Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are in a moment of profound unease about the stability of the executive branch of our government.

The recent reports about General Flynn detailing constant, high-level contact between members of the Trump administration and the Russian Government raise serious doubts about this administration's competence in the realm of foreign policy and national security and even graver doubts about the sanctity of our democratic process.

We do not know all the facts, and in the coming days and weeks, more information may well surface about these disturbing revelations, but we already know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I have been in Congress a long time, and I have never, ever seen anything like this. The institutions of government are being tested in a way they have not been tested in some time.

At this juncture, we would all do well to remember that democracy-- the most benevolent, desirable, effective, and just form of government devised by man--is also one of the most fragile systems of government devised by man. It requires constant vigilance and strong democratic institutions to bolster one another.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson expressed doubt that a government founded on such a document could long endure. Varying factions in our founding generation worried alternatively about the threats posed by mob rule and potential autocrats.

One of the things that the Framers of the Constitution most worried about was the threat of foreign intervention in our government, what they called foreign intrigue. Federalist No. 68, likely authored by a famous resident of my State, Alexander Hamilton, labeled the ``desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils'' as one of the ``most deadly adversaries of republican government.'' That fear is the origin of the emoluments clause, which safeguards against bribery of government officials by foreign powers.

It cannot be that officers at the highest echelons of our governmentowe favors to foreign capitals. But it may well be that a high-level member of President Trump's campaign and administration, General Flynn, violated the emoluments clause by accepting money from the Russian Government during a trip to Moscow in 2015. The reported contact between operatives in the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials is exactly the kind of intrigue that our Founders sought to prohibit.

I mention all of this because I believe the stakes to be very high. This is not a drill. Nothing less than our system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and our national security is at stake.

Our Nation does not face moments like this often. Frankly, the fact that foreign powers would have high influence in our government has not been on the front page for decades. But the wisdom of the Founding Fathers shines through. It is a real danger, and now the possibility of that danger being real is here today.

History will look upon us and will no doubt judge our efforts to stem this wrong wherever it occurs. Our Nation does not face moments like this often.

From the earliest days of the Republic, what has always sustained us has been the strength of our democratic institutions of government. We have distinct pillars of power that check and balance one another for the very purpose of fortifying our government whenever one branch is deficient. On this matter, the legislative branch has a responsibility to be that check and balance via our oversight duties.

All of us can agree that right now what are required are the facts. We have to evaluate the scope of Russia's interference in our election and assess if agents of their government have penetrated to the highest levels of our government. Throughout the process, we have to avoid jumping to conclusions or engaging in wild speculation. We must seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Once we have all the facts at our disposal, Democrats and Republicans alike can debate what to do next.

The investigation should proceed along two tracks. The first is Congress. My friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is committed to using every resource and authority in that committee to seek the truth. His committee will take the lead, but it will not be the only committee that looks into ties between the Trump campaign, transition, or administration, and Russia. The Judiciary, Foreign Relations, HSGAC, Banking, and Commerce Committees all have significant roles at getting to the bottom of this. They should also move forward in their areas of jurisdiction. These committee investigations must be bipartisan; they must have access to all intelligence officials, transcripts, documents, and other related materials that they need to answer critical questions; and they must be permitted to make their findings public to the maximum extent possible.

Of course, anything that Congress does requires Republican support because they are in the majority. I am gratified that some of our Republican colleagues have called for that. Bipartisan letters from the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee have been and are being sent last night and today. These letters will ask for document preservation, briefings, and for information related to the investigations.

As for the Intelligence Committee, Senator Burr, the chairman, originally expressed skepticism about his committee proceeding with an investigation into the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, but he is now working well with Senator Warner to do this. We will be watching very carefully. If the Intelligence Committee investigation is not proceeding to unearth the entire truth, we will seek alternative tools and structures to get to the truth because get to the truth we must.

The second part of the investigation is in the executive branch, where law enforcement resides. While Congress has a constitutional oversight ability to bring facts to light, it is only the executive branch that can prosecute potential criminal liability.

The two are not mutually exclusive. They are not either/or. They must move forward simultaneously on parallel tracks.

On the executive branch side, three specific things must now happen:

First, Attorney General Sessions must follow Department of Justice guidance and recuse himself.

When the FBI looks into a matter, they do so right alongside prosecutors from the Justice Department. Those prosecutors should not be reporting to the first Senator who endorsed Donald Trump's campaign, who served on the same campaign committee as General Flynn, and who nominated Donald Trump at the Republican convention. The Justice Department's own guidelines demand that Attorney General

Sessions remove himself from this matter immediately. If he does not, he will be breaking serious guidelines that have been in place for decades, followed by both Republican and Democratic administrations alike. To disregard or ignore these rules would be a major transgression by this administration, so early in its term, and would bode poorly for the future impartiality of the criminal justice system.

We now know that the President and the Attorney General are meeting today. Of course the President needs to meet with the Attorney General; that is important for national security. But until the Attorney General recuses himself, those meetings raise serious questions. There will be a cloud hanging over every meeting and conversation between the President and the Attorney General until the Attorney General recuses himself. We presume that they would not even think of discussing the investigation--that the Attorney General and the President would not-- because if they were to discuss any investigation, it would constitute a massive, massive ethical violation.

