Floor Statements

Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Governor Rick Perry to be Secretary of the Department of Energy, a Department that he called for eliminating in 2011. After briefings on the Department's mission and programs, Governor Perry came to ``regret'' that position, but his short education on his prospective job is not enough to prepare him for its complexity and importance.

The Department of Energy is a home of innovation and, critically, the Federal agency that manages the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal. The last two Secretaries of Energy were physicists.

According to the Dallas Morning News: ``In all of the department's missions, science is front and center. But during his 14 years as governor, Perry built a questionable record when it comes to science. He has a pattern of supporting offbeat medical theories while dismissing the established science on climate change. And his record of using public funds to boost technology and research in Texas is littered with poor management and allegations of cronyism.''

In one example, a 2010 Dallas Morning News investigation discovered mismanagement and political influence in the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, which Governor Perry established to provide funding to high-tech startups. The Dallas Morning News reported that the fund awarded more than $16 million to companies with connections to large campaign donors. A company in which an old college friend and donor invested received $2.75 million. Another company, where an investor had given more than $400,000 to Governor Perry's campaigns, received $1.5 million. A company founded by a former Perry appointee got $4.5 million.

The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Texas House Speaker made the Emerging Technology Fund's decisions based on input from an advisory committee that operated in secret and did not take minutes. Its recommendations to the Governor were not public. This unusual decisionmaking process, with ultimate power vested in elected officials rather than technical experts, is deeply troubling. As Secretary of Energy, Governor Perry would be charged with managing a number of grant and loan programs aimed at developing the next generation of energy technologies.

Governor Perry has also failed to commit to funding for ARPA-E and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These programs are essential to ensuring that the United States is a leader in the 21st century energy economy and confronts the critical challenge of climate change.

I am deeply concerned by Governor Perry's limited experience with our Nation's nuclear program. While he did advocate a low-level nuclear waste repository in his State, he has no experience with nuclear weapons. His inexperience is particularly problematic when the President he would serve has also appeared confused by issues surrounding the nuclear triad and has inaccurately said that the United States has ``fallen behind on nuclear weapons capacity.''

The United States is engaged in a $1 trillion program to refurbish our nuclear weapons systems, a process that should be tightly controlled. We should be reducing, not expanding, the number of nuclear weapons in the world. President Trump has questioned the New START Treaty, a critical tool to decrease nuclear weapons in both the United States and Russia. He glibly and irresponsibly called for ``an arms race,'' even though the United States and Russia already control 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons and each have enough to destroy the world many times over.

The Secretary of Energy needs to have a clear vision to manage our nuclear arsenal and ensure that the President fully understands our capabilities and their implications for national security and international peace. There is nothing in Governor Perry's record or testimony that indicates that he is prepared for this job.

Governor Perry may have considered the Department of Energy insignificant enough to forget during his Presidential run, but its mission is essential to the safety and security of the American people. Between our national labs and research and loan programs, it fosters greater economic competitiveness and discovers new technologies to drive energy independence and solutions to climate change. I do not believe that Governor Perry is prepared to manage the Department and provide thoughtful counsel to the President, and thus I must vote against his nomination today.

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Representative Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior.

The Department of the Interior is charged with judicious management of our Nation's public lands. It is responsible for balancing conservation, recreation, and development to ensure that Americans get the best use and best value from our collective natural resources.

President Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest stewards of our public lands, once said: ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.''

The Obama administration took important steps to protect our resources and provide best value to taxpayers. Taking Atlantic Ocean drilling off the table protects our coastal areas and the vital tourism industry up and down the Eastern Shore, including Ocean City. Modernizing the coal leasing process ensures that taxpayers get proper payment for use of common resources. Preventing methane leakage on public lands stops waste of resources and pollution from a potent greenhouse gas.

Representative Zinke's history in Congress casts doubt on his commitment to these important initiatives. He has a mere 3 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters and an F grade from the National Parks Action Fund. I appreciate that he has spoken in opposition to the sale or transfer of public lands to States, but I am deeply concerned about his vote in January in the House of Representatives for a rule change that would make sales and transfers much easier.

As the Sierra Club has said: ``Rather than dedicating himself to the preservation of our public lands, Representative Zinke has repeatedly sided with those who would dismantle, degrade, or dispose of them. Mining, drilling, logging, and dirty energy interests have been placed time and again before the public interest''

In an op-ed opposing a Department of the Interior rule to update coal leasing to get better value for American taxpayers, Representative Zinke said that the Obama administration was ``fighting a more aggressive war against American coal than they are against ISIS.'' This kind of hyperbole does not bode well for Representative Zinke's ability to represent American taxpayers or promote conservation as Secretary of the Interior, should he be confirmed.

In his nomination hearing, Representative Zinke pledged to support Federal public lands, permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and address the National Parks maintenance backlog. These are important promises from any nominee for the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, Representative Zinke's voting record does not give me confidence in his commitment to fulfill them, and therefore I must vote against his nomination today. I am proud to be a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, and if he is confirmed, I look forward to working with him to protect our public lands and ensure that American taxpayers get a fair deal for our common resources.

Mr. President, creating jobs, fostering economic growth, maintaining sustainable development, and improving standards of living of all Americans are central tasks for any administration, and they are the mission of the Commerce Department.

Congress created the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, and then renamed the Department of Commerce in 1913 as the offices working on labor were transferred to the Department of Labor. Through 12 bureaus and nearly 47,000 employees, the Department runs programs that affect broad swaths of the American economy.

The Department includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which warns of dangerous weather, charts seas, and protects ocean and coastal resources. The Department includes the Patent and Trademark Office, which fosters technology and innovation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD, which promotes innovation and industrial competitiveness. The Department includes the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis, which provide economic data to help business and policymakers make intelligent decisions. The Department includes the International Trade Administration, which ensures that Americans have access to international markets and safeguards Americans from unfair competition. And the Department includes the Economic Development Administration to promote job growth in economically distressed communities.

To run the Commerce Department, President Trump has nominated Wilbur Ross, Jr., a 79-year-old private-equity billionaire with extensive holdings and extensive potential conflicts of interest. I have real questions about whether Mr. Ross is out of touch with ordinary Americans. And I have real questions about whether Mr. Ross's personal interests will conflict with his job as Commerce Secretary, if he is confirmed.

The Commerce Secretary enforces our trade laws, including against major trade competitors like China. Last year, Mr. Ross told Bloomberg TV that he had extensive holdings in China. Mr. Ross said, ``We have-- various portfolio

companies have almost 20 factories doing one thing or another over there.'' And the New York Times reported that Mr. Ross is vice chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, making him a de facto business partner with Viktor F. Vekselberg, one of Russia's most prominent businesspeople and a person with ties to the Kremlin. Several newspapers have reported that Mr. Ross plans to keep millions of dollars invested in offshore entities whose values could be affected by policies that he implements as Commerce Secretary. Mr. Ross reported plans to hold on to investments in an oil-tanker company and 10 other entities that invest in shipping and real estate financing, according to Federal financial- disclosure and ethics filings cited in the reports.

I have questions about Mr. Ross's ability to work for Americans. Starting in the 1990s, Mr. Ross ran an investment firm that specialized in distressed assets. The Securities and Exchange Commission said that Mr. Ross's firm had failed to disclose how it calculates its fees for some funds, which led to investors to pay roughly $10.4 million of management fees that they should not have in the decade leading up to 2011.

The Commerce Secretary is a part of the President's economic team; yet Mr. Ross appears all too willing to play fast and loose with fiscal showdowns. When, in April 2011, Bloomberg's Mark Crumpton asked Mr. Ross whether S&P's downgrade of America's credit rating is ``a step in the right direction,'' Mr. Ross said it was. Ross said: ``Well I think it's a step in the right direction in that it will put pressure on the Democrats in the Senate and on the President to go along with some of the Republican reviews about really cutting the budget deficit and ultimately cutting the total indebtedness of the United States. So in that limited sense I think it is a step in the right direction.''

Mr. Ross was all too quick to dismiss the strain that a furlough put on Federal Government workers. In October 2013, CNBC's Betty Liu had this exchange with Mr. Ross:

Ross: I think shutting down the government--so-called

shutting down the government, which it's not really shut

down--

Liu: What do you mean?

Ross: Well, many parts of it are still quite open. And it's

just at the fringe that it--that it really matters.

Liu: Yeah, but tell that to the government workers though

who are furloughed, right?

Ross: Yeah, but they're going to get their pay. They know

they'll get their back pay. So I don't see that that's a

permanent damage.

Mr. Ross was all too quick to dismiss the pain of homeowners who lost their homes in the financial crisis. Bloomberg TV's Betty Liu had this exchange with Mr. Ross:

Ross: I think you have to look far and wide to find a home

owner who's an actual victim. These are all theoretical

things. They're mostly technical problems that the banks did

wrong. To the best of my knowledge--

Liu: I think it'd be really hard to find, to pinpoint down

to individuals, right?

Ross: Well there's never been a case that I know of where

someone was dispossessed who didn't have a mortgage and

wasn't in default.

Liu: What do you mean?

Ross: Well all these claims that there was robo signing and

all these imperfections, that's true. Those were not what

should be. But the real question is was anyone actually

dispossessed wrongly.

Liu: Of their property.

Ross: Yeah, incorrectly. And I don't think you find a

single case.

The Commerce Secretary oversees the NOAA and the National Weather Service. But in a conversation with Fox Business's Neil Cavuto, Mr. Ross was dismissive of the reality of climate change. Mr. Ross said: ``Well, I think unless the weatherman can tell me if it will rain tomorrow why would I believe you can make a 100 year forecast. So, I'm skeptical about the underlying basis.''

And so President Trump has nominated to be Commerce Secretary a person who has so much wealth and so many foreign interests that it appears that it will be difficult for him to work in the interests of middle-class Americans. His extensive foreign business interests call into question his ability to fight to enforce America's trade laws. Mr. Ross has expressed cavalier attitudes toward economic brinksmanship and shown little concern for the people laid off or who lose their homes as a result. And Mr. Ross has expressed an open skepticism toward the reality of climate change that calls into question his ability to run the agency that does research into global climate. For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. President, I know Mick Mulvaney. We served together for 6 years in the House of Representatives. I have always found him to be a straight shooter. And he was a champion of budget transparency. I also respect him for taking on some budget fights even when they were not popular with his Republican leadership. We worked together to ensure honest budgeting when we joined in efforts to prevent the use of overseas contingency operations funding as a slush fund for unlimited Pentagon spending.

I have deep concerns, however, about many of the positions that Mr. Mulvaney has taken over the years on matters vital to the Nation.

He has proposed radical measures that would undermine our fundamental safety net. He has said, ``We have to end Medicare as we know it.'' And he criticized Congressman Paul Ryan's already harsh budget because it did not cut important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid fast enough.

Mr. Mulvaney has taken too cavalier an attitude toward the threat of default on U.S. Government obligations. He called the need to raise the debt ceiling a ``fabricated crisis.'' And he has repeatedly introduced legislation to prioritize payment of obligations to bondholders--who are often foreign--over other government obligations, including those to our veterans--in effect paying China first. At his confirmation hearing, he did not indicate that he has changed his view. The failure of the U.S. Government to pay its debts would wreak havoc on the economy.

Similarly, Mr. Mulvaney has been far too flippant about budgetary confrontations. He was a leader of a group threatening to shut down the government in order to defund Planned Parenthood, saying, ``If we can do that while still funding the rest of the government, fine. If we cannot, and there is a lapse in appropriations, so be it.'' And when asked if the 2013 government shutdown fight over Obamacare was worth it, he said it was.

Mr. Mulvaney has shown too great a willingness to eliminate government functions that protect consumers or help create jobs. Speaking of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he said, ``I don't like the fact that CFPB exists.'' And he referred to legislation

reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank as ``a piece of crap.'' Those were his words.

At his hearing, he did not appear to have a grasp of the size of the Federal workforce, and that it is smaller than any time during the Reagan administration. He did not seem to realize that the share of the population employed in the Federal Government is at the lowest point on record, since reliable data first became available shortly before World War II. These are fundamental facts the OMB Director should know.

