Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am grateful for the recognition. I am grateful for my colleague from Hawaii and for my colleagues from across the country who are going to be coming to the floor tonight.

This is going to be a long evening because there are a lot of folks who are frustrated. There is frustration not just about the actual bill itself, a lot of this frustration right now is building because of the brokenness of this process. It is a process that is right now about secrecy. It is a process that has been conducted behind closed doors in back rooms. It is a process that is not reflective of our history, of our traditions, or of the many calls from both sides of the aisle, in my short time in the Senate, hearing echoes of a chorus from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who talk about regular order, regular order, regular order.

Several of my colleagues and I earlier were asking for unanimous consent--trying to use the process of the Senate to bring about a better process--a process that would bring this legislation out into the light of day and create an opportunity reflective of the Affordable Care Act, where we would have people able to put input into this process. A debate would happen. Discussion would happen. Actually, we would come forward with a bill the American public would see go through the debates.

In fact, through the process, the very Constitutional Convention of this country--perhaps some of the biggest issues of humanity--were debated in an open forum. We have records of those discussions, records of those deliberations. Everything from the representation that each State should have to issues as profound as slavery were right there, out in the open. Tonight, it is remarkable to me, it is almost tragic to me, to see a process that is so broken, a process that is so secretive, a process happening in back rooms--everything Americans dislike about politics of old--people working in secret on a bill they are going to try to force through Congress with no public input, no hearings, no meetings, no markups, no debate, no public accountability.

So there will be a lot of voices tonight speaking about the realities of this legislation. I am one of those folks. I came from a children's hospital this afternoon with parents and with children who suffered accidents--car accidents and more--telling me how they were relying on Medicaid. I think it is one of the most terrifying things that is about to happen because people look at the House bill--a bill our President even called mean--and they are fearing for their own communities, fearing for families like theirs.

I understand the substance of this bill should have many people afraid about what kind of country we are going to be when we look at the House version of the bill and see that it violates our common values and ideals as a nation--to give massive tax breaks worth hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the wealthiest and, at the same time, cut the social safety net to a degree we haven't seen in my lifetime. The substance of this is frightening, but the process, to me, violates the values I know so many of my colleagues hold and that any of us, watching this happen in an objective way, would criticize.

We know the starting place in the House. We know the details of that bill--23 million Americans losing health insurance, the gutting of Medicaid by $800 billion, throwing one-sixth of our economy into crisis, but it is the process that is fundamentally at odds with the principles and the values of especially this body, the Senate. When I was running for this office, I had so many people come to me and say: This is the greatest deliberative body on the planet Earth--the Senate--which slows things down, the saucer that cools the tea as our ancestors said. This body has a history of grappling with issues. This process is so at odds with everything I believe about this body and how it is supposed to operate. The Senate is meant to be a place of powerful consideration of debate, of discussion.

Now, the history of this body and its debates and discussions is really interesting. The longest consecutive session in Senate history was a debate during the First World War about whether to arm merchant ships. That is the record. By the way, issues of war and peace I would hope would bring about substantive, deliberative debate, discussion, open air. This body is probably--in fact, the elder statesmen and

women in this body I have spoken to on both sides of the aisle, sometimes the most difficult decisions they have made are involving war and peace. What is interesting, if you look at the history of the body, the longest consecutive session debate was about war and whether to arm merchant ships in the First World War.

What was the second longest debate? The second longest consecutive session in Senate history was actually healthcare, or, more specifically, it was the healthcare debate in 2010 about the Affordable Care Act or so-called ObamaCare. In fact, here we are looking at a process that seems to be screaming something to the floor: No hearings, no markups, no committee sessions--screaming to the floor in the shadow of the second longest consecutive session of debate. That, to me, is a contrast that speaks volumes about the wrongness of this moment in history. Anyone objectively standing back would agree and concur that for something that is so deeply at the core of what our country is about--we literally founded this Nation because of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--life. What more fundamental aspect of life is there?

A critical constituent part of that has to be how we preserve life, how we embolden life. What is the state of our healthcare? For this great, historic, deliberative body to be doing that without so much as a pause, with the brilliant minds on both sides of this aisle, with the thoughtful people on both sides of this aisle, people who have come through portals and processes where they expose themselves and their lives to public discussion, public debate--that is what a democracy is, and that is what this Republic was founded upon, not secrecy, not back rooms.

This body reflects the best of what democratic principles are. Now we are rushing something through that fundamentally affects life, and we are pushing it to the floor with an insult to our history, an insult to our values.

It has been said before, but I remind my colleagues that the Affordable Care Act had a lengthy process before that near recordbreaking consecutive days of session. The Senate's HELP Committee held 14 bipartisan roundtables, 13 bipartisan hearings, 20 bipartisan walkthroughs, and considered nearly 300 amendments. The Affordable Care Act actually accepted over 160 amendments--160 Republican amendments to shape the bill.

The Finance Committee held 17 roundtables, summits, and hearings; 13 bipartisan Member meetings and walkthroughs, 38 meetings and negotiations, and then a 7-day markup on the bill--the longest markup in over 20 years. That is our history. In the end, the Affordable Care Act went through a lengthy process, through which the policy experts, market experts, medical professionals, health nonprofits, insurers, hospitals, and families all came to this Senate and put forward their input and their ideas.

This wasn't a Republican bill or a Democratic bill by the politicians themselves. America was invited to the table. Hours and hours of hearing records show that people--whether the bill ended up reflecting their ideas or not--had their say. That is what is beautiful about this democracy, is that the dignity and the voice and the opinions of others is brought into the process.

I was mayor of Newark during the time that this process was going on. People in my community were riveted by it. They knew that issues that would affect their lives were going on here in the U.S. Senate, at a time when the No. 1 reason for personal bankruptcy in my State was because people were declaring bankruptcy because of their healthcare bills--something that is not happening now at those levels.

People were caring and concerned about what was going on, and representatives from my community came down. I saw how that process shaped the bill. I saw how Republican ideas shaped the bill. I saw how hospitals and insurers and advocates and doctors and nonprofits, the AARP, and others let their voices be heard, shaped the process, had input, had voice, and their dignity and perspectives were respected.

I fully yield to the majority leader.

Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1628

Mr. President, I recognize my more senior Senator is here from Delaware, so I suspend at this time in deference to an opportunity for the senior Senator from Delaware to have a few words.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, can I ask the Senator from Connecticut a question?

Thank you very much.

The Senator's charts plainly showed who benefits from the Republican bill that we saw in the House. The CBO, as he pointed out, plainly demonstrates that 23 million Americans will lose healthcare. I have heard him talk about this on other issues--how we as Americans are far more connected than we realize and that while one family might suffer from lack of health insurance--like the folks he talked about in the beginning of his remarks--the reality is that when that child doesn't get the healthcare they deserve, when they don't achieve in life the great potential they might have, others suffer as well. You see this as you travel to European countries. They have vastly more people insured, vastly more investments in childhood education and childhood healthcare.

I am wondering if the Senator can extrapolate for me for a moment that this isn't just about individual families who are vulnerable. It is really all Americans, who suffer when other Americans are not getting the benefit of healthcare in this country.

If I can ask the Senator from Connecticut one more question--that interrelatedness is a part of a larger system. We all benefit from these systems. My colleague mentioned hospitals, and whether it is my family who gets injured and is rushed to a hospital or a wealthy family or a poor family, those hospitals are a critical part of the healthcare system.

I was mayor of a city, and I imagine my experience is similar to that of the Senator from Connecticut. Our hospitals before the Affordable Care Act were having a really difficult time because so many of those costs at the most expensive point--when a disease had become so much more acute--were being pushed into hospital emergency rooms. My State was having a very difficult time with the costs of that charity care. They literally had tough choices. They weren't going to close their doors when somebody went into diabetic shock or someone had an asthma attack or some of those diseases were not treated at an earlier stage.

I am wondering if the Senator can help explain, in terms of Connecticut's perspective, why this has an impact on all of us in terms of the systemic healthcare systems that sustain our communities.

That brings up one more issue, if the Senator will indulge me, because I just visited his State. As I was talking to a lot of his members--being from New Jersey, there might be a small rivalry between our two northeastern States. A couple of folks came up to me and got in my face in a polite and joking way about how our Constitution was formed. They talked about the Connecticut Compromise. As you well know, this was a compromise that allowed our Republic to form, understanding they would have two bodies, the House and Senate. Every State would have two Members representing it. In many ways, the Founders of our country, coming out of this, viewed this body very differently than the other body.

Now, the other body, you served in. I am hoping maybe you can shine some light. I have been here 3\1/2\ years. You had experience as a House Member and as a Senator. You said something some people at home might dismiss as hyperbolic partisanship, but I have been here 3\1/2\ years, and I have seen this body change. What frustrates me is that when I was here for a brief period of time and Democrats were in the majority, I heard Republicans talk about regular order, how urgent regular order is. When we are in charge, we will have regular order. The leader spoke publicly about this thing called ``regular order.'' The House operates on majority rule. Our Founders saw that as a very different body than this, which is in many ways talked about as a different rhythm--a different way of doing things. In fact, one Senator over here can have a lot of power within this system, sometimes to the frustration of folks, to slow things down.

You made the claim about this being broken. This is a perfect example of it--this idea that this would be the body, on such a big issue, that would have a chance to be deliberative and to focus on this. I think you are right. We have seen this body, in the very short period of time I have been here, begin to undermine not just things that happened under the Obama administration but to undermine traditions that go back decades, if not more than a century.

I wonder if, being that State, as I was told, so critical to our Constitution, you could give some light on why you really are substantively, factually saying that this is probably one of the low moments of the Senate in the way that this process is being done.

They might have been born in New Jersey.

I thank Senator Murphy for giving me those few moments.

I wonder if the Chair would recognize me to give a few remarks myself.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I want to pick up on that conversation that we were having, in which Senator Murphy laid plain on his charts about larger issues with this bill. I want to get back to the point he was just talking about and that I observed here in the Senate for about 3\1/2\ years, and that is the functioning of this body. I love history. I am one of these guys who doesn't read any fiction any more. I love reading about this country, about its past leaders, about great moments in history.

What is interesting about this body is that, being someone who has the privilege to stand on this floor--quite literally, given to me by the State that I love, New Jersey--I walk on this floor and I feel a sense of history every time I am here. It has been 3\1/2\ years, and it hasn't lost its ``wow'' factor for me that I get to stand on this floor. I have to say that I love my State, and in my campaigning, I don't think the issue that I am New Jersey's first Black Senator came up that much. New Jerseyans wanted to know: Would I come down here and fight for them? I was aware of the history of being the fourth African American popularly elected in the history of this body. I came down here as a student of many of the great moments in time on this floor and many of the records that were set.

I think some of those records are really germane to this moment right now. The longest filibuster on this floor is where one Senator could actually grind the workings of the Senate down to a crawl because of Senate rules and Senate traditions. In this case, it is something I wasn't even alive for, but something that, to me, is frustrating. But it is a moment of history that shows what regular order is. It slows down this body.

A filibuster takes 60 votes to overcome. So here was this moment. It was

actually almost exactly 60 years ago. That was the 1957 Civil Rights Act. It was Strom Thurmond who gave this long filibuster, trying to block something that--yes, indeed--was going to have societal impacts on this country--the 1957 Civil Rights Act. This is one illustration of how, when monumental pieces of legislation come to this floor, the history of this body and the traditions of this body are to slow things down, to have a process, to have rules--especially for things that are so monumental. In this case, it was the 1957 Civil Rights Act-- something on which we look back in the past and say: Wow, it took them a long time to get there, but it demonstrates what this body's rules have been about for a long time.

Let me go with another record that I mentioned earlier tonight, but it shows, again, that when monumental pieces of legislation are coming, this is a body that looks closely, takes its time, is deliberative, and has a time-honored process. That is the other record set by the longest consecutive session in Senate history. It was a debate about truly one of the more important things in our society, which is issues of war and peace. The longest consecutive session in the Senate history of debate and of deliberation--open and public, not just for the Nation to see but for the world to see--was a debate during the First World War about whether to arm merchant ships. It brought about tremendous consternation, tremendous debate, as we did the lead up to the First World War. What is interesting is, if you think about the forming of our country in that debate--again, the Constitutional Convention was public, open, transparent--issues were debated. One of the fundamental reasons for organizing our government was seen as the protection of the American people, the ideals of a common defense, and the public welfare. These were the things, literally, put into the preamble of our Constitution, about what this government is about--that these are the most important ideals. In fact, we herald some of these ideals. They have become part of our civic gospel. Everyone knows when they hear the words ``liberty and justice for all'' that they are part of our civic gospel.

Part of that gospel, as well--in the core center of our country--is that this is a nation about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As to that word ``life,'' this government, this Republic is affirming the ideals of life. It is only understandable when we are debating epic pieces of legislation that will go to affect the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

I was in the children's hospital today. Families in peril, families in crisis were talking about the lives of their children. I have seen it happen, unfortunately, to neighbors and people of my community. When the lives of their children are at stake or threatened or afflicted with disease, it puts so many things in perspective.

So here we have legislation speeding its way to the Senate floor that goes to the fundamental ideals of this Nation. Will we be a country that has a system of healthcare that affirms life?

When we are talking about records in the Senate, it is no coincidence to me that one of the longest times that there was a consecutive session in Senate history for debate--no coincidence to me--was about war and peace. It was the rush, as some people saw it then, toward war in World War I. What is fascinating is that folks should know that the second longest consecutive session in Senate history was about healthcare. It was in 2010. It was over the Affordable Care Act, a bill that the full Senate spent 25 consecutive days considering, 160 hours. Those 160 hours in session does not include hundreds more hours in committee hearings, in meetings. All that took place in the development of a bill that came to this floor and set a record about being the second longest debate.

It is perfectly justifiable that the bill should have taken so much time, so much focus--that the world's greatest deliberative body would deliberate, would do its job. As for that piece of legislation, don't believe the lie; it wasn't rushed through here. It didn't get the express train through the Senate. It set records for discussion, deliberation, debate, and a process that included comments, input, thoughts, and testimony from Americans across the country--not just red States, not just blue States, but of all Americans. It was justifiable. It was absolutely justifiable.

I wasn't here. I was at home in Newark. I was mayor of the city.