Second, to reiterate, from the executive branch point of view, we expect the administration will order all records from administration, transition, and campaign officials to be preserved.

There is real concern that some in the administration may try to cover up its ties to Russia by deleting emails, texts, or other records that could shine a light on these connections. These records are likely to be the subject of executive branch as well as congressional investigations and must be preserved.

Third, campaign, transition, and administration officials must be made available to testify in public, under oath, on these issues.

It has been reported that campaign officials have had constant contact with Russian intelligence officials. They must testify.

Our caucus is united in these three requests, and we hope and expect our Republican colleagues to join in these appeals as well.

Senate Democrats are faithfully committed to keeping this issue above partisan politics. The gravity of this issue demands nothing less.

Throughout the history of this country, the Senate has come together to steer the ship of state through stormy seas when the times required it. Republican Senators like Howard Baker, Hugh Scott, and Bob Dole rose above politics during the Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater scandals to demand the truth. I am very hopeful my Republican colleagues on the other side will follow in that grand tradition. I am very hopeful the other side wants to get at all the facts, just as our side wants to get at all the facts.

I disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle often on a number of issues--often, we disagree vociferously--but I have never once doubted their patriotism. This is an issue on which patriotism must prevail over politics because before we are Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans, with respect for the rule of law.

I have a hope and a faith that these reports and revelations will not pit the two parties against one another--that they will unite the parties in pursuit of the full truth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the postcloture debate time under my control, that 60 minutes be yielded to Senator Schatz, 60 minutes be yielded to Senator Whitehouse, 35 minutes be yielded to Senator Merkley, and 15 minutes be yielded to Senator Cantwell.

Thank you, Madam President.

I will be happy to yield for a UC request.

Does that meet the favor of my friend from Oregon? Is that OK?

The Senator from Oklahoma asked for 5 minutes immediately after my remarks.

No objection.

Madam President, I rise today on two topics--the need for Attorney General Sessions to recuse himself from the executive branch investigation into General Flynn and the nomination of Attorney General Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator.

First, on the matter of executive branch investigations into General Flynn's contact with the Russian Ambassador, I rise again to stress my expectation that Attorney General Sessions will recuse himself from this investigation.

This morning we learned--according to reports in the Washington Post--that General Flynn may have lied--lied--to FBI investigators about the content of his phone call with the Russian Ambassador prior to the election. That is a potential felony offense, and it must be looked at and, if validated, potentially prosecuted by law enforcement officials at the Department of Justice. That review must be independent and thorough and completely by the books. In order for it to be so, the Attorney General must recuse himself pursuant to Department of Justice guidelines that prohibit members of the Department from participating in investigations of close political allies or friends.

The guidelines are crystal clear. I have read them on the floor before, but they are worth reading because there is no wiggle room here. It is absolutely clear:

No Department of Justice employee may participate in a

criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or

political relationship with any person or organization

substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of

the investigation or prosecution. . . . Political

relationship means a close identification with an elected

official, candidate, political party, or campaign

organization arising from service as a principal adviser or

official.

Those are the words of the DOJ guidelines. Those are not my words, but they are common sense. We don't want conflict of interest in our prosecutors. We don't want the appearance of a conflict in something as sacred as law enforcement here in America.

It is patently absurd to think that the Attorney General--a man who served alongside General Flynn on Candidate Trump's campaign council-- is prepared to lead this investigation in an impartial way and in full compliance with those longstanding Department of Justice rules. There would be a complete appearance of a conflict and might, indeed, be a conflict itself. By the guidelines, it certainly is. There is no wiggle room here. AGs have recused themselves at least eight times over the past two decades to avoid the appearance of bias--twice under President Obama, five times under President Bush, and once under President Clinton.

To conclude my remarks on this topic, I want to show--and I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed coauthored by then-Senator Sessions calling on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to recuse herself in the matter of Secretary Clinton's emails be printed in the Record.

Senator Sessions, right here, called for Loretta Lynch-- then Attorney General--to recuse herself because of a conflict of interest under the very same guidelines we cited. We hope and we pray that Senator Sessions doesn't have an enormous double standard by refusing to recuse himself now when he asked the previous Attorney General to do so. We hope that President Trump will abide by the guidelines and encourage Senator Sessions to go by the guidelines and not again invoke any double standard.

This op-ed makes it crystal clear. What was good enough for Loretta Lynch, who did step aside, is good enough for Attorney General Sessions, and it would be outrageous--outrageous--for him to be in charge of this investigation.

The op-ed says: ``When a high public official is accused of serious wrongdoing and there is a sufficient factual predicate to investigate, it is imperative the investigation be thorough, without dispatch and without partisanship.''

So I hope Attorney General Sessions takes the word of Senator Jeff Sessions to heart. Every day that goes by without a recusal from the Attorney General, the cloud hanging over this investigation and over this administration gets darker and darker. And every time the President and Attorney General Sessions confer, again, the cloud hovers over them: What did they talk about? Was it this investigation?