Because of these concerns, I will be unable to support Mr. Mulvaney's nomination.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is a key player in setting the Nation's economic policy. The Director of OMB produces the President's budget, enforces funding laws that Congress enacts, and oversees the regulations that protect Americans' health, safety, and environment through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

If the Senate confirms Mr. Mulvaney, I will watch with great interest how he reconciles his past positions with his new responsibilities representing the administration and the American people. I hope that he will respect the hard-working Federal employees who serve our Nation. In his new position, I do believe that his personal relationships with Members of Congress will prove useful, and I will look for areas where we can work together.

Madam President, I wish to start where the Senator from Maine left off, and that is with respect to the approximately 3,000 emails that Scott Pruitt, the nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, has been hiding from public view. I hope all Senators know now that last night, a judge, Judge Timmons, ordered that those emails be released so the American public can see exactly what is going on.

Here is what the judge said: ``There was an abject failure to provide prompt and reasonable access to the documents that had been requested.''

Willful ignorance is always a bad policy, and I really hope that the Senate will not engage in willful ignorance when it comes to the nomination of Scott Pruitt. Why not wait a few days to see what is in the emails that were so deliberately hidden from public view? That should worry every Senator, Republican and Democrat alike.

In addition to all of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues on this floor with respect to having Scott Pruitt at the helm of EPA, Marylanders have a special concern. In fact, those who are part of the Chesapeake Bay States have a very, very special concern.

The Chesapeake Bay is a natural treasure, and it is a national treasure. It is the Nation's largest estuary. It is beloved by Marylanders and beloved by all who benefit from its great bounty.

Marylanders get up in the morning and go crabbing on the bay. It has also been a source of income for our State and the other bay States.

The reality is that our tourism industry depends on a healthy bay. Our watermen depend on a healthy bay. Our boating industry depends on a healthy bay. So it is not only an environmental imperative, it is an economic imperative in the State of Maryland. And the Chesapeake Bay is threatened more than almost any other water body in the United States by pollution. That is because its tidal tributaries have a shoreline more than the whole west coast of the United States. In other words, if you look at the water surface of the bay and you look at the surface area of the rivers and streams feeding into the bay and you look at all the shoreline there, it is greater than the west coast.

The surface water area, including the 150 major rivers and streams and more than 100,000 smaller tributaries, is 4,500 square miles. But the watershed--the landmass that drains into that area--is 64,000 square miles, from six States and the District of Columbia, everywhere from Virginia to parts of New York State. And because the bay is threatened by pollution coming from throughout that great area--those six States and the District of Columbia--back in the 1960s, people recognized we had to do something about it because we had combined sewer water overflows, we had fertilizer runoff, we had stormwater runoff from six States and the District of Columbia bordering the Chesapeake Bay and threatening its livelihood and threatening the economy of the State of Maryland.

That is when a number of States got together and said: We have to do something about it. Senator Mathias, who was a Republican Senator from the State of Maryland, brought people together and said: We need to do a national study funded by the Federal Government because, in a situation where you have so many States contributing to the pollution of the bay, obviously, it is not within the power of only one State to do something about it.

And over nearly three decades from those early days back in the 1960s and beyond, we entered into a number of bay agreements with the three States immediately around the bay: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, and then it got expanded over time. But despite all of the efforts in those States, it was as if we were on a treadmill.

The good news is the actions taken by the States, with the help of the EPA, meant that we were not going backward. It was a little bit as if we were trying to run up a down escalator. If we hadn't been taking any action, we would be going down fast. The bay would get more and more polluted, become less and less healthy. But even with all the measures we were taking, it was as if we were running in place on that escalator that was going down.

So in 2009, the bay States decided that they needed to put more teeth in the enforcement mechanisms to make sure that everybody was being held accountable for their share of cleaning up this precious natural resource and natural treasure.

That is when we entered into an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, giving the EPA the authority to help enforce the provisions of that agreement if any State strayed. And the results have been very important and very encouraging. Just this January, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, in its biannual ``State of the Bay Report,'' gave the Chesapeake Bay its highest, its healthiest score since the report began in 1987.

I want to be clear. We are still a long way from a healthy Chesapeake Bay, but we have gone from running in place to actually making a few steps forward, and that is largely as a result of the efforts of the bay agreement and the new leverage that the Environmental Protection Agency has to enforce compliance with that agreement.

Here is where the story of the President's nominee to be the head of EPA intersects with the Chesapeake Bay. As attorney general of the landlocked State of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt decided to join in a court case to try to blow up this Chesapeake Bay agreement. He decided from Oklahoma that he wanted to get in the business--the bipartisan business that had been supported by Republican and Democratic Governors alike, Republican and Democratic Senators alike, over a long period of time. He sued, along with others, the EPA to try to prevent the EPA from playing this important role that helped give us a boost.

Now, the good news is Scott Pruitt and the others failed. The judge said: Sorry, you are wrong; this does not exceed the EPA's authority. The good news is that we are going to continue to proceed. But what are we going to do when Scott Pruitt, who brought that lawsuit against the Chesapeake Bay agreement, is the Administrator of the EPA?

Senator Cardin, my friend and colleague from the State of Maryland, asked him about this at the hearing. At the hearing, Scott Pruitt made some positive statements about this agreement. Then Senator Cardin wanted to follow up and make sure he heard it straight, and so he followed up with some questions in writing. What came back were a series of statements that showed that Scott Pruitt was backtracking on the commitment he had made--backtracking on his promise to lead a strong EPA and have an important EPA role in enforcing this Chesapeake Bay agreement.

In addition to the fact that he has shown willful ignorance about the dangers of climate change, which are all so very real to the State of Maryland--just go down to the Naval Academy and ask the superintendent there, and he will tell you they have many more storm surges right there in Annapolis as a result of climate change--and so many other areas where Scott Pruitt has sided with big money, special interests, polluting special interests, he clearly is somebody whom we worry about in the State of Maryland with respect to protecting the Chesapeake Bay.

So I ask all my colleagues to join with us in at least demanding now that we have an opportunity to see the 3,000 emails, which a judge has required be provided to the public next week.

I hope all Senators don't want to be embarrassed by voting for somebody today, only to find very compromising emails next week. I really believe we have an obligation to the American people to ensure that we have an opportunity to view those emails. I certainly know the people of Maryland, when it comes to protecting our beautiful Chesapeake Bay--both because of its natural beauty but also because it is essential to our economy--join me in encouraging my colleagues to ask for a delay and, at the very least, vote no on the nomination of Scott Pruitt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, guns kill 36,000 Americans every year. That's nearly 100 Americans every day.

To help address this scourge of violent death, Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. The Brady Act required the Attorney General to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, to determine whether Federal law prohibits a potential buyer from getting a gun.

Following the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, which left 33 dead, President George W. Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act to improve the national background check system. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to buy a gun because the background check system did not include information about his mental health.

The prohibition on buying a gun now applies to people who, as a result of their mental condition, have been determined to pose a danger to themselves or others or lack the capacity to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration proposed its rule to meet the requirements to strengthen the background check system in the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

The Social Security Administration's rule defined Social Security disability beneficiaries who are have a mental impairment and need another person --known as a ``representative payee''--to handle the receipt of their benefits to fall within the category of those

who lack the capacity to manage their own affairs. Importantly, these determinations would be subject to judicial review. The rule is not a perfect fit, but it is an appropriate one.

I have heard from some disability rights advocates that this rule may be unduly broad and might prohibit too many people from owning a gun. I am sensitive to the concerns of people with disabilities. It is wrong to stigmatize people with mental disabilities as the cause of gun violence. And people with disabilities, like all Americans, have important rights under the Second Amendment. I would be open to changes to the rule that would make appeals from determinations easier to make, and I would be open to other ways to better identify people who are a danger to themselves or others or lack the capacity to manage their own affairs.

A resolution to disapprove the rule under the Congressional Review Act, however, is not the right way to get to a better result. If Congress enacts the resolution of disapproval, then the law would prohibit the Social Security Administration from writing a better rule in its place.

Better still, Congress could enact sensible gun legislation. But instead of working with Democrats to improve the law, Republicans have chosen to use the blunt instrument of the Congressional Review Act to repeal the rule. Using the Congressional Review Act is far from the most precise way to address this problem.

The powerful gun lobby has prevented Republicans in Congress from supporting common sense legislation that most Americans favor. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in universal background checks and that guns should be kept out of the hands of people who have been determined to pose a risk or are unable to manage their affairs. Repealing the Social Security Administration's rule would go in the opposite direction. Enacting this resolution of disapproval will only make it harder to keep American communities safe, and thus I oppose the resolution.

Mr. President, Congress created the Small Business Administration in 1953 to ``aid, counsel, assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns.'' The SBA now provides financial assistance, help with Federal contract procurement, and management assistance. The agency makes specialized outreach to women, minorities, and veterans. SBA also provides loans to victims of natural disasters and specialized advice and assistance in international trade.

The President has nominated Linda McMahon to run the SBA. Mrs. McMahon and her husband founded Titan Sports in 1980. The business grew dramatically under their leadership. Mrs. McMahon became president in 1993 and CEO of the company in 1997. The company became World Wrestling Entertainment and then simply WWE.

Unfortunately, the McMahons appear to have grown their business at least in part using business practices that disadvantaged their employees. The Connecticut Post and the Hartford Courant reported that WWE did not offer its wrestlers health insurance, as McMahon argued the company's wrestlers were independent contractors. And the Connecticut Post reported that Connecticut audited McMahon's company to determine if WWE improperly classified employees as independent contractors.

An investigation led by Representative Henry Waxman found that McMahon's WWE did not do enough to prevent steroid use. Representative Waxman's committee found that, at one point, 40 percent of WWE's wrestlers tested positive for steroids and other drugs, even after being warned in advance that they were going to be tested. A WWE ``house doctor'' was reportedly convicted and sentenced to prison for steroid trafficking. And the New York Daily News reported that an Albany district attorney probe into a widespread Internet doping scandal involved several WWE wrestlers.

And more than 50 former professional wrestlers sued McMahon's WWE, charging that the company was responsible for repeated head trauma that they suffered, often involving specific moves scripted and choreographed by WWE.

The SBA needs strong leadership to advance the interests of our Nation's hard-working small businesses, but it does not need a leader who will advance profits at workers' expense. Mrs. McMahon's business experience leads me to be concerned that she will not put people over profits, and thus, I must oppose the nomination.

Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Steve Mnuchin, a multimillionaire former Goldman Sachs executive, hedge fund manager, and investor, to be Secretary of the Treasury. In our Nation's history, the Treasury Secretary was the first Cabinet official to be confirmed by the Senate, when Alexander Hamilton took his post in 1789.

The first Congress valued the Treasury Department highly, giving it more resources than all other government agencies combined. Today the mission of the Treasury Department is to:

``Maintain a strong economy and create economic and job

opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable

economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen

national security by combating threats and protecting the

integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S.

Government's finances and resources effectively.''

While the Department always serves a critical function, it has been particularly vital in times of financial crisis. In 2008, in the wake of lax regulation and excessive speculation, a financial crash shook our Nation's economy. The Treasury Department was a key player to pull us back from the brink and keep the toxic contagion on Wall Street from spilling over to Main Street. We had to fight to ensure that the colossal failures of irresponsible corporate executives would not wipe out small businesses and citizens' savings.

At that time, my congressional office helped hundreds of homeowners facing foreclosure, working them through the loan modification process, helping track down missing documents, and following up again and again with banks to make sure that paperwork was processed. We held a foreclosure prevention forum to connect people to

housing counselors. For too many, this process was extremely difficult, tremendously confusing, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. While my office was always ready to help, there was no reason why congressional intervention should have been necessary to help families modify their payments to stay in their homes.