This debate went on and on and on, and it captured the attention of the Nation. It was something I had never seen before and I haven't seen since. The President of the United States then, Barack Obama--this to me was stunning; it caught my attention--was on national TV cameras. Sure, it was C-SPAN--not what I turn to first when I am home relaxing on my couch. But the President of the United States invited Congress in--Republicans, some of the smartest minds. I have served here 3\1/2\ years now. Some of the smartest minds I have met in this country are here in the Senate on the Republican side. He invited the Congress in to discuss and debate with him on live TV healthcare. I don't know if Reagan did that. I don't know if Bill Clinton did that. I can't remember that they did. So here was something that was done fully in the light, vetted, debated, deliberated, discussed in open air.

The hearing numbers are incredible. I have been here 3\1/2\ years, and I have never seen anything like it. In the Senate's so-called HELP Committee--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--they held 14 bipartisan roundtables, 13 bipartisan hearings, 20 bipartisan walkthroughs, and they considered 300 amendments. This is the thing I didn't know until I got to the Senate because of all the rhetoric on 24-hour cable news. This wasn't a purely Democratic bill. They actually accepted over 160 amendments from Republicans. The stories I have heard from people on both sides of the aisle is that they were bending over backward trying to pick up one Republican vote, so they incurred and took on amendments that actually shaped the bill, Republican ideas onto this healthcare bill, 160 amendments. But stop, that is only in the HELP Committee.

In the Senate Finance Committee, they held 17 bipartisan roundtables, they held summits and hearings, 13 member meetings and walkthroughs, 38 meetings and negotiations, bipartisan. They held a markup. I have been to lots of markups. I have never seen them last or scarcely can think of times they have lasted for more than a day, but they held, in the Finance Committee, a 7-day markup on the bill. That 7-day markup--talk about records--that 7-day markup was the longest markup on a bill in 20 years. That was the process.

A bill affecting that fundamental American ideal that this Nation-- founded like no other, not a theocracy, not a monarchy. It is the oldest constitutional democracy on the planet Earth that affirmed ideals that put into the ether of Earth, for the first time, this Constitution, talking about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This healthcare bill involved such debate and discussion and the Nation participated. Policy experts, market experts, medical professionals, health nonprofits, insurers, hospitals, Americans all got to put forward their input, their ideas. Sure, all of them were not accepted, but everything went into the mix.

This should be shocking to the consciousness of all people of good conscience who aren't reflexively partisan, but look at the history of this country, a history that is proud, a history that should be shameful about how things got done in matters of war and peace, in matters of foreign policy and domestic, in matters like integration and civil rights that made it possible for me to stand on the Senate floor. There was a process, and somehow in the last 3\1/2\ years--in the name of what? A vicious brand of partisanship that somehow undercuts not just the voice of Democrats, not just the voice of policy experts, not just the voice of hospital experts, not just the voice of medical professionals--it doesn't just undercut their involvement in the process, but it is an insult to the history and the traditions of this body.

This was not the constitutional intent that something as important as healthcare should be done in a back room where a small handful of Senators are trying to hammer out amongst themselves a piece of legislation that is going to affect tens of millions of Americans and change our economy and change our communities. There is honor in this place that isn't

on TV. There are good folks on both sides of the aisle. I have gotten to know them. I consider folks my friends. I know their hearts. This does not sit well the way this is being handled. I know it.

This is one of those moments of history that somebody just needs to raise their hand and say: You know what. I might even like that bill that comes out of that back room. I may like that bill that was hammered out by 12 Republicans, but this process is wrong. It is an insult to our history. I wouldn't want this done to me.

This is the moment. It is a test. History will look back and see what this body did at this moment in history. I fear we are going to fail the test.

What is even more painful than that, for me, is not just the sadness or the anguish I feel about a body contorting its traditions, breaking its way, what even hurts me more than that is what they are going to be pushing through. We saw it in the House.

Instead of this body coming together--and literally there is agreement on this. All of us believe the Affordable Care Act needs to be improved. I have had it in conversations, formal and informal, that we could build upon the Affordable Care Act. We could correct for its deficiencies, and we could build upon its extraordinary successes.

I see those extraordinary successes in my State. I have Republicans and Democrats who are now fearful about the consequences should a bill like the House Republican healthcare bill be made law. There are folks who fear for their families, fear for their children, who don't want to go back to the Nation we had before, where the No. 1 reason for bankruptcy was not being able to afford your medical bills, where people with preexisting conditions were denied insurance, when mental healthcare wasn't in parity with physical healthcare. I can go through all the things I have seen make a huge difference in New Jersey in communities, rural and urban, for Americans.

I want to highlight some of those right now, some of those questions that people are asking at home about what happens if a bill like the House bill becomes law, if they take that bill here in the Senate and push it through, send it back to the House this bill that subverted process, inclusion and debate and deliberation, and go to that process called reconciliation. There are questions that are being asked.

Here is one: What happens to a mother who is pregnant with, say, her second child who suddenly loses Medicaid coverage? Now, understand, a very large percentage of the children born in the United States of America are born covered by Medicaid, which we already see in this House bill is being gutted, which is the biggest rollback in the safety net in our country in my lifetime and more.

What happens to that mother who is pregnant with her second child and loses her Medicaid coverage and her prenatal care? If she loses her prenatal care along with it, what happens to that American citizen? What happens to that baby?

Well, we know that according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, babies born to mothers who receive no prenatal care are five times more likely to die than those whose mothers did receive prenatal care. Tragically, women without prenatal care are three to four times more likely to suffer maternal mortality--that means dying in childbirth--than women with prenatal care, and these rates significantly increase for women of color.

What happens to the tens of thousands of mothers who may lose access to maternity services, and what happens to the already dismal infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rates in our country if this plan goes through? That is a legitimate question. The data is clear. You restrict access to prenatal care, you endanger children, Americans, and you endanger mothers.

Let's keep asking those questions. What happens to the healthcare worker who works 60 hours a week taking care of others but loses their own healthcare coverage and then is unable to afford getting screened themselves, preventive screenings for cancer--let's say ovarian cancer. What happens to them? We don't have to imagine what happens when millions of Americans forgo preventive screenings. We have factual data on what happens should access to those preventive screenings--like what happened with the House healthcare bill--what would happen.

The American Cancer Society tells us clearly that inadequate health coverage is a barrier to preventive care, early detection, and optimal treatment. They find, for example, that patients with stage II colorectal cancer who have it detected have higher survival rates. In fact, they point out that people with stage II colorectal cancer with adequate health insurance have better survival rates than people with stage I colorectal cancer who have no health coverage. In other words, the American Cancer Society shows that access leads to survival and denial leads to higher rates of death.

A recent cancer study found that ``the number of Americans whose cancers were diagnosed at the earliest stage when it was most likely to be cured increased after ObamaCare went into effect, and more citizens had access to health coverage.'' You take away the expanded coverage that was founded through ObamaCare, you decrease preventive screenings, you decrease early detention and, as indicated by the American Cancer Society, death rates go up.

Another question, in general: What happens to cancer rates in America when these gains are reversed? What happens when these gains are reversed? What happens to the father of two who is diagnosed with a rare cancer who can't afford the additional estimated $82,000? His cancer treatment goes up if this bill, like the Republican House bill, passes. That is what is estimated--$82,000 is what his cancer treatments would go up. What happens when he can't afford that care, when he is forced to choose between his family's home, for example, and treating his cancer?

Well, this is what we know. These are the facts that from 2010 to 2016, personal bankruptcy filings have dropped close to 50 percent in the United States of America. One of the collateral benefits of ObamaCare is there was a 50-percent drop in personal bankruptcy filings, with experts agreeing that the Affordable Care Act played an important role in this significant decrease.

A group of economists has estimated that the House Republican bill would cost the average enrollee more than $1,500 more per year than the current system. This is despite the fact the surveys have found that the majority of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings, with one study finding that 63 percent of Americans don't have the savings to cover a $500 emergency.

Remember what Senator Murphy showed? That is a bill that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, shifting the cost burden so the average enrollee now under this bill is going to see a $1,500-more-per-year payment when the average American doesn't have the savings to cover about a $500 emergency.

Another question that folks are asking is, What happens to the family whose child with a disability loses their access to home and support services--the physical and speech therapy they receive through Medicaid--if the Republican plan goes forward?

I was in a hospital today with such parents telling me about children who--the only way they got the coverage was because of the expanded Medicaid. Now what happens under the Republican plan? We know that Medicaid is a critical lifeline for people and families with disabilities, providing access to services such as rehabilitative therapy to help children meet developmental goals.

One of the incredible young women, girls, I met today--because of developmental therapy, she went from not being able to walk to now continuing to do the things that her normal teenage peers and her twin sister are able to do.

We know that today, 15 percent of kids are growing up with developmental disabilities. In New Jersey, 1 in 41 children lives with autism. But this plan that was passed in the House threatens to make it more difficult for children with disabilities to receive the care they need, to go to school, and to live healthy lives. Losing coverage could mean the difference between a child with a disability achieving a developmental milestone or falling further behind. Unfortunately, in the Republican bill that passed the House,

that is exactly what will happen if it should become law.

If that bill passes, what will happen to older Americans who qualify for Medicare but still need access to critical health services? We know that insurance companies would likely be allowed to charge older Americans much higher premiums under the Republican plan. Remember, it used to be capped. The cost for older Americans used to be capped. It is now being estimated that Americans between the ages 55 and 64 would pay some of the highest increases. That increase would be $5,200 more per year. Standard & Poor's actually estimated that premiums for a 64- year-old could increase by 30 percent under the Republican bill that passed the House.

The Congressional Budget Office noted in their report on the House Republican health care plan that ``although the agencies expect that the legislation would increase the number of uninsured broadly, the increase would be disproportionately large among older people with lower incomes, particularly people between 50 and 64 years of age with incomes of less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.'' Think about that for a second. Executives of insurance companies, pharma companies--the richest will get tax breaks into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the poorest folks, the elderly in our community, according to the CBO, would see their costs go up considerably.

The New Jersey Hospital Association noted that ``under current law, a 64-year-old making $26,500 a year will pay an average of $1,700 in annual premiums.'' Under the AHCA--the Republican plan in the House-- that same individual making just above minimum wage will pay, under their plan, between $13,600 and $16,100 in premiums. That is the increase for older Americans, working Americans. That is the increase.

We know that as more older Americans lose their health coverage and in turn enter Medicare in worse health, our entire Medicare system is made weaker and less solvent.

If this bill passes, what happens to older Americans who have already spent their life savings in nursing homes? We know that right now for elder Americans in nursing homes, Medicaid actually covers the cost of two out of three of those individuals.

I will quote from a piece that ran just this past weekend in the New York Times: ``Roughly one in three people now turning 65 will require nursing home care at some point during his or her life.''

Over three-quarters of long stay nursing home residents will eventually be covered by Medicaid.

Many American voters think Medicaid is only for low-income adults and their children, for people who aren't ``like them.'' But Medicaid is not somebody else's insurance; it is an insurance for all of our mothers and fathers and eventually for ourselves.

I continue the quote:

Mr. Trump and the Republicans would lower spending on the

frailest and most vulnerable people in our healthcare system.

They would like most Americans to believe that these cuts

will not affect them, only their ``undeserving neighbors,''

but that hides the truth that draconian cuts to Medicaid

affect all of our families. They are a direct attack on our

elderly or disabled and are dangerous.

I want to wrap up with this concluding thought: We know right now that we are at a turning point in our country, that the process that has made this deliberative body known throughout the land, throughout humanity--that this deliberative body is about to alter its tradition and have a bill that affects tens of millions of Americans done and crafted in a back room without public input and rushed to this floor. That is what the process is right now.

As Martin Luther King said in a speech to the medical community for human rights in 1966, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''

This bill will perpetuate injustice in our Nation. It will further the gulf between the haves and have-nots. But it does not just target the vulnerable, the elderly, the poor; it targets all of us. It targets our character as a country, our highest ideals, the very core of many, if not all, of our States. The least of these. The least of these.

We cannot allow this legislation that will so hurt our country to be crafted in darkness behind closed doors. It subverts a mighty tradition of the world's most deliberative body to be rushed through and cause so much damage to so many Americans and indeed the very soul of our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Police Reporting of Information Data and Evidence Act, or PRIDE Act-- legislation I introduced on Thursday, May 25, 2017. This bill would increase accountability and transparency for law enforcement by requiring States to report to the Department of Justice use of force incidents that occur between police officers and civilians. I am proud to have introduced this important bill and I want to thank Senator Chris Van Hollen for joining the legislation as an original cosponsor. I also want to thank Representative Joaquin Castro for introducing a House companion of the PRIDE Act.

Across our Nation, law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each day to protect our communities. These individuals have answered the call to serve, and we owe these brave men and women our deepest respect and gratitude. As mayor of Newark, NJ, I saw firsthand the dangers police officers face each and every day. They must make tough, split-second decisions that have life and death consequences. They truly have one of the toughest jobs in America.

We must provide law enforcement with the tools and resources they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. That is why I have been a strong advocate for robust funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, Bulletproof Vest Partnership program, and the Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring program. These programs support law enforcement in their mission and help make our communities safe.

While the vast majority of police officers serve with integrity and perform their duties without incident, we know that there are instances when officers engage in inappropriate uses of force. These cases are not emblematic of law enforcement as the whole; however, these incidents have eroded trust between law enforcement and the communities they are sworn to protect. This is especially the case today due to the number of incidents that are caught on video and shared on the internet. This phenomena only exacerbates the difficult job police officers have and fails to lend clarity to the actual number of cases of excessive use of force that occur nationwide.

We must work to shore up that trust deficit and ensure that those who break the law and use excessive force are held accountable and those who rightfully uphold the law are viewed in the correct light. We must collect more data on use of force incidents between law enforcement and civilians. As former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director James Comey said in an address to Georgetown University, ``Without complete and accurate data, we are left with `ideological thunderbolts.' And that helps spark unrest and distrust and does not help us get better.''