So I hope Attorney General Sessions will do the right thing and recuse himself. Justice, the American way, and separation of powers require no less.

Madam President, today we will vote on another Cabinet nominee who is clouded by potential conflicts of interest and whose views are almost antithetical to the very purpose of the Agency to which he is nominated.

Mr. Pruitt is a climate science denier--some say skeptic, but this is not an issue where you can be skeptical; either you accept the overwhelming opinion of climate scientists and researchers or you don't.

Here is Scott Pruitt on climate change on Oklahoma talk radio:

Well, reasonable minds can disagree what is actually

happening, whether it is happening, number one, whether there

is change in climate that is occurring, that the trajectory

of it is something that is sustainable and whether that is

actually happening . . . the debate about climate change is

just that, a debate.

I would invite this nominee to walk through Long Beach or Long Island or Staten Island in New York City in the days and weeks after Superstorm Sandy rocked my State. None of those residents--the thousands who lost homes, the hundreds of thousands who suffered injury, damage, economic problems from the flood--they don't debate it, nor should he. There was no debate there. Folks lost everything that belonged to them. There was no debate about that. Forty-eight people in my State died--no debate about that.

Climate change will lead to more devastating natural disasters like Sandy, which was the third 100-year storm to strike my State in a decade. Climate change will make asthma and respiratory diseases worse. It is increasing the range of deer ticks that cause lyme disease--no debate about that. We have to do something about climate change.

Scott Pruitt as head of our Nation's Environmental Protection Agency likely wouldn't lift a finger. But it is part of a lifelong pattern. Instead of fighting for average Americans, Mr. Pruitt decided to make a name for himself among the far right by endlessly suing the EPA in ways that would benefit large special interests that also happen to be campaign contributors. In 13 of his 14 lawsuits against the EPA, he joined corporations and trade associations that had contributed to his campaign.

Just yesterday, an Oklahoma judge ruled that Scott Pruitt must turn over approximately 3,000 emails relating to his communications with the fossil fuel industry--the very industry he represented in these lawsuits. We won't get those emails until Tuesday. So you would expect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be up in arms. Emails. Remember, emails? We should get them out, they said, about Hillary Clinton--the same group. In 2013, Gina McCarthy waited 122 days to be confirmed for EPA Administrator because she wasn't honoring a commitment, they felt, to transparency.

There were several inquiries into the emails of Lisa Jackson, another EPA Administrator. But the majority and majority leader are proceeding right along and rushing Attorney General Pruitt through the process. We know why. They want you, my fellow Republicans, to vote for Mr. Pruitt before

those emails come to light. If they weren't worried about them, then why rush? It is not the worst thing in the world to take a few extra days to properly vet someone who will have immense power over our Nation's streams, skies, even the lead level in our homes and water supply.

Those emails could contain material information about his confirmation. But unless we move the confirmation back, the Senate will not get a chance to review those emails before voting on his nomination.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

I urge my Republican colleagues to stop rushing this nomination and ensure that we collect all relevant information on these troubling conflicts of interest.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to address the events of General Flynn's resignation as National Security Advisor on Monday night and the need for a full, independent, impartial, and transparent investigation into the facts of the case. It is now readily apparent that General Flynn's resignation is not the end of the story. It is merely the beginning of a much longer story.

The circumstances of General Flynn's contacts with the Russian Ambassador during the transition, the recent reports of potential high- level contact between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, including General Flynn, should raise hairs on the necks of everyone in this body and every American of goodwill--Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, Independent. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about our country and how it is governed. It is also an issue about our security. We are now left with more questions than answers, and it is imperative to find the truth. With every hour that goes by, more and more questions are raised. Every White House press briefing and early morning tweet seemingly introduces new inconsistencies and contradictions that demand a full accounting. Every report that suggests deeper ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government needs to be followed up on and verified.

We need to get all the facts.

So in the days and weeks ahead, the Trump administration needs to answer some serious questions. These questions must be asked by an independent and unbiased law enforcement authority. They must be answered truthfully by administration officials. Any attempt to lie or to mislead must be countered with the full force of law.

There needs to be an independent and transparent investigation on two fronts: one in the legislative branch, where we have an obligation to conduct oversight, and one in the executive branch, which has the responsibility of finding and prosecuting potential criminal liability.

Today I wish to address the investigation that must occur in the executive branch.

The new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, cannot be the person to lead that investigation. In fact, Justice Department regulations specifically prohibit individuals who have political ties to the subjects of an investigation from leading that investigation. It is a clear conflict of interest. I want to read the regulations of the Department of Justice. They are right here, and every American should see them because they are clear as can be.

No Department of Justice employee may participate in a

criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or

political relationship with any person or organization

substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of

the investigation or prosecution or who would be directly

affected by the outcome.

No employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or the prosecution.

The regulations continue. They define political relationship, again, clear as a bell:

Political relationship means a close identification with an

elected official, candidate, political party or campaign

organization arising from service as a principal advisor or

official. Personal relationship means a close and substantial

connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce

partiality.

