Floor Statements

Mr. President, I take this time to explain to my colleagues why I will be opposing the nomination of Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I first want to start by saying I had an opportunity to visit with Attorney General Pruitt. He is a person who wants to serve our country, and we very much appreciate that. He has a distinguished career in public service, and we appreciate his willingness to continue to serve at the national level.

My reason for opposing his nomination is that he has opposed most of the missions of the Environmental Protection Agency as the attorney general of Oklahoma. He has filed numerous lawsuits that would compromise the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our environment.

I come to this debate acknowledging that there are national responsibilities to protect our environment. The United States must also be engaged in global leadership as it relates to our environment. The people of Maryland want clean air. The people of Maryland want clean water. No State can guarantee to its citizens that its air will be clean or that its water will be safe. These issues go well beyond State boundaries. They go beyond national boundaries. It is for that reason that we need an Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency who will lead our Nation both in the appropriate controls and regulations to protect our air and water but also work for our country in regard to the global efforts to protect our environment for future generations.

Let me talk about the issue of climate change. Climate change is one of the greatest threats of our times. We know that this year, according to NASA--they looked at the temperature rise in 2016 and found it to be the hottest year ever recorded. We know something is happening in regard to global climate change. It is affecting so many different areas. We have eroding shorelines that our constituents see. We have major military installations located along our coast that are at risk as a result of rising sea levels from ice melt. We have populations that are at risk in the United States.

Let me give one example, if I might. Smith Island, MD, is a very proud community. It is a community that historically has been one of the strongest in regard to watermen and dealing with the fruits of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a proud community, and it is in danger of disappearing because we have sea level rises resulting from ice melting from climate change. We know there is a problem developing that we need to deal with. It is affecting our economy.

In my State of Maryland, the seafood industry is concerned about the future of the blue crab crop. They know that juvenile crabs need sea grass in order to be able to be protected and mature into full-blown blue crabs. With water becoming warmer, the future of sea grass is challenged, putting the blue crab at risk.

That is just one example. There are many more examples I can give about how it is affecting the economy of my State. It is affecting our ability to enjoy our environment, the recreation itself, and it is certainly providing a real risk in regard to the real estate. We have some very nice real estate located right on the coast or on barrier islands that is at risk of being lost as a result of climate change. We see more and more major weather events occur on a much more regular basis, causing billions of dollars of damage and putting lives at risk.

We know climate change is here. It is happening. The science is pretty clear. When we asked Attorney General Pruitt his view about the science of climate change, his answer was ``far from settled.''

The science is well understood. What we do here on Earth--the release of carbon emissions--is causing an abnormal warming of our climate. There are activities that we can do to reduce that effect on our climate. We know that. That is what science tells us. We know we can affect the adverse impacts of climate change if we take action. That is what scientists are telling us.

The world came together on this issue in COP21. I was proud to head a delegation of 10 Members of the U.S. Senate as we went to Paris to make it clear to the international community that the United States wanted to be part of a global solution to climate change. Not any one country can reverse the trendline that we are on that is catastrophic; we need all nations to do everything they can to reduce the impact of climate change by reducing their carbon and greenhouse emissions. That is what the global community needs to do, but we have been unable to get the global community for all countries to live up to their responsibilities.

Under President Obama and our leadership, we were able to get the world community--over 190 nations--to come together in Paris, in COP21, for every nation to take responsibility to reduce their carbon emissions so that we all can benefit from that effort.

I am concerned as to whether Mr. Pruitt, if confirmed as the EPA Administrator, will continue that U.S. leadership. He has not been at all committed to U.S. programs on dealing with climate change, let alone our international responsibilities to lead other countries to do what they need to do. I will give one example. Part of our way of showing the international community that we are serious about the climate issue was the powerplant rule issued under the Obama administration. Attorney General Pruitt joined a group in opposing that powerplant rule through filing suit against the implementation of that particular law.

We need someone who is going to lead on this effort in America and understand that we have responsibilities to lead the international community. We are at great risk from the impact of climate change, and that needs to be understood and recognized by the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am not convinced Attorney General Pruitt would do that.

I want to talk a little bit about clean air. Maryland has taken pretty aggressive steps to improve the air quality from emissions within the geographical boundary of the State of Maryland. That is what every State should do. But here is the challenge: Maryland is downwind from many other States' emissions, so we are seeing days in which our air quality is below what it should be, not because we haven't taken action but because we don't have a national policy to protect our clean air.

The health of Marylanders depends on the Federal Government being aggressive in guaranteeing that all citizens of this country--that steps are taken to protect the air they breathe. I can tell you the number of children who have asthma who suffer when the air quality is not what it should be. It is not only wrong from the point of

view that we have an obligation to our children to make sure we give them the healthiest air to breathe, it is also costing our economy because every day that child stays home, a parent cannot go to work. The child loses their time in school; they are being disadvantaged. If they have to take a day off from summer camp, the parent has to stay home, and it is wasting resources in this country.

For many reasons, we need an Administrator of the EPA who is committed to a national effort to make sure the air we breathe is clean and healthy.

Likewise with clean water. Some of us remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. We know that pollution was so bad, you literally could set our rivers afire. We took steps. And it was not partisan--Democrats and Republicans came together with the Clean Water Act. We recognized that the Federal Government has the responsibility to protect the quality of our water so that we have safe, clean water in America.

I think we have been working to improve the Clean Water Act consistently on a nonpartisan basis, but now we have Supreme Court decisions that challenge what water the Federal Government can regulate. Congress has not taken steps to clarify that. The administration took efforts to try to clarify that under the waters of the United States, only to see a Court action to put that on hold in which Mr. Pruitt joined as the attorney general of Oklahoma, once again slowing down our effort to protect the clean waters of America.

I have spoken numerous times on the floor of the Congress about the Chesapeake Bay and how proud I am to be a Senator from Maryland, one of the six States that are in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, along with the District of Columbia.

We know that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It has been so designated by many Presidents of the United States. It is the latest estuary in our hemisphere. The watershed contains 64,000 square miles, has over 11,000 miles of shoreline, and 17 million people live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed--150 major rivers, $1 trillion to our economy. It is part of the heritage of my State and our region. We are proud that it is part of our life. It is part of why people like to live in this region. They know the Chesapeake Bay makes their life so much more enriched and so much more valuable.

The Chesapeake Bay is in trouble. I could talk about it from a technical point of view. It doesn't flush itself as quickly as other water bodies. The historic oyster population is not what it has been. We have to, therefore, make special efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Over 30 years ago, almost 40 years now, while I was in the State legislature, when I was speaker of the house, I worked with Governor Harry Hughes, and we developed a State program to deal with the Chesapeake Bay.

We did it the right way. We started at the local levels. We got all the stakeholders together: the farmers, the developers, the local governments, the private sector, our local governments, the State government. We worked with Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania is where the Susquehanna River flows, and that produces most of the fresh water that goes into the Chesapeake Bay. We worked with Delaware, Virginia, New York, and West Virginia, and we developed the Chesapeake Bay Program that is worked from the local level up. We get together to determine what is reasonable: What does science tell us we can do?

We have all the stakeholders sitting around the table as we develop these plans. They all sign up. Our farmers recognize that clean water will make their agriculture more profitable. They recognize that. Developers understand that we need a clean Chesapeake Bay as part of our ability to develop profitable real estate in our community. These are not inconsistent. A serene environment, clean agriculture, a strong agriculture, a strong economy are all hand in hand together.

It is not a choice between one or the other. We recognize that. That is why the Chesapeake Bay Program has never been partisan in Maryland. We have had Democratic and Republican Governors who supported the Chesapeake Bay Program. We have had legislators lead this effort from both parties. Senator Mac Mathias, who served as the U.S. Senator from Maryland, was the champion of bringing the Federal Government into the Chesapeake Bay Program. The program is working. It is making the bay safer today, but we still have a long way to go.

We enforce it through the TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Loads, so we can monitor that we are making the progress we said we could make, based upon best science. And that is what the local stakeholders have signed up for.

When we did our TMDL's, it was challenged. It was challenged in the courts. Mr. Pruitt was one of those who brought a challenge against the TMDL Program in Maryland. I am thankful that the Third Circuit upheld the legal right of the TMDL, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision by the Third Circuit. So we won the legal case.

But it troubles me that a program that is from the ground up, from the local governments up, in which the Federal government is a partner--why it would be challenged when it was supported by the local communities. To me, that case should never have been challenged.

We need the Federal Government to continue to participate with us. The Chesapeake Bay Program is supported through the farm bill, through the Water Resources Development Act, through the Clean Water Act, and through annual appropriations. So we need continued support at the Federal level for the Chesapeake Bay Program. And we need a champion in the Environmental Protection Agency that will help us in that regard.

I want to talk briefly about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Safe drinking water is critically important. We know that in recent years, we have found too much lead in drinking water. We all know, of course, the story of Flint, MI. I could take you to Baltimore where our schools have to cut off their water fountains because of the unsafe levels of lead in the drinking water, if they were permitted to drink from the water fountains.

We can tell you about so many communities in the Nation that have a desperate need to clean up their safe drinking water so that we can protect our children from lead poisoning. I hope my colleagues understand that there is no safe level of lead in the blood. It robs children of their future. It poisons them. I think most people are familiar with the Freddie Gray tragedy in Baltimore. Freddie Gray was a victim of lead poisoning when he was young.

We owe it to our children to make sure we do everything we can so they are not exposed to lead. I asked questions about that during the confirmation hearing of Mr. Pruitt. The answers were less than acceptable and showed his lack of real information about the dangers of lead.

Every Congress should look at their responsibility to build on the record, to leave a cleaner and safer environment for the next generation. The EPA Administrator should be committed to that goal. I do not believe Mr. Pruitt will be that type of leader. For that reason, I will vote against his confirmation.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time I have to Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate Black History Month, a time to honor and reflect on the many achievements and sacrifices of African Americans throughout our Nation's history.

This February, we highlight the titans of African-American history. We honor the culture-shifting accomplishments of civil rights icons such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Dorothy Height, and our esteemed colleague, Congressman John Lewis.

As the senior Senator from Maryland, I would be remiss if I didn't also honor Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, and--perhaps one of the greatest Marylanders in our long history--Frederick Douglass. There are some out there who may not know it, but Douglass was born in Maryland around 1818. He learned to read and write in Baltimore before escaping slavery. Despite unknowable hardship and systemic discrimination, he went on to become one of the most influential writers, orators, publishers, and abolitionists of his time. Though Douglass fiercely and vocally opposed slavery, he would want us to remember that he stood for the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. These views--revolutionary for the time-- gained him increasing prominence, leading to 1872, when Victoria Woodhull chose him as her Vice Presidential nominee.

Frederick Douglass was the first Black American ever to hold that title. His legacy continues to make Maryland proud.

While we take time to recognize Frederick Douglass and others this month, we must also celebrate the countless men and women whose names and heroism will never grace the history books. Let us never forget all of those who suffered discrimination in silence, who endured civil rights abuses without recognition, who sat-in and stood up to oppression without accolade. We should use this month to lift up their memories and to recommit to the causes of justice and equality for which they also fought so diligently.

In particular, we should honor the Black teachers who taught generations of children in the dark, against the odds and sometimes the law, with little more than old, secondhand books and makeshift buildings. We honor the businessowners who laid the foundations of the Black community in places like Baltimore, Harlem, Chicago, Washington, DC, and Tulsa. We honor the civil rights movement foot soldiers who rejected subservience and embraced rebellion by marching in the streets of Selma and Birmingham. We honor the factory workers who left the South behind with hopes of a brighter

future, only to struggle in Northern cities for pennies.

For too long, Black Americans' rich and vibrant history has been ignored or obscured by the specter of prejudice. But today, and for the rest of the month, in classrooms and cities across our Nation, we will shine a spotlight on that history.

We will vow to honor it here, now, in the present and in the future, through protecting both the legacy of civil rights and the Americans who are counting on us to uphold them. As lawmakers and as leaders, it is our duty to fight on their behalf. It is our duty to pass laws that will protect all Americans, support all Americans, and defend all Americans, especially those who have been victims of institutional and systemic prejudice.

That is why I introduced the End Racial Profiling Act in 2011. It is incumbent upon every Member in this Chamber to be an advocate for the men and women of color who are singled out every day simply because of their skin color and appearance. These individuals are your constituents. They are my constituents. They are our fellow Americans.

They deserve our commitment and an attention span that lasts longer than 1 month a year.

Discriminatory profiling based on race--or religion or gender identity, nation of origin, sexual orientation--has no place in our society. It is un-American; it is also counterproductive. Racial profiling doesn't keep us safer. To the contrary: it breeds hostility and distrust, and it turns communities against law enforcement and against each other. It wastes resources that our law enforcement agencies can't afford to spend. And the more time we waste targeting Americans because of their race or religion, the less time we are devoting to those who are actually committing crimes or trying to harm us.

My End Racial Profiling Act, which I plan to reintroduce this week, would eliminate this harmful practice and instead offer resources for more police training, mandate greater accountability, and offer recourse for Americans who have been unduly profiled.

Our duty to African Americans does not end there. That is why, as ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I intend to introduce the National Security Diversity and Inclusion Workforce Act, which would codify and build upon President Obama's efforts to diversify our national security workforce. Having a workforce that looks like America is not just good personnel policy, it is also a national security imperative.

Our diversity is one of the strongest assets that the United States has. It allows us to connect and work with different communities and countries across the globe; it helps us to foster the relationships we need to fight terrorism across the globe. And having a diverse set of backgrounds, skills, knowledge, perspectives, and experiences contributes to better national security decisionmaking. We should lead the world and protect our homeland not just by preaching pluralism and tolerance, but by practicing it.

While we embark on that mission, we should take with us the words of Frederick Douglass: ``If there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' Everyone in this body has a responsibility to be part of the struggle and, through it, to be part of progress. Everyone in this body has a responsibility to embrace struggle, even when it occurs right here on this floor, if it is in the name of progress.