Where was Steve Mnuchin at this time, when families across the Nation were struggling? He was profiting from it. In 2009, he joined a group of billionaire-investors to buy IndyMac, a failed bank that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had taken over. The investors turned it into OneWest Bank, and they turned it into what the California Reinvestment Coalition called ``a foreclosure machine.''

Though the majority did not permit the California Reinvestment Coalition to testify at an official hearing on Mr. Mnuchin's nomination, the coalition's Paulina Gonzalez spoke with a number of Senators at a forum on Mr. Mnuchin's bank. Ms. Gonzalez told us that OneWest was among the worst. OneWest denied more applications than most for the Home Affordable Modification Program, the government program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure by adjusting their payment schedule. Ms. Gonzalez told us, ``We have labeled OneWest a `foreclosure machine' not only because it foreclosed on more than 60,000 American families and because of its aggressive foreclosure practices, but because it seemed to do little else.''

Consider some of the heartbreaking foreclosure stories that OneWest left in its wake.

A 90-year-old Florida woman lost her home after making a 27-cent payment error.

Christina Clifford attempted to modify her loan twice. Each time that she sent in her check with the paperwork, OneWest told her that her paperwork was not received--even though the bank cashed the check that was in the same envelope.

A Minneapolis woman was in the process of negotiating a loan modification when she came home in a blizzard and found that her locks had been changed.

OneWest and its subsidiary Financial Freedom were also notorious for what came to be called ``widow foreclosures.'' They lured seniors into reverse mortgages signed by one spouse of a married couple. When the spouse who signed the paperwork died, OneWest and Financial Freedom would immediately begin the foreclosure process, sending out notices in as little as 10 days to widows and widowers.

Another egregious bank practice during the foreclosure crisis was ``robo-signing.'' Mortgage officials would speed through foreclosure documents and sign off without reviewing their accuracy. This practice all too frequently led to the bank powering through as many foreclosures as possible.

Mr. Mnuchin told the Finance Committee that ``OneWest Bank did not `robo-sign' documents.'' But in a deposition, a OneWest executive admitted to personally robo-signing hundreds of documents, even shortening her signature to her initials to speed the process even further.

Thanks to these draconian practices, Mr. Mnuchin made a tidy $1.5 billion in profit when he and his fellow investors sold OneWest after 6 years.

In the aftermath of the devastating 2008 financial crisis, Congress worked to reform the system with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Congress intended the law to reduce the kind of risk and recklessness that led to the crisis and strengthen Federal oversight of Wall Street and Big Banks. Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be a watchdog for everyday Americans and prevent predatory lending and unscrupulous behavior by financial institutions. It began regulation of exotic financial derivatives that contributed to the crisis by masking risk and established the Volcker rule to place limits on ways that banks can invest to minimize conflicts of interest and high-risk transactions.

While Congress can certainly do more to improve consumer and investor protections and ensure that no bank is ever ``too big to fail,'' Dodd- Frank is a critical reform. And since the day it passed, Republicans in Congress have attacked it, seeking to roll back its protections, weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and reduce the oversight of the speculative transactions that increase risk in our financial markets.

President Trump has called Dodd-Frank a ``disaster'' and vowed to ``do a big number on it.'' And last week, President Trump signed an Executive order directing a review of Dodd-Frank regulations.

By his side at that moment was Gary Cohn, who was co-president of Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis. As detailed in a report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Goldman survived the crash in part by betting against its own customers and sticking them with bad mortgages. In 2006, they saw trouble coming in the subprime mortgage market and realized that they were overinvested. So they packaged the bad deals into new mortgage-backed products and dumped them. In 2009, one analyst called Goldman ``a single underwriter solely interested in pushing its dirty inventory onto unsuspecting and gullible investors.''

President Trump's adviser Gary Cohn was a leader of Goldman Sachs at that time. Now, after walking away from Goldman Sachs with a $285 million payout, he has become chair of the National Economic Council. Mr. Cohn is at President Trump's side to work to unravel the reforms that Congress put in place to stop bad behavior of banks like Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Mnuchin also worked at Goldman Sachs and continued to work in the hedge fund industry. Will he serve as a check on the impulse to reopen banking to greater risk? In an interview with CNN's Squawk Box after his nomination, he said, ``We want to strip back parts of Dodd-Frank and that will be the number one priority on the regulatory side,''--the number one priority.

It is unclear how Mr. Mnuchin, Mr. Cohn, and President Trump plan to reshape financial regulation, how much risk they plan to reintroduce to the markets, and whether they would ensure adequate safeguards for consumers and investors. We do know, however, that Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Cohn are cozy with Wall Street and Big Banks, and it appears now that Mr. Trump's talk about reining in Wall Street was just talk.

In addition to the need to continue sensible oversight of the financial system, the next Treasury Secretary will have to confront one of the greatest challenges of our time--growing income inequality, wealth inequality, and wage stagnation.

According to an Economic Policy Institute Analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis, from 1948 until 1973, worker productivity and compensation rose at roughly similar rates--productivity increased by 96.7 percent and hourly compensation increased by 91.3 percent. Starting in 1973, however, growth in worker productivity and wages began to diverge dramatically. Between 1973 and 2013, productivity increased by 74.4 percent, but hourly compensation increased by just 9.2 percent.

Not everyone, however, saw stagnation. The wages of the top 1 percent of earners grew 138 percent between 1979 and 2013, once again, according to analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. In that same time period, the wages of workers in the bottom 10 percent actually dropped by 5 percent.

In 1965, an average company CEO made 20 times the salary of an average, nonmanagement worker. In 2014, the average CEO made 303 times the salary of an average worker.

Many Americans feel that they are working harder than ever, but they aren't getting ahead. Too often, they are right. They are taking on more and not getting compensated for the extra effort. We need policies to help average workers, like increasing the minimum wage, fair pay, and improvements to the Tax Code to encourage hard work rather than simply rewarding those who make money off of money.

Is Mr. Mnuchin the right person to address this problem? His experience is certainly different from that of the average worker. The son of a Goldman Sachs banker, he has accumulated enough wealth that he forgot to disclose a hundred million dollars in assets to the Finance Committee. He has said little about his ideas for tax reform, except creating what my colleague Senator Wyden has dubbed the

``Mnuchin Rule.'' In an interview, Mr. Mnuchin said of tax reform: ``Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions, so there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.'' I would certainly welcome that outcome. Unfortunately, it is totally inconsistent with the Trump tax plan.

According to Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, President Trump's tax plan is heavily weighted to benefit the wealthy, leading to ``a new era of dynastic wealth.'' A report from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that President Trump's plan would ``significantly raise taxes'' for about 8.5 million families, particularly working single parents. In contrast, the wealthiest one percent would receive 47 percent--almost half--of the tax cuts, saving on average $214,000. The 117,000 households in the top 0.1 percent would receive, on average, a whopping $1.3 million each.

In addition to exacerbating the problem of income inequality, the Trump tax plan would add $7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. It would blow a hole in our Federal budget to give big checks to the superwealthy, provide limited benefit to the middle class, and hurt low-income families.

This is entirely backwards. We have learned over and over again that massive tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to economic growth for everyone. Trickle down has never worked. We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just the very wealthy. And we certainly should not be rewarding the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Given what little we know of Mr. Mnuchin's policy priorities, we have to look to his career to determine his experience to carry out the mission of the Treasury to create economic and job opportunities and sustain economic growth. Unfortunately, Mr. Mnuchin appears to have had a canny ability to take advantage of the dire circumstances of others to benefit himself, particularly in pushing aggressively for foreclosures at OneWest. It is far from clear that he is willing to now work on behalf of all Americans and especially those who have been working harder and receiving no return. I hope to be proven wrong, but I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of David Shulkin to be Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

President Obama nominated Dr. Shulkin, a medical doctor, to be Under Secretary for Health for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Chief Executive of the Veterans Health Administration. The Senate confirmed Dr. Shulkin in June 2015 by a voice vote. Since then, he has led the VA's health care system, with more than 1,700 care sites and 9 million veterans using the system each year.

Before joining the VA, Dr. Shulkin served as president and CEO of Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City and president at Morristown Medical Center, Goryeb Children's Hospital, and Atlantic Rehabilitation Institute, and the Atlantic Health System Accountable Care Organization. Dr. Shulkin also previously served as the chief medical officer of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Temple University Hospital, and the Medical College of Pennsylvania Hospital. He had been chairman of medicine and vice dean at Drexel University School of Medicine. And Dr. Shulkin founded and was the chairman and CEO of DoctorQuality, a consumer-oriented source of information for quality and safety in health care.

Veterans groups are cautiously optimistic that Dr. Shulkin will continue to improve the timeliness and quality of medical care our veterans receive. They are also hopeful that he will begin much-needed reforms in the administration of veterans' benefits, including the reform of the appellate review process.

The Department of Veterans Affairs provides important services, care, and peace of mind for our Nation's 21 million veterans. The VA has more to do to make sure that the care that it provides is worthy of those who served our Nation. I believe that Dr. Shulkin's experience and training has prepared him well to continue that effort, and I support his nomination.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland's neighboring State of Delaware, the senior Senator, Mr. Carper. I thank him for raising those points about the very negative impact that repealing the Affordable Care Act would have on so many folks in Delaware and Maryland and, specifically, rural hospitals. The Eastern Shore of Maryland and the Delmarva Peninsula have lots of rural hospitals that will be put in the crosshairs if we repeal the Affordable Care Act, so I thank the Senator for raising those issues and sharing with the Senate the impact of what repeal would do.

I rise to oppose the nomination of Tom Price to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I am very familiar with the views and the policy positions of Congressman Price and the ideas he has with respect to health care and budget issues facing our Nation.

Before coming to the Senate, I served as the senior Democrat, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, and Congressman Price is the chairman of that committee. I have said this before, and I say it again; that despite our very deep differences over critical issues facing our country and health care policies, Representative Price did conduct the business of the Budget Committee in a professional manner.

I respect the intensity with which he argues his case, but it is because of his inflexible and highly ideological positions on critical matters before us that I oppose him. I firmly believe his policies will do great harm to the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans throughout this country. That is why I oppose his nomination for this very sensitive post.

During the Presidential campaign, Candidate Trump tweeted, ``I was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.'' President Trump has repeated those promises since then.

Yet, throughout his tenure in the Congress and throughout his time as chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Price has taken the exact opposite position, calling for cuts to Medicare, cuts to Medicaid, cuts to Social Security. He is now going to be overseeing the Department responsible for Medicare and Medicaid. So let's look at how Chairman Price's policies would impact those programs and harm the health care of Americans.

First, on Medicare, he has called for privatizing Medicare through a voucher program. Make no mistake--seniors on Medicare are going to pay a lot more under their voucher plan.

Here is how it works: Instead of going to the hospital and having Medicare cover the costs, seniors will instead get the equivalent of a voucher. Here is the catch: The value of that voucher will not rise nearly as fast as the cost of health care in this country, so each year that goes by, the value of that voucher will pay for less and less health care for seniors on Medicare.

Yes, Tom Price's plan saves Medicare money. It saves Medicare money by requiring senior citizens on Medicare to eat the difference--the difference between the value of the voucher, which is effectively frozen over time, and the cost of health care that those seniors are going to need. That is the wrong approach for making savings in Medicare.

The right approach is the approach taken in the Affordable Care Act, where we begin to change the incentives in the system, so we encourage doctors and hospitals to focus on the value of care they provide, not the volume of care they provide.

Another way in which Representative Price, the President's nominee, would harm seniors on Medicare is when you repeal the Affordable Care Act, you reopen what was called the prescription drug doughnut hole. One of the things the Affordable Care Act did was allow seniors with high prescription drug costs to not have to choose between paying the rent or putting food on the table and the cost of their drugs. Over time, it is closing that doughnut hole that seniors fell into and couldn't cover the costs of needed prescriptions. When you repeal the Affordable Care Act, you repeal those protections for seniors. That is what Tom Price's budget would do. It is right there in his budget plan.