Jeff Sessions was chairman of the National Security Advisory Committee alongside LTG Michael Flynn. He was a senior adviser in the Trump campaign, the first Senator to endorse the President's campaign, and nominated him at the Republican Convention in Cleveland. Those facts and the Department of Justice's own rules disqualify Attorney General Sessions from running this investigation.

The words are crystal clear; there is no wiggle room. If Attorney General Sessions were to conduct or in any way be involved with this investigation, he would be violating Justice Department guidelines.

As bad a start as the Trump administration is off to, it would make things dramatically worse to ignore these guidelines, which were set up for the purpose of getting to the truth in a fair and impartial way.

Attorney General Sessions must recuse himself immediately. Any investigation headed by, directed by, or influenced by the Attorney General will be jaundiced from the very start.

Because the rules are so clear, I expect the Attorney General will recuse himself and allow an independent and thorough investigation to go forward.

We have an additional reason to seek an independent and transparent investigation because of how the White House has treated this matter over the past few weeks.

The White House knew for weeks that General Flynn misled the Vice President and let General Flynn stay on the job. They knew for weeks that his discussion about sanctions with the Russian Government could potentially compromise our national security because he would be subject to blackmail, and they let him stay on.

The President knew for weeks about this and let General Flynn stay on in his full capacity, present at and participating in the highest level of national security discussions, until those reports were made public.

If the reports of General Flynn's incorrect statements to the Vice President were never made public by the Washington Post, would the President's trust ever have eroded? Would General Flynn ever have been fired? Would he still be in his job today? We will never know now. The answer is very troubling.

If an investigation is not independent, nonpartisan, and, most of all, transparent, there is no guarantee this administration will take the decisive and immediate actions necessary to keep our country safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the potential repeal of the Social Security Administration's rule that helps keep guns out of the hands of those with a severe mental illness. I voted no.

First, I want to point out that this rule only addresses a shortcoming in the existing background check law that Congress passed legislation to address. We use the National Instant Criminal Background Check system to prevent criminals and the adjudicated mentally ill from purchasing firearms.

In order for the FBI to have access to all the data they need to run those background checks, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act in 2007--in bipartisan fashion, signed into law by President George W. Bush, hardly a gun safety activist--to instruct Federal agencies to send information to the NICS system about criminal records and mental illness.

This rule at the Social Security Administration is simply implementing that bipartisan law.

Second, let me underscore the point, this rule only applies to those who have severe mental health disorders, like schizophrenia. These are folks who, because of their disorder need assistance managing their own affairs and are so severely impaired that they cannot hold down a full- time job. It simply requires the Social Security Administration to pass that data on to the NICS background check system so the FBI can stop gun sales to the seriously mentally ill.

It doesn't get much more common sense than that.

Frankly, I find it absurd that the Republicans have chosen to repeal this rule as one of their first priorities in this Congress.

Does the Republican majority really think it is wise, as my colleague from Connecticut asked, that folks who are so severely mentally ill that they cannot work and require assistance managing their finances should be assumed to be able to responsibly own and protect a gun?

Mental illness is a serious topic. We have debated it many times in this body--how to better provide for treatment, how to decrease the stigma surrounding it--but I don't remember the part where we debated whether it was wise or not to allow folks with a severe, almost incapacitating, mental illness to easily purchase a gun.

Gun violence takes far too many lives each year. At the very, very least, we should be doing all that we can to prevent criminals, potential terrorists, and the adjudicated mentally ill from purchasing firearms; yet Republicans consistently line up behind the NRA to block or repeal policies that would do those things--even though 8 or 9 out of every 10 Americans supports them, though a vast majority of gunowners support them.

Whenever Republicans talk about gun violence, they say, ``Let's enforce the laws on the books!'' Well, as I mentioned, this regulation does just that; it implements the bipartisan 2007 NICS Improvement Act that Republican President George W. Bush signed into law.

Today, Republicans are calling their own bluff; they are not interested in enforcing the laws on the books--they just want to repeal them, even when that puts innocent American lives at risk.

If Republicans have a problem with this rule, they should have pushed the Social Security Administration to modify it, rather than repealing it outright and blocking any similar rulemaking on the subject, which is what this CRA would do.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic whip for his remarks, and I will have much more to say on the circumstances surrounding General Flynn's resignation as National Security Advisor later today.

This morning, I rise to speak about the nominee on the floor, Representative Mulvaney, to be the Director of OMB.

Each nominee who comes before this body seems to be another indication of a Cabinet whose ideology is so far removed from the American mainstream and whose ethical conduct is more questionable than any other in our Nation's history. Representative Mulvaney is a walking demonstration of both shortcomings in this Cabinet.

First, on his views, which are way out of touch with most Americans, with average Americans. Representative Mulvaney has been a consistent ideological warrior against crucial safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare. He said it plain as day: ``We have to end Medicare as we know it. . . . Medicare as it exists today is finished.''