For those reasons, I introduced the PRIDE Act. This legislation would require States to report to the Justice Department any incident where use of force is used against a civilian or against a law enforcement officer. It would mandate the collection of certain information such as national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, physical disability, mental disability, English language proficiency, housing status, and school status of each civilian against whom law enforcement used force. It would require officers to record the date, time, and location of the incident and whether the jurisdiction allows for the open-carry or concealed-carry of a firearm. It would require the officer to detail whether the

civilian was armed and the type of force used and the types of weapons used in the incident. The bill would require the officer to explain why force was used, provide a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident, detail how many officers and civilians were involved, and provide a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The bill would create a grant program to help smaller law enforcement agencies--those with 100 employees or less--comply with the provisions of the bill. Also, it would allow those agencies to use the grant money to create public awareness campaigns designed to gain information regarding shootings and use of force incidents against police officers. Lastly, the legislation would allow agencies to use the funds to conduct use-of-force training, including deescalation and bias training.

There is no excuse not to collect more data on use of force incidents between law enforcement officers and civilians. Shining a spotlight on these instances will improve police-community relations, vindicate wrongly accused law enforcement officers, and provide lawmakers with the information they need to devise smart and effective policy. I am proud to have introduced the PRIDE Act, and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of the bipartisan Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act, or CARERS Act. The bill would make our Federal laws dealing with medical marijuana fairer and help ensure that Americans have access to the care they need. I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I want to thank Senators Rand Paul and Kirsten Gillibrand for working with me on this bill. I also want to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski, Al Franken, and Mike Lee for joining the

CARERS Act as original cosponsors and Representatives Steve Cohen and Don Young for introducing a House companion bill.

Right now, regardless of whether you are in a State that has legalized medical marijuana, it is illegal under Federal law. This inconsistency puts growers, distributors, and patients at great risk of Federal prosecution even though they are in compliance with State law.

In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal prosecutors to refrain from prosecuting individuals that use, purchase, or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards, such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana.

Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of the Federal Government to be aligned with States regarding the legality of medical marijuana has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State lawmakers and the public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

And now, more than ever, I am especially concerned with Attorney General Jeff Sessions as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. His radical stance on marijuana is way out of the mainstream, and he has taken steps to reinvigorate the failed War on Drugs. Recently, he wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership asking them not to renew an appropriations rider that prevents the Justice Department from spending money on cases that involve individuals who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws. He said, ``I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime.'' Contrary to Attorney General Sessions' views, this is not a problem we can jail ourselves out of.

Individuals who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. It is time for Congress to act.

Today, I reintroduced the CARERS Act. First, and most importantly, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people gain access to the care they need.

The bill would also allow States to import cannabidiol, commonly called CBD for short. CBD is an oil substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC--meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine so many children need--along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet syndrome--to control seizures. We must make this important drug more available so people can access the medication they need.

The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors that prescribe it, the lawmakers that regulate it, and the people that need it.

Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana. Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come home with invisible wounds of war, and they deserve the best care available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to heal or control their condition. Those who have served our Nation deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care available.

The CARERS Act was the first medical marijuana bill introduced in the Senate. Unfortunately, we did not pass it in the last Congress, but I am hopeful that in the 115th Congress we can get this bill across the finish line and send it to the President's desk for signature. I, again, want to thank my colleagues who worked with me on this bill, and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of the bipartisan Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act, or CARERS Act. The bill would make our Federal laws dealing with medical marijuana fairer and help ensure that Americans have access to the care they need. I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I want to thank Senators Rand Paul and Kirsten Gillibrand for working with me on this bill. I also want to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski, Al Franken, and Mike Lee for joining the

CARERS Act as original cosponsors and Representatives Steve Cohen and Don Young for introducing a House companion bill.

Right now, regardless of whether you are in a State that has legalized medical marijuana, it is illegal under Federal law. This inconsistency puts growers, distributors, and patients at great risk of Federal prosecution even though they are in compliance with State law.

In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal prosecutors to refrain from prosecuting individuals that use, purchase, or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards, such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana.

Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of the Federal Government to be aligned with States regarding the legality of medical marijuana has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State lawmakers and the public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

And now, more than ever, I am especially concerned with Attorney General Jeff Sessions as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. His radical stance on marijuana is way out of the mainstream, and he has taken steps to reinvigorate the failed War on Drugs. Recently, he wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership asking them not to renew an appropriations rider that prevents the Justice Department from spending money on cases that involve individuals who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws. He said, ``I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime.'' Contrary to Attorney General Sessions' views, this is not a problem we can jail ourselves out of.

Individuals who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. It is time for Congress to act.

Today, I reintroduced the CARERS Act. First, and most importantly, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people gain access to the care they need.

The bill would also allow States to import cannabidiol, commonly called CBD for short. CBD is an oil substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC--meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine so many children need--along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet syndrome--to control seizures. We must make this important drug more available so people can access the medication they need.

The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors that prescribe it, the lawmakers that regulate it, and the people that need it.

Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana. Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come home with invisible wounds of war, and they deserve the best care available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to heal or control their condition. Those who have served our Nation deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care available.

The CARERS Act was the first medical marijuana bill introduced in the Senate. Unfortunately, we did not pass it in the last Congress, but I am hopeful that in the 115th Congress we can get this bill across the finish line and send it to the President's desk for signature. I, again, want to thank my colleagues who worked with me on this bill, and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. President, today, with great humility during National Police Week, I wish to recognize the brave men and women of law enforcement across the country. These individuals have answered the call to serve and every day they put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. I especially want to honor those who have lost their lives in the line of duty and observe the sacrifices of their families.

First, I especially want to recognize three law enforcement officers who lost their lives in New Jersey last year. These three men made the ultimate sacrifice for their communities, and we owe them and their families our sincerest respect. On July 1, 2016, the New Jersey Department of Corrections lost Nikeelan ``Nick'' Semmon. On March 7, 2016, the New Jersey State Police lost Sean Cullen. On December 5, 2016, the New Jersey State Police also lost Frankie Williams.

These officers dedicated their lives to protecting our communities, and they served our State with valor and integrity. I feel privileged to call them fellow New Jerseyans, and my thoughts and prayers continue to be with the family and friends of these brave public servants. As we continue to mourn and remember Officer Semmon, Trooper Cullen, and Trooper Williams, let us pledge to honor their sacrifice by working every day to emulate their devotion to public service through acts of service and love.

It is in that spirit that I want to talk about the important work that still needs to be done to support law enforcement. Congress plays a critical role in supporting law enforcement, both at the Federal level and at the State and local level. There are few bills I want to mention that I believe we must pass to uphold our commitment to brave men and women in law enforcement.

First, on February 16, 2017, I introduced the bipartisan Law Enforcement Officers' Equity Act. Unfortunately, due to a technical error, nearly 30,000 Federal law enforcement officers classified as GS- 0083 police officers did not receive enhanced benefits under the U.S. Code. For example, certain officers who work for Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Mint, National Institute of Health and many more, receive lower pensions as compared to other law enforcement officers with similar responsibilities.

The Law Enforcement Officers' Equity Act would expand the definition of ``law enforcement officer'' for retirement purposes to include all Federal law enforcement officers. The change would grant law enforcement officer status to the follow individuals: employees who are authorized to carry a firearm and whose duties include the investigation and/or apprehension of suspected criminals; employees of the Internal Revenue Service whose duties are primarily the collection of delinquent taxes and securing delinquent returns; employees of the U.S Postal Inspection Service; and employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who are department police offices. These officers face the same risks and challenges as the men and women currently classified properly under Federal law as law enforcement officers, and they deserve the same benefits. We must pass this bill.

I am also a proud cosponsor of the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act. This legislation would increase the amount of Pell grant funds available to children of fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMS workers, and fire police. First responders across the country put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. When most people are running away from danger, they are running towards it. For those who put themselves in danger on a daily basis, we must honor their sacrifice and support their families in times of tragedy. Helping children of first responders pay for an education is the least we can do to honor the sacrifice of someone who fell in the line of duty. We must pass this bill.

I am also a cosponsor of the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act of 2017, which I am pleased to say passed the Senate yesterday. We all know the stress and unique challenges police officers across our Nation face in doing their jobs. They risk their lives and are often exposed to traumatizing incidents. The Federal Government must do all it can to support police who suffer from trauma or other mental health issues due to the rigors and dangers of their job. The Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act of 2017 would direct the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Resources to provide support to State and local law enforcement to access mental healthcare services and make sure that hotlines are available for officers who are in need of help. I hope the House of Representatives takes up this bill soon and passes it.

I am proud to sponsor the Law Enforcement Officers' Equity Act and cosponsor the Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act and Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act. There is so much work for us to do to live up to our commitment to law enforcement across the country, and I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues on these critical issues. Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Rutgers University-Newark senior debate team of Nicole Nave and Devane Murphy as they celebrate back-to-back national championships with their victories at the National Debate Tournament, NDT, and the Cross Examination Debate Association National Tournament this year.

Last year, I stood on this floor to recognize Rutgers University- Newark's victory at the National Debate Tournament at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. This year, I am extremely proud to be here once again congratulating Rutgers-Newark on another collegiate National Debate Tournament championship. This is truly an impressive and historic accomplishment. It is only the second time in collegiate debate history that the same team has won both national championships in a single year.

In addition to the national championship, Nicole Nave and Devane Murphy were also honored individually at the National Debate Tournament this year. Devane was named the NDT's top speaker, and Nicole received the NDT second place speaker award. At this year's Cross Examination Debate Association National tournament, Nicole earned a record- shattering five perfect scores out of eight. Nicole and Devane, the two best collegiate debaters in America, use their life experiences to shape their uniquely Rutgers-Newark debate style, one which has led the Rutgers University-Newark team to remain ranked as the No. 1 team in the Nation.

The Rutgers University-Newark debate team, founded in 2008, is sponsored by the school of public affairs and administration and the office of the chancellor, Newark. Under the leadership of

Rutgers University-Newark chancellor Nancy Canton, debate director Christopher Kozak, and debate team head coach Willie Johnson, the team has been ranked first in the Northeast for 4 consecutive years. In the 2014-2015 year, the team was ranked 14th nationally. Nicole, Devane, and the rest of the Rutgers University-Newark debate team have brought pride to my beloved city of Newark and to the entire State of New Jersey. I am honored to join with these outstanding students, their families, and the Rutgers University-Newark community in celebrating another landmark achievement in the Rutgers University-Newark debate team's history.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about my vote yesterday on the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. I voted no on his nomination not because I think he is unqualified or because I think he is unfit for the job. He is neither of those things. Rather, I opposed his nomination because of the troubling actions the Justice Department is taking on criminal justice, civil rights, and immigration issues and because I firmly believe a special prosecutor is needed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.

Since taking over as our Nation's top law enforcement official, Attorney General Sessions has indicated he wishes to roll back certain actions taken during the Obama administration. For instance, Attorney General Sessions is considering changes to existing Justice Department drug charging policies. I am concerned he will direct Federal prosecutors to increase the use of mandatory minimum penalties in low- level, nonviolent drug cases. Since 1980, our Federal prison population has increased by nearly 800 percent in large part because of the failed war on drugs and the use of mandatory minimums. Increasing the utilization of mandatory minimums will not make us safer or fix our broken criminal justice system. To the contrary, it will come at great cost--not only to American taxpayers, but to public safety, to families, and to confidence in our justice system. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein will play a critical role in enacting those changes to existing charging policies.

Attorney General Sessions also recently indicated that the Justice Department may reverse its policy on the use of consent decrees to combat civil rights abuses by law enforcement when they occur. He has consistently criticized the use of consent decrees, and in his first major speech as Attorney General, he vowed to ``pull back'' on Federal suits against State and local police departments for civil rights abuses. There is no doubt that America's law enforcement community deserves our utmost respect and protection. These brave women and men have answered the call to serve and the vast majority of them serve with integrity. However, the Justice Department plays a critical role in assisting police departments struggling to combat systemic practices that unfairly target

minorities. Scaling back on the use of consent decrees means civil rights violations may not be remedied. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein will play a critical role in reversing course on the use of consent decrees.

Finally, the pending investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election has caused deep concern and anxiety for many Americans. We owe it to the public to conduct an investigation that is beyond reproach and ensure that every person, regardless of their political affiliation, has confidence in the results no matter what they are. While Mr. Rosenstein is undoubtedly a man of integrity, such an investigation can only be conducted by an independent, special prosecutor. It concerns me that, in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Rosenstein would not commit to appointing such a person.

Mr. Rosenstein has served his country with honor and distinction. He is well respected on both sides of the aisle. In most circumstances, I believe I would have supported his nomination. However, the disturbing agenda on civil and human rights of the Trump administration and the actions Attorney General Sessions continues to advance at the Justice Department and Mr. Rosenstein's responses to questions regarding this agenda at his confirmation hearing leave me deeply troubled about the role he will play as the second highest ranking individual at the Department. For those reasons, I voted no on his nomination to be Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to the

nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nomination of an individual to serve on the Supreme Court is a matter of tremendous importance. Supreme Court justices have the opportunity to shape, literally, and even to define American history for decades to come. Even more importantly, they have the opportunity to affect the lives and livelihoods of everyday Americans, now and in generations yet unborn.

Few decisions in the Senate have a more profound consequence than the confirmation of a nominee for a lifetime seat on the highest Court in the land. I recognize that this is one of the most critical votes that I will take or that any Senator will cast.

After reviewing Judge Gorsuch's record, I have decided to uphold my constitutional duty of service to advise and consent by opposing Judge Gorsuch's nomination at all stages of the confirmation process, including a vote on cloture or an up-or-down vote. I didn't come to this decision lightly. I arrived at this conclusion because I believe the next Associate Justice to the Supreme Court must be someone who understands the importance of judicial restraint, someone who will adhere to precedent, someone who will respect and has respect for all coequal branches of government, someone who views the Constitution as a living--not a static--document, someone whose judicial views actually fall within the mainstream of judicial thought and jurisprudence, and someone who has a deep understanding of the law, the Constitution, and its applications. Critically, I believe the next Supreme Court justice must be someone who understands the gravity of their work--that their decisions will affect livelihoods, will affect lives, and will affect the liberties and the rights that we value--not just for those in places of privilege and power but for all American citizens, for all of the people, now and for decades to come.

The American people need the next Justice on the Nation's highest Court to be someone who will protect the rights for all--for everyone-- and who will ensure that the words literally inscribed above the Supreme Court--``Equal Justice Under Law''--are made manifest in everyone's life.