Another harm that would befall seniors is that repealing the Affordable Care Act wipes out the provision that allows seniors on Medicare to get free preventive screenings. We want to encourage seniors, just like everybody

else, to catch health problems early, so we said: You don't have to pay these steep copays if you want to get screened for cancer, diabetes, or whatever it may be. Millions of seniors have now benefited from that-- not only by not having to pay out of pocket but by catching problems early and getting them treated so they get the health care they want. But Tom Price's plan would repeal all of that.

If you are a senior on Medicare now or a senior who may be getting to the point of Medicare or anybody else--we are all going to be there someday--No. 1, you are going to see the plan turn into a voucher plan, which is going to cost a lot more for no more health care, maybe less; you are going to pay more for prescription drugs; and you are going to pay more for preventive screenings. That is a bad deal, but that is the Tom Price plan.

Let's take a look at his Medicaid proposal. Again, Candidate Trump said he wasn't going to cut Medicaid. The budget plan put forward by Tom Price, chairman of the House Budget Committee, calls for over $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years. It is right there in the plan. Just read it. They don't make any secret about it. The accompanying report talks about it--$1 trillion over 10 years.

Many people don't realize this, but two-thirds of the money we spend for Medicaid goes to provide long-term care to seniors in nursing homes, to people with severe disabilities, very fragile individuals who have no other source of medical security. It would cut dramatically from that. Almost 50 percent--the largest single share of people in Medicaid--is kids. They are kids.

I just happened to meet today with the head of the Children's National Health System and his team. His No. 1 plea and request to me: Don't cut Medicaid. You will hurt kids if you do it.

They provided me some information and facts. What is Medicaid? Medicaid is the single largest health insurer for children. Medicaid is a vital program for children. It covers over 30 million children nationwide. When we cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, we hurt children by hurting their health care.

In addition to calling for these very deep and damaging cuts to Medicaid, harming the Medicare program, and raising the costs to seniors, Representative Tom Price has been one of the fiercest opponents of the Affordable Care Act, wanting to wipe it out. We hear a lot about replacement. In other words, the mantra has been, let's repeal it and replace it. In fact, President Trump, both as candidate and now, says he is going to replace it with something much better. Much better. We heard for years Republicans in the House and the Senate saying they were going to replace it too. We have heard them say that since the Affordable Care Act was first put in place roughly 7 years ago: Repeal and replace. But as we are gathered here today, there is absolutely no replace.

But they did repeal. A lot of people don't realize they repealed it because President Obama was there to veto the legislation that came to his desk that repealed the Affordable Care Act. But it was just last year. Congressman Tom Price--the person who is going to be in charge, if President Trump has his way, the head of HHS--was the main architect of that repeal--not repeal and replace; repeal.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--the organization the Congress relies on to present unbiased analysis--in fact, the current Director of CBO was selected by the Republican chairman of the House committee and the Republican chairman of the Senate committee. They issued a report just last month, January 2017. What would have happened if Tom Price's repeal had actually been signed by President Obama? What if that had actually become law? What would have happened to health care in America? Here is what they said: The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies, that number will rise to 32 million in 2026. So in year 1, 18 million Americans would lose access to health insurance.

How about the cost of premiums? The cost of premiums in the exchanges have been high, and there are practical things we can do to reduce them. But if Tom Price had his way, according to the Congressional Budget Office, here is what would have happened: Premiums in the non- group market, the Affordable Care Act exchanges, would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent relative to current law--in other words, compared to if we did nothing.

It is really important that the American public understand that the man the President is asking to be head of Health and Human Services for the United States of America is the same person who was the architect of the bill that went to President Obama that within its first year would have resulted in 18 million Americans losing access to health care and jacking up premiums by 20, 25 percent in the exchanges. That is what would have happened. Thank goodness President Obama was there to veto that legislation. But he is not there anymore, and President Trump is installing the person who would have had the dramatic negative impact on the health care of millions of Americans--your constituents, my constituents--and all of us have heard many stories about the impact.

I will close where Senator Carper closed because he went through many examples of who was going to be harmfully impacted by getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. When we add it all up, it is just about everybody.

In addition to the 22 million Americans on the health care exchanges who will lose that access entirely, Americans who get their health care through their employers--which is most of them--benefit from the patient protections in that legislation. Frankly, they benefit from the fact that people who used to not be able to get any health care and who were showing up in the emergency room and raising the costs for everybody else--they will have it, which is why, as he said, premiums for the majority of Americans in the employer market have actually gone up very slowly compared to what they were doing before the Affordable Care Act. As I mentioned, seniors on Medicare get socked in the chin.

I just came from a meeting with the head of one of Maryland's rural hospitals in Western Maryland, out on the Maryland panhandle. This is an area that Donald Trump carried overwhelmingly with a big vote out in Western Maryland.

The CEO of Garrett Regional Medical Center came to my office today and let me know all the good things they are doing for people in Western Maryland. The last page of this request says: ``Seeking your support,'' and here is the bullet point: Garrett Regional Medical Center is very concerned about ACA repeal. Our organization will implode--implode--without proper replacement.

Yet the legislation, the reconciliation bill that Representative Tom Price rammed through the House and then they got through the Senate and went to President Obama's desk, would have done exactly that--it would have imploded this Western Maryland regional medical center. Imploded it. President Obama said no.

Now, despite the fact that Candidate Trump tweeted out that he wanted to protect Medicaid and Medicare, he has appointed somebody to this key position who has taken the opposite position. That is why I cannot in good conscience vote in support of this nomination. It is too big a risk to the health care of Marylanders and to the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to start by thanking Senator Murray and the Members of the HELP Committee for the work they have done to cast light on the record and the lack of record of Mrs. Betsy DeVos, President Trump's nominee to be Secretary of Education.

As the Senator from Washington has told us, the more the American people learn about the record of Betsy DeVos, the more concerned they become. The American people are making their voices heard in every Senate office. The switchboard has been essentially shut down, and I can tell you that I have received over 14,000 calls from Maryland on this nominee alone.

People are calling because the more they look at the record, the more they realize this nominee's lack of commitment to the essential mission of the Department of Education. That mission is to provide every child in America with access to a quality public education. This concern about the nominee is shared across political parties.

As Senator Susan Collins of Maine said on this floor, Mrs. DeVos's concentration on vouchers ``raises the question about whether she fully appreciates that the Secretary Of Education's primary focus must be on helping States and communities, parents, teachers, school board members, and administrators strengthen our public schools.''

Regardless of ZIP Code, our mission must be to provide every child with access to a high-quality neighborhood public school. It is absolutely true that in too many places around in country we are failing to meet the goal, but the response to a troubled school should not be to walk away from it in favor of sketchy voucher schemes. Instead we must work together to provide the necessary resources and interventions to help those schools and those students achieve success. Over the last 2 years, I have spent a lot of time traveling over the great State of Maryland. I visited schools, talked to college students, and heard from parents. No matter where I went, in every part of our State, everybody wanted the same thing: a good school, affordable college, either community college or 4-year colleges, and a fair shot at reaching their dreams.

The U.S. Department of Education is supposed to help them get that opportunity. Let me take a moment to talk about what the Department of Education means to some neighborhoods in my State of Maryland. Not long ago, I visited a pair of community schools in Baltimore City, the Historic Samuel Coleridge-Taylor Elementary School in Upton/Druid Heights in West Baltimore and the Benjamin Franklin High School in Brooklyn, South Baltimore. Upton/Druid Heights is a historic African- American community in Baltimore. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, jazz great Cab Calloway, and civil rights pioneer Lillie Mae Carroll Jackson all walked its streets, but today it is a community in distress. Most of its children live in poverty; 95 percent of the students at Samuel Coleridge-Taylor Elementary are on free or reduced lunch. Despite its challenges, it has a strong faith-based institution and community groups. Mrs. DeVos's approach to schools such as Samuel Coleridge-Taylor has been to give up on them, to abandon them, and to divert resources to voucher programs.

Fortunately, the Department of Education did not abandon this school. In 2012, it designated Upton/Druid Heights as a Promise Neighborhood. The Department provided resources to support comprehensive services for families. These include B'more for Healthy Babies, which has dramatically reduced infant mortality rates in the city; Parent University, to help educate parents of young children; and financial literacy and education, to help with filling out income tax forms and to help families manage their budgets.

In 2012, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor became a community school. It has a community school coordinator, a position that can be filled using funds under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers of children from low-income families. The community school coordinator works with parents, students, educators, and community residents to learn the needs of the neighborhood and form partnerships to meet them. The University of Maryland School of Social Work, which is located just down the road, joined them to provide trauma training so that teachers could recognize and respond to trauma among the children and go on home visits to work with families. They received a grant to build a first- ever playground on campus--something that most schools take for granted. Local churches provided safe spaces for kids. The Weinberg Foundation donated a beautiful library. There is a jobs center, where parents can look for employment, and a food bank, to send kids home with something to eat over the weekend. The school was transformed into a place where kids want to be, receiving the mayor's award for the greatest drop in students at risk for chronic absenteeism. It has been a success story.

In a little different part of town, Ben Franklin High School exists, and it is isolated geographically in the Brooklyn neighborhood. It is on a peninsula at the southern part of the city. Brooklyn is a historic waterfront neighborhood with strong ties to manufacturing. The Brooklyn community built ships for the United States in World War II. Many families in Brooklyn have been there for generations. As manufacturing left and Bethlehem Steel closed--Bethlehem Steel provided about 12,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs--times got tougher for those working families.

In the year 2011, Benjamin Franklin was one of the bottom 5 percent of schools in the State of Maryland--again, one of those schools that this nominee would have walked away from in favor of vouchers. Again, the good news is the Department of Education did not walk away. It provided extra funding to help turn things around. Using the community schools model, they assessed and responded to the needs of the students.

Interns from the University of Maryland School of Social Work provided mental health services. The United Way offers a workforce development program and an onsite early childhood development center that helps teen parents graduate, knowing their children have quality care. A family stability program helps families avoid homelessness. CSX is working with the school to build a football field.

Students worked together with their neighbors to take ownership of their communities and protest the placement of an incinerator near them. Some figured that this low-income neighborhood was a good target to put an incinerator, but the community fought back and won. They have put thousands of hours into community service, including the Chesapeake Bay cleanup. The school's office of student service learning helps connect students to internships and job-training programs.

In Brooklyn, the crime rate and the teen pregnancy rates have dropped, and attendance at Ben Franklin is up. When I asked the students what they liked about the school, they said: ``We feel like someone cares now,'' and ``everyone is positive.''

At both of these schools, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and Ben Franklin, the

principals told me that the community schools model allowed them to form partnerships to meet the needs of their students' lives so that they could focus on delivering a high-quality education. Because the students' needs are being met more comprehensively, the students can focus on learning, and because we have a team outside of the teachers who are helping provide some services to these kids, the teachers can focus on teaching.

It is important for us to understand that every child who walks through the doors of a school has a unique family circumstance and their own individual needs.

The community school approach emphasizes the fact that no school is an island onto itself. Every school is part of a neighborhood, and we need to understand the special circumstances of the children and families in those neighborhoods. It is not just for urban schools like Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and Ben Franklin. Community schools have shown success in rural areas of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Montana, and all across the country.

This idea that every child should receive a good public education is as old as our Republic itself. Our Nation's Founders knew the contribution of education to the success of our democracy. They knew that an educated population would be a strong safeguard against tyranny. In a letter in 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is

that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No

other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of

freedom and happiness.

As early as 1779, Jefferson was putting forward legislation to create a public school system that would give children a fair start. Jefferson later wrote to John Adams:

It was a bill for the more general diffusion of learning.

This proposed to divide every county into wards of five or

six miles square, like your townships; to establish in each

ward a free school for reading, writing and common

arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best

subjects from these schools, who might receive, at the public

expense, a higher degree of public education at a district school.

He went on to say:

Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every

condition of life, and completely prepared by education for

defeating the competition and birth for public trusts.

Though America did not start the public education system at that moment in time, those ideas and that philosophy of education as the great equalizer and tool to develop the talents of Americans, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, were the foundation of the public school system that we have today.