That is from his mouth, and President Trump appoints this man head of OMB, one of the most powerful agencies in the government. Not only has Mr. Mulvaney advocated for cutting benefits, he wants to jack up the retirement age for Medicare to 67, and for Social Security he wants to raise it to 70.

After the confirmation of Representative Price to lead HHS last week, the confirmation of Representative Mulvaney will be the launch of week 2 of the Republican war on seniors.

Let's be clear. These are fringe positions, way out of touch with how most Americans feel about these programs, and it just proves that when our Republican colleagues go back home to campaign, not one of them says: Raise the age to 70. I don't see Republican ads saying that. They say they are going to protect Medicare. Well, where are they now? You can't go home and campaign one way and then vote for Mulvaney, who wants to do the opposite and hurt our seniors--a war on seniors.

Literally, tens of millions of Americans rely on these programs and don't want to see their benefits cut. Millions more are on the cusp of retirement and know it is deeply unfair to move the goalpost on qualifying for these programs--changing the rules in the middle of the game--to hurt those who have spent their whole lives working and are now looking forward to receiving Social Security and Medicare. That is not what most Americans voted for, whether they pulled the lever for Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump.

Candidate Trump promised that he was ``not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,'' but then he turns around and nominates a man to OMB who has relentlessly argued the opposite. He nominates a Secretary of Health and Human Services who has also argued that, with all of our Republican colleagues voting for him--none of us. So if people think Donald Trump is going to be a defender--I saw the AARP ads--I would like those ads to mention the nominations of Mulvaney and Price. If people think Donald Trump is going to be a defender of Social Security and Medicare, these nominees seem to indicate a far different approach.

Candidate Trump didn't run as a far-right conservative. He ran as a populist against both establishments, but both Representative Mulvaney and Representative Price were plucked out of the very conservative wing of a very conservative House caucus and will be placed in charge of the budget and every American's healthcare--where they can effectively wage the war on seniors they have been plotting throughout their careers.

Unfortunately, both the OMB Director and the Secretary of HHS have hundreds of ways that don't go through the Congress of undercutting Medicare and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in particular. They can undercut them in a whole variety of different ways. Given their ideology and given their careers, that is just what they will do.

So the nominations of these two men are exhibits A and B that President Trump plans to run his administration from the hard right, rather than follow through on his populist rhetoric that defined his campaign, and frankly is what elected him. If he had run on the campaign views of these two nominees, he might have gotten 100 electoral votes. He might have gotten 100 electoral votes.

Second, on ethics. Again, this Cabinet is not only challenged on their views so far away from what the average American believes, but it is the most unethical Cabinet I have ever seen nominated, at least in my lifetime.

Representative Mulvaney is unfortunately an example of a Cabinet member that is too far compromised by potential conflicts of interest and other ethics challenges. It has been disclosed that Representative Mulvaney neglected to pay $15,000 in taxes on a household employee. A similar revelation sunk the nomination of a former Member and leader of this body, Senator Tom Daschle. Senator Daschle was relentlessly attacked by the Republican side on this issue. He withdrew his nomination. Representative Mulvaney hasn't withdrawn his nomination, and we haven't heard a peep out of the Republican side on the same-- very similar--transgression that was disqualifying, at least to our Republicans, for Senator Daschle, nor has the nominee for Secretary of Labor withdrawn his nomination. He has a similar situation.

The fact that the Republican majority is proceeding on both of their nominations is a dangerous abandonment of public ethics.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, candidate Trump ran a populist campaign that promised so much to working America. Many of those themes were actually echoed in his inaugural address, but ever since President Trump took the oath of office, he has gone about breaking promise after promise to the working people of this country.

A predictable pattern is beginning to emerge. This President uses populist rhetoric to cover up a hard-right agenda. We still hear the remnants of candidate Trump's populism in his speeches, but his actions as President don't match up. Just an hour after he had delivered populist words on the steps of the Capitol in his inaugural address, the President signed an Executive order--his first, I believe--that jacked up the price on Americans trying to afford a mortgage.

Ever since, we here in the Senate have been working through the President's Cabinet, which is filled not with champions of the working class, not with people who came from the working class but with a slew of superrich nominees, Washington insiders, and corporate types who have spent their whole careers sticking it to the working man.

A President's Cabinet provides insight into how they will govern and what their priorities will be. The President has shown his hand by selecting the most anti-working class Cabinet we have ever seen.

The slate of nominees we will soon consider, including Steve Mnuchin for Treasury, Andrew Pudzer for Labor, and Rick Mulvaney for OMB, show the yawning gap between the President's audacious promises to working America and the practical reality of his administration, which is steadily stacking the deck against them.

This evening we will debate the nomination of Steve Mnuchin for Treasury, a Cabinet post that will have oversight over Wall Street.

Candidate Trump spent the campaign lambasting elites and criticizing Wall Street. He said:

I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall

Street has caused tremendous problems for us.

Those are his words, but what does President Trump do? With one of his first Executive orders, he started the process to try to roll back Wall Street reform, undoing protections we put in place after the financial crisis to prevent another one from occurring. He wants to eviscerate the one agency that sticks up for consumers when they are being ripped off by payday lenders or debt collectors--the CFPB. That is a broken promise.