After careful consideration of Judge Gorsuch's record, his judicial philosophy, and after meeting with the nominee and examining remarks and answers to questions in his confirmation hearing, I do not believe Judge Gorsuch meets this high standard, and I cannot support his nomination to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Gorsuch is truly a well-credentialed jurist, but we must understand that a good resume is the beginning and not the end point of a standard by which we must measure nominees to serve on the Supreme Court. A good resume is necessary, but it is not sufficient to be on the highest Court of the land.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, the Senate's duty to advise and consent means more than merely measuring an aptitude or understanding of the law. It means more than just looking at someone's college and law school. It means more than just admiring: Does this person have an impressive resume? It necessitates an understanding of it. It actually necessitates an empathy for how these decisions will affect the lives of everyday Americans. Do they have the capacity to stand for all of us?

I take literally the way the Constitution began. It began with the words in the preamble to the Constitution. In many ways, it is a direct point at what is at stake when we nominate an individual to the Supreme Court. It is a critical way that we began. It begins by saying: ``We the People.'' The inclusion of these words at the start of one of our Nation's founding documents is actually no accident. It was the subject of consternation and even discussion and debate.

It is worth noting that the original draft of the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, as prepared by a man named Gouverneur Morris, had a different beginning. It said: We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and so forth. But Morris and other drafters of the Constitution made the conclusion-- and, really, the conscious decision--to remove references to States, to bring it back to the people--that the power of government is derived by the people and that is the fundamental aspect of our society; that it is ``we the people''--not people of any one State, not people of any one religion, not people of any one race or class, but ``we the people''--all of the people.

In a debate about this change, it was James Madison who argued:

In this particular respect the distinction between the

existing and the proposed governments is very material. The

existing system has been derived from the dependent

derivative authority of the legislatures of the states;

whereas, this is derived from the superior power of the

people.

It is a deference and it is a reverence for the understanding of the power of the people--all people. It is no accident that this is how our Constitution began, and it is the spirit in our Nation which has helped us for centuries to expand upon this ideal of ``we the people.''

Understand this: Some of our greatest leaders fought to make sure that these ideals were far vaster, far more inclusive. I note, for instance, that Susan B. Anthony said it was ``we the people''--not we the White male citizens, not we the male citizens, but we the whole people who formed the Union. And we formed it not to give the blessings of liberty but to secure them, not to the half of ourselves and to the half of our prosperity but to the whole people--women and men. You see, this fundamental understanding of our Constitution expanded to be more inclusive, to include women and minorities and religious minorities. This conception of ``we the people'' is critical.

It is unfortunate that too often, even with the best intentions, our elected officials, Supreme Court Justices, and even Presidents have forgotten the precision of these words which were chosen. But despite this, because of heroes like Susan B. Anthony and others, the people of this Nation have remembered them, and our Nation has grown to be who we are now. We often actually take for granted the critical role the Supreme Court has played in focusing on the people--on all the people. This has been the power and majesty of the Supreme Court--this focusing of individual rights, the dignity, the worth, the value of all people.

In the Supreme Court case in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to enact labor laws that protect children. They remembered ``we the people''--in this case, citizens against powerful corporations.

In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a State minimum wage law, again, focusing on the people--``we the people.''

In Mapp v. Ohio, when the Supreme Court decided about evidence obtained through the illegal search--the violation of individual privacy--they remembered, again, ``we the people.''

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, when the Supreme Court protected the rights of everyday citizens to criticize their government, they remembered that sovereignty, that power, that importance of ``we the people.''

In Baker v. Carr, when the Supreme Court established the principle of one person, one vote, they remembered ``we the people.''

There are so many of the rulings during the 1950s and 1960s governing issues of race in our Nation, to which so many of us in our Nation owe our very success, the opportunity that was expanded because the Supreme Court--against social mores, against laws of States--focused on ``we the people.''

Perhaps most famous of those is Brown v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court asserted that separate but equal had no place in the education of our children, and they remembered ``we the people.''

In Loving v. Virginia, when the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the State laws that banned interracial marriage--that ideal of being able to join in union with someone you love, regardless of race--the Supreme Court remembered ``we the people.''

In Olmstead v. L.C., when the Supreme Court reinforced the right of people with developmental disabilities to live in the community and not be institutionalized, they saw a greater inclusion of all Americans. They remembered ``we the people.''

I stood on the Supreme Court steps and I sat in on the Supreme Court arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, when

the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that State laws cannot stop you from marrying whom you love. They remembered. They saw the dignity and the worth of all of the people and ensured that equality. They remembered ``we the people.''

In each of these cases, so much was at stake--the rights of workers, the rights of children, the rights of people with disabilities, the rights of minorities, the rights of women, voting rights, civil rights, our rights--American rights. The Supreme Court, with jurists on the right and the left, jurists appointed by Republicans and Democrats, looked to people and affirmed dignity and worth and well-being.

But these are not just issues that were done in the past. The Supreme Court is going to be again confronted by historic and deeply consequential cases. There is still so much at stake, and that is why this decision before the Senate is so consequential. The right to gain access to birth control, the right to criticize your elected officials, the right to marry someone you love--that is still at stake.

I cannot vote in support of a nominee whom I don't trust to protect American individuals, to understand the expansive nature of that idea of ``we the people.'' Judge Gorsuch is someone who, in his own words, has said judges should try to ``apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward.'' Based on his record and his writing, it is clear to me that Judge Gorsuch's own judicial philosophy leaves out critically important elements of democratic governance.

Judge Gorsuch's evasive answers to questions during his confirmation hearing didn't do anything to allay my concerns. ``We the People'' are the first words of the Constitution. These words, I fear based on Judge Gorsuch's record, are not his greatest consideration. In fact, at times, when he issues his judicial opinions, they look as if those individuals that make up our society--``we the people''--are the least of his considerations.

Take for example, Alphonse Maddin, the man who was working through the night in the dead of winter as a truckdriver when his brakes unfortunately froze on him. Knowing the danger of continuing to drive with frozen brakes--the danger to himself and other motorists on the road--Alphonse pulled over to the side of the road and called for help.

As several of my colleagues have noted in Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearing and on the floor, Alphonse waited over 2 hours in the freezing cold without heat, experiencing systems of hypothermia. After no help arrived, Alphonse feared for his life, and, ultimately, left his trailer to find help.

Less than a week after the incident, Alphonse was fired for abandoning his trailer. He filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and the case was brought to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where all but one of the judges ruled in favor of Alphonse--a guy who made a practical decision, an urgent decision, to save his own life and not risk the lives of others. But the judge who ruled against this individual, in favor of the corporation, was Judge Neil Gorsuch.

He chose to save his own life and protect the lives of others who had been put in harm's way if he chose another option, and he was fired for it. Every judge on the Tenth Circuit supported that decision except for Judge Gorsuch.

``We the people'' includes Luke, a student with a disability. He was diagnosed with autism at the age of 2. When Luke entered kindergarten, he began receiving specialized educational services from a school district as ensured by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. Congress debated and passed, with Republicans and Democrats, an act that says children with disabilities are entitled to receive a free and appropriate public education.

Between kindergarten and the second grade, Luke achieved many of the goals of his individualized education program. But when Luke's family moved to Colorado and he enrolled in a new public school, he had trouble adjusting, and Luke regressed in areas in which he had previously done well. To better suit Luke's needs, his parents, who tried to get him better care, eventually withdrew him from his local school and enrolled him in a private residential school for children with autism. His parents sought reimbursement for the costs of that private school, but the public school district refused to pay. By the time Luke's case reached the Tenth Circuit, a Federal judge and two administrative courts had agreed that the school district should pay because Luke did not receive the free and appropriate education to which he was entitled.

The question for Judge Gorsuch was, What constitutes an appropriate education? In that ruling, Judge Gorsuch wrote the opinion saying that the educational benefits mandated by IDEA must be ``merely more than de minimis.'' That was the standard that he set for one of our American children. Because the school district gave Luke a merely more than de minimis education, Judge Gorsuch ruled that Luke's parents were not entitled to reimbursement.

But just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Judge Gorsuch's ``merely more than de minimis'' standard. They unanimously rejected Judge Gorsuch's standard as contrary to the intent of Congress. In fact, at the very moment when Judge Gorsuch testified before the Judiciary Committee, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion rejecting Gorsuch's IDEA standard, saying:

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational

program providing ``merely more than de minimis'' progress

from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an

education at all.

Judge Gorsuch's misinterpretation of the law--depriving a child with a disability of the education he deserves--should be cause for concern to any of my colleagues as they are promoting him to the highest Court in the land. It is this idea that the powerless, who fight against these corporations or big institutions and turn to the court system as their avenue to get the equal justice under the law that will view them--whether it is a corporation, whether it is a government--as an equal under the law and give them their right to be heard.

This is what ``we the people'' is. It means people like Alphonse Maddin and Luke, whom Judge Gorsuch ruled against. It also means female workers who want access to contraceptive coverage but were denied by their employer, denied by a corporation. Judge Gorsuch ruled against the people and for the corporation.

``We the people'' means those millions of Americans who rely on Planned Parenthood centers for healthcare. Judge Gorsuch ruled against those people seeking what, in some counties, is their only access to contraceptive care. ``We the people'' means the people harmed by a medical device manufacturer's urging of unsafe, off-label uses. Judge Gorsuch ruled against the people injured and for the manufacturers, for the corporation.

``We the people'' means that a worker fatally electrocuted while on the job due to inadequate training, whose families sought justice-- Judge Gorsuch ruled against the individual and for the corporation.

``We the people'' means the woman prevented from suing for sexual harassment, not because sexual harassment didn't exist but because she didn't report it quickly enough. Judge Gorsuch supported the corporation against the woman.

``We the people'' means a transgender woman who is denied access to a bathroom at work. Judge Gorsuch ruled against the individual in favor of the corporation.

``We the people'' means that every single American deserves to have their civil rights, deserves to have their equality protected by the judicial branch, which is often their last avenue toward justice. It is often their last hope against the powerful, against the wealthy. But Judge Gorsuch's record in everything--from workers' rights to women's rights, to civil rights, to the rights of children with disabilities, to the rights of a guy on the side of a highway to save his own life-- suggests that he has forgotten perhaps the most important element of the Constitution: It exists to protect and serve the American people, not corporations, not lobbyists, not those rich enough to hire big, fancy law firms. It doesn't exist to serve a political ideology. It exists to serve ``we the people.''

I am not confident in Judge Gorsuch's ability as a Supreme Court

Justice to safeguard the rights and liberties of all Americans, to prioritize judicial restraint over judicial ideology, to ensure equal justice under the law, and to understand and act in a way that indicates that the lives of real people who are struggling against often seemingly insurmountable odds--that for them, everything is on the line. I am not sure that Judge Gorsuch on the Supreme Court can honor this tradition.

``We the people'' means an independent judiciary that will not close the courthouse doors on people, on our civil rights--that will not look at litigants as just pawns in the larger ideological context of ideas but will see the humanity of every American; that will have a courageous empathy to understand their circumstances and their struggles and put that in accordance with the values of a nation where we all swear an oath for liberty and justice for all the people.

Over 75 years ago, Justice Hugo Black encompassed the basic ideal of the role of Federal courts in protecting citizens' rights when he wrote these words:

No higher duty, or more solemn responsibility, rests upon

this Court, than that of translating into living law and

maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned

and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to

our Constitution--of whatever race, creed or persuasion.

Yet Judge Gorsuch's own writings demonstrate a failure to grasp this understanding of the role of courts to protect all people--and I quote, again, Justice Black--``whatever race, creed, or persuasion.''

In an opinion article for the National Review, entitled ``Liberals and Lawsuits,'' Judge Gorsuch expressed his skepticism about civil rights litigation as merely a pursuit of a ``social agenda.'' He wrote:

American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom,

relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and

the ballot box, as the primary means for effecting their

social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted

suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.

This overweening addiction to the courtroom as a place to

debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the

judiciary.

I wonder what Oliver Brown, plaintiff in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education would say to Judge Gorsuch? Was he ``addicted'' to the courtroom to advance his social agenda? Or was the courtroom his avenue to justice against profound oppression?

I wonder what James Obergefell would say to Judge Gorsuch. Was he ``addicted'' to the courtroom when he sought to be able to marry the person he loved? Or did Oliver just want to bring the truth to the idea that separate but equal was actually discriminatory, demeaning, and degrading, not just to the individuals who are discriminated against but demeaning to us as a people and a nation?

Judge Gorsuch's actions call into question whether he understands the proper role of the courts. Does he understand that Federal courts are the proper forum for constitutional disputes that protect American's basic rights? This is not about liberal or democrat; this is about individuals who are often fighting battles against powerful interests.

It was the journalist and editor William Allen White who said in 1936:

Liberty . . . must be something more than a man's

conception of his rights, much more than his desire to fight

for his own rights. True liberty is founded upon a lively

sense of the rights of others and a fighting conviction that

the rights of others must be maintained.

I do not believe Judge Gorsuch possesses this ``fighting conviction'' that we need in a Supreme Court Justice to forcefully and fearlessly, without regard to politics or favor or privilege or wealth, protect the rights of others, to protect the rights of all Americans, to protect the rights of ``we the people.'' I do not believe that Judge Gorsuch will work to fiercely defend the rights of all Americans. I do not believe he possesses that fighting conviction that ``we the people'' must be committed above all else to one another.

Again, I do not take the decision to oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination lightly. I understand what is at stake. I am fortunate to represent hard-working New Jerseyans in the U.S. Senate, and when I took the oath to support and defend the Constitution, I made a promise to my constituents and the American people not to only discharge my duties but at every opportunity to work across the aisle, to protect their rights and interests. That means a lot to me.

So many of my proudest moments in the Senate are from this bipartisan cooperation that I have found with so many of my colleagues. I do not stand here today to question their motives. I do not stand here today to impugn them in any way because when I go home, people are not concerned about the partisan politics. They are concerned about their lives, their livelihoods--about the issues that affect them and their families, their neighborhoods, their community. They want people in this body and in the courts across the street to protect the rights of Americans, protect consumers, protect our kids and our environment, but this is, in fact, what I believe the nominee we are all considering has shown that he will not do.