I am talking about protecting the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote is fundamental to every democracy. Every vote counts and must be counted fairly.

I am talking about ending the senseless and discriminatory practice of racial profiling. It is painful that, in 2017, we still need to explain that Americans should not be considered suspects or targets because of the color of their skin.

I am talking about criminal justice reform--and prioritizing criminal justice reform in this Congress.

I am talking about recognizing the incredible contributions of Frederick Douglass, Dorothy Height, Harriet Tubman, Katherine Johnson, Mae Jemison, and others in our public school curricula.

Many Americans would not even recognize their names, and that is a tragic failure on our part to honor Black history.

I am talking about not just talking, but committing to these causes through actions around our States and through legislation right here in this Chamber. Whether through passing my End Racial Profiling Act or my National Security Diversity and Inclusion Workforce Act or any other bills introduced by my colleagues, Black History Month reminds us that we can and must do more. Let us begin by remembering that Black history is American history. Their story is our story. When we celebrate Black pioneers and activists and inventors and artists, we celebrate the diversity and the strength of character that are the reasons we are here today.

Mr. President, today I wish to shine a spotlight on the dire security and humanitarian situation in northeastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad basin, precipitated by Boko Haram, and to urge the new administration to organize quickly to address it. Nigeria has been referred to as one of the anchor states of sub-Saharan Africa and our bilateral relationship is one of our most important on the continent. It is the most populous country on the continent. It has the biggest economy. It has contributed troops to regional and U.N. peacekeeping missions for decades and is a major oil-producing country. Nigeria's population is forecast to grow to 400 million by 2050, overtaking the United States and becoming the world's third most populous country. Nigeria's political and economic influence in the region is difficult to overstate, and it will only increase as the population and economy grow.

That is why I joined Senator Corker in writing to President Obama urging high-level engagement with Nigeria in the wake of the 2015 elections, elections which, while perhaps not perfect, turned out to be a positive story of respect for democracy in the region. For the first time in the nation's history, there was a peaceful transition of power between opposing political parties. Though people feared the worst, Nigerians proved they can be leaders on the continent and in the world. However, for Nigeria to fully realize its enormous promise, it must deal with a range of challenges from rampant corruption, to insecurity and intercommunal violence in the Niger Delta and the Middle Belt, tensions in the southeast, and most immediately the continuing threat Boko Haram poses in northeastern Nigeria and other countries in the Lake Chad basin. It is critical that we help with these efforts.

Since 2010, Boko Haram has devastated northeastern Nigeria. According to the 2016 Global Terrorism Index, Boko Haram has the chilling distinction of being among the deadliest terrorist groups in history, with the second highest death toll from attacks out of all terrorist groups since 2000. In recent years, its attacks have spread to Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. The group, which pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2015 and now calls itself the Islamic State West Africa Province, has killed almost 16,000 people. Thousands of others have died as a result of clashes between the military and Boko Haram. The terrorist group has kidnapped thousands, including nearly 300 girls from Chibok in April 2014. The whereabouts of almost 200 of the girls remains unknown.

Countries in the Lake Chad basin are experiencing what U.N. officials and aid workers have called a forgotten crisis as a result of the terrorist group's activities. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced in Nigeria alone. Two hundred thousand Nigerians have fled across borders as refugees. Eight-and-a-half million people in northeast Nigeria are in need of humanitarian assistance. Nearly 2 million people are estimated to be at risk for starvation. Continued insecurity has prevented aid workers from reaching some areas, so the actual needs may be even greater. Last November, Doctors Without Borders expressed fears that malnutrition could wipe out the under-5 population in parts of Nigeria's Borno state.

In his 2015 inaugural address, President Muhammadu Buhari cited Boko

Haram as the most pressing issue facing his administration, and to his credit, he has taken some action. The command center for counter Boko Haram operations has been relocated to Maiduguri, and Nigerians are coordinating military action with other countries in the Lake Chad basin. However, despite the Nigerian Government's claims, Boko Haram has not been largely defeated, and attacks continue. Just last month, the Nigerian military warned of a horrifying new tactic: women suicide bombers carrying babies in order to evade detection.

The reports of continued attacks are profoundly disturbing. As tempting as it is to focus on a military solution, we must be very wary of falling into the trap of thinking that the scourge of Boko Haram can be overcome through military means alone. It is critical that we continue to encourage and support the Nigerian Government's use of all of all available tools to counter violent extremism in the northeast. The Obama administration engaged former President Goodluck Jonathan on the need to develop a holistic civilian-security focused counterterrorism strategy, one that addresses legitimate political and economic grievances in affected communities, but that approach was never fully embraced.

There has been movement towards a countering violent extremism approach under President Buhari's leadership, and we should continue to encourage Nigerians to do more. One of the most important ways to engender the trust of the population is to provide access to justice for human rights abuses by security forces. After nearly 2 years in office, Buhari has yet to keep commitments to do so. The government created a human rights desk for the national army last year, which I welcome, but the establishment of the desk in and of itself is not enough. The military has made very serious mistakes for which it must be held accountable.

In mid-2015, Amnesty International released a report alleging that the deaths of 8,000 civilians are attributable to the Nigerian military in northeast Nigeria. The report calls for the investigation of specific military commanders who are alleged to have had knowledge of torture, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary detentions in overcrowded facilities that lead to thousands of deaths. Buhari said he would launch an investigation. However, we have yet to see any one prosecuted, tried, or convicted. The results of a commission of judicial inquiry into the massacre of more than 300 people in the northern city of Zaria in December 2015 were made public last year. The inquiry found that the deaths were a result of excessive force on the part of the Nigerian army. To date, there has been no action on the part of the federal government to hold abusive security forces accountable. Impunity for human rights abuses serves to undermine all of the work we are doing to counter violent extremism.

In addition to widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings, there are accusations that the military has stolen humanitarian supplies and sexually exploited and abused those living in camps for internally displaced. And many of those freed from Boko Haram have been kept in internment camps for indefinite amounts of time, subject to a screening process that appears inconsistent and is not transparent. Internally displaced persons have reported that the military and local militia take men and boys seeking refuge in camps for screening and they are never seen again. All of these actions have a deleterious effect on efforts to win the hearts and minds of the communities of the northeast, a critical objective to any strategy to defeat Boko Haram.

Military impunity is why I remain leery of the proposed sale of Super Tucano fighter aircraft to Nigeria. Now is not the time for the United States to focus on the provision of aircraft and heavy munitions, especially in the wake of the Nigerian Airforce's bombing of a camp for IDPs last month that may have killed up to 200 innocent people and injured many more. Make no mistake. I support security assistance provided in compliance with the Leahy laws. But I support assistance that will have an actual impact on the Nigerian military's effectiveness. Lack of airpower or munitions are not its problem. The real impediments to success include poor command and control, insufficient air to ground coordination, impunity for human rights abuses, and little to no experience working with local communities and humanitarian partners. Addressing those issues could have an enormous impact on the ground.

To help Nigeria respond to the challenges in the northeast, I urge the new administration to take three steps immediately. First, increase our overall humanitarian assistance budget. The administration should ensure that the President's budget request for fiscal year 2018 provides increased baseline funding for all foreign assistance programs. Such funding is currently 30 percent lower than it was in fiscal year 2010, and it is critical that we return baseline funding to a normal and sustainable level following several years of inadequate requests. An approach that erodes baseline funding while temporarily substituting emergency funds is not workable if the United States wants to continue to set an example in the world. An increase in the budget will enable us to make a significant pledge at the February 24 donors conference in Oslo. We have been generous, but the scale of the emergency demands that we--and our partners--do more. The United States has always led the international response to emergencies such as these, and we must continue to do so. But we can't get blood from a rock. There is no way we can provide adequate money to help the traumatized people in Nigeria and other countries of the Lake Chad basin unless we ensure that the budget for humanitarian assistance is robust without relying on transient funding like OCO. I encourage the administration to continue to inform Congress of the status of the humanitarian response, so that we can work as a unified government to help the people of Nigeria overcome the destruction left in the wake of Boko Haram.

Nor can we afford a draconian cut to our contributions to international organizations. The World Food Program, WFP, is just beginning to scale up its operations in northeastern Nigeria. But it is under enormous strain. In December, the organization was forced to cut the amount of food it is providing to people in the Central African Republic due to insufficient resources. In fact, funding for CAR is so scarce that in 2016 it was able to give aid to less than a third the number of people it aimed to support. A new drought in Ethiopia has left 5.6 million people in urgent need of assistance according to authorities. The U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Somalia, Peter de Clercq, warned earlier this month that, without a massive scale up in assistance, parts of Somalia may face famine. Needs in South Sudan continue to rise, with warnings of famine on the horizon. Slashing funding to WFP would be incredibly unwise, as would deep cuts to UNFPA. Women have suffered enormously in this conflict. UNFPA is on the ground supporting mechanisms to both prevent and respond to gender-based violence and care for pregnant women and newborns. We cannot let the specific needs of women and girls go unmet.

Second, the new administration must work with career experts to surge our capacity on the ground. The administration needs to make clear that the current hiring freeze will not affect lifesaving efforts here or abroad, and Embassy Abuja should approve USAID's request to station additional humanitarian experts at post as quickly as possible. We need experienced people working with the Nigerian Government and the international community to coordinate more effective aid delivery. I applaud the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, for dispatching a disaster assistance response team, DART, to Nigeria in November to support government of Nigeria-led efforts to reduce food insecurity in the Boko Haram-affected regions of the country's northeast. The country has not faced a humanitarian emergency like this in a generation. National and state emergency management agencies are overtaxed, have little familiarity with providing a large-scale aid response, and are not accustomed to working with the U.N. in this manner. Our aid professionals can help. Let me be clear; Nigeria must continue to do its part. It is imperative that

President Buhari set a positive cooperative tone with the international community. However, there is no question that we must continue our robust humanitarian response.

Finally, we must get smart about our security assistance. Agreeing to sell planes with more sophisticated targeting systems that will not be on the ground for 2 more years will not fix what is broken with respect to the Nigerian military's response in the north. Right now--today--we and our international partners should redouble our efforts to work with the Nigerians to develop a list of short-term interventions and a long- term plan to address issues related to military professionalism, accountability, improved command and control, more effective communication between and within services, strategic planning, logistics, and auditing. The strategic governance initiative is a step in the right direction, but we must take action that will translate into results in the field as quickly as possible.

The situation in Nigeria is urgent. Few Americans are aware of the importance of Nigeria to the United States or the degree of suffering in northeastern Nigeria, but those of us who are policymakers cannot afford to drop the ball on our support of Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram or for those suffering in the Lake Chad basin. I recognize that it seems to some people that we are being called on to do more now internationally than ever. But we can do this. We are the Nation that conceived the Marshall Plan, worked with allies to execute the Berlin Airlift, and more recently, developed and implemented PEPFAR. We are up to the task. And we are not alone. Where America leads, our partners will follow. And I strongly encourage them to do so. Failure to redouble our efforts in these areas could mean that ISIS will gain a foothold in West Africa for a generation.

I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the nomination of Linda McMahon to the position of Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Linda McMahon is an interesting candidate for this position. As the cofounder and former CEO of the WWE, she built a small regional business into an entertainment behemoth. Along the way she struggled to meet payroll, market the business, learn State and Federal regulatory regimes, manage a traveling workforce, learn new media platforms, and navigate new revenue streams.

Each of these accomplishments is impressive. But what makes Linda McMahon unique for this role is the fact that, on her path to success, she made serious enough mistakes that she was forced to declare personal bankruptcy and apply for government assistance. I think having an Administrator who has started her own small business and met and overcame significant challenges along her way is of tremendous value. Having been in the trenches herself, she will really be able to evaluate the efficacy of current small business programs, and she may very well be able to suggest substantive improvements or even new directions.

I was also particularly impressed with Mrs. McMahon's performance during her confirmation hearing. When she knew the answer to a question posed by a Senator, she answered it. When she didn't know the answer, she said so. She appeared to have an open mind about issues and struck me as sincerely interested in working on all issues with all of the Senators, regardless of political or geographical affiliations.

Linda McMahon has expressed her interest in helping small businesses thrive. She understands how difficult it can be for entrepreneurs to access capital. She knows that small businesses have a hard time competing for Federal contracts. She knows that small business owners sometimes need advice and guidance--and she believes in the value of training and support programs.

I support Linda McMahon's nomination because, not only is she interested in having the job of Administrator, she appears to have genuine interest in doing the job. She clearly enjoys using her business skills and experience to mentor entrepreneurs, and I believe that she will apply her tenacity to protecting and hopefully improving Federal support systems for America's entrepreneurs.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to explain to my colleagues why I will be opposing Steve Mnuchin's nomination for Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Mnuchin has an impressive record of accomplishment, and I admire his willingness to serve the public. But because of his advocacy for fiscally irresponsible and unfair fiscal policies, which I believe will add to the deficit of this country, I cannot support his nomination.

Let me go back a while, if I may. I was in the Congress when we passed a budget that balanced the Federal budget, where we were actually reducing the Federal debt. It was controversial at the time because we did it by cutting spending first--and we did--but making sure we had adequate revenues in the Treasury to pay our bills because we recognized that we had a moral obligation to pay our bills, that we are wealthy enough of a nation that we don't have to ask our children and grandchildren to pay for our spending today. We took the steps to balance the Federal budget, and we did it by making some tough votes. I was proud to be in the Congress that took those tough votes that balanced the Federal budget.

After we balanced the Federal budget, we saw unprecedented economic growth because we took the responsible actions. We should take a lesson from the past and recognize that there is no easy way to get our budget in better balance. It requires a fiscal policy that is fair--that is fair to middle-income families, that is fair to our children and grandchildren, that is fair to those who depend upon the services that are financed through the government sector, including our seniors with Medicare and Social Security. We can do that if we work together.