Candidate Trump said at his rallies: ``When you cast that ballot, just picture a Wall Street board room filled with the special interests . . . and imagine the look on their faces when you tell . . . them: `You're fired!' ''

But President Trump told Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street insider with

decades of experience in that board room he described, ``You're hired,'' as his Treasury Secretary, no less. That is a broken promise.

A President who is a true champion for working America would never consider unwinding protections that were designed to make our financial system more secure and protect hard-working Americans from the risky practices too often seen on Wall Street.

For the Secretary of Labor, the President picked Andrew Puzder, a man who once said he prefers robots to human employees because, in his words, they are always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there is never a slip and fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.

Secretary Nominee Puzder, the guy who is supposed to be protecting laborers--working people--actually said that.

I want to read it again. It galls me that this man is nominated for Labor Secretary. Why does he prefer robots to human employees? Secretary Puzder: They are always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there is never a slip and fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.

This is a man who has such disdain for workers that he said the minimum wage is a big mistake, and while at CKE Restaurants, his company, he continually outsourced American jobs.

A President who is a true champion of working America would never even consider selecting a nominee like Andrew Puzder to run the Labor Department. It is another broken promise to the working men and women of America. Amazing.

What President Trump did during the campaign and said during the campaign and in his inaugural address is almost the exact opposite of what he is doing now. You could not find a more anti-labor nominee for Labor Secretary than Mr. Puzder.

Now, what about OMB? The President selected Representative Mike Mulvaney, whose congressional career is a direct rebuke to key promises Candidate Trump made to working America. Candidate Trump promised that he was ``not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.''

That is a quote from Candidate Trump.

But who does he choose for OMB? A pick who has relentlessly argued to cut both of these programs, including bill after bill that would end both Medicare and Social Security as we know it.

Our new Health and Human Services Secretary--who, unfortunately, passed this Chamber because our Republican colleagues are just marching in lockstep to the President--is in exactly the same vein.

A true champion of senior citizens, of the working man and woman, wouldn't hire someone like Representative Mulvaney or Representative Price to take an ax to the programs they have relied on for generations.

Just 3 weeks in, the administration is stretching the boundaries of cognitive dissonance. The President still speaks like a populist but governs like a hard-right conservative. He promises to stick up for working families, but every decision he has made is rigging the system further against them.

Every American who works hard for their paycheck, who desperately deserves fairer overtime pay, who is counting on Social Security and Medicare to be there when they retire should look at this Cabinet and be very worried.

I know many working people voted for President Trump in hopes that they would change the power structure in Washington, as he promised so many times. His Cabinet is the first way to see if he really meant it. His Cabinet is the first way to measure: Is President Trump measuring up in his Presidency to what he promised in his campaign?

It turns out President Trump was using populist rhetoric to cover up a hard-right agenda, which will be carried out by this bevy of billionaires and bankers and hard-right idealogues--broken promise after broken promise.

Candidate Trump said that Washington was a place where ``the hedge fund managers, the Wall Street investors . . . and the powerful [protect] the powerful.''

``But I'm fighting for you,'' he said to working Americans.

If these first 3 weeks are any indication, that is a broken promise.

The nominations of Steve Mnuchin, Representative Mulvaney, and Andrew Puzder represent broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. We Democrats, over the next several weeks, will make clear to the American people, as we continue to debate these nominations, that what President Trump said on the campaign trail is not what he is doing as President. He is breaking his promises to the working people of America.

Many working people who voted for Mr. Trump are depending on him to do what he said in the campaign. Reading the tea leaves of the first 3 weeks, working Americans are going to be deeply, deeply disappointed over the course of his Presidency.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

That would be great.

I would appreciate it.

Your career is so great, you don't need me.

First, let me thank my colleague from Minnesota.

And I meant what I said: He doesn't need any help. He does it so well on his own. So I will regard this not as a quid pro quo--although he can get what he wants--but as an act of kindness and generosity.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to oppose the confirmation of Representative Tom Price to be Secretary of HHS and urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination.

Representative Price might be the quintessence of President Trump's Cabinet: a creature of Washington, deeply conflicted, and far out of the mainstream when it comes to his views on health care.

Like other nominees, philosophically he seems completely opposed to the very purpose of his Department: the good governance of the health programs that cover tens of millions of Americans.

Candidate Trump promised he would not cut Medicare or Medicaid, but Congressman Price has spent his entire career trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Just listen to these quotes:

The nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services has said, ``Nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare.'' That one might have come out of the 1890s, if we had had Medicare then.

He said he expects lawmakers to push forward with an overhaul of Medicare, ``within the first six to eight months'' of this new administration. Does that sound like someone who doesn't want to cut Medicare and Medicaid? It doesn't to me. It doesn't to the American people. In fact, if you could pick someone who in either House of Congress was most likely to cut Medicare and Medicaid, you would pick Congressman Price. It could not be more of a contradiction to what Candidate Trump promised in the campaign.

