clock that has been set by the rules of the Senate. There has been ample time to debate this, and we have debated the earlier versions. Let's not allow this final sneak attack on the American healthcare system to get through this body. It would be a very sad day for the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss the importance of ensuring that federally funded infrastructure projects are built to withstand flood damage. As we work to provide Federal support to the people of Texas, Florida, and the Gulf Coast, Congress should consider how we can ensure that our roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure are better equipped to withstand future flooding. In 2015, President Obama signed an executive order to reinforce and expand existing policy regarding Federal action in a floodplain, directing agencies to use a higher vertical flood elevation and horizontal floodplain for federally funded projects. This was a common- sense step to improve our resilience in the face of increased flood risk. Then last month, President Trump signed an executive order to reverse his predecessor's action. Despite support from groups ranging from environmentalists to the insurance industry, the President has decided to undo what a former director of public affairs at FEMA called ``the most significant action taken in a generation to safeguard U.S. infrastructure.'' We must prepare our Nation's critical infrastructure to deal with flooding. That is why I am I, along with Senators Schatz and Booker, am introducing the Flood Risk Management Act of 2017. This bill will codify common-sense flood standards and ensure that federally funded infrastructure projects are built to withstand flood damage. The legislation is supported by the Smarter Safer Coalition, a diverse group of organizations ranging from insurance groups, environmental organizations to taxpayer advocates. If we fail to invest when our roads and bridges are being built, we risk the lives of American families and ultimately spend more taxpayer dollars to repair them after floods occur. Now is the time to prepare for the next disaster--not after it occurs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I came here to the floor to talk about the Dreamers, and I do think that it is important to start by making the point that many of those Dreamers are serving in our Armed Forces today. They have put their lives at risk for the only country that they know, which is the United States of America. It was just shortly after the November election, when then-President- Elect Trump told Time Magazine, when he was talking about Dreamers: We're going to work something out that's going to make people happy and proud. He was referring to the Dreamers. He continues: They got brought here at a very young age, they've worked here, they've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen. That is what President Trump said right after the election. Yesterday, he delivered the cruel news about what would happen 6 months from now if this Congress doesn't act, which is that those Dreamers will be at risk of being thrown out of our country. They will be at risk of being deported from the United States of America. So the very President who said he was going to do something to make people ``happy and proud'' did something that was sad and shameful in our country. A majority of Americans agree that it is wrong to deport the Dreamers. Not just majorities of Democrats or Independents but also majorities of Republicans recognize that it is the wrong thing to do. As President Trump has acknowledged, these Dreamers were brought to the United States as young children. Regardless of the acts of adults or their parents, these children have done nothing wrong. They are our neighbors. They attend schools with our kids. They pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at school. They sing the Star-Spangled Banner. They play on the same sports teams. In fact, many of these Dreamers didn't even recognize that they did not have full legal status until they reached adulthood. It was the DACA Program that provided these young people with at least the assurance that the rest of the country wanted them to stay and that they would not be deported so long as they played by the rules, so long as they did what this country asked of them. That is what they are doing. Ninety-five percent of the Dreamers are in school or working at American businesses, large and small. They are contributing to our economy. Once they received that stability under DACA, 54 percent went out and bought their first car at local car dealerships around the country. Twelve percent were able to go out and make a down payment on their first home. When they go out to buy homes and buy cars, they are supporting our economy, which is why deporting these 800,000 Dreamers is not only the wrong thing to do from the perspective of humanity and being a fair country, but it is bad for our economy as well. As I indicated at the outset, these Dreamers participate in our Armed Forces and help protect the national security of our country. In my State of Maryland, we have 10,000 Dreamers who are contributing in many positive ways to our State. When I think of Dreamers, I think of a young man now whose name is Steven Acuna. He is a Maryland resident. In 2001, he was 8 years old when his family came to the United States from Colombia after they began receiving death threats. Ever since his family arrived 16 years ago, they have lived and worked in this country as productive and law- abiding citizens. In 2012, they were denied the political asylum they had sought here. So they were actually at that time yanked from their Germantown, MD, home and locked up in a detention center on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. At that time, they reached out to my congressional office, and we joined with advocacy organizations and immigration lawyers and local leaders to make sure that family was not deported. Then, thanks to the DACA Program, that made it possible for Dreamers like Steven Acuna to stay in the United States legally. He just graduated with a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Maryland. Steve