But Mr. Mnuchin's economic plan, the one that he has submitted to Congress, I think, would put us at great risk. The main part of what he is advocating is tax cuts primarily for the wealthy. The top 0.1 percent under the Mnuchin plan will receive in excess of $1 million in tax breaks; the upper 1 percent in excess of $200,000 in tax cuts.

Here is the problem: How do we pay for this? How do we offset the cost of these tax cuts? Because I don't think any of us wants to add to the deficit.

So we asked Mr. Mnuchin that question during the confirmation process. Let me just read for the Record the questions that I asked him as to how he would offset the cost of the tax cuts. The Trump plan, including those cuts, is estimated by the Tax Policy Center to add $6.2 trillion to the deficit and by the Tax Foundation to add $3.9 trillion to the deficit.

I asked Mr. Mnuchin:

In your hearing, you discussed the importance of economic

growth in offsetting the revenues lost under the President's

tax reform plan. . . . For instance, you've said, ``[s]o we

think that by cutting corporate taxes, we'll create huge

economic growth and we'll have huge personal income, so the

revenues will be offset on the other side.''

Is it your view that the tax cuts in the President's plan

will be fully offset by economic growth?

That is the question I asked.

Mr. Mnuchin's answer: ``Our objective is to have any tax cuts offset by economic growth.''

I asked: ``If so, could you please share your team's analysis supporting that position?''

Mr. Mnuchin's answer: ``Our objective is to have any tax cuts offset by economic growth.''

I then asked: ``Will you commit, as we discussed in our meeting, not to put forward a plan that will increase the deficit and put our country in a worse financial position?''

Mr. Mnuchin's answer: ``Our objective is to have any tax cuts offset by economic growth.''

In other words, there is no effort here to offset the cost of this tax cut, other than borrowing money, putting our children and grandchildren at greater risk.

I want to repeat again the estimate that we have heard on the President's tax proposal--that it will add anywhere from $6 trillion to almost $4 trillion in deficit. Those estimates are from progressive and conservative groups, and they do consider that there will be some dynamic score keeping here, that there will be some economic growth. That is in those estimates. So even with economic growth, these proposals will greatly enhance the deficit of this country, something that we should not be doing.

What does that mean? You increase the debt of this country. America has to borrow more. Interest rates go up. Middle-income families have to pay more on mortgage payments or car loans.

Middle income families are the ones who get hurt by this. If we are going to see real economic growth, we have to help the middle class-- the growing middle class--the consumers, those who buy the goods, those who are struggling every day to make ends meet. This plan doesn't help them. What they are going to be saddled with is more debt and higher interest costs, which will be a drag on our economic growth.

So for all those reasons, I think what is important to have is an advocate for the President as Secretary of the Treasury, someone who recognizes the balance here.

Let me tell you what else deficits do. They are used as justification to continue to cut our discretionary spending accounts, as well as to take a look at entitlement spending.

I acknowledge that, as part of the strategy to balance the Federal budget, we must look at our spending, but we have to have the revenues in order to make it balance. If you don't have the revenues, and you are taking another $4 to $6 trillion out of the equation, there is going to be a lot more pressure to make irresponsible cuts on the spending side.

I heard Candidate Trump talk about that we are not going to cut Social Security. But can you really have $6 trillion of tax cuts without looking at Social Security? And how about Medicare? These are programs that are vitally important for our seniors. It provides them money to live on so they don't have to live in poverty, so they can pay their medical bills. For a majority of seniors, Social Security is their largest source of income. Are we really thinking about equating that with tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country of over $1 million? I don't think that is fairness. I don't think that is what we should be doing.

When you look at the programs that are financed through government, are we going to take away from our students? They already are suffering too high, as far as the cost of attending colleges. Interest rates are already too high in regards to what they do.

Are we going to put more pressure to make more cuts in regards to how we help our students? Are we going to cut maintaining our highways? We want to spend more on highways, bridges, transit systems, and water infrastructure, which I think we need to do. How do you do that if you cut $4 to $6 trillion of revenue on the revenue side without adding greatly to the deficit, which is something none of us wants to do?

How about something like our national parks? We take pride and want to maintain that, but with the pressure on the budgets that is a result of taking the revenues out of government, we know what is going to happen. We have seen this movie before. We have seen what has happened before. The driving force behind all of this is that the most important thing, the most important part of the economic program, is to have these tax cuts primarily for the wealthy.

No, I think the center of our economic policy needs to be fairness-- fairness for middle-income families, fairness so that Americans can afford to raise their families and send their kids to college and can afford to have decent opportunities in this country. That is how we all grow together, and that requires a balanced approach to our Nation's budget--one that, yes, looks at restraining spending but also looks at having a Tax Code that is fair and raises the revenues to pay our bills and not pushing that off to future generations.

I think for all those reasons, we need a person who is going to advocate on behalf of middle-income families and on behalf of a growing economy. I think the plan that Mr. Mnuchin is advocating will not accomplish that. For these reasons and others, I cannot support his nomination for Secretary of the Treasury.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first let me comment and thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen. Senator Van Hollen may be a new Member to the U.S. Senate, but he is not a new Member to the Congress of the United States.

I think Senator Van Hollen said this very clearly: This nomination is very much about the type of health care system we want for the people in this country, whether we are going to have affordable, quality health care for all Americans, whether health care is going to be a right or a privilege. I thank Senator Van Hollen for the points he made.

I think the people of Maryland are not going to be surprised that I agree with my colleague from Maryland and that I take this time to explain why I will oppose Mr. Price for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Let me begin by talking about something that happened in Maryland during my first year in the U.S. Senate. I was elected in 2006. In 2007, in my very first year, we had a tragic situation that occurred a few miles from where we are right here, in Prince George's County, MD. A youngster, 12 years of age, Deamonte Driver, died from a tooth problem. Let me give you the background on this because this is a very tragic situation. This is in the State of Maryland, one of the wealthiest States in one of the wealthiest nations.

Deamonte Driver's mother recognized that Deamonte Driver had pain in his mouth. She tried to get him to a dentist, but they had no insurance and no coverage. She couldn't get anyone to take care of her son. What was needed was an $80 tooth extraction. If he could have seen a dentist, that is exactly what would have happened. He couldn't get in because he had no insurance, and he fell through the cracks of our system. That tooth became abscessed, and it went into his brain. He went through two operations, hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost, and he lost his life.

That happened in my first year in the U.S. Senate. I vowed to do everything I could to make sure there were no more tragedies anywhere in America like Deamonte Driver's. Every child should be able to get access to oral health care. It is who we are as a nation. It is part of who we are, and it makes sense from the point of view of an efficient health care system.

I introduced legislation to provide pediatric dental care in this country. I worked with my colleague Elijah Cummings in the House of Representatives and with others here, and we were able to make some progress. Ultimately, we were able to get this as part of our national health policy in the Affordable Care Act. It is now part of what is known as essential health services.

I start this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate by saying that Dr. Price, the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one of the leaders for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which would repeal essential health services, which would eliminate the right for all children in America to have pediatric dental care. So I then look at what Mr. Price would replace it with, and I am confused because I am not exactly sure what he would replace it with. I have looked at what he has done as a Member of the House, I have looked at what he has done as the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I am not confident that we would maintain that type of guaranteed coverage for our children.

That is just one concrete example--one person--of why I am concerned about what would happen if we repealed the Affordable Care Act, and we don't know what is coming next.

The Affordable Care Act--30 million Americans now have affordable, quality health care as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The repeal of that law would jeopardize those 30 million. In Maryland, the uninsured rate has gone down from over 12 percent to a little over 6 percent. We have cut our uninsured rate by about 50 percent. That is so important for so many different reasons. Yes, it is important for the 400,000 Marylanders who now have third-party coverage who didn't have third-party coverage before. They now can go see a doctor rather than using an emergency room. They don't have to wait if they have a medical condition; they can get care immediately. They can get access to preventive health care that keeps them healthy so they don't enter our health care system in a much more costly way.

Before the Affordable Care Act, these 400,000 people got their health care, but they didn't get it in the most cost-effective way. They used emergency rooms, which are very expensive. They didn't pay for their bills. They entered the health care system in a more acute way, using more health care services than they need, and they didn't pay their bills. As a result, we saw that those who had health insurance were paying more than they should because of those who did not have health insurance. That added to the cost, not just of those who didn't have the insurance but to all Maryland insured.

Mr. President, I see that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor. I will be glad to yield to him. I believe he has an announcement he wants to make.

Mr. President, the point I was starting with is that in Maryland, yes, there are 400,000 people who now have coverage who didn't have coverage before, and they are benefiting by being able to get preventive health care and get affordable care, but it is all Marylanders who are benefiting because there is less use of emergency rooms and fewer people who use our health care system who don't pay for it, the uncompensated care.

Many of my colleagues have read letters that they have received from constituents, or phone calls, and I am going to do that during the course of my discussion. I am going to tell you a story that I heard from a 52-year-old who lives in Harford County who frequently used the emergency department prior to the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. This is what this Harford County resident told me: After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I began working with Healthy Harford Watch Program and shortly after was insured. I have been successfully linked to community health services and no longer depend upon the emergency room as my only source of health care.

I can give many more accounts of people who had to use the emergency rooms and are now getting preventive health care and are getting their health care needs met.

We also now have been able to eliminate the abusive practices of insurance companies. As I said, over 2 million people have private health insurance in Maryland. They are all benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

If Mr. Price has his way and we repeal the Affordable Care Act, every Marylander will be at risk. They will be at risk because of the protections that we put in the Affordable Care Act against abusive practices of insurance companies.

To me, probably the most difficult thing to understand by my constituents was the cruel preexisting condition restrictions that were placed in the law prior to the Affordable Care Act. Simply put, if you had a preexisting condition, the insurance company would restrict coverage for that preexisting condition. So exactly what you needed the health care system to pay for, your insurance company didn't

pay for it. They said: Look, you had this heart condition before you were insured; we are not going to pay for your heart needs. You had cancer; we are not going to pay for your cancer treatment in the future. You have diabetes, and that leads to a lot of different health care needs. We are going to restrict your insurance coverage and not pay for diabetes care. That is a thing of the past with the Affordable Care Act.

Once again, we are now talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act. We don't know what it will be replaced with, if at all. Mr. Price, in the House, has not given us a satisfactory explanation during the confirmation process of how we are going to be able to guarantee that everyone who has insurance and everyone who has a need for coverage with preexisting conditions will be able to get insurance that won't discriminate against that person because of preexisting conditions.

Another aspect that was an abusive practice before the Affordable Care Act is that our insurance policies had caps on how many claims you could make in a year over the lifetime of your policy, and that would kick in exactly when people who have chronic needs need insurance the most.

Let me give an example. Juanita, who lives in Hyattsville, MD, told me about her son. She said her son seemingly was in perfect health, had graduated from Harvard with a master's degree and was working at a nonprofit. Then he was diagnosed with a rare cardiovascular disorder. He didn't know he was going to have that. Well, that required him to have multiple operations, and it would have fully exceeded his lifetime cap in hospital stays, and he would not have been able to afford the care. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Juanita's son has full coverage. That is another example of a person who is at risk if Mr. Price is able to carry out what he said--repeal the Affordable Care Act--and we don't have a way to guarantee that insurance companies must take all comers and must eliminate the caps that we have seen in the policies before.

Another area which I think has been a pretty popular part of the Affordable Care Act and which I heard many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle say they want to keep is allowing 26-year-olds to stay on their parents' policies--under 26 years of age. That is a very popular provision. I heard many of my colleagues speak in favor of it. Remember, when you repeal the Affordable Care Act, that will be repealed. Unless we have adequate replacements, unless we have an improvement, that is at risk as well.

I want to talk about another provision that was in the Affordable Care Act. I authored the provision. It is called a prudent layperson standard for emergency care. Let me take you back before the Affordable Care Act. This is why it is important for Congress to be careful as to how we pass laws. And if we repeal laws, we can go back to these types of practices. Before the Affordable Care Act, if you had chest pains and shortness of breath, you would do what I would think any reasonable person would do: You would be taken to the emergency room as soon as possible to see whether you are having a heart attack. Those are classic signs of a heart attack. Yet there were insurance policies that said that if you went to a hospital that was out of network, they weren't going to pay the full amount even though you went to the closest hospital because you had an emergency situation. That makes no sense at all, but that was the case.

You went to the hospital. You did the right thing, and you found out you didn't have a heart attack. You went home. You were happy until you got the bill, and your insurance company said you didn't need to go to the emergency room because you didn't have a heart attack. Then you do have a heart attack because you can't pay the bill.

That was the circumstance that existed before the Affordable Care Act, and we put into the Affordable Care Act, for all insurance companies, the prudent layperson standard. If it was prudent for you to go to the nearest emergency room, your insurance plan must cover that cost. That is the standard today, and I wonder whether, if we repeal the Affordable Care Act, we will be going back to those types of abusive practices.

Before the Affordable Care Act, women in some circumstances were in and of themselves a preexisting condition. Are we going to go back to those days?

Let me go on to another point that worries me about Mr. Price's position if we were to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and that is affordability. It is one thing to say people can buy insurance--you know, there is insurance out there; just buy it. It's another thing whether you can afford the insurance coverage.

One of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act that I don't think has been fully explained to the American people is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have been able to keep the growth rate of health care costs below what we had seen before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We have reduced costs for all individuals and companies that have health policies. The rate of growth has been at a slower rate because of the Affordable Care Act. And I have already alluded to one of the reasons--we reduced uncompensated care because more people are paying their bills. We kept the growth rate down.

But there are other aspects to the Affordable Care Act that have helped bring down the costs, and that is, we have premium tax credits. In 2015, 70 percent of those who were enrolled in the Maryland Health Connection--that is our exchange in the State of Maryland--received some form of a credit. That was provided in the Affordable Care Act. We recognize that not everyone can afford the premiums, so we provided credits. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, we may very well not have affordable policies for those individuals who have been able to get credits under the Affordable Care Act.

I want to talk about a situation that was brought to my attention at several of the roundtable discussions I have held in Maryland with interest groups on health care, and that has to do with small businesses.