So here is what worries me: From what I know of the President, he will cede great authority to Cabinet officials, content to jump from one topic to the next, one tweet to the next. I would put much greater stock in Representative Price's record than anything the President promised during the campaign, and that is very bad news for seniors and the American people generally.

For that reason, every American who receives benefits from those programs--the millions of American seniors, women, families, and people with disabilities--should be gravely concerned about what the tenure of a Secretary Tom Price will mean for their health.

Make no mistake, in the dark hours of the early morning, with the confirmation of Secretary Price, the Republicans launch the first assault in their war on seniors. The war on seniors begins when we select Representative Price over our votes as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

When it comes to the health care of older Americans, confirming Representative Price to be Secretary of HHS is akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse. It has been revealed that in his time in the House, Representative Price engaged in a number of questionable practices related to the trading of stocks in issues that his legislation impacted. There are many instances.

There were reports late last year that Congressman Price had traded stocks in dozens of health care companies valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time when he introduced, sponsored, or cosponsored several pieces of legislation that potentially impacted those companies. In one instance, Congressman Price bought shares in a medical device manufacturing company just days before introducing legislation in the House that would directly benefit that company.

These were far from isolated incidents. Just yesterday, USA Today reported that Congressman Price ``bought and sold health care company stocks often enough as a member of Congress to warrant probes by both federal securities regulators and the House ethics committee.''

These allegations alone might be enough to sink a nominee in another administration, but it seems this Cabinet is so rife with ethics challenges and conflicts of interest that Representative Price's conduct in the House doesn't place him too far outside this unethical norm. But that should be no excuse. When you are a Congressman or a Senator, you must endeavor to avoid even the hint of a conflict of interest, let alone a situation where you are actively trading stocks that may be impacted.

So this is a sad evening. The war on seniors by the Trump administration begins when we confirm Representative Price. People will look back and say that the public war on seniors began at 2 a.m. Friday morning when the Senate, unfortunately, confirmed Representative Price.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

I yield the floor and once again thank my colleague.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, before our great friend from Utah gets up, I have other remarks; I will let the Senator from Utah speak before those. But I want to join my distinguished friend the majority leader in recognizing the Senator from Utah, who has become the longest serving Republican Senator in history.

We have been friends for a long time. He has given me guidance. He keeps telling me he is going to straighten me out one of these days--a work in progress, I guess we would think--but he is a terrific guy. He is a decent man. He is a caring man. He is an honorable man.

He has been a great partisan when he has to be, but he has shown tremendous independence on many different occasions. In fact, probably my mentor around here, Senator Kennedy, loved working with Senator Hatch, and they accomplished great things for America.

Even just recently, on an issue like Puerto Rico, there was not much gain for him personally. I don't think there is a large Puerto Rican population in Provo or Ogden. But he cared and he knew there was a problem. We spent late nights trying to figure out what to do, and while the solution may not have been as good as some of us would have wanted, it was a solution, and it wouldn't have happened without Senator Hatch. So we can say that on issue after issue after issue, he has risen to the occasion and has been the best of the Senate.

It is a fitting honor that he is here. Last time around, when he was not thinking of running, I think in the hearts of most Democrats there was hope that he would run again, and that was because we so esteem him.

I want to join the majority leader in congratulating Senator Hatch and wish him many, many more years of success both personally--I know he has a large and wonderful family, and we

have talked about our religious faith quite often--as well as a successful career.

With that, I will yield the floor and resume after Senator Hatch has had a few words to say.

Mr. President, I thank my friend for his kind words and, most importantly, his distinguished service to his country. Now on to other subjects.

Madam President, I rise this morning to speak directly to my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Now is the time to put country before party. I understand the pull of party loyalty. I understand deference to a new President. But from what we have seen in the first 2 weeks of this administration, party loyalty is demanding too much of my Republican colleagues on several issues. On the matter of the Cabinet, on the matter of the President's Executive order on immigration, and on the matter of dealing with Russia, we need Republicans to set aside partisan considerations in favor of doing what is best for the country; otherwise, our institutions of government, our Constitution, and our core American ideals may be eroded.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are going along with the President and treating many of these things as if they are normal, but America knows they are not. We need Republicans to start recognizing it, saying it, and stepping up to the plate to do something about it.

I understand my Republican colleagues will go along with the President 90 percent of the time, but there are certain issues that are too important that demand putting country above party. Now is the time to put country above party.

First, on the Cabinet, our norms of good government and above all ethics are being tested by a Cabinet unlike any other I have seen in my time in public office. There are so many billionaires with so many conflicts of interest and so little expertise in the issues they would oversee.

Take the nomination we are now considering: Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary. In my mind she is the least qualified nominee in a historically unqualified Cabinet. On conflicts of interest, she ranks among the worst. In her ethics agreement, which was delivered to the committee after the first hearing, it was revealed that she keeps interests in three family-owned trusts that have holdings in companies that could be affected by matters related to the Department of Education. Independent ethics watchdogs have criticized her ethics agreement for failing to deal with these conflicts of interest.