President Trump gave remarkably little attention to education during his campaign. He pretty much ignored the public school education system in favor of his $20 billion voucher scheme that would drain huge amounts of resources from neighborhood schools like the two in Baltimore that I just discussed. With the President offering only vague promises and pricey schemes, it is even more important that we have an Education Secretary with a steady hand and a deep understanding of the critical mission of the Department. It is clear that Mrs. Betsy DeVos is not the right person for the job.

Mrs. DeVos advocates a concept of industrialized, privatized, and for-profit schools. This thinking is too small and too cramped for our kids. Our goal should not be vouchers for children to try to shop for a school with no accountability for quality. Our goal should be a neighborhood school for every child that meets their needs.

We cannot abandon the families who cannot afford to make up the difference between the value of the voucher and the tuition at the private school. What do we say to them? We cannot abandon the students who cannot get accepted into private schools because many of these private schools say yes to some and no to others. What do we say to those who have the doors closed on them? We cannot abandon the schools that a voucher program would drain the resources from, and $20 billion is a huge amount of the resources that we currently provide for schools like the two I mentioned in Baltimore City and schools in neighborhoods throughout the country. So instead of a risky voucher program, we need to make our schools better by giving them the flexibility to meet student needs and the support to make sure that our children are all ready to learn.

In her hearing and in the responses to the questions for the record, Mrs. DeVos displayed an astonishing ignorance about the agency that she intends to run and, indeed, about the role of public schools in our country. All of us who have been part of this debate know that one of the most fundamental discussions in K-12 policy has been over accountability and how best to measure student knowledge and school performance. There has been an intense discussion over whether to measure school and student performance by student proficiency or by student improvement and student growth. Mrs. DeVos seemed totally confused about this discussion that is going to the heart of many of the debates here in Congress.

Perhaps we should not be so surprised that she has such little understanding of the public education system, as she has spent much of her career attempting to dismantle it in favor of private, charter, and for-profit schools. She has been referred to as the ``four-star general of the voucher movement.'' She has forcefully worked to expand vouchers, including spending millions on a failed ballot initiative to bring vouchers to the State of Michigan. When that didn't work, she created the Great Lakes Education Project to fund nonprofits and donate to State legislators who would advance vouchers and charters. With respect to the millions of dollars she and her family have spent trying to influence lawmakers, she stated: ``We expect a return on our investment.''

She received a return in Michigan, where she played a role in a 1993 law that created incentives for charters to come to Michigan. The for- profit industry, in particular, responded, and they operate nearly 80 percent of the charters in the State of Michigan. In 2011, she pushed successfully for a law that allowed even low-performing charters to expand and repealed the requirement that the State publish annual reports on charter performance. I think we all believe that transparency is important, and it is shocking that there would be an effort to put the facts under the rug. After years of criticism, modest accountability measures were introduced in 2015, although Mrs. DeVos opposed and successfully stripped a provision from the bill that would have established a commission to explore ways to improve Detroit public schools.

Seventy percent of Detroit charter schools ranked in the bottom quarter of Michigan schools. The nonprofit Education Trust calls their poor performance a ``civil rights issue.'' In a report just last June, the New York Times called the situation in Detroit ``a public education fiasco that is perhaps unparalleled in the United States.'' It would be a big mistake to impose that fiasco on the rest of the country.

Mrs. DeVos has also advocated for online charter schools, and she was formerly an investor in the largest for-profit online school operator, K-12, Inc. In her response to questions about this model, she cited questionable statistics for the accomplishments of several virtual academies. Those statistics were disproved in an article in Education Week which compared them to the publicly reported figures used for State accountability.

For example, Ms. DeVos wrote that Utah Virtual Academy has a 92- percent graduation rate. In fact, the most recently publicly reported figure is 42 percent. The last thing we need is a Secretary of Education coming up with alternative facts.

While I believe that nonprofit public charter schools are important incubators for innovation, they have to play by the same rules as the rest of our schools. But Mrs. DeVos has rejected that equal playing field.

In an exchange with Senator Kaine from Virginia where he repeatedly asked her whether or not the charter schools would have the same standards applied to them as public schools that received Federal funding, she refused to agree.

It is pretty extraordinary when we have a nominee saying that she supports a taxpayer-funded blank check for some schools. Our Secretary of Education must be a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars and ensure that funds

are delivering quality and results for students.

Another area where Mrs. DeVos raises serious concerns is that of enforcement of equal rights, especially the rights of children with disabilities. All of us know the Department of Education has the very important job of enforcing civil rights laws and making sure we have equal access to education throughout the Nation. Congress prohibited discrimination in education on the basis of race, color, and national origin in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibited sex discrimination. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.

But all of us know that as late of the mid-1970s, public schools still accommodated only one of five children with disabilities, and many States had laws that explicitly excluded children with certain disabilities. When Congress addressed this with the passage of the IDEA legislation, it was a big breakthrough for our country and for our children. The IDEA was very straightforward and very simple: Every child deserves a ``free appropriate public education'' in the ``least restrictive environment.'' The law requires schools to design an ``individualized education program'' for each child with a disability.

IDEA has been a lifesaver for children with disabilities and their families. It has empowered them to get the quality education they could not earlier receive, and the law gives them tools with which they can fight to ensure that schools address their needs. This is why it was so alarming at the hearing to hear Mrs. DeVos say that the application of IDEA and the rights behind IDEA really was a State function--the same States that historically discriminated against these very children. That is not what the IDEA legislation is all about. It is a national standard to make sure we do not have discrimination based on disability. Yet, Mrs. DeVos in exchange concluded with: ``I think that's an issue that's best left to the States.''

So whether it is her position with respect to vouchers and poaching resources that otherwise would go to improve our public schools or lack of support for the very idea behind IDEA, we have a nominee who the overwhelming majority of the American people recognize is the wrong choice to be the custodian of the Department that is responsible at the Federal level for providing support and educational opportunities to our children.

In closing, with respect to the issue of guns in schools--and Senator Murray, the ranking member, has addressed this as well--it was pretty shocking to hear Mrs. DeVos trivialize the issue of gun violence in schools when she was asked about this by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, quipping that guns might be necessary to kill grizzly bears. We have had lots of debates in this Chamber, and obviously there are strong feelings. But I think we would all agree that the safety of our kids and our schools is not something that should be trivialized.

In conclusion, let us heed the words of the editorial board of the Detroit Free Press. They have witnessed firsthand the experiments that Mrs. DeVos has made about education and have written in an editorial: ``Make no mistake: A vote to confirm Betsy DeVos as U.S. Secretary of Education is a vote to end public education in this country as we know it.''

In a speech in 2015, Betsy DeVos said bluntly: ``Government really sucks.'' I suggest that she should not be leading the agency entrusted at the Federal level with the education of our children, which, as our Founder said, is really the root of equal opportunity and the opportunity for every child to achieve their dreams.

I join with the distinguished Senator from Washington State in urging my colleagues to vote no on Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. We can do better. We can do a lot better for our kids.

Mr. President, I will start by thanking my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, for his leadership on public education issues and the fight against gun violence. He has been a voice calling for commonsense measures to address gun violence and to make our schools more safe, and I thank him for all he has done in that regard.

Yesterday I came to this floor to discuss the risk that Betsy DeVos would pose to our public education system for students from kindergarten through 12th grade. With her zealous focus on vouchers for private schools, she has ignored accountability and the unique needs of communities in Maryland and

throughout the Nation. Education is a public trust, and we should not contract it out to the highest bidders in various voucher schemes.

In addition to overseeing support for K-12 education, the Secretary of Education is also responsible for Federal efforts in the area of higher education. So this morning, I would like to talk a little bit about higher education.

We know very little about the position the new President will take in the area of higher education. However, what we do know about his track record is very troubling. Based on the testimony of Ms. DeVos and her responses to questions for the Record, we can have little confidence that she will be a check on President Trump's worst instincts.

Here is what we know: We know that President Trump's main foray into continuing education was the now-extinct Trump University. Make no mistake about it, Trump University was a scam. It was a con game. It promised students great wealth if they only paid thousands of dollars for seminars on Mr. Trump's real estate ``secrets.''

As Senator Rubio once pointed out not that long ago, ``There are people who borrowed $36,000 to go to Trump University, and they are suing now--$36,000 to go to a university that is a fake school. And you know what they got,'' Senator Rubio asked, ``They got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump.''

Senator Rubio was absolutely right when he made that statement.

First of all, the word ``university'' in Trump University was totally misleading. Trump University was not an accredited institution, but it did promise to educate its students in the real estate industry so they could become skilled investors.

An article in the conservative National Review entitled ``Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam'' explained that prospective students were offered a free seminar where they would be pressured to purchase a class, where they would be ``mentored by hand-picked real estate experts who would use President Trump's own real estate strategies.''

Of course, Mr. Trump was neither handpicking instructors nor developing class materials, and instructors did not even necessarily have a real estate background. In a deposition, Mr. Trump could not identify a single instructor at Trump University.

Students were promised access to lenders, improved credit scores, and longterm mentoring. The university did not deliver. According to a former employee, Trump University ``preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.'' Employees were told to rank students based on their liquid assets so they could target them to sell more seminars. They took advantage of people.

Because of its fraudulent practices, Trump University was sued multiple times. In February 2016, Mr. Trump dismissed those suits saying: ``I could settle it right now for very little money, but I don't want to do it out of principle.''

Right before the class action lawsuit in San Diego was scheduled to be heard by a jury, those principles evaporated and Mr. Trump settled all the lawsuits for a whopping $25 million, and about 7,000 former students were granted a full or partial refund.

Now, because Trump University was a university in name only and not accredited, students attending Trump University were not eligible to use Federal student loans or grants--thank goodness. But there are many accredited, for-profit colleges and universities that do take large sums of money from students who obtain Federal student loans or Federal grants, and it is the job of the Secretary of Education to make sure that those for-profit colleges are good stewards of those taxpayer dollars and that they are giving their students a good education.

For example, under President Obama's leadership, the Department of Education took action against the for-profit Corinthian College for fraudulently enticing students to enroll by lying about their job placement rates. They told students: You enroll in our programs, and we can get you a job. It wasn't true.

As California's attorney general, our colleague Senator Harris, pointed out in her lawsuit, they got more than $1 billion in damages and restitution from Corinthian College because they targeted vulnerable, low-income populations, including the homeless. They directed them to predatory lending and failed to deliver an education that could really help them get a job. Their tactics were similar to those of Trump University--callously targeting ``prospects they perceived as having low self-esteem,'' who were ``unable to see and plan well for the future, and those who had few people in their lives who cared about them.''

In order to stop these kinds of abuses, the Department of Education, under the Obama administration, put in place something called the gainful employment rule, which requires for-profit colleges to demonstrate real results for their students in order to continue to enroll students who use Federal student loans and grants. We want to make sure that students enrolling in those programs have a decent shot at success and are not simply being separated from their money, including Federal student loans.

This gainful employment rule is important for protecting both students and taxpayers. That is why it was alarming that during her hearing, Mrs. DeVos would not commit to enforcing the gainful employment rule.

Our veterans have been among the students who have been most targeted by these abusive practices. Just last week, I received a copy of a letter that was sent to Senators Alexander and Murray and Representatives Fox and Scott from a coalition of veterans organizations. I have it here. It is a letter from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, AMVETS, Blue Star Families, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Wounded Warrior Project, and Student Veterans of America, all opposing any weakening of the gainful employment rule and urging greater, not fewer, consumer protections.

As they note in this letter, a loophole in what is known as the 90-10 law, which caps the amount of funding for-profit schools can obtain from Federal sources, exempts funds from the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. They write: As a result, our Nation's heroes are targeted with the most deceptive and aggressive recruiting.

The letter quotes Holly Petraeus of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who said that some for-profit colleges are motivated to view veterans and their families as ``nothing more than dollar signs in uniform.''

The letter further states that ``veterans express anger when they discover that the government knew that a career education program had a lousy record, but allowed them to waste their time and GI Bill benefits enrolled in it.''