aspires to be an orthopedic surgeon. Here is a picture of Steve Acuna with his family, celebrating his recent graduation from the University of Maryland and aspiring to go on to become a surgeon. The message President Trump sent to Steve Acuna and his family yesterday is shameful. The message he sent was this: We don't want you in the United States anymore. It would be a grave mistake--the wrong thing, morally--and it is also the wrong thing from the perspective of making sure we have a community that works for everybody and a strong local economy. We have invested in Steve Acuna. He wants to go on to be an orthopedic surgeon. Yet this administration is telling him: If Congress doesn't act in 6 months, you are out of here. So that brings us to what we are going to do here in the Senate and what we are going to do in the House of Representatives. President Trump did not have to make the decision he made yesterday. It was cruel and it was gratuitous, but he has made that decision. Now it is up to us in the Senate and in the Congress to do the right thing. In fact, President Trump has said to Congress: Go ahead and make sure that Dreamers can stay. So, on the one hand, he took an action he didn't have to. He put them at risk. He lit the fuse on a 6-month detonator, and he handed it to Congress. Now it is up to us to do the right thing, and it is essential that this Senate vote on the Dreamers bill in the coming weeks. We already have it in front of us. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Its primary sponsors are Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from the State of Illinois. We have a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in the Senate. Now this is the question: When are we going to get to vote on it? When are we going to be able to take up this legislation? Because of the action taken just yesterday by President Trump, it is imperative that we act right now to provide stability and confidence to these young men and women who have already done so much to contribute to our country--and many are serving today in our Armed Forces--and to let them and the country know that we can act on a bipartisan basis to do what the overwhelming majority of the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--want us to do. So let's take up the Dreamers bill. Let's take it up now. There is no excuse for delay. People should vote in the light of day. People should let their constituents know where they stand on this issue. This is a question not just of fairness, but it is a question of political accountability and transparency. President Trump has told Congress that we should act. In this case, we have an obligation at least to take a vote on this issue. I am absolutely confident that, when this body takes that vote, we will do the right thing. We will vote to protect the Dreamers and, in doing so, protect the commitments we as a country have made to people who have done nothing wrong. As a country, I hope we stand for the principle that people should not be punished when they have done nothing wrong, and when, in fact, they have done everything our country has asked of them. So let's take up the Dreamers bill with dispatch, and let's pass it and let's have the House pass it. It wasn't absolutely clear, but President Trump, in his most recent tweet, seemed to say that he is ready to sign what we send to him. So let's get it done. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, at the outset, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that I agree with his statements with respect to the threat posed by North Korea, its nuclear weapons program, both the development of nuclear bombs and the most recent explosion, which was a larger yield than ever before, plus their missile program, including their ICBMs. I think it is important that this Congress do its part and act quickly by further economically squeezing North Korea. I know that the Presiding Officer and Senator Markey have a piece of legislation. I, together with Senator Toomey, have a piece of legislation in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee that would further tighten the economic pressure on North Korea. So I hope that the Congress will move forward quickly.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I voted in opposition to the nomination of Marvin Kaplan to the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB. The NLRB has an important responsibility to resolve labor disputes, protect worker rights, and ensure fair access to collective bargaining. Mr. Kaplan does not have experience arguing the law before the NLRB; rather, he has a history of working to erode its authority to protect the workforce. As a staffer on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Kaplan has worked on legislation to overturn key NLRB decisions and delay and distort the union election process. He has provided no assurance that he would recuse himself from issues pertaining to his prior work that might lead to bias. Throughout his career, he has pursued policies that would undermine worker protections. He should not be appointed to a board that is charged with safeguarding them. President Trump has repeatedly promised to put the American worker first. The NLRB has a key role to ensure a fair deal for workers. It is unfortunate that the President's nominees for the Board have not demonstrated a commitment to that mission.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to voice my support for Christopher Wray's confirmation to be the next Director of the FBI. After meeting with Mr. Wray and reviewing his record, I believe he possesses the independence and integrity necessary to lead the Bureau through this tumultuous period. This vacancy arose because President Trump abruptly fired then- Director James Comey. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Comey's firing are alarming and suspicious. Mr. Comey testified under oath that the President not only demanded his personal loyalty on numerous occasions but also intimated that Mr. Comey should stop investigating then- National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Mr. Wray will face numerous challenges as the new Director of the FBI. He will have to deal with a President who has shown a complete disregard for traditional protocols designed to ensure the agency's independence. During our meeting, Mr. Wray assured me that he would remain independent from the President and would reject any attempts by President Trump to inappropriately intervene in the work of the FBI. During our meeting, I also impressed upon Mr. Wray the importance of consolidating the FBI's staff in one building. The FBI has long outgrown its current space and the building is deteriorating, which compromises the agency's mission. I look forward to working with him to give FBI personnel the facilities they deserve. As Mr. Wray takes his position, he will need to work immediately to affirm the FBI's independence and restore the confidence of an agency shaken by the President's inappropriate conduct with respect to Mr. Comey and other matters. This Congress must conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that Mr. Wray maintains the high standard of integrity that he has promised and to respond to any attempts by the President or his political advisors to exert undue influence at the FBI. I pledge to do everything I can to support his important mission and the vital work of the FBI.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I cannot support John K. Bush II's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Bush does not possess the temperament or discernment required of a Federal judge. He is not only a deeply flawed nominee; he is unqualified for a lifetime judicial appointment. William Howard Taft, 27th President of the United States, 10th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, once said, ``Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood.'' Mr. Bush's more than 400 blog posts, written under a pseudonym, cannot be misunderstood despite his attempts to distance himself from his writings. In his blog posts, Mr. Bush equated a woman's right to an abortion to chattel slavery, advanced spurious claims based on conspiracy theories propagated by White supremacists, advocated violence and use of force against Democratic opponents, argued that journalist's First Amendment rights should be weakened, and advocated for unlimited amounts of money in politics. When asked to clarify his past written statements during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Bush said that his, ``personal views are irrelevant to the position for which [he has] been nominated.'' I do not believe that hundreds of crude, insensitive, and hateful posts, widely shared on the internet, are irrelevant in analyzing a candidate's suitability for a Federal judgeship. Mr. Bush's writings and statements make me question if he could apply the law evenly and without bias. Every judge takes the oath of justice and swears to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,'' and to ``faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent'' upon them. Based on Mr. Bush's own statements, I am not confident that he will uphold that oath.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I voted in support of H.R. 3364, the Countering America's Adversaries Act, which sanctions Russia, Iran, and North Korea. I call on President Trump to sign this package into law, without delay. This act imposes tough sanctions on Russia for its interference in our elections, its attempts to undermine faith in the democratic process across the West, its support of the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and its intervention in Ukraine. Critically, the legislation prevents President Trump--who has repeatedly demonstrated his affinity for Vladimir Putin--from removing sanctions on Russia without the approval of the Congress. It sends a clear and unequivocal message to the Kremlin: the United States will not tolerate attacks on our democracy. The administration has repeatedly certified Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This landmark, multilateral nuclear accord is a critical part of our effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and has made our partners and allies in the region safer. However, Iran's ballistic missile tests, its support for regional terrorism, and its human rights abuses merit a strong response. This act codifies executive orders sanctioning Iran for these dangerous, nonnuclear actions. Our response to North Korea--which U.S. officials now believe will be able to field a reliable, nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next year--must be bold and comprehensive. While I support the sanctions imposed on North Korea under the Countering America's Adversaries Act, I believe they fall far short of the aggressive sanctions needed to sever North Korea's ties to the international financial system and create the leverage necessary for successful nuclear negotiations. That is why I strongly urge the Senate to pass the Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act, which I introduced with Senator Toomey. I look forward to working expeditiously with my colleagues to pass comprehensive sanctions on North Korea in the fall.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I intend to file a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in Session, with changes that would eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for those with childhood cancer. I am offering this motion because the Finance Committee should review the implications of depriving millions of Americans of health insurance while at the same time providing tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record following my remarks. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with Multiple Sclerosis. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge individuals with diabetes more for preventative health care. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that would ensure that no individual with income of more than $1,000,000 annually would benefit from any of the TrumpCare tax cuts. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that would ensure that billionaires would not benefit from any of the TrumpCare tax cuts. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that would ensure that no individual with income of more than $500,000,000 annually would benefit from any of the TrumpCare tax cuts. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with blast injuries. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with autism. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with asthma. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with metastatic cancer. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with childhood cancer. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with Multiple Sclerosis. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with Parkinson's disease. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage provided by Medicaid to individuals with breast cancer. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with congenital heart defects. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with diabetes. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with opioid addiction. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with a mental health illness. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with any rare disease. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for individuals with lupus. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that would reduce financial assistance, such as tax credits, for low- and moderate-income Americans. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge individuals with breast cancer more for preventative health care. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge individuals with Parkinson's disease more for preventative health care. Motion to Commit With Instructions Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and (2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge individuals with Multiple Sclerosis more for preventative health care.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I want to start by thanking my friend and our colleague, Senator Joe Donnelly, for standing up for Hoosiers and, in standing up for Hoosiers, standing up for all Americans whose healthcare is threatened if we continue to proceed down this very dangerous road in the Senate. He talked about the opioid epidemic. Just last week I met with a dad by the name of Rick Warner and the brother and sister of a young man by the name of Jamie Warner who had recently graduated from the University of Maryland. He was a Terp. Jamie died of an opioid overdose. He was part of the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the country. Rick Warner and his family were here in the Senate asking Senators--in fact, pleading with Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike--not to pass this healthcare bill. He had lost his son Jamie, and he is determined that other moms and dads not lose their children to opioid overdose. This bill--make no mistake--will make those tragedies much more likely by taking away access to care in the way Senator Donnelly just mentioned. Yesterday, with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Pence, the Senate began down a very dangerous path, but we can get off that path. We can make sure we do not reach the end of that very dangerous journey. It was as if yesterday we lit the fuse and the fire is traveling down that fuse and at the end of the fuse is the plan to totally blow up the Affordable Care Act, which will wreak havoc on our healthcare system. That is why we have to put out the fire on that fuse right here in the Senate. We have the power to do that. We have the power to prevent the chaos and harm that will be created in our healthcare system if we continue down this path. The reality, we know, is that all the healthcare plans that we have seen emerge to date--whether it was House plan 1 or House plan 2, or Senate plan 1 or Senate plan 2, or the proposal to repeal entirely the Affordable Care Act, which would cause great harm--have the same rotten core. All of them have the same nasty DNA, and that is this: They would deny access to affordable care for tens of millions of our fellow Americans in order to give tax breaks to the very powerful and very rich and to big corporations. In fact, the proposal we are voting on very soon, which is entirely repealing the Affordable Care Act with no replacement, will result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--these are the nonpartisan referees who look at these proposals and tell the American people what the impact will be--in 32 million fewer of our fellow Americans having access to affordable care than today. They also tell us that we will double the health insurance premiums compared to today. And for what? They give a gigantic tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Warren Buffett, a name most Americans know, said about a month ago: For goodness' sake, I don't need a $670,000 a year tax cut in order to throw tens of millions of Americans off of affordable care. Don't do that. I don't need it. Make no mistake. This has never been about healthcare. It has been about wealth care. I want people to think about this. If this were really about healthcare, why is it that all of the folks involved in providing healthcare to the American people are against it--the nurses, doctors, and hospitals? People hear a lot of facts and figures from Senators and from the House. Some people may dismiss those numbers, but why don't we ask the people whose daily business it is to take care of the American people? What the doctors say is that all of these Republican plans violate their Hypocratic oath. What is the Hypocratic oath? It is the oath that every doctor in the country takes and the first principle is to first, do no harm. Doctors, nurses, and hospitals all want to make people better. They all want to cure us. They all want to improve our health situation, but their No. 1 rule is not to make things worse, and all of these bills make things worse. That is what the numbers show us, and that is what the doctors, hospitals, and nurses show us. I think it is worse to have 32 million fewer Americans have access to affordable care. What about our colleagues? Don't they think that is worse? I think it is worse when you double health insurance premiums and raise the cost