It is no secret that Judge Gorsuch's nomination comes at a very divisive time for this body and a challenging time for this country. We have experienced great times of turmoil and polarization before in this Nation and in this body. In the Federalist Papers, written over two centuries ago, James Madison warns in Federalist Paper No. 10 about what he calls the ``mischiefs of faction'' and its inevitability--that citizens of the Nation and their political parties will undoubtedly disagree and will possess competing interests. Madison asserted that the existence of the legislative branch would guard against some of the worst effects of this reality. He wrote that those elected to represent the American people in the legislature would be those ``whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to a temporary or partial consideration.''

When this body is at its best, I believe that is true. I have seen that kind of partnership in this body. But I am afraid that we are indeed at a troubling time--a troubling time in history for the Senate where it seems that the reverse of Madison's hopes have become reflective of the truth we are experiencing because we are now facing a vote on a Supreme Court nominee whose confirmation, I believe, would be a sacrifice to temporary and partial considerations as opposed to the larger interests of our country.

In my short time in the body--just over 3\1/2\ years--I have come to this floor to speak on the nominations of two different Supreme Court Justices to serve here in the United States. The first was Judge Merrick Garland. He was not only well qualified, intelligent, and capable, he was moderate. President Obama even sought input from Republicans about choosing someone who was a mainstream jurist. He was more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, but he was actually someone who could bring folks together. His qualifications, his aptitude to serve, and his moderate philosophy were not reflected in how we dealt with that nomination.

I believe he deserved an up-or-down vote. Even if it was a 60-vote threshold, he deserved an up-or-down vote. More than that, he should have had the opportunity to meet with Senators, Republican and Democratic, like Gorsuch has met with Senators, Republican and Democratic. He deserved to have a committee hearing. He deserved to be voted on up or down in that committee, and he deserved to have his nomination come to the floor. Whether a 60-vote threshold or a 50-vote threshold, he deserved an up-or-down vote, but he did not get one.

The Garland nomination was the bookend to an era we have been experiencing, that I have been witnessing, of obstruction, and there has been finger-pointing on both sides. But let's be clear about what happened during the Obama administration. During President Obama's time in office, we saw historic obstruction like never before. Seventy-nine of President Obama's judicial nominees were blocked by the filibusters. Seventy-nine nominees were blocked at a time when the judiciary, an independent branch of government, was saying: We are in judicial crisis in many jurisdictions. Seventy-nine of Obama's judges were blocked, compared to 68 nominees obstructed under all Presidents combined. All of the obstruction from Democrats and

Republicans and other parties, and only 68 nominees were obstructed, compared to President Obama, where there were 79.

I do not possess the same view as those who last year believed this seat should remain vacant and took the obstruction during the Obama Presidency to a much higher level. I believe that seat should have been filled not by an extreme jurist but by someone who could have tempered the partisanship of our time, someone who could have brought us together. It was a wise choice at a divisive time in our country.

President Obama did not choose somebody from further left; he chose a moderate Justice who probably could have--if he had been given an up- or-down vote--commanded 60 votes. At this time, that is what President Trump should have done--put forward a nominee who could have brought this country together, a moderate nominee, someone within the judicial mainstream. But he hasn't.

I believe a 60-vote threshold right now is more than appropriate at this moment in history. There are Republican judicial nominees who could garner 60 votes in this Chamber. The 60-vote threshold exists because a person confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court at this time should be mainstream and independent enough to garner that two-thirds support.

The 60-vote threshold exists because confirmation of a Justice to the Supreme Court is one of the most important duties we perform, one of the most important positions in all of American Government. It is someone who will have an impact on our society, shaping it and forming it for generations to come.

This President should have sought real advice and consent from the entire Senate, but instead he turned to the judicial extreme.

Now more than ever, we need a threshold that can pull our nominees back to the mainstream, that can begin to heal the divisions. I do not believe it is in the best interests of my constituents or the American people to confirm someone so extreme on a 50-vote margin. It should be 60 votes.

I urge my colleagues to understand that this judge threatens those ideals we hold precious, those words at the very beginning of our Constitution, ``We the People.'' I urge people to understand that this is the time more than ever that we must continue to fight to defend the marginalized, the weak, the people who do not possess wealth, the people who are standing against powerful corporations, that we cannot reverse a tradition where our courts were the main societal avenue in which people could receive equal justice under the law. We cannot put someone in office who has shown throughout their judicial record to be contrary to that.

For the sake of this body, now more than ever, it is my hope that we can see a judicial nominee who will help to heal wounds and not create them, help to elevate the unity of us as a people, who will help to affirm the ideals of our Nation and the very conception that we are one people, we are one Nation, and we hold one destiny.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act, or REDEEM Act. This bill would take meaningful steps towards allowing returning citizens to obtain employment. As President George W. Bush said in his 2004 State of the Union Address, ``America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.'' The REDEEM Act would help provide people with that second chance after their incarceration. I thank Senator Paul for his tireless work with me on the REDEEM Act.

In the last 30 years, the number of incarcerated people in the United States has drastically increased. Since 1980, the federal prison population alone has grown by nearly 800 percent and American taxpayers are left paying for the bill. In fiscal year 2014, the Bureau of Prisons accounted for a quarter of the Department of Justice's budget at $6.9 billion. Our bloated criminal justice system wastes priceless human potential and fails to make our communities safer. It also fails to adequately prepare the over 600,000 people each year who are released from prison for their return to the community.

A high number of Americans living in our communities have criminal convictions. About 70 million people in the United States have been arrested or convicted of a crime. That means almost one in three adults in the United States has a criminal record. In fact, in our Nation's Capital alone, an estimated 1 in 10 DC residents has a criminal record.

The American Bar Association has identified over 44,500 ``collateral consequences''--or legal constraints--placed on what individuals with records can do once they are released from prison. Of those, up to 70 percent are related to employment.

Today, a criminal conviction is a modern-day scarlet letter that, because of the so-called War on Drugs, has had a disproportionate impact on communities of color. For example, African-American men with a conviction are 40 percent less likely to receive an interview. And the likelihood that Latino men with a record will receive an interview or be offered a job is 18 percent smaller than the likelihood for white men.

To increase public safety, reduce recidivism, and protect the future of our children, I am proud to re-introduce the REDEEM Act. This bill would incentivize states to raise the age of original jurisdiction for criminal courts to 18 years old. Trying juveniles who have committed low-level, nonviolent crimes as adults is counterproductive. They do not emerge from prison reformed and ready to reintegrate into school, nor will the criminal record they have help them obtain a job.

This change in law is important for protecting our children's futures. For kids in the dozen states that treat 17- and even 16-year- olds as adults, no longer would getting into a school yard scuffle result in an adult record that could follow an individual for the rest of their life, restrict access to a college degree, limit job prospects, or lead to likely recidivism.

The bill would enhance Federal juvenile record confidentiality and provide for automatic expungement of records for kids who commit nonviolent crimes before they turn 15 and automatic sealing of records for those who commit nonviolent crimes after they turn 15.

The bill would ban the very cruel and counterproductive practice of juvenile solitary confinement that can have immediate and long-term detrimental effects on a youth's mental and physical health. In fact, the majority of suicides by juveniles in prisons occur when young people are placed in solitary confinement. Other nations even consider it torture.

The REDEEM Act would, for adults, offer the first broad-based federal path to the sealing of criminal records. A person who commits a nonviolent crime will be able to petition a court for sealing of the record, so their future job prospects are not harmed.

And the bill would enhance the accuracy of criminal justice records. Employers requesting a background check from the FBI will be provided with only relevant and accurate information thanks to a provision that will protect job applicants by improving the quality of the Bureau's background check.

Think about this: 17 million background checks were done by the FBI in 2013, many of them for private providers, and upward of half of them were

inaccurate or incomplete, often causing people to lose a job, miss an economic opportunity, and be trapped with few economic options other than to reoffend in order to feed a child or pay a debt.

The bill helps guard against gender disparities in federal juvenile delinquency proceedings. Additionally, it would ensure that programming and services are distributed evenly among male and female juveniles. Oftentimes, juvenile females receive less programming and resources than males because of the smaller size of the female prison population. This is wrong and this bill take a step forward to fix the problem.

Finally, the REDEEM Act would lift a ban on two critical Federal benefits: the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The intent of those Federal programs is to keep low-income families from going hungry. Yet those convicted of drug felonies lose the right to obtain such benefits. Once an individual has paid his or her debt to society, a path to the reinstatement of those benefits should be available.

I am proud to introduce the REDEEM Act today. Again, I thank Senator Paul for partnering with me on this bill. I urge this bill's speedy passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2017, also known as the Fair Chance Act. This criminal justice reform bill is designed to help returning citizens successfully obtain jobs and reintegrate into society. As the nation's largest employer, it is time the Federal Government leads by example and delays the criminal history inquiry until later in the hiring process. I thank Senator Johnson for his leadership on the Fair Chance Act, and I deeply appreciate Senators Baldwin, Ernst, Brown, and Portman for joining the bill as original cosponsors.

Everyone deserves the dignity of work and the opportunity for a second chance to earn a living. But far too many Americans who return home from behind bars have to disclose convictions on their initial employment application or initial job interview that often serve as insurmountable barriers to employment. This legislation would ensure that people with convictions--who have paid their debt to society and want to turn their lives around--have a fair chance to work.

By encouraging Federal employers to focus on an individual's qualifications and merit and not solely on past mistakes, the Fair Chance Act would remove burdensome and unnecessary obstacles that prevent formerly incarcerated people from reaching their full potential and contributing to society. It would also help reduce recidivism, combat poverty, and prevent violence in our communities by helping people get back to work.

Creating employment opportunities for our returning citizens benefits public safety. With little hope of obtaining a decent paying job, returning citizens are often left with few options but to return to a life of crime. A 2011 study in the Justice Quarterly concluded that the lack of employment was the single most negative determinant of recidivism. A report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that of the over 400,000 State prisoners released in 2005, 67.8 percent of them were rearrested within 3 years of their release, and 76.6 percent were rearrested within 5 years of their release.

Creating employment opportunities for our returning citizens strengthens our economy. Poor job prospects for people with records reduced our Nation's gross domestic product in 2008 between $57 billion and $65 billion. With an increasingly competitive global economy and to maintain America's competitive advantage, we must promote employment of all Americans.

Today, I introduce the Fair Chance Act, which would help eliminate barriers to employment for formerly incarcerated people and bring America closer to truly being a land of opportunity for all. It would preclude the federal government--including the executive, legislative, and judicial

branches--from requesting criminal history information from applicants until they reach the conditional offer stage.

This bill strikes the right balance. It would allow qualified people with criminal records to get their foot in the door and be judged on their own merit. At the same time, the legislation would allow employers to know an individual's criminal history before the job applicant is hired.

This bill would prohibit federal contractors from requesting criminal history information from candidates for positions within the scope of Federal contracts until a conditional job offer has been extended. Companies that do business with the Federal Government and receive Federal funds should espouse good hiring practices. The Fair Chance Act would permit Federal contractors to inquire about criminal history earlier in the hiring process if the job requires a candidate to access classified information.

The bill includes exceptions for sensitive positions where criminal history inquiries are necessary earlier in the application process. Exceptions include positions involving classified information, sensitive national security duties, armed forces, and law enforcement jobs, and jobs where criminal history information is legally required.

Finally, the Fair Chance Act would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in coordination with the U.S. Census Bureau, to report to Congress on the employment statistics of returning citizens. Currently, no comprehensive tracking of data on the employment histories of people with convictions exists. This provision would change that and allow us to better understand the scope of the problem people with convictions face when trying to find a job.

I am proud to reintroduce the Fair Chance Act. I want to again thank the bill cosponsors and their leadership on this issue. I urge this legislation's speedy passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act, or REDEEM Act. This bill would take meaningful steps towards allowing returning citizens to obtain employment. As President George W. Bush said in his 2004 State of the Union Address, ``America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.'' The REDEEM Act would help provide people with that second chance after their incarceration. I thank Senator Paul for his tireless work with me on the REDEEM Act.

In the last 30 years, the number of incarcerated people in the United States has drastically increased. Since 1980, the federal prison population alone has grown by nearly 800 percent and American taxpayers are left paying for the bill. In fiscal year 2014, the Bureau of Prisons accounted for a quarter of the Department of Justice's budget at $6.9 billion. Our bloated criminal justice system wastes priceless human potential and fails to make our communities safer. It also fails to adequately prepare the over 600,000 people each year who are released from prison for their return to the community.

A high number of Americans living in our communities have criminal convictions. About 70 million people in the United States have been arrested or convicted of a crime. That means almost one in three adults in the United States has a criminal record. In fact, in our Nation's Capital alone, an estimated 1 in 10 DC residents has a criminal record.

The American Bar Association has identified over 44,500 ``collateral consequences''--or legal constraints--placed on what individuals with records can do once they are released from prison. Of those, up to 70 percent are related to employment.

Today, a criminal conviction is a modern-day scarlet letter that, because of the so-called War on Drugs, has had a disproportionate impact on communities of color. For example, African-American men with a conviction are 40 percent less likely to receive an interview. And the likelihood that Latino men with a record will receive an interview or be offered a job is 18 percent smaller than the likelihood for white men.

To increase public safety, reduce recidivism, and protect the future of our children, I am proud to re-introduce the REDEEM Act. This bill would incentivize states to raise the age of original jurisdiction for criminal courts to 18 years old. Trying juveniles who have committed low-level, nonviolent crimes as adults is counterproductive. They do not emerge from prison reformed and ready to reintegrate into school, nor will the criminal record they have help them obtain a job.

This change in law is important for protecting our children's futures. For kids in the dozen states that treat 17- and even 16-year- olds as adults, no longer would getting into a school yard scuffle result in an adult record that could follow an individual for the rest of their life, restrict access to a college degree, limit job prospects, or lead to likely recidivism.

The bill would enhance Federal juvenile record confidentiality and provide for automatic expungement of records for kids who commit nonviolent crimes before they turn 15 and automatic sealing of records for those who commit nonviolent crimes after they turn 15.

The bill would ban the very cruel and counterproductive practice of juvenile solitary confinement that can have immediate and long-term detrimental effects on a youth's mental and physical health. In fact, the majority of suicides by juveniles in prisons occur when young people are placed in solitary confinement. Other nations even consider it torture.