That should make all of us angry. It should make us angry because of the service our veterans have performed for our country. It should make us angry because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to have these monies spent in institutions that are not providing an education to our veterans or other students in the way they advertise.

Yet Mrs. DeVos provided no assurance--none, none--that she would enforce the gainful employment rule that these veterans groups are calling to strengthen. She also provided no assurance that she would pursue other protections to help our students and veterans. In fact, when asked, she pointedly did not make that commitment.

Taxpayers and students should also be troubled by statements that have been made by the Trump team regarding their plans for the Federal student loan program. As many people know, the Department of Education is responsible for managing a $1 trillion bank of student loans and $30 billion in Pell grants each year. It is very important that these funds be managed in a way that protects the best interests of both students and taxpayers, rather than simply fattening the bottom lines of the big banks and big lenders.

In fact, 7 years ago, Congress--the House and the Senate--passed and the President signed the bill that ``made important reforms to the Federal student loan program.''

Under the old system, banks distributed Federally guaranteed loans in exchange for a subsidy from the Federal Government. In effect, banks were paid a premium to be the middleman and

were also insured against most of the risks of the loan with the Federal guarantee. In other words, they got a great return and took very little risk. In fact, the old system was rigged to provide huge returns to banks on certain loans.

Shortly after I came to Congress, I worked with my colleagues to close what was then called the 9.5 percent loophole.

The way it worked was like this. Written right into the code, some banks were able to make loans guaranteed by the government to give them a 9.5 percent return, even though students receiving those loans were paying a 3.5 percent interest rate. The difference--6 percent--was pure profit paid by the taxpayers to the banks for zero risk.

We were able to close that loophole after a number of years, and then in 2010 the Congress and President Obama agreed that we should stop using banks as the middlemen in the student loan process. We shifted entirely to the direct loan program through the Department of Education. That move saved taxpayers $61 billion over a 10-year period, and we were able to use the savings to increase support for students to make college more affordable. By increasing funding for Pell grants and indexing them to new inflation, we were able to expand the income-based repayment program so more students could afford college, and we put $10 million toward deficit reduction.

The Republican Party platform under President Trump calls for rolling back those important reforms and putting student loans back in the hands of the big banks. When Senator Murray, the ranking member of the Education Committee, asked Mrs. DeVos in a question for the record about privatization of the student loan industry, Mrs. DeVos refused to rule out a return to the days when the big banks reaped huge profits off students and taxpayers while taking very little risk.

It turns out that Mrs. DeVos may herself have investments that represent conflicts of interest for the job of Secretary of Education or indicate a preference for privatization within higher education. For example, according to her ethics forms, she has an investment in Procurement Recovery, Inc., which had a contract with the Department of Education for student loan debt collection. The court blocked that contract last year and it is currently challenging the decision.

There is a common thread connecting the approach that both President Trump and Mrs. DeVos have taken with respect to both K-12 education and higher education; that is, the idea that we should put for-profit private interests over the interests of students and taxpayers. As we have heard, in Michigan Mrs. DeVos was very instrumental in changing Michigan State law in a way that attracted for-profit charter schools to the State of Michigan. Those schools have a very sorry record in terms of the education they provided to students in Michigan. Now, when it comes to higher education, in her hearing she refused to commit to enforcing the gainful employment rule, which is designed to protect students and taxpayers from the kind of predatory practices engaged in by the likes of Trump University. She did not disavow proposals to turn the student loan program back over to the big banks.

We need a Secretary of Education who understands that our education system is a public trust and not simply a vehicle that allows for- profit schools and big banks to make a profit off of these important taxpayer investments.

I wish to say a word, as well, about community colleges. I think all of us recognize the really important role that community colleges play in our education system. Just two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the presidents of Maryland's community colleges. It was organized by the Maryland Association of Community Colleges and included folks from all over the State. We are fortunate in Maryland and around the country to have some terrific community colleges that provide associate's degrees and certifications for advanced careers, 2- year programs for those students who plan to go on to get a 4-year education, and continuing education classes for people who want to go back to school to learn new skills. Our community colleges are particularly important because they are able to work closely with employers to identify skills that are in demand and adjust programs to prepare students to move directly into the workforce.

A number of years ago, I had the opportunity to work with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and others, to obtain a Federal grant for a consortium of Maryland community colleges to train and prepare students in the area of cyber security.

Cyber security is something that is important to all Americans. We are realizing more and more the costs and dangers of hacking, both in the government sector as well as the private sector. It is really important we build a workforce which has those important skills, and I am pleased that Maryland is home to the U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, alongside NSA. We need to make sure we have students who have those important skills, and community colleges, along with other institutions, can help fill that skills gap.

I also visited the Community College of Baltimore County, where they are responding to the need for medical professionals by providing training to nurses and other medical assistants. They use something called SimMan technology--lifelike mannequins that can simulate medical conditions--to help train nurses, emergency medical technicians, and physician assistants. I think we would all agree these community college programs are a really important block in our education system, and we should be supporting those colleges and the students who want to attend.

I was pleased that at the hearing, Mrs. DeVos acknowledged the importance of community college. Unfortunately, she didn't put forward any concrete recommendations about how we can help community colleges succeed. That is particularly troubling in light of the fact that if we look at previous Republican budgets, especially those coming out of the House of Representatives but also those adopted in a Republican- controlled Senate, they would do great damage to students' ability to access community college programs.

Let's just look at the last budget conference agreement that passed from fiscal year 2016. It contains a whopping 35-percent cut to Pell grants, which would eliminate all mandatory funding for Pell and eliminate another almost $30 billion in discretionary funding. Altogether, it is a $117 billion cut over 10 years.

Nearly 3 million community college students in Maryland and around the country depend on Pell grants in order to afford an education. Rather than making dramatic cuts to the program, we should listen to our community colleges and expand the program to a year-round grant to give students greater flexibility to finish their degrees in less time. Those are the cuts the Republican budget would make to the Pell Grant Program. At the same time, when it comes to the other components of the Federal student loan program, the Republican budget would cut so much that in order to compensate, we would have to raise student loan rates to make up the difference.

Those troubling positions are on top of a proposal made by the Trump team to require colleges to ``risk share'' by taking some responsibility for nonrepayment of loans among their students, which would have a particularly damaging impact for community colleges. Community colleges already operate on very narrow margins. Any cut to their budget from risk-sharing would require them to do one of two things: increase tuition, making college less affordable, or cutting programs, including the kind of program I just talked about that helps students build the skills needed in the workforce of today.

Sam Clovis, a Trump campaign cochair, also said that Mr. Trump would reject President Obama's plan for free community college for our students. In an interview with the daily online publication Inside Higher Ed, Mr. Clovis contended that community college is already ``damn near free,'' and therefore did not require additional assistance. I hope Mr. Clovis will come out to the State of Maryland and talk to our students. We work very hard in the State of Maryland to keep tuition low at community colleges, but for those who are just trying to scrape by, I can assure him that it is not ``damn near free.'' I certainly hope Mrs. DeVos does

not share this gross misunderstanding of student needs.

We heard from Senator Blumenthal, we have heard from others on this floor, about the incredible grassroots outpouring of opposition to the nomination of Mrs. DeVos. She has drawn opposition from teachers, parents, and civil rights organizations. We have seen that groundswell overwhelm the phone system here in the United States Senate.

Maryland's schools, and schools throughout the country, deserve a champion in their Secretary of Education. When President Trump and congressional Republicans propose plans to cut and divert Federal education funding, we need a Secretary of Education who is going to fight for public education. Mrs. DeVos is clearly not that person.

Our Founders understood from the earliest days of this Republic that a free public education is a fundamental American value. Free public education at neighborhood schools throughout our land has helped make America more productive, broaden opportunity, and sustain local neighborhood schools and communities. I share my colleagues' deep concern that Mrs. DeVos does not appear to share a commitment to that American idea. She has devoted much of her adult life and career to advancing private education plans that would divert resources from our public schools. She has shown a lack of awareness and, in many statements, alarming views about our Nation's commitment to equal rights for children with disabilities. We cannot retreat from the commitment we made as a country, and we cannot return to an era where equal rights were just another concern for States to decide on their own.

We also heard, as Senator Blumenthal discussed, flippant statements about guns in schools and the safety of our children. We cannot retreat from our determination to keep our schools safe and gun-free.

When President Trump has a history of promoting a sham, for-profit Trump University, we need a Secretary of Education who will zealously oversee for-profit colleges that receive students with Federal student loans and grants. Nothing in her testimony, statements, or responses to questions from Senator Murray or others gives me any comfort that Mrs. DeVos can be that person.

Education holds the key to a more prosperous America, a better informed electorate, and a society in which the Nation's bounty is more fairly shared as more citizens have access to a good education. We cannot advance those goals without a strong Secretary of Education. We cannot leave this job to just happen on its own. We need somebody who is going to fight for those ideals. Unfortunately, the record indicates that Mrs. DeVos is not that person.

I join with my colleagues in opposing the nomination. I hope between now and the time of the vote, other Senators will take another look at the record because it is important we muster the votes to defeat this nomination. We also must show very clearly that we will not accept a Department of Education focused more on undermining our commitment to a public education than one that is upholding that important American tradition.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to start by responding to my new colleague.

I respect my colleague. We have worked together on many issues, the Senator from Alaska and I. I think he would agree it is very important that the American people, the public, have a thorough review of candidates for a position in public office who are going to have incredible influence over all aspects of their lives. That is why it is so important we undertake this process. It is a fact that many of the nominees put forward by President Trump had massive conflict-of- interest issues that need to be resolved. Many of them remain unresolved. Many of them are still not proceeding through committees because either their ethics report information has not been provided yet or they haven't passed other clearances.

So it is absolutely fitting that we in the Senate do our job to make sure the people who are placed in these positions of high office are thoroughly vetted.

I also wish to take a moment to respond to the statements regarding my good colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.

Last night she was reading from a letter presented by Coretta Scott King at the time of the 1986 hearings on the judicial appointment of Senator Sessions. At the time he was a nominee to fill the vacancy.

As a new Member of the Senate, it is difficult to understand how reading that letter--I have a copy of that letter right here--could be a violation of the Senate rules, but I assume we will all have time to investigate that question. I will say that the result has been a lot more people around the country have had an opportunity to read that important letter from Coretta Scott King.

Obviously, we are gathered here as we consider the nomination for Attorney General. President Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.'' This is the job of the Department of Justice, and I think it is worth reviewing the mandate and purpose of the Department of Justice to determine whether Senator Sessions is the right person for this special and unique position in the U.S. Government.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, the same act in which the first Congress created the Federal judiciary, Congress also created the Office of the Attorney General. In years thereafter, Congress empowered the Justice Department to handle all criminal and civil suits in which the United States has an interest. The Department is the largest law office in the world and the chief enforcer of our Nation's laws. The Attorney General has to be the people's lawyer. Upon taking the office, the Attorney General swears an oath to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' More than almost any other officer of the U.S. Government, it is the job of the Attorney General to protect and carry out the Constitution's plan of defending the rights and privileges of those who most need that protection. There is a Latin motto on the seal of the Department of Justice. It refers to the Attorney General as the one ``who prosecutes on behalf of justice.'' In the paneling above the door of the anteroom outside of the Attorney General's office are inscribed the words: ``United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.''

As former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said after taking the oath of office, the employees of the Department of Justice are ``the ones who make real the promise of justice and redress for all Americans.'' She said they ``continue the core work of our mission--the protection of the American people.''

She said: ``The challenge in that--for you, for me, for all of us that love this Department and love the law--is to use the law to that end. To not just represent the law and enforce it, but use it to make real the promise of America, the promise of fairness and equality, of `liberty and justice for all.'''

I think we all recognize--and I see we have been joined by many of our colleagues from the other side of the Capitol from the House of Representatives. It is great to see them here as part of this historic debate. I see the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, as well as many other colleagues because they know this is an important moment.