Before the Affordable Care Act was passed, if I had a forum on small businesses--and I did. I have been a member of small businesses and entrepreneurship committees since I first came to the Senate. I believe in the importance of small businesses. That is where job growth and innovation takes place. It is critically important that we help small businesses.

Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the No. 1 issue that would come up at roundtable discussions I had with small business leaders of Maryland was the affordability of health coverage for their employees. It is no longer an issue that they talk about because the Affordable Care Act has allowed small companies to have competitive premium costs with larger companies.

Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, if you were a small business owner and you had maybe 10 people in your employ on your health policy and one of those individuals unfortunately had a major health episode during that year, you knew that the next year you were going to get a major premium increase because you were rated on your own experiences as a small group. That is a thing of the past under the Affordable Care Act. Now, under the Affordable Care Act, you are in this big pool, and you are not discriminated against because you happen to have someone in your employ who needs health care.

It also enables small business owners to hire people who have particular health needs. They are not going to be discriminated against because they hire somebody who happens to have the need for health insurance. Before that, small companies were very reluctant to hire individuals who had health needs because they knew it would affect their health policy.

I want to mention one other factor that is pretty telling. Let me read from a letter I received from Nancy of Silver Spring. This is something that really gets to me, something I think we have to be very careful about, because the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is going to hurt our economy.

Nancy of Silver Spring is a 60-year-old freelance writer/editor and depends upon the Maryland Health Connection exchange for her health insurance and the tax credit that helps reduce her premium. She is a healthy 60-year-old, but no insurance company will write her an individual policy, she knows--she tried. One of the big factors that helped Nancy get the courage to leave

her salaried, full-benefits job and go out on her own was the fact that the ACA was right on the horizon when she made the leap in 2012.

Nancy writes:

You want a world-class work force? How about giving

everyone access to affordable health care so we can keep

ourselves functioning? You want job creation? How about

keeping the ACA so freelancers, gig workers, and startup

entrepreneurs don't have to split their energy between the

jobs they are creating and some soul-sucking ``day job'' just

for the sake of keeping our health insurance?

This is a real problem. You repeal the Affordable Care Act, people become what is known as job-locked. They don't like where they work, they know they can do better, but they can't afford to leave and lose their health coverage. It may be their spouse, it may be their child, may be their self, but they are job-locked because they don't have the protection of knowing they can get affordable coverage if they give up the insurance they currently have. That hurts our economy. That hurts the entrepreneur spirit. That hurts innovation. And it is something that is critically important that we solved in the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Price talks about the repeal and we will have something to replace it with. That is not an easy one to fix. That is not one that you can just say we will take care of because you have to have pools for individuals in small companies that are competitive. If we don't have the type of comprehensive coverage we have under the Affordable Care Act, it is very difficult to understand how that can, in fact, be done. So that gives me great heartburn with someone who espouses the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

We have many stories, many letters here from people who literally would have had to go through bankruptcy.

In Laurel, MD, Mark tells me about his son Timmy, who developed a rare genetics syndrome called Opitz G/BBB. Timmy's medical expenses would have reached his family's lifetime maximum of $1 million when he turned 3 months old. When Timmy finally made it home, the ACA covered and continues to cover his cost of medical equipment. The law covers all of Timmy's specialist appointments, surgeries, and hospital stays.

Recently, Timmy was sick and coughing up blood. Mark and his wife took him to the emergency room without fear that he would incur debt he would never be able to pay. Without the Affordable Care Act, Mark's family would likely be in bankruptcy.

Go back before the Affordable Care Act. Look under bankruptcies. Look up what the major reason was for bankruptcy. It was people's inability to pay their medical bills in the United States of America. That is something we don't want to go back to.

I started my comments by talking about pediatric dental. The Affordable Care Act provides essential health benefits so that every person who is insured, every person who is in our system, is guaranteed certain benefits. That affects nearly 3 million Marylanders who are protected by the essential health benefits in the current law. They include such things as maternal benefits and newborn health care, mental health and addiction.

Mr. President, you have been the leader of this body on dealing with mental health services and addiction services, and I applaud you for your efforts, but quite frankly, if we lose the essential health benefits, private insurance companies aren't going to cover these costs.

We have an epidemic nationwide on drug addiction. We have seen opioid misuse lead to heroin, lead to fentanyl. The death rate in Maryland is up about 20 percent every year. We have doubled and quadrupled the number of ODs the last 5 or 6 years, and the numbers are still going up. We need coverage so that we can, first and foremost, stop people from using it in the beginning--an education program, a prevention program; we have to do more of that. We also have to keep people alive and get them into treatment and save their lives, and the Affordable Care Act helps us get that done.

You repeal these essential health benefits, I really worry as to whether--mental health and drug addiction have never been a priority for private insurance companies or, for that matter, the Medicaid system. So we have to make sure that we maintain that type of coverage, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act puts all of that at risk.

One of the areas I worked on very carefully when I was in the House, and now in the Senate, was preventive health care services. Immunization, cancer screenings, contraception--those types of services are critically important. We had a meeting at lunch today. I found out that unwanted pregnancies are at a historically low level. Are we going to go back to the day where women cannot afford contraceptive services? That makes no sense at all. It is counterproductive to what we all agree we need to do.

I want to talk about one or two other issues which I think are important which are also in jeopardy with the repeal the Affordable Care Act or policies that have been espoused by Mr. Price. One is the Medicaid expansion.

The Medicaid expansion covers our most vulnerable. These are people who don't really have a strong voice in our political system. They are people who really depend upon us, every one of us in the Senate, to protect their health care needs. These are people who are desperate, who can't afford health care other than through our medical assistance program, the Medicaid Program. Yet there has been talk about block- granting that program to the States. Have you looked at State budgets recently? Do you really believe our States have the financial capacity to deal with the Medicaid population without a partnership with the Federal government?

Maryland has been a pretty strong State with Medicaid expansion. My Governor is doing the right thing. I am proud of what Maryland has done, but if you withdraw the Federal partnership, the Governor doesn't have that type of flexibility in the budget to make up the difference. It is going to hurt. It is going to hurt our health care system, hurt our most vulnerable.

It has been estimated that a block grant--that by 2019, Maryland will lose close to $2 billion. We can't make that up. Would we still cover substance abuse under Medicaid? We didn't before. If we don't cover that, are we going to now be denying those centers that are located for substance abuse? All this is put at great risk.

We know that Mr. Price, in his fiscal year 2017 budget proposal, looked at this proposal, and I believe it was at $1 trillion at that time.

There is a provision in the Affordable Care Act that I authored that sets up Offices of Minority Health and Health Disparities within all our health departments and sets up the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities. We elevated it in the Affordable Care Act. I would certainly hope that we would not be repealing that, although it is in the Affordable Care Act. But I can tell you that the mission of Minority Health and Health Disparities will be severely restricted if we repeal the Affordable Care Act or we block-grant the Medicaid Program because it is the minority population who had been discriminated against historically in our health care system who are most at risk.

I can give you one example of that: our qualified health centers. We significantly increase the resources in the qualified health centers as part of the Affordable Care Act. I have been to our qualified health centers in Maryland, and I have seen that they now have dental services that they didn't have before the Affordable Care Act. They now have mental health facilities. It is one thing to have third-party coverage but another thing to have access to a facility. We know that in rural areas, it is very challenging. In poor neighborhoods, it is also challenging. Qualified health centers help fill that void.

I was talking to our qualified health centers in Maryland. I said: What happens now if we repeal the Affordable Care Act? They literally told me that they can't stay in business because they would lose so much of their reimbursement because it is now being reimbursed under the Medicaid system because these people enrolled; that it would jeopardize their ability to provide the types of services they are providing today. So you are not only denying people third-party reimbursement, you are denying them access to care by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Lastly, let me talk about our Medicare population. Medicare was part of the Affordable Care Act. We don't hear too much talk about that today. We extended the solvency of Medicare as a

result of the Affordable Care Act. We brought down the cost of Part B premiums as a result of the Affordable Care Act. And we are closing the doughnut hole coverage gap for prescription medicines within the Medicare system. Before the Affordable Care Act, how many times would we go to a senior center and someone would tell us they didn't pick up their prescriptions from the counter because they didn't have the money to pay for the cost because they were in the doughnut hole? Well, that is coming to an end. It has already closed enough so people are not in that vulnerable situation. But it is now coming to an end as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

So I take this time today because of Mr. Price's nomination. I care deeply about the principle Senator Van Hollen talked about and others have talked about; that is, health care in America should be a right not a privilege. The Affordable Care Act has helped us in achieving that.

Somehow I believe that if we ask the American people, some would say: Well, we don't like this ObamaCare, but we like this Affordable Care Act. Let us be honest with the American people. Let us recognize that this bill has changed the landscape of health care in America for the better: reduced costs, extended coverage, more quality coverage, insurance companies now have to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on benefits.

So much of that has been done as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Can we do it better? Absolutely. Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans, to improve the health care system in this country without scaring Americans that they are going to lose the benefits they already have.

For those reasons, I believe Mr. Price does not represent what we need, and I will, unfortunately, be voting against his confirmation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the Senate deliberates the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education, I have heard from more than 4,200 Marylanders who have called my office, more than 3,700 Marylanders who have emailed me, and countless others who have sent me messages via Twitter and Facebook, and, as Senator Carper has indicated, those who have just stopped me on the streets and urged me to oppose her nomination.

They have contacted me to express their strong support for public education, and they are concerned about whether Mrs. DeVos is equally committed to public schools. I share their concern. Marylanders and I agree that our children deserve an advocate in this position who will work to strengthen the ability of public school educators to serve our children.

As a proud graduate of the Baltimore City Public Schools, I understand the transformative powers that quality public school education can provide a child. The education I received at city schools has allowed me, the grandchild of immigrants, to represent Maryland in the Senate. I owe that to my public education, my public school education.

Maryland has made a commitment to providing adequate funding for public education over the past decade. Consequently, Maryland has consistently been a national leader in student performance and student outcomes.

Each day, our State's nearly 880,000 students make their way to classrooms of more than 60,000 and thousands of more support personnel and education leaders in over 1,400 Maryland schools. I appreciate the service of Maryland educators, not only from the perspective of a lawmaker, a father, and a grandfather but also as a husband of a former school teacher.

Mrs. DeVos appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to articulate her view on how to best serve our students as Secretary of Education. I found several of Mrs. DeVos's answers to the committee questions to be troubling, particularly what appeared to be her tepid support for our Nation's public schools; her failure to recognize the critical Federal civil rights safeguards for children with disabilities; her inability to offer an opinion on longstanding debates within the education community that she would be expected to join as Secretary of Education; her support for President Trump's dangerous campaign promise to eliminate gun-free school zones; and her overall lack of response on how to provide students and their families with affordable higher education.

Maryland families know and understand the value of a high quality public school education. Since 2008, enrollment in our State public schools has increased by nearly 36,000 students to a record enrollment of approximately 880,000 students for the 2016-2017 school year.

While enrollment has continued to increase at a record pace, I am proud that Maryland public schools have consistently ranked among the top five public school systems in the country.

I worry that Mrs. DeVos's enthusiastic support for private school choice programs could hamper the progress in State and local education in Maryland and could prevent us from providing the highest quality level of education for our public school students. School choice programs that shift Federal fund dollars from public schools to defray tuition at private schools weaken the ability of Maryland's hard- working public school professionals to deliver college- and career- ready education for Maryland's diverse students.

Certainly private schools play an important role in our education system. As Senator Carper points out, he supports, I support, charter schools within our public school system. I support the role that public schools play. But we mustn't forget that more than 91 percent of American children attend public schools. They and their families deserve a Secretary of Education who will fight to strengthen public as well as private education.

School choice programs are not one-size-fits-all solutions to strengthen education in the United States. They leave out students in our rural communities, for instance, and have been shown in Maryland for the most part to support students who are already enrolled in private schools.

I urge our Secretary of Education nominee--if she is confirmed--to work to provide our public school teachers with the training, tools, and resources necessary to provide all children with a high-quality education. I was particularly concerned by Mrs. DeVos's apparent unfamiliarity with critical Federal civil rights safeguards for children with disabilities, guaranteed under the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.

IDEA ensures that every child with disabilities is afforded a free appropriate public education. Across my State, more than 100,000 children receive federally funded services under the IDEA to help them succeed academically. Mrs. DeVos did not seem to know that States must follow this critical civil education rights law if they accept Federal funding.

Parents across the country advocate for their children on a daily basis, utilizing the protections afforded to their children under the IDEA. They deserve a Secretary of Education who understands her responsibilities and the Federal Government's responsibilities to children with disabilities. Last year's enactment of the bipartisan, bicameral Every Student Succeeds Act was a true success.

This was an incredible accomplishment put together by Senators Alexander and Murray. For the first time in 14 years, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, legislation that was first enacted 50 years ago as part of the civil rights era to ensure that all of our children are able to attain a high-quality education.

That act eliminated the outdated and ineffective accountability system of adequately yearly progress and now provides States with the flexibility to decide their own accountability system to identify, monitor, and assist schools in need of improvement to best educate their students.

We gave local flexibility but maintained accountability. That was a major improvement in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The modifications allow States to move away from reliance on a collective set of test scores to measure students' proficiency. Now, States will be able to design accountability systems that take into account student growth over the course of a school year.

As Secretary of Education, Mrs. DeVos would be tasked with leading the Federal implementation and review of the State development accountability systems. But in a hearing before the committee, she struggled to understand the definition of proficiency versus growth and had to have committee members help her define those terms.

Maryland educators oppose the high-stake testing requirements under the previous Federal accountability system. They deserve a Secretary of Education who understands the basic concepts of Federal involvement in our public schools, so they can effectively advocate for more accurate accountability systems that better show student growth in the classroom.