On philosophy of education, her views are extreme. She seems to constantly demean the main purpose of her job--public education. Nine out of 10 American kids attend public schools. Her views on public education are a major concern, particularly for Senators from rural areas. There is not a lot of choice of schools outside major metropolitan areas. If you don't have a good public school in your neighborhood or in your community, you have nothing. Any Senator from a rural State should be worried about her commitment to public education.

We in New York have the third largest rural population in America. I am worried for those schools where, if the school is no good, you don't have much choice; you don't have any choice.

Above all, and on basic competence, Mrs. DeVos has failed to make the grade. She didn't seem to know about the Federal education law that guarantees education to students with disabilities. She could not unequivocally say that guns shouldn't be in the schools, and she didn't seem to know about a long simmering debate in education policy about measuring growth versus proficiency. Frankly, Mrs. DeVos's answers at the hearings were embarrassing, not only for her but for my Republican colleagues on the committee who rushed her nomination through with 5 minutes of questions, only one round, and at 5 p.m.

Cabinet Secretaries can't be expected to know everything, but this is different. The nominee for Secretary of Education doesn't know some of the most basic facts about education policy. She has failed to show proficiency, and there is no longer any time for growth.

The American people are speaking in one loud voice against this nominee. I have had many people come up to me in New York and say: I voted for Donald Trump, but I am making calls about this nominee. Americans across the country in red and blue States have been flooding our offices with phone calls and emails, asking the Senate to vote no on Betsy DeVos. Local newspaper editorial boards, many of whom have endorsed Trump, are saying the same thing.

My friends, the Senators from Maine and Alaska, were profiles in courage last week when they announced their opposition to her nomination, but, unfortunately, so far they are the exception. We need just one more vote, and we can get a Secretary of Education who is a lot better than the one who was nominated. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to follow the courageous example of the Senators from Maine and Alaska. We have an obligation as Senators--not as Republicans and not as Democrats, but as Senators--to evaluate these nominees and their fitness for office because these nominees are going to wield immense power over the lives of Americans for the next 4 years. I ask my Republican colleagues to look into their conscience and cast their votes tomorrow, not based on party loyalty but based on whether or not Mrs. DeVos is qualified to be our Nation's leader on education policy. If one doesn't measure up, the Senate has a responsibility to reject the nomination.

I realize it rarely occurs, but this should be an exception because she is so uniquely unqualified, whether it comes to competence, whether it comes to philosophy against the public schools, or whether it comes to conflicts of interest, which still exist in far too many instances with Mrs. DeVos.

Madam President, second, the President's Executive order on immigration and refugees is so poorly constructed, so haphazardly implemented, so constitutionally dubious, so wrong in terms of what America is all about, and so contrary to our basic values as Americans that my Republican friends should feel a duty to country to help us rescind it. Several Members on the other side--I think it is over a dozen--have expressed concerns about it. Several spoke out strongly and unequivocally about imposing any type of ban during the campaign, but now that we have such a ban, they are unfortunately silent. It is time for that silence to end and for Republicans to step up to the plate and start backing up their words with actions.

On Friday, the order was temporarily blocked by a Federal judge, Judge Robart. On Saturday, the President questioned his court credibility via tweet and then asked the country to blame any potential attacks on the country on the judge and the courts. He is not a ``so- called'' judge as the President tweeted but rather a Senate-confirmed Bush appointee. That is not how we do things here in America.

There is a separation of powers for a reason. An independent judiciary is absolutely necessary to ensure Presidents and Congresses do not break the law or impinge on the Constitution, but this President has shown a certain callousness when it comes to judges who rule against his whim--Judge Curiel during the campaign and Judge Robart now. Instead of attacking the judge, the President should be working with Congress to tighten up security where it is actually needed.

The President has said that if there are attacks, the judge will be to blame. I will remind him that not one attack on U.S. soil has been perpetrated by a refugee from one of the seven countries in the Executive order. This order doesn't make us any safer; if anything, the Executive order increases the risk of lone wolf attacks, our greatest threat. That is what happened in San Bernardino, it is what happened in Orlando, and no authority less than Senator John McCain has said exactly that--that it will increase the likelihood of attacks by lone wolves, those disaffected people who are egged on by the evil ISIS.

So I make this offer to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Join Democrats in rescinding the Executive order, and we will work with you in a bipartisan way in good faith to actually make our country safer. Close up that visa waiver program where people from countries-- just because they are generally friendly to us--are not checked. We know places such as France and Belgium have homegrown terrorists lured by ISIS. They can get on a plane and come here far more easily than a refugee from those seven countries. Let's tighten that up. Instead, the President gives us this Executive order. Lord knows how he came to it. Every expert on terrorism will say there are a lot more important and better things that we need to do.

So let me repeat: The stakes are too high for party loyalty to stand in the way of doing what is right to protect this country. We ought to scrap the order and start over. The order not only does not protect us from terrorism but makes it worse. It stands in the face of what America is all about. Our country has welcomed immigrants, and the beautiful lady with the torch in the harbor of the city in which I live has beckoned us for generations.