Just as Loretta Lynch described the importance of the Office of Attorney General, we all have to take heed because I think all of us recognize that the story of America, the story of our country has been the story of working to live up to that original promise. It has been a long journey, and there have been a lot of broken promises along the way, and it is an unfinished journey. We know there has been a lot of blood and tears shed in order to try to make good on the ideas of equal justice and equal opportunity, of equal rights. We have come a long way--there is no denying that--but we also know we have a long way to go to meet that full promise.

The role of the Justice Department is to be a fighter for living up to that purpose, for living up to that promise, to be the champion of the people, to be the defender of those who are too often undefended, to be a fighter for those who do not have an advocate, to be the voice for people who do not have high-priced and high-powered lobbyists. They need to be the advocate for everybody, the Attorney General--someone to whom those who are feeling like they are getting an unfair shake can turn. It has to be a refuge for those who have been victimized by the powerful, someone who can speak for all of the American people.

To fulfill this responsibility, the Attorney General overseas over 114,000 employees, 60 agencies, from the Antitrust Division, the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, to the U.S. attorneys, and the Office on Violence Against Women Act.

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, created in 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable in our society. The division is charged with enforcing Federal statutes, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and national origin.

The Justice Department's Disability Rights Section works to achieve equal opportunity for people with disabilities by implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Forty-nine million Americans with disabilities rely on the Attorney General to protect their rights. The Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review adjudicates immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administrating the Nation's immigration laws. That is their charge. Under the supervision of the Attorney General, the office conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings that determine the fate of millions of people-- and we have seen just how important that is in the last few weeks.

The Justice Department's voting section enforces Federal laws that protect

Americans' right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act. That is their charge.

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel provides legal advice to the President and the executive branch. They are supposed to give their best legal advice and call the balls and strikes without political shadowing. The office reviews for legality all Executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President of the United States.

The Justice Department has played a vital role in advancing the promise of America. You just have to look historically to how it was not just a passive actor but made sure they did their job to be a fighter for people who were disenfranchised.

In 1957, in Little Rock, AR, the Justice Department helped to force the Governor of Arkansas to allow African-American children to attend an all-White Central High School. That was a Justice Department action under President Eisenhower.

In the years since the Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., the Justice Department has fought to implement the goal of integration under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide people with disabilities the opportunity to live their lives to their full God-given potential.

In 2013, in Atlanta, GA, a Justice Department investigation and prosecution in response to the beating of a 20-year-old gay Atlanta man resulted in the first conviction in Georgia under the sexual orientation provision of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Again, the Justice Department is not a passive actor, enforcing the laws of the United States in order to advance equal justice in the United States of America.

This is a really important legacy to uphold, and the question is, Is Senator Sessions the right person to uphold that legacy?

Senator Sessions has represented the State of Alabama in the Senate for 20 years. He has served as the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee, among other responsibilities here in the Senate. There may be many other positions in the executive branch for which that experience would provide an appropriate fit, but the role of the Attorney General is different. As I have said, this is a sacred duty and somebody in this position has to have a record not just of an understanding of the law but a willingness to make sure that we implement the law for all the American people.

I regret that as I examine the history of Senator Sessions' statements and actions, I do not believe that he is well suited for the position of Attorney General. Nothing in his history or record indicates that he will be a fighter for those who are less powerful and those who have been left out. Nothing indicates that he will be a fighter for people of color, people with disabilities, or people in the LGBT community. Nothing in his record suggests that he will be that warrior for justice that we need in our Attorney General.

To the contrary, time and again, Senator Sessions has taken positions that vary with those important traditions in our jurisprudence and in our law and, indeed, are contrary, in many instances, to the very mission of the Justice Department.

Many years ago, back in 1986, I was on the floor of this Senate in a very different capacity. At that time, I was the legislative assistant for national security and defense policy to a Maryland Republican Senator by the name of Mac Mathias--a very independent Maryland Republican Senator, a liberal Republican and a real statesman. Senator Mathias was on the Judiciary Committee at the time. Strom Thurmond, the Senator from South Carolina, was the chairman. In fact, Mac Mathias probably should have been the chairman, but because of his independent streak, the Republican caucus at that time worked really hard to make sure that Senator Thurmond moved from being chairman of the Armed Services Committee to exercise his seniority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to become chairman so that Mac Mathias could not assume that position.

Senator Mathias was somebody who always looked at the facts and called the balls and strikes as he saw them--a good role model for me, a good role model for everyone. I wasn't ever thinking--it was the last thing on my mind--of running for office at that time, but as I look back, he was a good role model for a U.S. Senator.

As I said, he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. He was on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the time of the hearings when now Senator Sessions, then U.S. Attorney Sessions, was up for his nomination for a Federal judgeship. Senator Mathias listened very carefully to the testimony. Senator Mathias, I am sure, would have read the letter from Coretta Scott King. He always did his homework. He always read everything and listened to everybody. After hearing all of the testimony, Senator Mathias--and, again, the Republicans were the majority in the Senate then, as they are today--and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, another Republican Member, cast their votes in opposition to the nomination of then Attorney Sessions for a Federal judgeship.

As I review the materials since that time--since the time that Senator Mathias cast that vote exercising his independence as a Republican Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--I find that we have received very little assurances that there has been a change in the desire of Senator Sessions to be that advocate--that advocate--for justice, because all of these many years later, we are now hearing from those who have taken the time to update his record.

I have with me now a letter that many of us received--and I have received many letters, as have my colleagues--from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The letter reads:

In our democracy, the Attorney General is charged with

enforcing our Nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye

towards justice. And just as important, the Attorney General

has to be seen by the public--every member of the public from

every community--as a fair arbiter of justice.

They conclude:

Unfortunately, there is little in Senator Sessions' record

that demonstrates that he would meet such a standard.

They say that his 30-year record of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, and hostility to the protection of civil rights are among the reasons that they oppose his nomination.

The NAACP reached another and a similar conclusion, strongly urging the Senate to vote no on Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney General.

The letter reads, in part:

The Justice Department is a crucial enforcer of civil

rights laws and adviser to the President and Congress on what

can and should be done if those laws are threatened. Given

the disregard for issues which protect the rights and, in

some cases, the lives of our constituents, there is no way

the NAACP can be expected to sit by and support Senator

Sessions' nomination to support the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Another letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence reads, in part:

The leadership organizations and individuals advocating on

behalf of victims of sexual assault, domestic violence,

dating violence, and stalking write to express our opposition

to Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination for Attorney General of

the United States of America. We have arrived at this

position based upon a review of his record as a State and

Federal prosecutor, during which he applied the law unevenly,

and as a U.S. Senator, during which he supported laws that

would afford only some members of our society equal

protection under the law.

There is another opinion letter from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, which has spent a lot of their time and energy over decades focused on civil rights issues. I quote from their letter of January 12, 2017:

The pursuit of civil rights has been the core of the reform

Jewish movement social justice work for over 50 years. Guided

by the fundamental principle that all people are created

equal in the divine image and words of Leviticus, 19:18, love

your neighbor as yourself, we have worked to pass landmark

legislation that advances fundamental rights of all people,

regardless of race, class, sex, gender identity, sexual

orientation, or national origin. As the chief law enforcement

officer in the country, the Attorney General has substantial

power over the administration of these policies.

They go on to write:

Senator Sessions' longstanding record of insufficient

commitment to voting rights, to LGBTQ equality, women's

rights, immigration reform, and religious freedom causes us

to believe that he would stand in the way of the Justice

Department's mandate to ensure equal protection under the

law.

There are many other letters like this one from people who took a thorough review of the record of the President's nominee to be Attorney General.

I would like to discuss something that has received a little bit less attention regarding Senator Sessions' record, and that is what I believe and what those who pay close attention to these issues believe has been a poor record in support for individuals with disabilities. This is especially important given the debate we had just the other day on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos to be the Secretary of Education, because she indicated in her testimony before the HELP Committee that she thought that it was a State obligation, not a Federal obligation, to enforce the IDEA law--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. So we should take a little time to look at the record of Senator Sessions with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.

One such occasion was a big moment on the floor of this Senate. It is when the Senate considered the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a treaty that had been negotiated under President George W. Bush and later signed by President Obama. Although I was serving in the House of Representatives at the time, I got lots of urgent calls and letters from constituents and friends in the disability community about the importance of the United States ratifying that convention. But in his remarks on the floor of the Senate, Senator Sessions not only opposed it, but he called the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities ``dangerous.''

There have been few moments on this floor where Senators were more eloquent about that convention than former Senator and former presidential nominee Bob Dole, who appeared on the floor at the time, and who is no longer a Senator. He did in committee testify in favor of ratification of the convention that was before the Senate. He recalled during his testimony his maiden speech, the very first speech here in the U.S. Senate of Senator Dole. His first speech occurred on April 14, 1969. It was the anniversary of the day he was wounded in World War II. He delivered his maiden speech on persons with disabilities, about the importance of protecting and ensuring the rights of people with disabilities. He, as we know, was disabled in action fighting for our country.

In his testimony to the committee in 2012 on the convention, he said:

It was an exceptional group I joined during World War II,

which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that

neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth,

education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party,

power, or prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities,

has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the

importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities

to mainstream American life, whether it's access to a job, an

education, or registering to vote.

Those were words of Senator Dole urging the Senate to ratify that convention. He went on to point out U.S. leadership on advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He pointed out that current U.S. laws in place in 2012 were already enough to make sure the United States satisfies its obligations to the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Joining the treaty, Senator Dole said, would ``reaffirm the common goals of equality, access, and inclusion for Americans with disabilities--both when those affected are in the United States and outside of our country's borders.''

Senator Dole believed so powerfully in the importance of this treaty that, as I indicated earlier, he came to the floor of this Senate many, many years after he served here and hoped that his presence on the floor of the Senate would convince his Republican colleagues--and all his colleagues--to support that convention. Unfortunately, when the vote came down, it failed in getting the higher level of votes necessary for ratification by only 5 votes. One of those votes was that of Senator Sessions who, as I indicated, said that this convention on disabilities was ``dangerous.'' He rejected an international treaty that had been signed and supported by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, negotiated by President Bush and signed by President Obama. It imposed no additional obligations on the United States. It just said that we stand with others in the international community to support the billions of people around the globe who have a disability.

On that issue, Senator Sessions stood against nearly every veterans organization in our country. He stood against a broad coalition of disability rights groups, including the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. He advanced a theory that somehow U.S. sovereignty would be called into question. Yet, as then-Senator Dick Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pointed out, the United States had already satisfied its obligations and to make that clear, the declaration in the resolution of advice and consent stated simply at the time: ``The Senate declares that, in the view of the reservations to be included in the instrument of ratification, current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention for the United States of America.''

Despite the presence of Senator Dole on the floor and the support of the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, Senator Sessions opposed that.

If that were the only incident where Senator Sessions failed to uphold the rights of people with disabilities--maybe, maybe, maybe--I am not sure it would be understandable. But it is not the only incident. Senator Sessions also made deeply concerning comments about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which we have heard so much about in the last couple of days during the debate on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos. Senator Sessions referred to the IDEA, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as perhaps ``the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today'' and ``a big factor in accelerating the decline of civility and discipline in classrooms all over America.'' The most irritating problem was our national commitment to try to make sure that every child--every child, regardless of disability--had a chance to achieve his or her full God- given potential. That was apparently irritating.

Senator Sessions claimed that ``special treatment for certain children'' created a distraction in the classroom. Special treatment. That is not what IDEA is about. The idea of IDEA legislation was to make sure all kids could get an appropriate and decent education. It wasn't there to give kids with disabilities some kind of advantage, just a chance, along with the other kids.

As to the so-called issue of special treatment, ``special treatment'' is a concerning trend in many of Senator Sessions' statements--not just with respect to individuals with disabilities, but in many other cases. In far too many circumstances, he appears to conflate steps to protect the rights of a minority or disadvantaged group that has historically faced persecution or discrimination as somehow an effort to give that group an elevated status over everybody else instead of just an equal chance with everybody else. The idea that the IDEA legislation to help kids with disabilities get an education in school was somehow a big advantage to them over other kids without disabilities is a striking and revealing statement, and it is one that carries through and on to other circumstances.