Mrs. DeVos's expressed support for President Trump's misguided pledge to eliminate gun-free schools zones is deeply concerning. Maryland's families have made it loud and clear to me that this approach is wrong and would unnecessarily put our students in harm's way in the very classrooms in which they are expected to learn. Since 2000, there have been four school shootings across my home State. One shooting in a school anywhere in our country is too many. Each of those incidents is a tragedy, and I do not wish to see more students and educators put at risk of additional tragic incidents of gun violence by allowing firearms in our classrooms.

Rather than support the Federal programs developed under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide additional funding for school-based mental health resources in our national public schools that can provide assistance for those who may commit gun violence at schools, Mrs. DeVos would spend those tax dollars on

school choice programs and open up our classrooms to potential violence.

In the coming months, future college students and their families will sit at their family kitchen tables to apply for financial aid to pay for college and await the news of their acceptance to the college of their choice. I have talked to so many Marylanders who are struggling with allowing their children to go to schools of higher education so that they can be best prepared, but they are looking at the realities of the cost involved in higher education. This is an exciting time, yet an increasingly anxious time for parents and students as the cost of attending college continues to rise.

Mrs. DeVos needs to demonstrate that she is familiar with the process, the steps necessary to apply for Federal financial student aid, and appreciates the enormous burden families increasingly undertake to gain a foothold in the middle class through higher education.

Mrs. DeVos appears willing to roll back protections for student borrowing and to allow taxpayer funds to be put at risk of failing for- profit schools that do not provide students with the educational skills necessary to join the workforce. At a minimum, I would expect her to be an advocate to make sure that Federal funds are not used for these schools that are not being held accountable for what they do.

I would like to hear Mrs. DeVos voice her support for America's College Promise plan to provide academically successful students with the ability to earn the first 2 years of their college degree tuition free at a community college. So far I don't think she has said anything. That is the most efficient way to try to educate our children.

I appreciate Mrs. DeVos's willingness to serve, and I believe she is sincere in her beliefs, but I am concerned that those beliefs, if enacted, would harm the capability of America's public education system to serve the vast majority of students across the Nation and pile on needless costs to students, their families, and the American taxpayer. Therefore, I will stand with Maryland's students, teachers, and parents in opposing Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States and to head the U.S. Department of Justice.

I have had the privilege to serve with Senator Sessions in the U.S. Senate for nearly a decade. I have served on several committees with him, including the years that I was on the Judiciary Committee. I no longer serve on that committee, but I served there with Senator Sessions.

I was listening to Senator Klobuchar's explanations of her concerns. Senator Sessions is a person whom we work with, but it is his views and his record that give me great concern.

Just looking back at the first 2 weeks of the Trump administration, I think a growing number of Americans understand the importance of the Constitution, the rule of law, the system of checks and balances, the separation of powers, and the critical importance of the position of the Attorney General of the United States.

Over the years, the Justice Department has grown into one of the largest Cabinet departments, with over 100,000 employees, which touches just about every aspect of life in America today. It is known as the world's largest law office and the chief enforcer of Federal laws.

Just think about the work every day to keep America safe undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. Attorneys in every State and territory. Think about the work of the National Security Division that tackles some of the toughest terrorism and intelligence challenges we face every day. All of that comes under the Department of Justice. All of that comes under the Attorney General.

Think about the work of the Civil Rights Division to protect all Americans, regardless of their background, to ensure that every American--every American--enjoys full constitutional rights and privileges. Think about the work of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, the Antitrust Division, and the Tax Division, and so many other offices within the Department of Justice. It is the direction of all of those agencies that come under the Attorney General of the United States. These hard-working employees of the Justice Department keep America safe every day while protecting American lives, and some of them put their lives on the line to do so. We need an Attorney General that will strengthen, not weaken, the Justice Department and will help carry out its important missions.

The Justice Department is charged with ``[enforcing] the law and [defending] the interests of the United States according to the law,'' ``[ensuring the] public safety against threats foreign and domestic,'' as well as ``[ensuring] fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.'' That is their mission. That is their responsibility.

The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer; he or she is the people's lawyer. After carefully examining Senator Sessions' record-- including his Senate service, confirmation hearing, and advocacy on the campaign trail for Mr. Trump--I am not convinced that he would be independent and impartial to the President and Federal agencies. I am not convinced he would enforce the law fairly and protect the civil liberties and civil rights of all Americans.

Let me discuss some of my concerns with Senator Sessions' nomination. In this debate, I do want to mention my resolution calling on President Trump to divest his interest and sever his relationship to the Trump organization. My resolution was first introduced last year. It is intended to uphold the value and strictures of one of the most sacred documents: the Constitution, the instrument that the President took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend. It makes clear that Congress will consider all transactions by foreign governments and their agents with the Trump organization as potential violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

The Attorney General is likewise sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and provide legal advice to President Trump and the various Cabinet departments. He must exercise independent judgment. I am concerned as to whether Senator Sessions would, in fact, advise the President, as he should, that by holding on to Trump enterprises--by not divesting or setting up a blind trust--he is putting himself at risk of violating the Constitution of the United States.

It is not what the President wants to hear; it is what he must hear. We need

an independent Attorney General in order to make that recommendation to the President of the United States.

Senator Sessions has strongly supported restrictive voter ID laws that have had the effect of disenfranchising many otherwise eligible voters and are frankly modern-day poll taxes. He has called the Voting Rights Act intrusive as it seeks to protect minority voters. He praised the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act, saying that it was ``a good day for the South'' when the decision was handed down.

Our next Attorney General should be working on how to expand the franchise, not restrict it. Now President Trump has said he will direct Vice President Pence to lead a task force or commission to examine so- called voter fraud in the 2016 Presidential election.

We need an independent Attorney General.

Why is President Trump taking this action? Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, and that gets under his skin. He feels slighted. He feels his legitimacy is brought into question. It doesn't matter that he won the electoral vote. So the President will direct the Vice President, and presumably his next Attorney General, to investigate these bogus claims of voter fraud. Instead, the new Attorney General should examine voter suppression and disenfranchisement in the elections. I fear this new study on widespread ``voter fraud'' is simply a pretext to impose more onerous restrictions on the right to vote--to try to keep a certain segment of Americans--making it more difficult for them to vote because they may be more likely to vote for someone other than Mr. Trump. That is not what the Attorney General should be doing.

Based on his record, Senator Sessions would work with the Trump administration to further restrict the right to vote and roll back the clock on this cherished civil right, which is protected by our Constitution.

On the issue of immigration, Senator Sessions has a long record where he has fought against bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate. He led the efforts in 2007 and in 2013 to defeat bipartisan legislation in the Senate. He used the untruthful ``amnesty'' tag to describe the tough-but-fair pathway to citizenship in this legislation, which passed by a 68-to-32 vote in 2013. He has opposed relief for the DREAMers and has opposed the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals-- DACA--program. He supported anti-immigration State laws in Arizona and elsewhere that the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional.

During the Presidential campaign, Mr. Trump issued a press release ``calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' Several days later, Senator Leahy offered a resolution in the Judiciary Committee that stated, ``It is the sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles of which this nation was founded.'' The vote was 16 to 4 in favor of the Leahy resolution. Senator Sessions voted no and spoke against the resolution for nearly half an hour and concluded by stating that the Leahy resolution ``goes beyond being unwise. It is reckless. It is absolute and without qualification. It could have pernicious impacts for decades, even centuries to come. It may be even a step from the concept of the nation-state to the idea of `global citizenship.' ''

Barring a religious test of people coming into our Nation would create that type of a Nation? That is who we are as a Nation. Those are our core values. We embrace diversity.

Senator Sessions' views are far outside the mainstream and would unsettle many years of law and precedent that protect individual religious beliefs. I am gravely concerned about how an Attorney General Sessions would advise President Trump on the lawfulness of a Muslim ban. He recently issued his Executive order, which a district court has put on hold and is now being challenged in the Ninth Circuit. I cosponsored legislation to rescind President Trump's discriminatory Executive order barring immigrants from Muslim-majority countries and suspending the U.S. refugee program.

I am also concerned as to how Attorney General Sessions would advise the President on matters of immigration. Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired and her conduct was called shameful by President Trump, simply because she was upholding the Constitution, giving her advice. The President has criticized the ``so-called judge'' who temporarily stayed his travel ban with an ``outrageous'' decision, and said that the judge would be blamed if a terrorist attack occurred in the United States. The Attorney General has to be able to stand up to even the President with these reckless words and actions. We need an independent Attorney General who will uphold the Constitution and recognize that he is not the President's attorney, he is the people's attorney. I am not convinced that Attorney General Sessions would be that type of person.

Senator Sessions led the opposition to the nomination of my fellow Marylander Tom Perez to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice when President Obama nominated him in 2009. At the time, Senator Sessions said:

I am also concerned Mr. Perez will not be committed to

fully enforcing our Nation's immigration laws, some I have

worked hard on. We need to create a lawful system of

immigration. . . . He previously served as the President of

the Board of CASA of Maryland, an immigrant advocacy

organization that has taken some extreme views and been

criticized by a number of people in the media. CASA of

Maryland issued a pamphlet instructing immigrants confronted

by the police to remain silent. CASA also promotes day labor

sites. This is where people, often without lawful status,

come and seek work . . . and [they] oppose restrictions on

illegal immigrants receiving drivers' licenses. He was

President of the Board.

That was Senator Sessions' quote. Senator Sessions also commented on Mr. Perez directly:

I am concerned where Mr. Perez will be in this [running the

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division]. He has been

pretty active politically. When he ran for the Montgomery,

MD, county council he responded to a question asking, `What

would you like the voters to know about you?' Mr. Perez said:

`I am a progressive Democrat and always was and always will

be.' This is a free country and that is all right. I am just

saying, in all fairness, that statement makes me a little

nervous.

Again, quoting from Senator Sessions. The Senate did right by my friend and colleague Tom Perez. He was confirmed by the Senate to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice by a 72-to-22 vote. Now, I understand people may have a reason to vote one way or the other, but the reasons stated by Senator Sessions in regard to Mr. Perez caused me great, great concern. Senator Sessions again opposed Mr. Perez when he was later nominated to be Secretary of Labor. In both of these cases, Senator Sessions' views were far outside the mainstream on Mr. Perez.

As the senior Senator from Maryland, I know CASA of Maryland. I have been there. I have seen the people they service. They do extraordinary work to help the immigrant community. They are not a fringe advocacy group. While Mr. Perez is a progressive, he is a dedicated public servant, having been elected by the people of Maryland to the Montgomery County Council and appointed by President Obama to run the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department and later the Labor Department. Mr. Perez worked to expand the right to vote, protect the rights of all Americans, and ensure American workers had a decent wage and employers treated their employees with fairness and respect.

I fear Attorney General Sessions would turn back the clock on so many civil and worker rights that we hold dear as Americans.

Senator Sessions opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Senator Sessions supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, opposed the repeal of don't ask, don't tell in the military, and harshly criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing same-sex marriages across the country. He harshly criticized the Court for redefining a ``sacred and ancient institution,'' and called the ruling ``part of a continuing effort to secularize, by force and intimidation'' the Nation. Once again, I fear an Attorney General Sessions would turn back the clock on LGBT rights to a

time when individuals would no longer have the legal right to marry the person they love.

Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, title X funding for contraception, breast screening, and health services for low-income women, and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood. I am concerned whether Senator Sessions would enforce equal rights and protection for women as our next Attorney General.

Senator Sessions has consistently fought against criminal justice reform in the Senate and led the effort to defeat the recent bipartisan proposals that would modestly reduce sentencing disparities and ease ex-offenders' reentry into society.

Senator Sessions opposed my Ramos and Liu blue alert act due to fiscal concerns, even though the legislation cost was scored at nominal or less than $1 million for implementation by CBO. Law enforcement agencies strongly supported my legislation, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2015. Blue Alert helps our law enforcement officers, those who are threatened or endangered or where there has been an incident. It gives law enforcement the opportunity to apprehend the suspect in a timely way. It scored nominal or less than $1 million, and was used by Senator Sessions to block this important tool to help our law enforcement officers.

Senator Sessions has generally condemned the Department of Justice's use of its power to investigate law enforcement agencies accused of misconduct and a ``pattern and practice'' of violating civil rights, calling consent decrees that mandate reform following these investigations ``an end run around the democratic process.'' That causes me concern because that is an important part of what we are doing in my hometown of Baltimore.

We had a major problem in the Freddie Gray episode. We requested a pattern and practice investigation. We are now working with the consent decree. The people of Baltimore and the people of Maryland are anxious to get this matter moving forward and are anxious to see this consent order bring a successful conclusion to that recommendation and investigation.

Senator Sessions led the opposition to Senator Mikulski and my recommendation of Paula Xinis to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Maryland in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor. The Alliance for Justice provided an account of Paula Xinis' confirmation hearing, which I will quote from at length here.

``Turning to the nominee of the District Court of Maryland, Paula Xinis, Senator Sessions unleashed a line of accusatory questions suggesting that Xinis' career as a public defender and civil rights lawyer showed an `agenda' that she would invariably `bring to the bench.' The questions were absurd and unfounded, but they could not be dismissed as such. Instead, Mrs. Xinis had to patiently explain that protecting the rights of America's most vulnerable and disenfranchised had not left her tainted with disqualifying bias.''

``Senator Sessions felt compelled to verify that someone with Mrs. Xinis' professional background--which also includes time as a complaint examiner in the DC Office of Police Complaints--would not be biased against police officers. After asking her whether `police have a responsibility to try to maintain an orderly and safe environment for the people who live in a city' and whether a judge `should show empathy for the difficulties that police officers face as well as' for those who allege that police have violated their civil rights. Senator Sessions closed with this:''

``Can you assure the police officers in Baltimore and all over Maryland that might be brought before your court that they'll get a fair day in court, and that your history would not impact your decision-making? And I raise that particularly because I see your firm [Billy Murphy] is representing Mr. Freddie Gray in that case that's gathered so much attention in Maryland, and there's a lot of law enforcement officers throughout the state and they want to know that they don't have someone who has an agenda to bring to the bench--can you assure them that you won't bring that to the bench?''