The REDEEM Act would, for adults, offer the first broad-based federal path to the sealing of criminal records. A person who commits a nonviolent crime will be able to petition a court for sealing of the record, so their future job prospects are not harmed.

And the bill would enhance the accuracy of criminal justice records. Employers requesting a background check from the FBI will be provided with only relevant and accurate information thanks to a provision that will protect job applicants by improving the quality of the Bureau's background check.

Think about this: 17 million background checks were done by the FBI in 2013, many of them for private providers, and upward of half of them were

inaccurate or incomplete, often causing people to lose a job, miss an economic opportunity, and be trapped with few economic options other than to reoffend in order to feed a child or pay a debt.

The bill helps guard against gender disparities in federal juvenile delinquency proceedings. Additionally, it would ensure that programming and services are distributed evenly among male and female juveniles. Oftentimes, juvenile females receive less programming and resources than males because of the smaller size of the female prison population. This is wrong and this bill take a step forward to fix the problem.

Finally, the REDEEM Act would lift a ban on two critical Federal benefits: the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The intent of those Federal programs is to keep low-income families from going hungry. Yet those convicted of drug felonies lose the right to obtain such benefits. Once an individual has paid his or her debt to society, a path to the reinstatement of those benefits should be available.

I am proud to introduce the REDEEM Act today. Again, I thank Senator Paul for partnering with me on this bill. I urge this bill's speedy passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2017, also known as the Fair Chance Act. This criminal justice reform bill is designed to help returning citizens successfully obtain jobs and reintegrate into society. As the nation's largest employer, it is time the Federal Government leads by example and delays the criminal history inquiry until later in the hiring process. I thank Senator Johnson for his leadership on the Fair Chance Act, and I deeply appreciate Senators Baldwin, Ernst, Brown, and Portman for joining the bill as original cosponsors.

Everyone deserves the dignity of work and the opportunity for a second chance to earn a living. But far too many Americans who return home from behind bars have to disclose convictions on their initial employment application or initial job interview that often serve as insurmountable barriers to employment. This legislation would ensure that people with convictions--who have paid their debt to society and want to turn their lives around--have a fair chance to work.

By encouraging Federal employers to focus on an individual's qualifications and merit and not solely on past mistakes, the Fair Chance Act would remove burdensome and unnecessary obstacles that prevent formerly incarcerated people from reaching their full potential and contributing to society. It would also help reduce recidivism, combat poverty, and prevent violence in our communities by helping people get back to work.

Creating employment opportunities for our returning citizens benefits public safety. With little hope of obtaining a decent paying job, returning citizens are often left with few options but to return to a life of crime. A 2011 study in the Justice Quarterly concluded that the lack of employment was the single most negative determinant of recidivism. A report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that of the over 400,000 State prisoners released in 2005, 67.8 percent of them were rearrested within 3 years of their release, and 76.6 percent were rearrested within 5 years of their release.

Creating employment opportunities for our returning citizens strengthens our economy. Poor job prospects for people with records reduced our Nation's gross domestic product in 2008 between $57 billion and $65 billion. With an increasingly competitive global economy and to maintain America's competitive advantage, we must promote employment of all Americans.

Today, I introduce the Fair Chance Act, which would help eliminate barriers to employment for formerly incarcerated people and bring America closer to truly being a land of opportunity for all. It would preclude the federal government--including the executive, legislative, and judicial

branches--from requesting criminal history information from applicants until they reach the conditional offer stage.

This bill strikes the right balance. It would allow qualified people with criminal records to get their foot in the door and be judged on their own merit. At the same time, the legislation would allow employers to know an individual's criminal history before the job applicant is hired.

This bill would prohibit federal contractors from requesting criminal history information from candidates for positions within the scope of Federal contracts until a conditional job offer has been extended. Companies that do business with the Federal Government and receive Federal funds should espouse good hiring practices. The Fair Chance Act would permit Federal contractors to inquire about criminal history earlier in the hiring process if the job requires a candidate to access classified information.

The bill includes exceptions for sensitive positions where criminal history inquiries are necessary earlier in the application process. Exceptions include positions involving classified information, sensitive national security duties, armed forces, and law enforcement jobs, and jobs where criminal history information is legally required.

Finally, the Fair Chance Act would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in coordination with the U.S. Census Bureau, to report to Congress on the employment statistics of returning citizens. Currently, no comprehensive tracking of data on the employment histories of people with convictions exists. This provision would change that and allow us to better understand the scope of the problem people with convictions face when trying to find a job.

I am proud to reintroduce the Fair Chance Act. I want to again thank the bill cosponsors and their leadership on this issue. I urge this legislation's speedy passage.

Mr. President, I rise to join my voice with a growing chorus of citizens, as well as members of the scientific community and colleagues, who are deeply disturbed by this CRA to repeal vital wildlife protections from Federal land in Alaska.

Before I speak on this CRA, I would like to be clear that I am not someone who believes all regulations are good. In fact, I don't believe we should be trying to regulate our way out of all of our problems. I am proud of the work I have done, with people on both sides of the aisle, in an effort to make our government work smarter and more efficiently for the benefit of my constituents in New Jersey, as well as all Americans, but today I am profoundly disappointed.

Instead of working to create bipartisan policies that will serve all Americans, we are now considering a CRA resolution--unfortunately, one of many ones of this type--that prioritizes special interests above the good of the public, and it is deeply unpopular, in fact, with the public at large.

I oppose this CRA that would repeal the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's rule called the non-subsistence take of wildlife on national wildlife refuges in Alaska rule. The rule was finalized by the Fish and Wildlife Service in August of 2016, with the clear goal to forever ban unnecessary and extremely cruel methods of killing bears and wolves and other animals on more than 70 million acres of public land managed under our Federal National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska.

Let's be clear. When it says the word ``take''--that it prevents the ``take'' of wildlife--that means the killing of wildlife. Specifically, the rule prevents inhumane killing of animals on our wildlife refuges.

Examples of the rule are: prohibits the killing of mother bears and their cubs. It prevents the killing of wolves and pups in their dens. It prohibits using planes to track and kill bears. It prohibits using snares to strangle and kill bears, steel traps to kill bears, and it prohibits baiting and killing of grizzly bears.

Why was this rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the first place? Our national wildlife refuges are public lands that exist for the benefit of all Americans. Refuge lands are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the express purpose of conserving natural diversity in wildlife populations. This means that any management activity that favors certain species over others is inconsistent with the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge.

It doesn't mean that hunting is not allowed on Federal land. Hunting is one of many permitted practices on wildlife refuges, and this rule does not prevent hunting on any wildlife refuge. What is permitted on refuges under this law is the indiscriminate killing of bears and wolves in an attempt to boost populations of moose and caribou.

Unfortunately, this is exactly how Alaska has been managing its wildlife since 1994 on State and private lands, when it adopted an intensive management strategy for its wildlife that is specifically designed to artificially reduce populations of predators so hunters might have more prey, more animals to kill.

In Alaska, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State work together to manage wildlife within the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, when any State's wildlife management approach is in direct conflict with the goals of the refuge system, the Federal Government has the authority--indeed the obligation--to step in and ban certain practices. This is exactly what the Fish and Wildlife did last year when they issued their rule prohibiting this inhumane killing method on 16 Federal national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

It is important to note that the predator control practices I have described, some of which are currently allowed on certain State and private lands in Alaska, have never been allowed on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. This rule simply clarifies that these practices-- even those explicitly authorized under State regulations in Alaska--are never to be used on Federal wildlife lands in Alaska, regardless of what is decided to be allowed under this State law.

I have heard concerns from my colleagues in Alaska that they believe the Fish and Wildlife Service rule triggers a State sovereignty issue by dictating which practices can and cannot be used on Federal refuge lands in Alaska. However, I don't believe this rule conflicts with any of Alaska's State sovereignty. The Fish and Wildlife Service has clear statutory and constitutional authority to prohibit wildlife management practices that are incompatible with the objectives of national wildlife refuges in Alaska, as well as other States, including New Jersey.

I have also heard the concerns of my Alaska colleagues that this rule threatens the many Alaskans who rely on subsistence, hunting of deer, moose, and caribou, to feed themselves and their families. I have sympathy for that concern and believe again that this subsistence hunting is not affected.

We know these predator control practices have never been done on Alaskan refuges before. This argument makes no sense. It is not affecting the subsistence hunting of deer and moose and caribou for them to feed their families. It has never been allowed to go on in the first place. How can these practices be necessary to preserve subsistence hunting when they have never been done before on Federal wildlife refuges? I want to be clear about something. Alaska is free to manage its wildlife on State lands and private lands however Alaska chooses. This point is not up for debate, not up for discussion. It is not the subject of the Fish and Wildlife Services rule in question. The rule only applies to federally owned and federally managed wildlife refuge land, which must be managed for the benefit of the American public, including the requirement to manage for national diversity of wildlife.

As former Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe announced in a press release in August, ``Whenever possible, we prefer to defer to the State of Alaska on regulation of general hunting and trapping of wildlife on national wildlife refuges unless by doing so we are out of compliance with Federal law and policy. This regulation ensures that we comply with our mandates and obligations.''

Let's move beyond talk of mandates and obligations. The hunting practices banned by this rule are flatout inhumane. They are an anathema to the type of thoughtful, humane wildlife management that should be taking place on national wildlife refuges.

In a committee hearing, I asked management experts about this rule last

week, and they agree that these practices were not necessary on wildlife refuges. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Jim Kurth--who was the former manager for many years of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Northern Alaska--testified that the service did not find that the practice prohibited by this rule was in any way necessary.

Another witness, Brian Nesvik, Chief Game Warden with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department--again, a Republican-invited witness-- testified that Wyoming has a different perspective on utilizing national wildlife refuges in their State. The practices discussed in this rule, he said, are not used in Wyoming's wildlife refuges, nor did he make an appeal to use these inhumane practices because they are not necessary. Killing a mother bear or mother wolf when she has young cubs virtually guarantees that those cubs will not survive, creating the potential for much broader negative impacts on the overall population.

The baiting of grizzly bears, which involves putting piles of food out to attract bears in unusually high numbers at the start of hunting season, is literally akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Bear baiting often occurs when bears are desperately searching for those extra calories to store energy for hibernation. It is an inhumane practice and is recognized so by many experts.

The use of aircraft hunting--using a plane to track wild animals and then landing to kill them--violates the principle of fair chase in every sense of the word. In fact, killing wolves from aircraft or on the same day that air travel occurred was already prohibited on refuge lands prior to this new rule being issued. The new rule merely extends that same protection to bears.

Finally, the use of snares--these are these choking traps--and steel traps to kill the bear is a practice that is particularly troubling, and I am not alone. A statewide poll of Alaskans themselves shows that nearly 60 percent of Alaskans oppose trapping and snaring bears in their State.

Charles Darwin called the leghold trap one of the cruelest devices ever invented by man, stating:

Few men could endure to watch for five minutes an animal

struggling in a trap with a torn limb.

Some who reflect upon this subject for the first time will

wonder how such cruelty can have been permitted to continue

in these days of civilisation.

That was Charles Darwin decades and decades ago in 1863. I echo that again today, more than 150 years later. Such cruelty should not be permitted on Federal wildlife refuges of all places, and the Fish and Wildlife Service was absolutely right to permanently protect bears from such cruelty on Alaska's wildlife refuges.

I would like to take a few more moments to talk about the animals that are subject to this rule. Grizzly bears and wolves are the top predators in North America. Predators in any ecosystem play a critical role in maintaining populations and in preventing problems like we have actually seen in New Jersey by the overgrazing and disease that can occur when deer, moose, and caribou grow in high numbers.

These charismatic animals also attract huge numbers of tourists to national parks, refuges, and other wild lands in the United States. All across the country, nearly 72 million Americans spend over $50 billion on wildlife watching.

In Alaska, wildlife watchers outnumber hunters by nearly five to one, and they also contribute more than four times as much money to the State's economy as hunting does. Put another way, even considering the issue from an economic perspective, these animals are worth far more alive than they are dead, killed by these savage inhumane practices.

There are few values as deeply entrenched in the American culture as conservation. This legacy is our American heritage, and the coexistence of people, wildlife, and wild lands remains a key objective for our public lands today.

Americans interact with nature in many different ways on public lands, some through consumption uses, like hunting and fishing, and others through more hands-off activities, like camping and wildlife watching. No single use is more important and more valuable than another. So public lands should be managed in a way that minimizes conflict across those different uses while allowing for natural diversity.

The Fish and Wildlife Service rule does just that. Our wildlife refuges are not game parks, and they should not be managed as though they are.

The cruel practices this rule prohibits--killing mother animals and their babies and the trapping, snaring, baiting, and aerial hunting of bears--are practices that I believe do not align with who we are as a country. They are practices that have no place on our national wildlife refuges in Alaska or any other State.

I want to close with something that my friend Senator Heinrich already mentioned. Many people know that Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter, a naturalist, a wildlife enthusiast. When he was President, Roosevelt went on a bear hunting trip in Mississippi. Roosevelt's hunting party cornered a Louisiana black bear. They tied it to a willow tree and suggested the President shoot it.

Viewing this as an extremely unsportsmanlike way to kill a bear, Roosevelt refused to do it. A political cartoonist heard the story and drew a cartoon that celebrated President Roosevelt's decision. A Brooklyn candy shop owner saw the cartoon and decided to create a stuffed toy bear and dedicated it to the President, who refused to engage in this kind of inhumane hunting of a bear. He called it a ``Teddy bear'' or ``Teddy's bear,'' and little children for generations have been loving them ever since.

Teddy Roosevelt knew that using certain methods to kill animals was immoral and wrong. We know this too.

With all of the issues going on right now--from healthcare to tax and all of the issues and urgencies, such as infrastructure--why are we about to consider a CRA that would literally, on our Federal lands, allow the cruelest types of killing to go on of bears and wolves and their pups in dens.

Why, with all that is going on, would we, as Americans, violate our culture and history by allowing the most inhumane, cruel killing practices to go on? Why, with all that we have to do, are we going to allow this to happen?

Well, I will not support it, and I stand against it. Our national wildlife refuges--our refuges for wildlife--have never allowed these cruel practices, and we should not start now.

We should not CRA this rule. I stand strong and firm in honor of our traditions and stand against this CRA.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to the following member of my staff, Ariana Spawn.