I am concerned that Senator Sessions fails to recognize that there are communities in this Nation that truly have been subjected to discrimination and that are disproportionately affected by certain policies and need sustained civil rights protections--not to give them an elevated status, but simply to give them an even playing field with everybody else.

It is the job of the Attorney General of the United States to make sure all of our citizens are treated equally under the law. The notion that somehow protecting the rights of groups that have been historically discriminated against is a bad thing and gives them an advantage doesn't conform to the reality of our country. I think we all know that.

This same issue came up with respect to Senator Sessions' position on the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill. He called it a ``special protection'' for

LGBT individuals rather than an acknowledgement that these individuals had been historically discriminated against and put at risk of greater violence. He criticized Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor for her decision that disenfranchising felons violated the Voting Rights Act, saying that her analysis that the policy had a disproportionate impact on African Americans was somehow ``a bridge too far.''

I am sure that if Mrs. Coretta Scott King were here today, she would say that we need to continue to travel along our journey toward meeting our promise of equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity, and ensuring justice for groups that have been discriminated against historically--whether on racial grounds or on grounds of gender or of on sexual orientation. That is not somehow to give them an advantage but to recognize that they have faced historic discrimination, and to provide them with a chance.

Just yesterday in Maryland, following the efforts of my good friend and our State attorney general Brian Frosh, a Maryland court overhauled the cash bail system in our State. I think all of us who have seen the way the criminal justice system operates know that far too often cash bail ends up criminalizing poverty. According to the Pretrial Justice Institute, ``47 percent of felony defendants with financial bonds can't pay and stay in jail until their case is heard.'' In other words, they simply can't afford to make bail, and so they stay in jail, sometimes for years. Not only is it costly to hold people for an extended period of time prior to trial, but we know it has sometimes incentivized people--people who were innocent of the crimes they were charged with-- to strike plea deals simply because they can't afford to pay the bail and they can't afford to spend months or years away from their homes or families.

Like many people in organizations, I have looked at Senator Sessions record with respect to the issue of criminal justice reform, and it is lacking in the need to find a bipartisan solution to what is recognized across party lines as an important effort that we need to make-- criminal justice reform--because we know we have too many people who are currently locked up for nonviolent offenses, including many substance abuse offenses.

It makes no sense within our system to have the kind of mass incarceration we have seen in our country, where we have 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population. There is a bipartisan recognition that justice demands we change that. Unfortunately, I have not seen that recognition in the record of Senator Sessions.

In remarks on the Senate floor in 2002, Senator Sessions also criticized a Supreme Court ruling about the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. The Court found that people who had incredibly diminished intellectual capacity should not be executed-- that it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment because these are individuals who could not form a capacity, an intent--and that we should not execute people who did not form that criminal intent, the mens rea. That was an advance in our Federal jurisprudence, yet that was severely criticized by Senator Sessions. So that statement, along with his position on IDEA and his opposition to the convention on peoples with disabilities raises many, many troubling questions regarding his willingness to protect individuals who need protection.

We also recognize that the Attorney General has to be somebody who is independent, who is willing to stand up to a President if a President is calling upon the Justice Department to take an unlawful action or an action inappropriate or inconsistent with the interests of justice.

In 1904, in a letter to the Attorney General, President Theodore Roosevelt said:

Of all the officers of the Government, those of the

Department of Justice should be kept most free from any

suspicion of improper action on partisan or factional

grounds, so there shall be gradually a growth, even though a

slow growth, in the knowledge that . . . the representatives

of the Federal Department of Justice insist on meting out

even-handed justice to all.

Senator Sessions himself made the point when he questioned then- nominee Sally Yates about her responsibilities in the Justice Department of President Obama. Senator Sessions told Ms. Yates:

You have to watch out because people will be asking you to

do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney

general has the responsibility to say ``no'' to the President

if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people

have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying,

``Well, he appoints somebody who's is going to execute his

views. What's wrong with that?'' But if the views the

President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney

general or the deputy attorney general say no?

That was the question posed by Senator Sessions.

Ms. Yates answered:

Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy

attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the

Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to

the President.

That is exactly what she did. That is exactly what Deputy Attorney General Yates did just a few days ago when President Trump asked her to take an action which in her opinion was inconsistent with the laws of the United States. She did what Senator Sessions asked her to do at that hearing, and she was fired.

Let's look at the record of Senator Sessions' willingness to stand up in an independent way to some of the outrageous statements that have been made by President Trump.

After the terrorist attack in San Bernadino, CA, Mr. Trump called for a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what . . . is going on.''

He went on to reiterate his plans for a Muslim ban in a March 2016 CNN interview and a later speech. What did Senator Sessions do at that important moment? At that time, Senator Sessions was an early supporter of not only Mr. Trump but his call for a Muslim ban. Just days after Candidate Trump first made his Muslim ban proposal, Senator Sessions told Steve Bannon on Breitbart's radio program:

We're in an age that's very dangerous and we're seeing more

and more persons enter. And a lot of them have done terrorist

acts and a lot of them believe it's commanded by their

religion. So I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss

this [Muslim ban].

We all want the greatest security for our country. We all want to make sure bad people don't get here. But I think we also understand as Americans that a religious test violates the principles of our Nation.

Senator Leahy pointed out at Senator Sessions' confirmation hearing that Senator Sessions opposed a resolution saying the United States should not use religious tests for immigration into the country, that they were antithetical to our founding principles. Nevertheless, when it was time to be counted and stand up, Senator Sessions did not do that.

More recently, we heard President Trump criticize the Washington State judge--and I see our leader, my friend Senator Murray, on the floor. He criticized the decision of a Federal district judge, and he did it, as we know, in a dismissive way, tweeting that he was a ``so- called judge.'' That is another moment when--whether you support President Trump and his campaign or you support his actions as President, it is a moment when, if you are going to being the chief law enforcement leader in the country, you say: Mr. President, really, that is not an appropriate thing to say.

Senator Sessions had another opportunity to challenge then-Candidate Trump on an earlier occasion when Candidate Trump criticized the judge who made a ruling against him in the Trump University case and criticized him on the grounds of his heritage. That was an opportunity when others in this country, even people who were supporting Candidate Trump, said: You know what, that is out of line. That is out of bounds.

We did not hear from Senator Sessions. Maybe Senator Sessions was being looked at for another executive agency where that question was less important, where maybe it wouldn't carry so much weight. But for the Attorney General of the United States, we need somebody there who is going to be independent, somebody who is going to be willing to challenge the President of the United States when he

suggests unlawful actions or makes statements that are inconsistent with the system of justice.

Finally, on the issue of voter fraud, I think all of us have heard from President Trump about his claim that he really won the popular vote. We shouldn't even be here talking about it, but he keeps talking about it. He claims that he really won the popular vote, that it was these 3 million people who cast fraudulent ballots--zero evidence, no evidence, and yet when Senator Franken asked Senator Sessions about these claims of voter fraud, these unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud, Senator Sessions didn't take the opportunity to say: You know what, I support President Trump, but he is out of line; he is wrong to make these outrageous claims. He didn't say that. In fact, President Trump at one point was talking about having the Justice Department or the FBI look into this very question.

I am not satisfied at all that Senator Sessions would meet his own test--the test he presented to Sally Yates when she was up for her nomination for Deputy Attorney General about whether she would stand up to what she considered an unlawful order by the President of the United States. She did. She was fired. There is no evidence that Senator Sessions would stand up under those circumstances, and we need an Attorney General who will stand up for the law and for equal justice and for every American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with the resolution on the floor today, our Republican colleagues are beginning their effort to roll back critical

health, safety, and environmental safeguards that the Obama administration put in place.

The tool that they are using, the Congressional Review Act, is a particularly blunt instrument. The Congressional Review Act allows the majority to rush a resolution of disapproval through the Senate with limited debate and only a limited opportunity for Americans to see what Congress is doing.

But a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act does not just send a rule back to the drawing board. Instead, the resolution repeals the rule and prohibits the Agency from ever proposing anything like it again. An analysis in the Washington Law Review reported that it is ``conceivable that any subsequent attempt to regulate in any way whatsoever in the same broad topical area would be barred.''

The rule before us today, the stream protection rule, deals with how waste from surface mining, also called ``mountaintop mining,'' is handled. The rule prevents this waste from being dumped near streams. The waste from these mining operations includes toxic pollutants like lead and arsenic. And these pollutants can cause serious health problems in surrounding communities. A 2008 study in the Journal of the North American Benthological Society found that 98 percent of streams downstream from mountaintop mining operations were damaged. This rule limits pollution near streams, requires monitoring of water quality, and creates standards to restore streams after a mining operation ends.

The Reagan administration first put forward stream protections in 1983, exercising authority under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Today more than 30 years later, we better understand the effects of surface mining, and it makes sense to update our standards to protect public health. The Bush administration revisited the issue in 2008, but a Federal court vacated the Bush administration rule because they failed to fully consider effects on wildlife.

Under the Obama administration, in 2009, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or OSMRE, began considering options to bring these stream protections up to date with the current scientific understanding. In the course of developing the updated rule, OSMRE shared information and solicited comment from State regulatory authorities and incorporated their feedback. The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs continued the stakeholder engagement process. The Obama administration considered the issue deliberately, for 7 years, before publishing the final rule in December.

OSMRE acted appropriately with the Stream Protection Rule. But the question before us today is not whether the rule is perfect. Today we are considering whether the Agency should be permitted to update the old 1983 rule at all. I believe that it was right for the government to update this outdated regulation and use the best available science to protect drinking water and safeguard public health. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me to vote against this resolution to disapprove the rule.

Mr. President, with this resolution, the Senate majority is continuing its rush to overturn Obama administration consumer and investor protections, this time by targeting a bipartisan anticorruption measure.

In 2008, under the direction of Senator Richard Lugar, Republican staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee produced a report, ``The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse.'' They traveled to some of the most resource-rich countries in the world and explored how government corruption, fraud, and instability prevented those nations' people from benefitting from their oil, gas, and mineral reserves. Rather than spurring national economic development, benefits were concentrated among government and military elites and organized crime. According to the nonprofit research organization Global Financial Integrity, in 2012, developing countries ``lose roughly $1 trillion per year to crime, corruption, and tax evasion.''

The 2008 Foreign Relation Committee report led to the bipartisan Cardin-Lugar amendment to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to require that all oil, gas, and mineral

companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges disclose their payments to foreign governments, including royalties, fees, taxes, and bonuses. Congress enacted the Cardin-Lugar amendment as section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

These transparency provisions are critical to combatting corruption in resource-rich nations. And these provisions are critical to protecting investors by ensuring that they have a clear picture of companies' interactions with foreign nations.

As the Foreign Relations Committee report noted: ``transparency in extractive industries abroad is in our interests because mineral wealth breeds corruption, which dulls the effects of U.S. foreign assistance; inequitable distribution of mineral revenues creates civil unrest, threatening political and energy instability and adding a price premium to commodities such as oil and gas; and energy rich countries can become emboldened militarily.''

The Cardin-Lugar amendment continued American leadership in anticorruption efforts, and has established a new global standard. Similar rules ale now in effect in Europe, Norway, and Canada and apply to 80 percent of the world's largest publicly listed oil, gas, and mining companies, including state-owned oil companies in Russia, China, and Brazil.

While many of the world's largest extractive businesses have expressed support for transparency, including BP, Shell, and Newmont Mining, the SEC rule has been strongly opposed by a narrow group, including ExxonMobil. I am concerned to see the Senate acting to repeal this rule and prohibit the SEC from ever establishing a similar anticorruption and investor-protection measure in the same week that it voted to confirm Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil, to be Secretary of State.

There is no logical reason to go against international norms and repeal a rule supported by much of the regulated industry, investors, and advocates for transparency and government reform in favor of a narrow opposition led by ExxonMobil. I urge my colleagues to reject this special-interest favor to ExxonMobil and maintain this important tool to fight corruption and protect investors.