of healthcare to Americans. That sounds like it is worse to me, not better. It is not just all the folks who provide healthcare. Why don't we ask all of the patient advocacy groups across America about this so-called healthcare bill? What do they say? The American Cancer Society: Bad bill--don't pass it. It will create harm. It will be a setback in our fight against cancer. The American Diabetes Association says the same thing: Bad news for patients with diabetes. The American Heart Association tells us that this will be bad and harmful to people with heart disease. There is the Alzheimer's association, and we can go down the list. Every single patient advocacy group in America that has taken a position on this bill says it is a bad bill, it is dangerous to our health, and it will do harm. So I don't know how our Republican colleagues can bring Senate bill 1, Senate bill 2, or Senate bill 3 before this House and call it a healthcare bill when all the people who provide healthcare to our constituents say it is harmful to their health and when every patient advocacy group that has weighed in says that it is bad for their health. How is that a healthcare bill? It is good for one group of Americans--those who will get a windfall tax break, but many of them, like Warren Buffett, are saying: Hey, I don't want this. Now there are some very big corporations that are wanting their tax breaks, and, yes, as corporations, they are going to get this windfall benefit at the expense of everybody else in America and at the expense of our healthcare system. So let's not go down this path. The way to avoid going down this path is to vote down all of these amendments and make sure that we don't put this bill into the House of Representatives, where they have already passed a bill that is harmful to Americans' health. In fact, I think people will remember that President Trump had this big celebration in the Rose Garden of the White House after the House passed that bill. They were slapping each other on their backs before the cameras. Yet, behind closed doors, what did President Trump have to say about the House bill? Behind closed doors, he called it a mean bill, and it is a mean bill. These Senate bills, when it comes to cuts in Medicaid that our colleague Senator Donnelly was talking about, are even meaner than the House bill, with deeper long-term cuts. This is not according to me. It is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those cuts get translated into stories of people like Rick Warner, the dad I talked about at the beginning of my comments who lost his son Jamie. Those numbers get translated into harm to people throughout this country who have been crying out. We heard some of them in the Gallery just yesterday. What did they say? ``Kill the bill. Don't kill us.'' The reality is, when you deny access to affordable care to millions of Americans, you are putting their lives at risk, and when you raise premiums and costs, you are putting people's livelihoods at risk. So let's not go down this path. The motion by Senator Donnelly and others will do what Senator John McCain asked us to do yesterday--to go back to regular order, to go back to the committee process, to go back to the way this democratic institution is supposed to work, which is when we hear from our constituents, we hear from the doctors, we hear from the nurses. We do not cover our eyes and ears to the facts and the truth. That open process is designed to protect the American people. It is designed to protect the American people from bills just like this one for which this Senate took that dangerous first step down the road on proposals that only 11 percent of the American people think is a good idea--11 percent. I cannot even find that 11 percent myself. I have gone all over the State of Maryland, to those parts of our State that voted for Donald Trump for President and to those that did not. I cannot find 11 percent in Maryland who are for this bill. That is why what we call the regular order around here is supposed to protect the public interest--because when you have a committee hearing on a bill like this and the doctors and the nurses and the hospitals all come out and testify against it, they let people know how bad it is. Instead, we have had this process in secret, behind closed doors. In many cases, we do not even know what the next amendments after this one that is coming up are going to be. We do not know what the Republican leader is cooking up behind closed doors. Let's do what Senator McCain urged us all to do. Let's get back to regular order. Let's get back to a process that is designed to provide transparency because with transparency comes accountability. It lets the American public know exactly what we are doing and how we are going to impact their lives. Here is what I do know. Everybody across this country who knows about this bill--everyone I have spoken to and from the phone calls we are getting and the emails we are getting and at the rallies and the townhalls--is catching on. Why would we just steamroll over all of that important public sentiment coming from all political views? The American Cancer Society is not a Republican or a Democratic organization. The American Diabetes Association is not partisan. These groups are crying out and saying: Stop. So let's get off this path, this very dangerous path. Let's get back to regular order. We all know our healthcare system is not perfect. We all know the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Senator Donnelly and I and others and many of our Republican colleagues have put forward much more narrow plans that focus on improving our healthcare system, not on blowing it up entirely. That is the path we should take. I hope all of our Senators will agree not to continue to let that fire burn on the fuse until it gets to the end and blows up our healthcare system. Let's stop now. Let's get together, and let's have a committee process. Let's do something that really improves our healthcare system and not something that destroys it. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, in introducing legislation that would establish a Bicentennial Commission to honor Frederick Douglass in 2018. Douglass was an extraordinary individual who was enslaved at birth in Talbot County, Maryland. At a young age, Douglass learned to read and write. In 1838 he escaped from Maryland and moved to New York. Then, in 1845, he published his first autobiography called ``The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave''. He later escaped to Great Britain to avoid being tracked down and returned to slavery in Maryland. Ultimately, British Quakers paid for his freedom, which enabled him to return to United States, settling in Baltimore, Maryland in 1847. Frederick Douglass continued to be a strong Abolitionist who campaigned against slavery and in favor of the right to vote throughout the East and Mid-West. In 1850 he oversaw the Underground-Railroad in Rochester, New York. As a Freeman he was able to hold significant positions within the Government. He served as an Advisor to President Lincoln. He was appointed to serve as the District of Columbia Legislative Council, the United States Marshall and the Recorder of Deeds. He subsequently became the Ambassador to Haiti from 1889 to 1891. Despite his extensive travel, Douglass made four trips back to Talbot County, Maryland. He reconciled with Captain Thomas Auld who had enslaved him in the past. He made a pilgrimage to Tappers Corner in search of his grandmother's cabin and his birthplace. As an entrepreneur, he invested in several enterprises, especially those that would benefit the African-American community. These included low-income housing developments in his old neighborhood in Fells Point (named Douglass Place) and at Highland Beach, a summer resort community outside of Annapolis popular with African Americans outside of Annapolis. Two hundred years after Douglass' birth is a fitting time to reflect upon his work and achievements and pay tribute to a man who fought for his freedom and justice for all. He stated: ``We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.'' In that spirit, it will be important to honor this man and explore how his legacy can help guide the future of our Country. As Douglass stated, ``The life of the Nation is secure only while the Nation is honest, truthful and virtuous''.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, in introducing legislation that would establish a Bicentennial Commission to honor Frederick Douglass in 2018. Douglass was an extraordinary individual who was enslaved at birth in Talbot County, Maryland. At a young age, Douglass learned to read and write. In 1838 he escaped from Maryland and moved to New York. Then, in 1845, he published his first autobiography called ``The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave''. He later escaped to Great Britain to avoid being tracked down and returned to slavery in Maryland. Ultimately, British Quakers paid for his freedom, which enabled him to return to United States, settling in Baltimore, Maryland in 1847. Frederick Douglass continued to be a strong Abolitionist who campaigned against slavery and in favor of the right to vote throughout the East and Mid-West. In 1850 he oversaw the Underground-Railroad in Rochester, New York. As a Freeman he was able to hold significant positions within the Government. He served as an Advisor to President Lincoln. He was appointed to serve as the District of Columbia Legislative Council, the United States Marshall and the Recorder of Deeds. He subsequently became the Ambassador to Haiti from 1889 to 1891. Despite his extensive travel, Douglass made four trips back to Talbot County, Maryland. He reconciled with Captain Thomas Auld who had enslaved him in the past. He made a pilgrimage to Tappers Corner in search of his grandmother's cabin and his birthplace. As an entrepreneur, he invested in several enterprises, especially those that would benefit the African-American community. These included low-income housing developments in his old neighborhood in Fells Point (named Douglass Place) and at Highland Beach, a summer resort community outside of Annapolis popular with African Americans outside of Annapolis. Two hundred years after Douglass' birth is a fitting time to reflect upon his work and achievements and pay tribute to a man who fought for his freedom and justice for all. He stated: ``We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.'' In that spirit, it will be important to honor this man and explore how his legacy can help guide the future of our Country. As Douglass stated, ``The life of the Nation is secure only while the Nation is honest, truthful and virtuous''.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor an outstanding American, Captain Randy Dopp, on his retirement from American Airlines. Captain Dopp distinguished himself with over 31 years of safe commercial airline flying for Piedmont, USAirways, and American Airlines. He has been well-known for his commitment to airline pilots and to the flying community. Over the years, I have relied on Captain Dopp's knowledge and insights on issues relating to airlines, pensions, and aviation safety. I know that his wisdom and service will be greatly missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Captain Dopp on his accomplishments and congratulating him on his retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor an outstanding American, Captain Peter A. Machtel, on his retirement from American Airlines. Captain Machtel distinguished himself with over 30 years of safe commercial airline flying for Piedmont, USAirways, and American Airlines. In addition, he served the American public as a Federal flight deck duty officer, beginning with that program as soon as it was implemented following the attacks on 9/11. His work for more than 15 years with that vital security program demonstrated his selfless duty and commitment to the safety of the American people. Over the years, I have relied on Captain Machtel's knowledge and insights on issues relating to airlines, pensions, and aviation safety. I know that his wisdom and dedication to our country will be sorely missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Captain Machtel for his distinguished service and congratulating him on his retirement.