Mr. President, very good to see you. I want to again, as I stated in the past, thank the staff. We are obviously pushing late into the night, and there are unsung heroes who are here in the U.S. Senate working in a nonpartisan way, keeping the Senate going. I want to thank them all for being here tonight. Definitely, the folks who are typing with their fingers are heroic. They have muscles in them. Thank you very much for your work. Of course, I want to just highlight the pages and thank them for yet another late night, when they still have calculus homework, I am sure, to work on.

Mr. President, I am honored to be able to join my colleagues, three of whom themselves are some of the great voices, in my opinion, in the United States on issues of the environment, issues of protecting the health and safety of our communities: Senators Merkley, Whitehouse, and Schatz. I am grateful to be able to stand with them, joining them in a chorus of conviction about our opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA is a critical Federal Agency. It was established through an Executive order by President Nixon and charged with the protection of human health and the protection of the environment. Given the pressing health issues, environmental challenges we face in our Nation, and frankly the growing environmental challenges around our planet today, we should make sure we are confirming an Administrator who has a conviction for the protection of the health and safety of people; that he or she prioritizes the well-being of Americans and is focused tirelessly, exhaustively, on making sure the mission of the Agency is made real, that other factors, conflicts, wealth of industries--that their No. 1 concern is not all of those things but is really the health and safety of people, of Americans, because we know what it means when the health or safety of Americans is undermined.

This idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is completely compromised if cancer rates are going up because of toxic dumps or superfunds or asthma rates are epidemic because of toxins in the air.

We need a person who is in charge of making sure we are not prioritizing polluters or industries; that we are prioritizing people first and their safety. This is not just a moral calling of this Agency, but it is actually a practical one too. It is an economic one, too, because the cost to society of pollution, we already know, is extraordinarily high.

I see this in the community where I live. I am a proud resident of Newark, NJ, but I see a polluted river, the Passaic River, that has caused health issues, that has taken away sports and recreation, actually taken away a source of bounty of fish and clams and other shellfish. In addition to that, now it is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up the waste and mess that was made by corporations that were allowed to get away with that polluting. That is the common sense of this.

Not only is it an issue of justice--something our country stands for, this ideal of justice--not only is it compromising life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it also ultimately costs us so much more not to be vigilant in the protection of our environment. It is actually stealing, as we have seen all across this country--stealing from future generations. As you pollute now, you are stealing from future generations and calling it profit.

So this is what I see as a person who is in charge of this Agency, someone who is putting health, common sense, pragmatism before the short-term avarice that often has undermined the great bounty of this Nation.

In this particular case, in this moment in time, with this Agency started by a Republican, we now have a President who is not only putting someone up who is singularly unqualified--and as a person who worked with EPA Administrators, Republican and Democratic, we had a great Republican Governor from New Jersey who was the head of the EPA. Republicans and Democrats, if you compare this person, it is my conviction that he is singularly unqualified to lead the Environmental Protection Agency at this moment. That is Scott Pruitt.

I do not believe Scott Pruitt will lead this Agency in a way that upholds this critical mission in our country. Again, I don't care if you are in a so-called red State or so-called blue State, I don't care what your background is, your religion, your race, if you are living in an environment that is toxic--the air, the water--it is undermining your ability to enjoy the liberty and the freedom and justice of our country.

So if you look at this individual, Scott Pruitt, if you look at his track record, you will see that his actual work has undermined the mission of the Agency that he is now nominated to lead.

At his confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt stated, as attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, he was responsible for protecting the welfare of Oklahoma citizens. This was his statement. Yet during his 6 years as attorney general, Scott Pruitt spent his time doing the bidding of the polluters, and filing or joining 14 lawsuits against the EPA's effort to clean up the air and water of a State, challenging water and clean air rules.

On top of this, on top of his track record, not for doing things to improve the quality of the air and water but doing things consistently to fight the EPA--on top of this, on one of the largest issues going on with our planet right now, Mr. Pruitt says clearly that he denies the science and the reality of climate change.

So many in his own community who have come to this building to give their voice and their facts believe this person being nominated has a nonexistent record in Oklahoma when it comes to protecting the environment and that he actually aided and abetted many of the people who were doing some of the worst harm to the water and to the air.

Mr. Pruitt seems to say this is a philosophical thing; that he is a Federalist. What amazed me, as I dealt with Mr. Pruitt, engaged with him during the hearings, is it exposed the fact that he not only tried to get the Federal Government to stop acting to clean up the air and water and constrain the avaristic polluting of these industries, but he actually worked to make sure the State government didn't have the power to do it as well, as I will show momentarily.

But here is somebody who is not into philosophy. The driving force is his picking polluters over people. Mr. Pruitt also has serious conflicts of interest. What is amazing to me is that he has stonewalled the Senate, claiming to us that all of the emails from his agency that should be open--listen, we went through a whole Presidential campaign with all of this talk about email. How ironic is it that we are now putting someone up for EPA Administrator who suddenly is not allowing open public record requests to view his emails.

This is hiding, as Senator Whitehouse has gone through--not allowing the public to see what is their right to see--the emails and communications he has had with polluting industries, as well as other organizations plowing money into his campaign and others. Not only has he denied us access to that, but he has used lies that this could not be produced.

Well, we have just had a judge in Oklahoma, contrary to what he said, force the viewing of these emails. This is really important. Here is a judge who literally calls his failure to release the emails an abject failure, that not releasing these emails in accordance to the public information laws of the State--the judge called it an ``abject failure'' to not produce this information and called it ``unreasonable under the law''; those are the quotes--and ordered him to release these thousands of emails, to release the first tranche on Tuesday.

These are records pertaining to communications with Devon Energy, Peabody Coal, and other organizations. These should be released on Tuesday. We are going to see a lot in these emails.

Then he was ordered to release another tranche to organizations like ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council that supports a tremendous amount of partisan policy, the

State Policy Network, and other organizations. Those will be released in 10 days.

By the way, the requests for those go back to April 27, 2016. So one thing I have to say that I object to--and actually I am shocked and appalled that, suddenly, when you have a judge now forcing the release of these emails, which are going to give us transparency, which are going to answer the questions many of us have been asking about the conflicts he might have and how he used or potentially abused his power working in collusion with private industry, we can now see all of this plainly. But suddenly, now, this vote on Mr. Pruitt has been scheduled for tomorrow. Why not wait to let the Senators who have been asking for these emails for months--now that we are finally getting them, why are we now rushing a vote before we get to analyze his record?

So for these reasons--his lack of qualifications, his demonstration of working against the mission of the Agency, his denial of something as important and significant and planetarily consequential as climate change, his clear demonstration of his work on behalf of polluting industries, and the potential for serious conflicts of interest--we should not only oppose him, but at the very least what we should be asking is to have the vote postponed until the transparency that has been requested by Senators is achieved.

Any of these deficiencies individually should have us move the vote or vote against, but let me take some of these issues now. Let me look right now at the issue of climate change and his positions. The EPA is the most important Agency in the United States in the fight against climate change. Through its authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is tasked with regulating harmful air pollutants, including carbon dioxide.

I do not believe that Scott Pruitt will adhere to this EPA mandate. It is an EPA mandate that he has shown a disregard for that he will be tasked with enforcing. He not only has no record of enforcing it, but even believing in the harm that these pollutants can cause. He has openly questioned the need for climate change action on numerous occasions. He is on the record for pondering whether climate change is even happening at all.

Less than a year ago, he told a public audience the debate about climate change is just that, a debate. He has said that climate change is a religious belief and a political bumper sticker. Scott Pruitt appeared to walk back that language on climate denial during his confirmation hearing before the committee of jurisdiction, the Environment and Public Works Committee, last month. He claims that science tells us that the climate is changing, and human activity in some manner impacts climate change. The human ability to measure with precision the extent of that impact is subject to continuous debate and dialogue, as well it should be.

Well, I am happy to see that he is moving. But here Mr. Pruitt now is taking a different tactic. He is acknowledging that our climate is changing, without accepting the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause. But this seemingly softer language is actually a damaging tactic and in many ways is just as damaging as outright climate denial.

This is a hallmark of the new strategy: Hey, let's admit the climate is changing, but let's try to cast doubt on whether human activity is doing it. The language may be different, but the implication is the same: If we don't know how much human activity contributes to climate change, hey, then we don't need to do anything about the crisis.

This reminds me of Big Tobacco. There were these big tobacco scientists who made their living insisting that the link between cigarettes and lung cancer was uncertain. To cast doubt on it was their strategy--that link between lung cancer and smoking. This is a strategy we have seen before, again and again and again. Even though there is a consensus of science about smoking--or in the case of climate change-- cast doubt, cast doubt. That is what Scott Pruitt does; he is a merchant of doubt when it comes to climate change.

He is attempting to sow uncertainty where there is, in fact, considerable certainty. As a result, he is deliberately undermining and misrepresenting the reality of the case. This is the person we want to put--who is intended by the President to be put at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, someone who is a merchant of doubt.

Well, let me just go through the climate change evidence. Let's be clear about the facts. There are extraordinary indicators to provide strong evidence not just for climate change but for rapid, human-caused climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide now is higher than at any point in recorded history; 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001; the pace of global sea level rise has doubled in the last decade; surface ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Those are dramatic changes in what is happening to our oceans. The evidence of this is global, from the bleaching of reefs to the killing of the biomass, to the extinction of species.

Arctic sea ice is declining by over 13 percent per decade. Just yesterday, scientists published a large research synthesis that has detected a decline in the amount of dissolved oxygen in oceans around the world, a long-predicted result of climate change that is expected to have severe consequences for the marine ecosystem and fisheries.

Some 97 percent of the actively published climate scientists agree that these climate change trends--I would say crises--are extremely likely due to human activity. Scientists this month released an estimate that human activity is causing the climate to change 170 times faster than natural forces alone would cause.

I just sat with an incredible author who wrote ``The Sixth Extinction,'' a book that documents the rapidity with which we are now in a period of global climatic extinction, with species disappearing from the planet Earth at a speed that she compared, in the larger perspective of time, to the impact of a massive asteroid that was one of the major extinction periods. This is happening rapidly, like no period before in history, except that of massive climactic events like the asteroid hitting Earth. This is a crisis. The crisis is already being felt in terms of human impacts. Right now, we know that, unabated, these climate trends will continue to have impacts, and they will grow more devastating for our planet, especially for our children and our grandchildren.

By 2045, some east coast cities could flood three times a week. Scott Pruitt's home State may not have to worry about this, but New Jersey, a coastal State--we now have everyone from people in the military to businesses, to leaders in government, all realizing that this is going to have a serious effect on our State and we have to start preparing now to deal with that crisis.

Weather patterns are going to become more erratic. Hurricanes and other major storms in the North Atlantic will become stronger and more intense. Drought and heat waves will increase in parts of Arizona, California, Texas, and, yes, even Oklahoma could exceed 100 degrees for over 120 days a year. The U.S. crop yields will drop significantly. Estimates suggest that under a business-as-usual scenario, by 2100, wheat yields could drop 20 percent, maize by 40 percent, soybeans 40 percent, causing global spikes in food prices.

The rising seas, with more intense storms and worsening drought, could create climate refugees. In fact, we are seeing climate refugees already form small island states. The United States is already facing the reality, with many of these people from around the globe, that several communities in low-lying coastal areas in Alaska and Louisiana are in the process of relocating to higher ground. It is happening right now, where you are seeing evacuations from coastal areas that are no longer habitable.

Regarding climate refugees, I would like to quote Pope Francis. He said:

Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by the

phenomenon related to warming, and their means of subsistence

are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystem

services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have

no other financial activities or resources which can enable

them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters.

Their access to social services and protection is very

limited.

The Pope continues:

There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants

seeking to flee from growing poverty caused by environmental

degradation. They are not recognized by international

conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they

have left behind, without enjoying the legal protection

whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to their

suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our

world.

All of this--and perhaps lastly--it is this global insecurity that will grow. Major climate events like drought and floods have clearly been linked to violent conflicts around the globe. Climate extremes are worsening tensions in some parts of the world. There is a widespread international scientific agreement on the scope of this problem and international urgency about doing something about it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has unequivocally concluded that there is a clear human influence on the climate system. To keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC estimates that we need to reduce emissions by 40 to 70 percent by 2050, compared to the 2010 levels. Warming beyond this level, 2 degrees Celsius, is often cited as that threshold.

Warming beyond this level will result in surface temperatures above anything our planet has experienced in the last 100,000 years. Given current emissions scenarios, keeping temperature increases below this 2-degree threshold will be extremely challenging, but this only underscores the urgent need for rapid and dramatic emissions reductions.

Unsurprisingly, given these numbers, there is also an international agreement on the need for action. We are seeing people come together and make strong commitments. In 2015, 195 countries adopted the first- ever binding global climate change agreement in Paris. The national commitments established in the Paris Agreement would put us on a trajectory to limit warming to 2.7 degrees Celsius--not enough of a limit, but it is a start. It is a start and a remarkable moment in planetary cooperation.

There is no question that given planetary cooperation, there is no question that given a consensus of scientists, there is no question that, given the factual urgencies being created by climate change, Scott Pruitt is on the wrong side of history in refusing to acknowledge global scientific and political consensus on climate change and the urgency that we need to act. We are potentially going to put someone who stands against this global consensus in charge of the EPA.

Much of the opposition to climate action in our country is motivated by false narratives about economic costs--people who are selling this idea that somehow doing the responsible thing is going to hurt our economy. The idea that addressing climate change could actually make us less of a wealthy nation is propaganda, and it is propaganda that is being pushed by the people who are doing significant amounts of the polluting, the people whom Scott Pruitt has spent time advocating on behalf of.

Last year, Mr. Pruitt parroted the argument that fighting climate change is bad for the economy. He parroted that on an Oklahoma radio station, arguing that climate action is ``hurting our ability to manufacture, to grow our economy, it's hurting the fossil fuel industry, it's an assault, and it's all done outside of the Constitution and the law, which makes it even more egregious.''

That is a strong statement. Besides the fact that addressing climate change is very much within the law, this economic devastation narrative is simply patently false. Just last month, a renowned climate economist who had long argued that emissions reductions would damage economic growth actually changed his mind after running a more accurate analysis of carbon dioxide's impact on temperature.