``The implication is clear: If you defend people against criminal prosecutions, and especially if you represent people in civil rights cases against police, there is a presumption of bias that you must rebut before the Judiciary Committee. One wonders whether Senator Sessions has asked a prosecutor if she would bring to her judicial role an `agenda' against indigent criminal defendants or if a corporate defense lawyer would be biased against employees who allege unlawful discrimination or unpaid wages. I doubt very much he would ask that same question in that circumstance.''

``The depth of this double standard is underscored by Senator Sessions' invoking Freddie Gray in particular. Freddie Gray, of course, was fatally injured in Baltimore police custody after being arrested without cause. His death led to grand jury indictments for six officers on homicide and assault charges, and the Department of Justice opened a civil rights investigation. Under these circumstances, representing Mr. Gray's family hardly seems like an act of radical subversion that would call into question one's ability to be fair, but in Senator Sessions' view, any challenge to police authority can be done only in pursuit of some extralegal `agenda.'''

Senator Sessions led the floor opposition to Paula Xinis. I am pleased to report she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and she is now one of our distinguished members of the District Court of Maryland, where she serves with great distinction.

Senator Sessions was one of only nine Senators to vote against the Detainee Treatment Act, which contained the McCain-Feinstein amendment that prohibits ``cruel, inhumane, and degrading'' punishment for individuals in American custody. He has left the door open to reinstating waterboarding as needed. He has opposed shutting down Guantanamo Bay.

These issues are critically important because we got word of a draft Executive order that would bring back these types of torture centers-- which are not only a stain on America's reputation, they are counterproductive and against our values and our law. We expect the Attorney General of the United States to speak out against such reprehensible types of proposals.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all of its citizens.'' This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the Justice Web site. I would urge all of us to keep that in mind.

I regret I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions will carry out this task so I must oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to oppose the resolution of disapproval on the stream protection rule. Each Congress has an opportunity to promote having cleaner air and cleaner water. Our job description shouldn't include hollowing out the protections for clean air and clean water which previous Congresses have provided.

Clean air and clean water are vital not just to human health and the environment, but to our economy as well. The number of premature deaths due to poor water quality affects our economy. The number of school or work days missed due to health problems affects our economy. The ability of industries to have access to clean water affects our economy.

Like many of my colleagues, I am proud to represent part of Appalachia, in the western part of Maryland. I have enjoyed skiing, hiking, and simply enjoying one of the most beautiful places in our country. Recreational activities along the Appalachian Mountains depend upon clean air and clean water. And recreation is a huge part of expanding economic opportunities in Appalachia.

Over the years, I have met with many people directly affected by the mining practice known as mountaintop removal, and I have worked very hard to address their concerns in a bipartisan manner. For instance, in the 111th Congress, I introduced S. 696, the Appalachia Restoration Act, with the senior Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, to help protect streams and rivers.

The stream protection rule updates 33-year-old regulations to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The update establishes clear requirements for responsible surface coal mining that will protect 6,000

miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests over the next two decades, preserving community health and economic opportunities, while meeting the Nation's energy needs.

The stream protection rule includes reasonable and straightforward reforms to revise three-decades-old coal mining regulations to avoid or minimize harmful impacts on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. There are a number of very positive, reasonable, and economically feasible changes in the proposed stream protection rule that make it an improvement over the existing regulations.

The rule incorporates the best available science, technology, and modern mining practices to safeguard communities from the long-term effects of pollution and environmental degradation that endanger public health and undermine future economic opportunities for affected communities.

The final Rule gives regulators more tools to measure whether a mine is designed to prevent damage to streams outside the permit area.

The rule would require companies to avoid mining practices that permanently pollute streams, destroy drinking water sources, increase flood risk, and threaten forests.

It would also require companies to restore streams and return mined areas to the uses they were capable of supporting prior to mining activities and replant these areas with native trees and vegetation, unless that would conflict with the implemented land use.

To help mining companies meet these objectives, the rule requires testing and monitoring the condition of streams that might be affected by mining before, during, and after their operations to provide baseline data that ensures operators can detect and correct problems and restore mined areas to their previous condition.

Using the Congressional Review Act, CRA, to attack a rule that protects people and communities from harmful impacts of irresponsible coal mining operations, such as buried streams, floods, and subsidence, will benefit coal companies that cut corners at the expense of the people who live in Appalachia. And if the resolution is passed, agencies will be prohibited from promulgating any other ``similar'' rule, unless Congress passes enabling legislation.

Opponents of the rule call it a ``job killer.'' That is myth. The regulatory impact analysis, RIA, for the rule estimates that, overall, employment will increase by an average of 156 full-time jobs. According to the RIA, the rule will create more than twice as many jobs as it will eliminate by requiring operators to perform more duties for reclamation, including stream monitoring. Likewise, the impact on an average household's monthly electricity bill is slight: just 20 cents per month.

Coal miners and their families need jobs, and they need clean water. The two aren't mutually exclusive. What they don't need is this attempt to gut a reasonable rule designed to protect them from an environmental disaster, which is much more likely to occur if the Senate passes this resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Leahy for his comments. Ten years ago, I was privileged to be elected by the people of Maryland to represent them in the U.S. Senate. I came to the Senate with Senator Brown at that time. It was our first year. Senator Brown had the opportunity to serve on the Banking Committee. I had the opportunity to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Today I hold the position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Senator Lugar held when I first went on the committee; that is, the ranking member of the committee.

I remember one of the very first hearings we had in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on resource, curse or blessing. It was a matter of concern to every single member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrats and Republicans. We saw the faces of people from nations in Africa who had a resource wealth, but they had the resource curse. The people were living in horrible poverty. Yet the country had mineral wealth--gas and oil--that was being exploited but not for the benefit of the people. It was being used to obtain income for their leaders to funnel corrupt practices. Senator Lugar, in October of 2008, authored a committee report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee entitled ``The Petroleum And Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. And International Community Efforts To Fight The Resource Curse.''

We went through the regular legislative process as to how we could deal with the circumstance that we knew the United States must exercise leadership. As Senator Brown has pointed out the whole history and the importance of it--and all of the details--I just want to fill in some of the details as to how this came about because we were looking for a way in which we could turn the wealth of a nation to its people and cut off the corruption that it funded. The corruption was not just the obscenity of wealth being used by their leaders--as Senator Brown pointed out in Equatorial Guinea--it was also the fact that this wealth that was coming to these leaders was also being used for criminal activities, to finance illegal drug activities and to finance terrorism.

I take issue with my friend from Oklahoma and his comments. There has never been an effort in this legislation to affect the supply of any source of energy here or anywhere around the world. That is being done. The question is, Where does the money go that is being used to exploit these resources? Do they go to the people of the country where the resource is located or do they go for corruption? That is what we attempted to do--Senator Lugar and I and others. I thank Senators Leahy and Durbin, who was on the floor earlier and was one of our early leaders, Senators Menendez and Wicker. We did this not only in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time I was chairman of the Senate U.S. Helsinki Commission--the Helsinki Commission, and Senator Wicker was helping, we worked in that organization to see how we could deal with transparency and how the American leadership could help the international effort to end the resource curse. As a result, legislation was authored and introduced in order to try to deal with this issue. Senator Lugar and I authored a bill, a bill that said we want to know where the money is going so we can track the money. We wanted to be able, for the people of that nation, to say: We know money is coming in now. Our leaders show us where the money is going.

That legislation was introduced. It was debated. It became part of the Dodd-Frank law. Quite frankly, it was supported in a rather bipartisan way, and it became law. Ever since its enactment, it has been fought by the American Petroleum Institute. I am not sure why because today other countries have adopted similar standards. This information is readily available as far as the way it is compiled by companies. Many oil and mineral companies today are supplying this information with no complaints, no problems, but it was fought.

Tonight we are debating the use of the Congressional Review Act. It was pointed out earlier tonight that before today, it only had been used once since its 1996 enactment. The reason is because it is a sledgehammer approach to dealing with issues that should be dealt with by a scalpel, but here is the real abuse. We are using the Congressional Review Act--which is supposed to be used when an agency goes rogue, when they start to do things that were never intended by Congress, were never authorized by Congress. Section 1504 was passed by Congress, and it has taken the SEC almost a decade to get the rules out. And we are saying they abused their power? Maybe they abused their power by delay, but they certainly haven't abused their power with what they have come forward with. They are carrying out congressional mandate as they should. It was never the intent of the CRA to be used for this type of a process. So I just urge my colleagues to recognize that this is not the right way we should be proceeding.

In September 2009, with Senator Lugar's help, I introduced legislation. It was bipartisan. Senators Merkley, Wicker, Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, Feinstein, Menendez, and others joined in that effort. The SEC was directed to develop rules on oil, gas, and mining companies as to how the disclosures could be made on the U.S. stock exchange so they could disclose their rights and payments made to foreign governments. That is what we mandated. Why do we want to know that? Because these royalties and payments were basically bribes to government leaders because it never went to the people. It was in the U.S. interest, not only because of how those funds were used against our principles and not only did it finance illegal activities, but it could have been a source for stable governments, which was important for U.S. interests that we have stable governments. It helps us in our foreign policy and national security. It also gives us a stable source of oil, gas, and minerals. Investors have the right to know. They have the right to know in what countries their companies are investing their stockholder investments.

It was a reasonable request by Congress. One of my colleagues indicated that it was held to be inappropriate by our courts. That was on a process issue. It was not on a substantive issue. That

was corrected. A new rule has come out, and now we are using a CRA in order to block it. The rule, as it is currently worded, provides for a reasonable period for enforcement. So it is not even going into effect immediately because we are allowing the companies to have ample time in order to comply with the rule.

I just want to make this point. It creates a level playing field. It does not put American companies at a disadvantage. This is a level playing field. Thirty countries already require this. The EU requires this. Canada requires this. Do you want to know why they did it? Because the United States led. We passed the law. I met with the Europeans. I met with the Canadians. They said: This is a good bill. You are our leaders. You are doing it. We are going to do it also so they did it. It is in effect in these countries. Oil companies and mineral companies have complied with it. They are fine. Guess what. It wasn't difficult. Shell, BP, France's Total, Russian's Rosneft, Lukoil, Gazprom--their huge giant--all have reported. It has not caused any competitive problems. They are not losing any proprietary rights, as has been suggested. There has been no harm done.

When I listen to the cost-benefit analysis and listen to our distinguished chairman talk about the data is not really available, the reason the data is not available is because we don't have disclosure. If we get the information, then we will be able to tell exactly how we can deal with the problems in Ghana or Nigeria or in Equatorial Guinea or problems in so many countries where the people are hurting with some of the worst poverty rates in the world. We will be able to find that information out, but if we don't know what is being paid by U.S. companies, how do you do a cost-benefit analysis? I don't know how you could possibly do it.

I heard the numbers, the cost of compliance, and I would challenge that. I would challenge the cost of compliance numbers because this information is already available. Companies know where their money is going. It is a normal business issue. I heard it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts. I don't want to minimize the cost, but as a percentage of the business they are doing, it is minor. The benefit we get if the money can go to the people and deal with these horrible conditions that we see in these resource-wealthy countries, then it is certainly worth the effort. That is part of our effort in dealing with other countries, to try to lift up the standard of living in so many of these countries.

So when we look at, again, what is at stake--what is at stake? And that is to allow the wealth of a country to go to its people for its stability. I have heard my colleagues say: Well, we are not against this. The law is still there. All we are talking about is this regulation. Once we pass this CRA, we are going to go back to work with the SEC and bring in a new rule. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that if we pass this CRA, that we are going to see a new rule come out of the SEC? It has taken us 9 years to get to where we are right now. Do you really believe that with the law saying that the SEC cannot bring out a rule that is substantially the same in form, unless authorized by a subsequent law of Congress--do you really believe that will not be challenged in the courts with lengthy litigation before we will ever see another rule take effect?

Let us be clear about this. I am going to continue to do everything I can to make sure that the people of these nations get the wealth of their country. I am going to do everything I can. I am going to work with all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I really do believe in the sincerity of my colleagues, that they believe in this transparency. It is going to be tested. I am going to come back and see where we can make sure that 1504 is enforced because if I heard my chairman--and I respect him greatly, we work on a lot of issues together--when the chairman says that he is going to make sure the SEC complies with all congressional mandates--this is a congressional mandate--and it is our responsibility to make sure the SEC complies with Section 1504. If our colleagues pass this CRA--and I hope you don't--it is our responsibility to make sure the SEC complies with 1504. I am going to be here urging in every way I can to make sure that happens.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement from Publish What You Pay, which talks about a lot of the different aspects and myths that have been said, be printed in the Record.

Let me conclude, for years, Congress has been fighting to shine a light on the billions of dollars paid by extracted companies to foreign governments. By taking away one of the only tools we have to shine a light on extracted payments' associated corruption, we are sending a message to corrupt leaders around the world that the United States does not care about corruption; that we won't hold them accountable, and that they should continue with business as usual: Exploiting their own people, and perhaps even funding terrorist organizations with some of their secret proceeds. It is not in our national interest to stop an anticorruption rule that bolsters America's national security, advances our humanitarian and anticorruption goals, and demonstrates U.S. moral leadership.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution of disapproval.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Casey, and Heller. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services.

Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the Federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers.

We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a

stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs.

In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of-pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act, which I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Casey, and Heller. This important bill repeals the monetary caps that limit Medicare beneficiaries' access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services.

Limits on outpatient rehabilitation therapy services under Medicare were first imposed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. The decision to impose limits on these services was not based on data, quality-of-care concerns, or clinical judgment--its sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the Federal budget. Since 1997, Congress has acted 12 times to prevent the implementation of the therapy caps through moratoriums and an exceptions process. While these short-term actions have provided necessary relief to our seniors, a long-term solution is essential to bring permanent relief and much- needed stability for both patients and providers.

We need a full repeal of the existing caps on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services. These annual financial caps limit services often needed after a

stroke, traumatic brain injury, or spinal cord injury, or to effectively manage conditions such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Arbitrary caps on these vital Medicare outpatient therapy services are simply unacceptable. They also discriminate against the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries, who typically require the most intensive therapy, and disadvantage Medicare beneficiaries who live in regions with higher health care costs.

In a 2009 report issued by the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MEDPAC, it was estimated that the therapy cap, if enforced without an exceptions process, could negatively impact 931,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Arbitrarily capping outpatient rehabilitation therapy services would likely cause some beneficiaries to delay necessary care, force others to assume higher out-of-pocket costs, and disrupt the continuum of care for many seniors and individuals with disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in supporting the Medicare Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to ensure that our seniors have access to the outpatient rehabilitation therapy services that they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate begins consideration of the nomination of Mr. Rex Tillerson to serve as the 69th Secretary of State of the United States of America. I thank Mr. Tillerson for his willingness to serve our Nation and for his participation in a lengthy, wide-ranging hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I have the honor of being the senior Democrat, the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Earlier today, I thanked Chairman Corker for the courtesies he showed during the hearing process. However, as I stated yesterday, I remain concerned that Mr. Tillerson's demonstrated business orientation in his responses to questions during the confirmation hearing would prevent him from being a Secretary of State who forcefully promotes the values and ideals that have defined our country and our leading role in the world for more than 200 years. I, therefore, will not be supporting his nomination.

Given the events over the weekend, I believe it is important that I begin today's debate by painting a picture for the American people of the unstable, reckless foreign policy that Mr. Tillerson is going to be asked to carry out under President Trump. It is painfully obvious that when the President says ``America first,'' the cumulative result of his vision would actually lead to America alone and America at risk.

From time to time, in our Nation's history, we have heard the calls of isolationism, but isolationism did not work then and it will not work now. It is an approach that our history has taught us, time and time again, undermines our interests, makes us vulnerable to those who wish us harm, betrays our values, and leaves us less secure and less prosperous.

America's leadership, rooted in our values, makes the world a better place for all, but the first 10 days of the Trump administration shows that the President is intent on compromising our values, abandoning our allies, and using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to conduct the detailed, careful work of safeguarding our Nation. Some of his supporters chalk it up to inexperience. My own chairman has said on numerous occasions that he wishes the President had more flushed-out ideas on foreign policy space.

What the American people witnessed in the last 10 days goes beyond inexperience. There is a willful, dangerous campaign underway by forces in this administration to bend or potentially even break the law. More than ever, we need to reaffirm and adhere to the values that make our country so strong and so stable, the city on the hill that others look to for leadership.

In order to do that, we need leaders who will not shy away from our values, who will sound a certain trumpet for human rights, the rule of law, and bedrock American values.

Mr. Tillerson's timid equivocation on American values throughout his confirmation process, his trumpet's uncertain sound was alarming because he will be working for a President clearly willing to compromise America's values at every turn. There are many individuals who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations who recognize this Executive order for what it is.

I have in my hand a letter from over 100 former Cabinet Secretaries, senior government officials, diplomats, military servicemembers, and intelligence community professionals who have served in the Bush and Obama administrations. The letter, to the heads of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, expresses deep concern that the Executive order issued over the weekend jeopardizes tens of thousands of lives, has caused a crisis here in America, and will do long-term damage to our national security.

It strongly recommends the President rescind this order. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

January 30, 2017.

Hon. John F. Kelly,

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Sally Yates,

Acting Attorney General,

Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Thomas A. Shannon,

Acting Secretary, Department of State,

Washington, DC.

Secretary Kelly, Acting Attorney General Yates, Acting

Secretary Shannon: As former cabinet Secretaries, senior

government officials, diplomats, military service members and

intelligence community professionals who have served in the

Bush and Obama administrations, we, the undersigned, have

worked for many years to make America strong and our homeland

secure. Therefore, we are writing to you to express our deep

concern with President Trump's recent Executive Order

directed at the immigration system, refugees and visitors to

this country. This Order not only jeopardizes tens of

thousands of lives, it has caused a crisis right here in

America and will do long-term damage to our national

security.

In the middle of the night, just as.we were beginning our

nation's commemoration of the Holocaust, dozens of refugees

onboard flights to the United States and thousands of

visitors were swept up in an Order of unprecedented scope,

apparently with little to no oversight or input from national

security professionals.

Individuals, who have passed through multiple rounds of

robust security vetting, including just before their

departure, were detained, some reportedly without access to

lawyers, right here in U.S. airports. They include not only

women and children whose lives have been upended by actual

radical terrorists, but brave individuals who put their own

lives on the line and worked side-by-side with our men and

women in uniform in Iraq now fighting against ISIL. Now,

because of actions taken by this White House, their lives

have been disrupted and they may even be in greater danger if

they are sent home. Many more thousands going through the

process will now be left behind. More broadly, tens of

thousands of other travelers, including dual citizens and, at

one point, legal U.S. residents face deep uncertainty about

whether they may even travel to the United States or risk

leaving and being barred reentry.

Many of us have worked for years to keep America safe from

terrorists. Many of us were on the job working for our

country on 9/11 and need no reminder just how vital it is to

destroy terrorist networks and bring partners to our side in

that global effort. Simply put, this Order will harm our

national security. Partner countries in Europe and the Middle

East, on whom we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation,

are already objecting to this action and distancing

themselves from the United States, shredding years of effort

to bring them closer to us. Moreover, because the Order

discriminates against Muslim travelers and immigrants, it has

already sent exactly the wrong message to the Muslim

community here at home and all over the world: that the U.S.

government is at war with them based on their religion. We

may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a

recruiting tool and propaganda victory that spreads their

horrific message that the United States is engaged in a

religious war. We need to take every step we can to counter

violent extremism, not to feed into it by fueling ISIL

propaganda.

Perhaps the most tragic irony of this episode is that it is

unnecessary. We do not need to turn America into a fortress

to keep it secure. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States

has developed a rigorous system of security vetting,

leveraging the full capabilities of the law enforcement and

intelligence communities. This vetting is applied to

travelers not once, but multiple times. Refugees receive even

further scrutiny. In fact, successive administrations have

worked to improve this vetting on a near continuous basis,

through robust information sharing and data integration to

identify potential terrorists. Since 9/11 not a single major

terrorist attack has been perpetrated by travelers from the

countries named in the Order.

The suddenness of this Order is also troubling. The fact

that individuals cleared for admission were literally in the

air as the Order went into effect speaks to the haste with

which it was developed and implemented. We are concerned that

this Order received little, if any scrutiny by the

Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security or the

Intelligence Community. Now that some of these individuals

are here in the United States, and thousands of others are

stranded, our government's response has appeared disorganized

and chaotic. As lawyers take steps to protect their clients

who have been detained here or stranded at many other

airports, the U.S. government will continue to face a flurry

of legal challenges, which could have been avoided.

Additionally, by banning travel by individuals cooperating

against ISIL, we risk placing our military and diplomatic

efforts at risk by sending a clear message to those citizens

and all Muslims that the United States does not have their

backs. Already, the international push-back has been immense,

and threatens to jeopardize critical counterterrorism

cooperation.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this self-made crisis.

We know that your agencies did not create this situation and

we particularly respect that many of you are working to

mitigate its damage. Effective immediately, you can apply the

discretion given to you under the President's Order to admit

into the country the men, women and children who are

currently still stranded in airports. The process for doing

this is well known to the security professionals within your

departments. We urge you to execute it. While it is good to

see the withdrawal of the application of the Order to legal

permanent residents of the United States, your Departments

can immediately work to allow other classes of people into

the country, and remove the discriminatory prioritization

implicit within the Order. Most critically, we urge you to

draw on the insight of the professionals in your departments

to recommend that the President revisit and rescind this

Order. Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people

is inhumane, unnecessary and counterproductive from a

security standpoint, and beneath the dignity of our great

nation.

Dr. Madeleine K. Albright, Former Secretary of State; Janet

Napolitano, Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security; Susan Rice, Former National Security Advisor to the

President of the United States; Dennis Blair, Former Director

of National Intelligence, Admiral, USN, Retired; Michael

Hayden, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency;

Samantha Power, Former United States Ambassador to the United

Nations; Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico and

United States Ambassador to the United Nations; Tony Blinken,

Former Deputy Secretary of State; William Burns, Former

Deputy Secretary of State; Bruce Andrews, Former Deputy

Secretary of Commerce; Richard Clarke, Former National

Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and

Counterterrorism for the United States; Rudy DeLeon, Former

Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Heather Higginbottom, Former Deputy Secretary of State for

Management and Resources; Thomas Nides, Former Deputy

Secretary of State for Management and Resources; James

Steinberg, Former Deputy Secretary of State; Michael Morrell,

Former Acting Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Matthew

Olsen, Former Director of the National Counterterrorism

Center; Rand Beers, Former Acting Secretary of the Department

of Homeland Security; John B. Bellinger III, Former Legal

Advisor to the Department of State.

Ambassador (ret.) Nicholas Burns, Former Under Secretary of

State for Political Affairs; Eliott Cohen, Former Counselor,

Department of State; Michele Flournoy, Former Undersecretary

of Defense for Policy; Marcel Lettre, Former Undersecretary

of Defense for Intelligence; James Miller, Former

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; Wendy Sherman, Former

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Suzanne

Spaulding, Former Undersecretary for National Protection and

Programs, Department of Homeland Security; Michael G.

Vickers, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence;

Tara Sonenshine, Former Under Secretary of State for Public

Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

Clara Adams-Ender, Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Ricardo

Aponte, Brigadier General, USAF, Retired; Alyssa Ayres,

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia;

Donna Barbisch, Major General, USA, Retired; Jamie Barnett,

Rear Admiral, USN, Retired; Jeremy Bash, Former Chief of

Staff, Department of Defense; Daniel Benjamin, Former

Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State;

Charles Blanchard, Former General Counsel, United States Air

Force; Janet Blanc Former Deputy Special Representative to

Afghanistan and Pakistan; Barbara Bodine, Former United

States Ambassador to Yemen; Richard Boucher, Former Assistant

Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Mike

Breen, Retired United States Army Officer; John G. Castellaw,

Lieutenant General, USMC, Retired; Wendy Chamberlin, Former

United States Ambassador to Pakistan.

Derek Chollet, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for

International Security Affairs; Christopher Cole, Rear

Admiral, USN, Retired; Bathsheba Crocker, Former Assistant

Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs;

Abe Denmark, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East

Asia; Paul Eaton, Major General, USA, Retired; Mari K. Eder,

Major General, Retired, USA; Dwayne Edwards, Brigadier

General, USA, Retired; Robert Einhom, Former Assistant

Secretary of State for Nonproliferation; Evelyn Farkas,

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia,

Ukraine, Eurasia; Gerald M. Feierstein, Former United States

Ambassador to Yemen; Daniel Feldman, Former Special

Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Jose W. Fernandez, Former Assistant Secretary of State for

Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs; Jonathan Finer,

Former Director of Policy Planning, Department of State;

Robert Glace, Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Philip Gordon,

Former Special Assistant to the President and White House

Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the

Persian Gulf Region; Kevin P. Green, Vice Admiral, USN,

Retired; Caitlin Hayden, Former National Security Council

Spokesperson; Richard S. Haddad, Major General, USAF,

Retired; Gretchen Herbert, Rear Admiral, USN, Retired; Mark

Hertling, Lieutenant General, USA, Retired; Christopher P.

Hill, Former United States Ambassador to Iraq; David Irvine,

Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Arlee D. Jameson, Lieutenant

General, USAF, Retired; Deborah Jones, Former United States

Ambassador to Libya; Colin Kahl, Former National Security

Advisor to the Vice President of the United States; Claudia

Kennedy, Lieutenant General, USA, Retired.

Gil Kerlikowske, Former Commissioner, United States Customs

and Border Protection; Charles Kupchan, Former Special

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

Jonathan Lee, Former Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of

Homeland Security; George Little, Former Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Public Affairs; Donald E. Loranger Jr., Major

General, USAF, Retired; Kelly Magsamen, Former Principal

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific

Security Affairs; Randy Manner, Major General, USA, Retired;

Thomas Malinowski, Former Assistant Secretary of State for

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Brian McKeon, Former

Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

Philip McNamara, Former Assistant Secretary for

Partnerships and Engagement, Department of Homeland Security;

John G. Morgan, Lieutenant General, USA, Retired; Suzanne

Nossel, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for

International Organizations Affairs; James C. O'Brien, Former

Special Envoy for Hostage Recovery; Eric Olson, Major

General, USA, Retired; Rick Olson, Former Special

Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan; W. Robert

Pearson, Former United States Ambassador to Turkey; Glenn

Phillips, Rear Admiral, USN, Retired; Gale Pollock, Major

General, USA, Retired; Amy Pope, Former Deputy Assistant to

the President for National Security Affairs; Steve Pomper,

Former Special Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs.

Michael Posner, Former Assistant Secretary of State for

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; Anne C. Richard, Former

Assistant Secretary of State, Population, Refugees &

Migration; Leon Rodriguez, Former Director, U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services; Laura Rosenberger, Former Chief of

Staff to the Deputy Secretary of State; Tommy Ross, Former

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security

Cooperation; John M. Schuster, Brigadier General, USA,

Retired; Eric Schwartz, Former Assistant Secretary of State

for Population, Refugees, and Migration; Stephen A. Seche,

Former United States Ambassador to Yemen; Robert Silvers,

Former Assistant Secretary for Cyber Policy, Department of

Homeland Security, Vikram Singh, Former Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia; Elissa

Slotkin, Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for

International Security Affairs; Jeffrey Smith, Former General

Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency; Julianne ``Julie''

Smith, Former Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice

President of the United States; Michael Smith, Rear Admiral,

USN, Retired.

Matthew Spence, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Middle East Policy; Andrew W. Steinfeld, Former

Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff; Seth M.M. Stodder, Former Assistant

Secretary of Homeland Security for Border, Immigration &

Trade Policy; Jake Sullivan, Former National Security Advisor

to the Vice President of the United States; Loree Sutton,

Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Antonio Taguba, Major

General, USA, Retired; Jim Townsend, Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy; David

Wade, Former Chief of Staff, Department of State; George H.

Walls, Brigadier General, USMC, Retired; William Wechsler,

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Counterterrorism and Special Operations.

Catherine Wiesner, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration; Willie

Williams, Lieutenant General, USMC, Retired; Johnnie E.

Wilson, General, USA, Retired; Tamara Cofman Wittes, Former

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State; Moira Whelan, Former

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs; Jon

Brook Wolfsthal, Former Special Assistant to the President

for National Security Affairs; Lee Wolosky, Former Special

Envoy for Guantanamo Closure; Stephen N. Xenakis, M.D.,

Brigadier General, USA, Retired.

Mr. Tillerson needs to answer whether he supports Mr. Trump's decision this weekend to ban Muslims, to keep green card holders out of the country, and state his view on the chaos that ensued from the terrible implementation of this terrible policy. We asked Mr. Tillerson during the confirmation hearing whether he supported a Muslim ban. He would not give us a clear answer, and he did not speak out against an unconstitutional Muslim ban.

Just today, I have sent a letter, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to Mr. Tillerson asking his specific views on the President's Executive order, what impacts that will have on America's credibility, what impact that will have on America's ability to work with our strategic partners around the world. I hope he will respond to us so we know his views on the President's Executive order before we are called upon to vote on his nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it remains to be seen whether Mr. Tillerson has the moral compass necessary to counsel the President toward a coherent U.S. foreign policy that advances our national security and embraces our values and ideals or if he will be another yes-man, enabling the risky, chaotic whims of a demagogue President, who is leading us on a march of folly.

The American people deserve to know because if the last 10 days are any indication, the Trump administration is on a track to be the most dangerous and divisive in history. Nothing so painfully illustrates that point as Friday's Executive order banning refugees and certain Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. As a citizen of this great Nation, I am deeply offended by and ashamed of the President's Executive actions.

When the news of this developed over the weekend, I happened to be attending a family wedding in the Miami area, a city rich in its immigrant character and its welcoming nature to people of many faiths and backgrounds.

Miami was also the city where one of the most shameful episodes in our history transpired, where in 1993, the St. Louis, filled with Jewish refugees trying to flee the horrors of Nazi Germany waited for days, seeing the lights of the city ashore, seeking shelter and refuge. Shamefully, we turned the St. Louis away and condemned many of its passengers to death in the Holocaust.

We say never again. Yet fear and uncertainty was palatable this weekend in Miami and across the country. I have heard from constituents who were temporarily detained and arrested or whose loved ones had scheduled legal travel to the United States but were unsure if they should board their planes for fear of being arrested or turned around once they arrived.

I am aware of students studying legally here in the United States who suddenly found their entire future in jeopardy because of their nationality. Maryland is proud to host world-class universities like Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland, colleges that are enriched by the contributions and perspectives of foreign citizens.

Permanent legal residents who endured a lengthy process to acquire their green card and make the United States their home were suddenly unsure if they belonged. I was particularly troubled when two Iraqi citizens, who have played critical roles in supporting America's forces in Iraq, and were traveling on valid visas, were denied entry into New York. What do they get for helping our brave men and women with translation and security services? A big ugly ``Not Welcome'' sign at JFK Airport. Adding insult to injury, their immediate families were already here in the United States.

The cumulative effect of this Executive order is enough to make your stomach churn because what President Trump tried to do was legalize discrimination based on religion and nationality. As President Trump said, giving preference to Christians is going to be OK. As Trump adviser Rudy

Giuliani said, this is a way to legalize a Muslim ban.

So I was relieved when Federal judge Ann Donnelly issued a stay on Saturday evening to stop the madness, at least temporarily. Other judges around the Nation acted accordingly as well, affirming certain rights of green card holders and legal permanent residents, but too many innocent people remain in limbo. My staff's communications with Cabinet agencies over the weekend were extremely troubling. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing in the Trump administration. In the zeal to play politics and inflame the fears of Americans who feel threatened, the White House revealed how little they knew or cared about governing.

It was reported that Secretary Kelly did not have a proper opportunity to view the Executive order before it was issued, a sobering lesson I hope Mr. Tillerson has paid close attention to. The Department of Homeland Security has now belatedly begun to engage on issuing guidance, but I fear the damage has been done.

Clearly, the Department of Justice was not part of developing the Executive order, as Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said, boldly, that she was not convinced that the Executive order was lawful. As a result, President Trump fired her--the Monday night massacre. Our voice must be loud and clear. Mr. Trump, this is our country, a country that stands for the highest principles, supported by the rule of law.

If Ms. Yates' firing is any indication as to how President Trump will handle different views, our Democratic institutions of checks and balances will indeed be challenged. The White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, said that foreign service officers using the dissent channel to express their views on the immigration Executive order should ``either get with the program or they can go.''

The dissent channel was set up during the Vietnam war as a way for foreign service officers and civil servants to raise concerns with upper management about the direction of U.S. foreign policy without fear of retribution. It is for ``consideration of responsible, dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues that cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels or procedures.''

This process for the use of dissent channels was codified in the Foreign Affairs Manual in 1971, which dictates that dissent cables are sent to the Departments' policy planning directors who distribute them to the Secretary of State and other top officials who must respond within 30 to 60 days. There are typically about four or five each year. Freedom from reprisal from dissent user channels is strictly enforced, but the President's Press Secretary said they can go.

What type of free discussion do we want to have in this country? Where are the checks and balances? Where is the willingness to listen to different views?

The President also put a 4-month freeze in place on all refugees entering the United States, singling out refugees from certain Muslim- majority countries for extra screening, failing to acknowledge or speak about the thorough 18- to 24-month screening process that refugees from dangerous countries, such as Iraq and Syria, already endure before they come to our Nation. We have the toughest screening now. I am not sure what the President is talking about when he says additional screening. We already have the toughest screening. They already go through the United Nations. They are already interviewed. Their background is checked.

Moving forward, the number of refugees entering the United States will fall by 50 percent. It is clear that the President of the United States has a fundamental misunderstanding of America's leading role on refugee resettlement. Today, I will meet with King Abdallah of Jordan, a nation that has accepted 650,000 Syrian refugees. And President Trump is holding our program to accept approximately 10,000 Syrian refugees, placing it on hold.

Jordan is one of America's global partners in fighting extremism. It will be interesting to see the reactions we get from our partners.

If we close our doors to refugees, we will not only close our doors to U.S. humanitarian values but also severely damage America's global credibility on universal values.

The United States is a nation of immigrants and refugees from all and no faiths. We learned from our mistake with the St. Louis, and we are the Nation that received refugees from the Holocaust after the Second World War. We are the Nation that opened our doors to hundreds of thousands of citizens fleeing conflicts and political oppression in El Salvador, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia.

The United States must continue to lead by example, but President Trump's cruel Executive order on immigrants and refugees undermines our core values and traditions, threatens our national security, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of our strict vetting process--the most thorough in the world. It is a dangerous and shortsighted policy that erodes our moral leadership and harms our national security as well as our alliances and partnerships worldwide.

This is not the kind of America that Americans deserve.

Also over the weekend, President Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin. There has been perhaps no other issue that has so pitted President Trump against the interests of the United States than Russia. Reflexively, the President will not utter basic truths about Mr. Putin's Russia, such as these: The annexation of Crimea, Ukraine, is illegal; they committed war crimes in Syria; and they sought to create doubt about and potentially influence the election that saw him elected President, as our intelligence community has now overwhelmingly confirmed.

There is no more fundamental interest that we have as Americans than our democracy. Let's be clear: Just as with Pearl Harbor or September 11, in this past election, the United States was attacked by a foreign power. President Trump does not even seem to care that we were attacked or, worse, does not seem to believe that we need to stand up and defend our democracy and our form of government. I find that unfathomable.

The phone calls this weekend came against the backdrop of President Trump and his aides floating the idea of lifting our current sanctions on Russia. So Russia has invaded Ukraine, has committed war crimes in Syria, has attacked our free democratic system, and we are talking about easing sanctions on Russia? It is such a miscarriage of justice and accountability that they do not understand or won't acknowledge the gravity of what Russia seeks to do here in our country and around the world.

It is, therefore, incumbent on Congress to act. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for my effort to impose additional sanctions on Russia as well as require the President to seek congressional approval before he rolls back current sanctions. Sanction relief can only come when Russia has changed its behavior, and I see no indication that that will come any time soon.

The unclassified reports released by the intelligence community earlier this month says that Russia's intelligence tried to access multiple State or local election boards. They also confirmed that Russia has researched U.S. electoral procedures and related technology and equipment, though they were clear in their assessment that there was no evidence at this time that Russia interfered in the actual vote tabulation.

An America that becomes passive or willfully blind to a resurgent Russia is not the kind of America that the American people deserve, and it is imperative that the administration understand this and act accordingly. What the American people don't need is the White House focusing on a trial balloon last week that fell like a lead ball.

Some in the administration thought it would be a good idea to bring back the notorious black sites--secret prisons--from a decade ago, where our intelligence picked up foreign nationals suspected of terrorism connections, hid them, and, in some cases, tortured them or allowed the prison's host country to torture them.

Perhaps nothing did more harm to our credibility and boost terrorist recruitment during the early years of the Iraq war than the dangerous, amoral

practice of rendition, secret detention, and interrogation by torture. We cannot go back to those practices if we value maintaining the perception and the reality of the United States of America as a beacon of justice, law, and human rights for the world.

Make no mistake, this approach, like the immigration Executive order, endangers American citizens and personnel abroad and is a boon to ISIS and like-minded groups. It validates their propaganda, aids their recruitment and incitement of homegrown terrorism in the United States and the West, and encourages attacks against America abroad. General Mattis gets it; why can't the President?

President Trump must never let this Executive order see the light of day. This is not the kind of America that the American people deserve.

Let me turn now to our relationship with our neighbors, our most important international relationships.

Since entering the political arena 18 months ago, candidate Trump was consistent in his treatment of Mexican immigrants and refugees, referring to them on day one of his Presidential campaign as drug users, criminals, and rapists.

So Mr. Tillerson's job was shaping up to be difficult enough. It got even harder last week. In the last 5 days, President Trump has insulted the Mexican President and people with his Executive orders on border wall construction and the treatment of immigrants and refugees at our border, as well as stoked fear throughout sanctuary and welcoming cities in the United States that resources could be cut and innocent people could be apprehended, breaking up and devastating families.

The President's new Secretary of Homeland Security said pointedly that a wall will not work, and Mr. Trump missed a real opportunity at the outset of his Presidency to advance both comprehensive immigration reform and border security, which go hand in hand.

We did that a few years ago. That is what the President should have come in with and used his Presidency to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as we did. Instead, he wants to build a wall.

Turning away legitimate asylum seekers at the border or requiring mandatory detention of families and children will do nothing to make America safer. Such cruel actions will inevitably bring harm and potential death to survivors of violence and torture, including many women and children, while undermining America's values and damaging our relationships with our allies.

Why the President would deliberately pick a fight with the President of Mexico is truly puzzling.

Not to be outdone after being embarrassed by the President of Mexico's cancellation of his visit to Washington, the President doubled down and had the audacity to suggest that the cost of constructing a border wall should be passed on to the hardworking American families, not once but twice. The first is by inserting it in the budget. That is taxpayer dollars paying to build a wall that won't work. The second is through a tax on Mexican imports which will, in turn, be paid for by American consumers. All the while, he continues to blow smoke and say that we will continue to find a way for Mexico to ultimately pay for this dream wall.

It won't happen. This is not the kind of America that the American people deserve.

Lastly, I want to point out that, in his third day of office, just one day after the 44th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, President Trump reinstated the controversial global gag rule that would cut off U.S. family planning funding to any nonprofit group overseas that provides any information about abortion in their health care services for women and families in need.

In other words, this is not about U.S. money supporting abortion services. It is about working with organizations.

Now, Republican Presidents routinely reinstate this harmful rule, but President Trump's global gag order is even more extreme. It massively expands his already harmful policy to threaten all U.S. foreign aid assistance to nonprofit groups engaged in health in the developing world. That will significantly increase the jeopardy of cutting off U.S. funding to international health efforts.

We are talking about millions of more women and families. Without funding these organizations, we will not be able to provide HIV prevention, care and treatment services to those in need, provide integrated maternal health care with contraceptive services, or counsel women on the potential risk of Zika infection, among many other activities. This is very counterproductive to U.S. goals and interests.

This is not the kind of America the American people deserve. The American people deserve leadership that will make them safer and more secure, that will increase our prosperity, and that will advance our values and serve as an example to the world. That America, Mr. President, is also an America that can lead the world and that the world will want to work with.

The state of world affairs has been precarious for some time now. Almost single-handedly, President Trump is inflaming previously simmering situations, while creating new problems where they previously did not exist.

World leaders are chastising us. Innocent people are looking at us in fear. Terrorists are gearing up to use Trump's hate-mongering in their recruitment and anti-American propaganda. We will be less safe, not safer. He will be putting Americans at risk here at home and those traveling abroad.

As we do debate Mr. Tillerson's nomination, we cannot lose sight of the fact that he will be carrying out the foreign policy of the most dangerous, unstable, thin-skinned, and inexperienced President we have seen on foreign policy issues and other issues.

Is he up to the job? Will he be a voice of reason and stability when times call for reason and stability? Will he resist the forces of war that so easily call out, rather than engage in the hard but necessary work of diplomacy and negotiation?

These are critical questions that we must ask and seek answers to as we debate and vote on the most important official in the President's Cabinet.

It is clear to me that, unfortunately, Mr. Tillerson will not be that voice of stability, reason, and diplomatic experience that the United States so desperately needs at this time of uncertainty and instability.

I yield the floor.