In fact, responding to climate change will help grow new parts of our economy. Last year, nearly half a million Americans were employed in whole or in part by the solar energy and wind energy industries. Wind energy jobs grew by 32 percent in 2016, and solar jobs grew by 25 percent. Solar jobs, in fact, have tripled since 2010. We should be focusing on actively expanding our promising clean energy sector. Frankly, we should be racing, as the great Nation of innovation that we are, to lead in these areas and not let our competitors get there first. We should be doing the breakthroughs, making the investments, growing the jobs.

Scott Pruitt is one of the last stand-offs. In fact, the GOP--the Republican Party--is the only major political party in the developed world that refuses to acknowledge that climate change poses a problem. All of our other allies--their right parties, their left parties; you name it--all the other major political parties on the planet Earth recognize that this is a problem, but it is unconscionable that we, here in America, are still pushing a narrative that is contrary to the global consensus and the consensus of science, that denies the reality of human-caused climate change and the urgent need for action.

Recent polling says that nearly 8 out of 10 registered voters--people on the right and the left, especially with our millennial generation-- support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Seven out of 10 registered voters support setting strict carbon dioxide limits on coal- fired powerplants, a core aspect of the Clean Power Plan that Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration have vowed to repeal. Seven out of 10 registered voters think the United States should participate in the Paris Agreement, another critical moment where the planet was coming together in cooperation. Seven out of 10 voters agree that we should be a part of the global movement to cooperate on dealing with climate change.

Nothing in Scott Pruitt's record as Oklahoma attorney general suggests he will uphold Americans' desire for climate action. A public servant who abides by the wishes of polluting industries, instead of the wishes of the American people, instead of the real tangible health challenges in their own State--someone who is standing with the industries and contrary to people suffering in their own State--has not earned the right to be our Administrator of the EPA.

Look at his record in Oklahoma. Well, let's just start with air pollution. At his confirmation hearing, I asked Scott Pruitt if he knew how many children in his State had asthma. He did not know. So I informed him. According to the data published by the American Lung Association, more than 111,000 children in Oklahoma--more than 10 percent of all the children in Oklahoma, so more than 1 out of every 10 children in Oklahoma--has asthma. This is one of the highest State asthma rates in the Nation. This is a crisis.

As former mayor of Newark, I know the devastating impact that asthma has on parents and children. This is the number one health-related reason why kids miss school not only in my city, not only around my State--it is still one of the top reasons, if not the top--but in our Nation.

I have talked to parents and teachers about this crisis, about kids who are struggling to breathe, children rushed to emergency rooms, children missing school. This is literally undermining kids' ability to succeed in school and to get the benefits of life from academic success.

In a State where more than 1 out of every 10 kids--a State where more than 10 percent of your children--have asthma, clean air should be an urgency.

So what did Scott Pruitt do, as it relates to air pollution? Well, he actually took every major possible opportunity to help the polluters, joining with them to block the EPA from taking action to clean up the air and protect the children in his State.

When I say ``joining with them,'' and that is not a hyperbolic exaggeration. Scott Pruitt sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2011, accusing Federal regulators of grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution that natural gas companies were releasing from well sites in Oklahoma. The letter was sent to the EPA on Mr. Pruitt's official attorney general letterhead. So we might assume its contents represented the State's official stance on what was best for the welfare of Oklahoma families and children because, as he testified, his job was to represent what was best for the welfare of Oklahoma's families and children.

This is what he said in his testimony here in the Senate. This is what he said. That was his job. So he is writing a letter, challenging the EPA, saying they grossly overestimated the amount

of air pollution that natural gas companies were releasing.

Well, the problem is that we would be wrong if we had thought that this was something that his office came up with. No, what Mr. Pruitt did was actually take a letter written by lobbyists at Devon Energy, one of the State's largest oil and gas companies, change maybe a few words--maybe three, maybe four--and, basically, took these words, took off their letterhead, put the same letter on his letterhead, and passed it along to the EPA.

Remember, Devon Energy is one of those organizations that we want the emails from, back and forth between his office.

Now, did he go out from his position and do research on air quality? Did he interview families with asthma? Did he test air quality? How did he come up with his conclusions that what the EPA was doing was wrong?

Well, clearly he couldn't write his own letters. He just took the information from Devon Energy, put it on his letterhead, and sent it off. He was doing the bidding of one of the people, one of the companies that was undermining the air quality for the 1 out of 10 children that have asthma.

So we, as U.S. Senators, who believe in thorough vetting--we hear a lot about intense vetting for refugees; I am a guy who just wants a thorough vetting for nominees--asked for his communications, using public FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. What are your communications with this company that seems to be writing your letters for you?

What he said to us was--he stonewalled: I can't get those things to you.

Well, thank God a judge in Oklahoma has now ordered him to release it, calling a failure to do so an abject failure.

Well, great, we are going to see the letters to understand what kind of cooperation or even collusion he had with these companies, but we are going to see them too late because the vote is tomorrow. We are going to get that information a day, 2 days, a few days too late.

So here is someone who says his job, as attorney general, was to represent the welfare of children and families. Here we have a State with a crisis in air quality, a crisis in asthma, and where the EPA is working to do something about air quality in the State, and he is coming to conclusions that we don't know if they are his or not, but we know there are industries that do not want to change their practices at all and want to continue to pollute the air.

Whose side is Scott Pruitt on--the side of the children in his State, 1 out of every 10 who has asthma, or of Devon Energy? And we want to put him in charge of the EPA, without even having a thorough understanding of what his relationship was with these companies.

Well, my colleague did his own exhaustive research about the campaign funding he had received and more support from companies like this, and it creates an implication. Well, let's get to the bottom of what is happening. Let's see the emails before we vote. What do these say to these corporations?

I asked him: He allowed polluting companies to write emails to the EPA on his letterhead; did he let any children with asthma or their parents write letters that he then just put on his letterhead--people who were suffering from the poor air quality?

Later, the director of government relations at Devon Energy emailed Mr. Pruitt's office--this, we do know--to express gratitude to the attorney general for sending the letter.

Beyond this note of thanks, there were other clear benefits of this type of behavior for Mr. Pruitt. Energy industry lobbyists and executives worked tirelessly to help Mr. Pruitt raise his profile as president of the Republican Attorneys General Association. As president of this nationwide group, Mr. Pruitt set up something called the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a super PAC that allowed corporations benefiting from the actions of Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general to make unlimited and anonymous donations. This super PAC raised $16 million in essentially untraceable fundraising in 2014 alone.

Companies were partnering with him to fight the EPA in its efforts to fight for cleaner air in a State with children struggling from widespread asthma challenges. This would be bad enough, but this in many ways is only the beginning of Mr. Pruitt's collaborations with air polluting corporations. Scott Pruitt filed two lawsuits challenging the EPA mercury and air toxics standards.

So the EPA is working to clean up mercury. He filed lawsuits against the EPA to stop them. These were the first Federal standards to require powerplants to limit their emissions of such toxic air pollutants. The EPA's final rule set standards for known hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal- and oil-fired powerplants above a certain generating capacity.

This rule sought to limit Americans' exposure to airborne toxics like mercury. Mercury in the air settles on the surfaces of water and land where rain washes it further into surface water. Once in the water, mercury is converted to a toxic chemical called methylmercury, and this accumulates in increasing levels up the aquatic food chain. It is one of the reasons that doctors often will advise pregnant women not to eat certain fish because of the high mercury content. Why is there a high mercury content in some of those fish? This is the reason: mercury spewing out into our air, coming down and settling on land and water, getting into our waterways, and working its way up the aquatic chain, ultimately getting into our food.

Humans, especially young children and pregnant women, are vulnerable to mercury exposure from consuming contaminated fish or shellfish. This is a tragedy. Over 400,000 newborns are affected by mercury pollution each year in the United States--400,000 of our children, the greatest hope for our country, 400,000 children affected by mercury pollution each year in the United States.

What does mercury exposure do? It damages the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and it damages the immune system of people of all ages but, again, particularly vulnerable populations. It is a horrific toxin. This is not an argument. It is scientifically clear that the largest source of mercury air emissions are our power companies. It doesn't mean we want to shut the powerplants down; it doesn't mean we want to stop them. We want to take measures to remove the mercury emissions.

So what happened in the State of Oklahoma to hundreds of thousands of our children? What happened in the State of Oklahoma? The man who was on the job--he told the U.S. Senate that his job was protecting the welfare of the people. What Mr. Pruitt did is attack the EPA. He said that they lacked the legal authority to regulate powerplant mercury emissions and other hazardous pollutants under the mercury and air toxics standards. He did not do this once; he did it twice. When the EPA moved under the mandate they had, he tried to stop them twice.

He went even further than that because he apparently doesn't even believe that mercury is toxic to humans. In his challenge to the EPA's mercury rule, this is what he wrote: ``The record does not support the EPA's findings that mercury . . . pose[s] public health hazards.''

Reading this was astonishing to me. This was written by someone whom we want to put in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency? I am sure that even his family was told not to eat certain fish because of mercury. It is astonishing to me that he would say that ``the record does not support the EPA's findings that mercury . . . pose[s] public health hazards.''

Mercury is a scientifically proven, well documented, deadly neurotoxin, and the person we are about to elevate to head the Environmental Protection Agency when he had the chance to fight to protect people from mercury not only fought to stop efforts to restrain mercury being put into the air and into our water, he went as far as to say: Hey, this stuff isn't so bad.

While he was focused on attacking these mercury standards and denying its status as a toxic metal, the number of lakes in Oklahoma with mercury-related fish consumption advisories has doubled since 2010. Think about this. The attorney general, in charge of protecting people, has the Federal EPA saying: Hey, you have a problem here. Let's address it. The mercury levels in your lakes have doubled since 2010. The scientists and experts in your State are

releasing advisories to your community that state: Don't eat the fish from Oklahoma's lakes. His response is to fight against efforts to clean that up in support of those industries, as we are finding out, that are pumping money into his super PAC.

If I lived in a community and I lived next to a river that had deadly toxins in it--I have spent my entire professional career as a city councilman, as a mayor, and now here to fight to clean the Passaic River. I swore an oath to defend people. I am fighting for them.

What did Pruitt do when he had a shot to be there for the people who were living by lakes that literally had a doubling of the advisories about fish consumption? What did he do? Did he stand for the people or the polluters? What did he do? It is clear what he did. He stood with the polluters.

But there is more. Scott Pruitt filed a lawsuit challenging EPA's 2015 national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The Clean Air Act required the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants considered harmful to the public health and the environment.

Under this authority in 2015, the EPA strengthened the standards for ground-level ozone from 75 to 70 parts per billion, based on substantial scientific evidence about ozone levels on health. This updated ozone standard improved public health protections, particularly for children, older adults, and people who suffer from lung diseases like asthma. The new standard will prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks. This is not rhetoric; this is scientifically based. The reductions will save hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks.

As already stated, Oklahomans have some of the highest incidence of asthma in our country. But like the mercury contamination in the lakes, this excessive asthma rate did not stop Scott Pruitt from trying to block EPA from regulating harmful air pollutants under the national ambient air quality standards. So this is Scott Pruitt.

The list goes on and on and on, of his attacks on the environment, of his doing the bidding of the polluting corporations, of literally taking his letterhead and taking their letters and putting them on his letterhead and using that, not his own research, not his own interviews with scientists, not his work connecting to people with asthma--which, unfortunately, in his State with one of the highest asthma rates isn't hard to find--not talking to the people who were in his State releasing advisories not to eat the fish because of increased mercury content. What he did was the bidding of the polluting industries, and he sued the EPA again and again and again and again and again.

The EPA estimated in 2015 on their regional haze rule--this is the Agency he is about to take over--that implementing the rule would prevent 1,600 premature deaths, 2,200 nonfatal heart attacks, 960 hospital admissions, and over 1 million lost schooldays and workdays. That is the EPA's estimate on one rule, the regional haze rule.

Think about that. He is going to lead an Agency where the scientists in that Agency are going to be telling him: Hey, this rule that you fought against is going to save lives. What is his response going to be?

Can we as Americans trust that he is going to run an Agency where he relies on science or is he going to run an Agency where he relies on polluting industries to give him advice on what he should do? If he relies on them, there will be 1,600 more premature deaths, 2,200 nonfatal heart attacks, 960 more hospitalizations. We will suffer. People will suffer.

Scott Pruitt also filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA cross-state air pollution rule. This rule tightens limits on the amount of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution that powerplants in 28 States in the eastern United States are allowed to emit. Once in the air, this pollution drifts across state borders, meaning that States that had no role in contributing to the pollution suffer the repercussions. It is this type of interstate pollution that EPA is especially well positioned to address.

Further solidifying his stance as a staunch opponent of climate action, he filed four lawsuits. He filed four lawsuits challenging the EPA Clean Power Plan. He also sued the EPA to challenge the Clean Air Act 111(b) standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new powerplants. And in all those lawsuits except one, Scott Pruitt joined with the polluting companies that were also suing the EPA.

So amidst all this in the confirmation hearing, I asked Scott Pruitt, given all those lawsuits he had filed with the polluters against the EPA to block the EPA from reducing air pollution--he had even filed one lawsuit on behalf--he literally was advocating for polluting industries to the point where he was even using their letter on his letterhead to make his point. So my question was, in all this fighting against the EPA, all of this, using their words, using their facts, not the scientists in your community, not the scientists telling you about the mercury in the lakes and the fish that you shouldn't eat and one of the highest asthma rates in the Nation, I asked him: Have you ever filed at least one lawsuit on behalf of those 111,000 children in your State with asthma? Have you filed one lawsuit on their behalf to try to reduce the air pollution and help those kids? Have you ever filed one lawsuit as attorney general of the State? And his answer was no.

Had he ever tried as Oklahoma attorney general to take any action-- any action to help those children who struggle with asthma? What reason did Mr. Pruitt give for failing to even try? Mr. Pruitt stated that he lacked the statutory authority to file that type of legal action.

Let's think about that for a minute. Again, it doesn't take a law degree to understand the problems with that statement. You see, Scott Pruitt was more aggressive than any other attorney general in our country's history in suing the EPA, often using completely novel theories in court that lost--novel theories that lost. He was trying to find all kinds of ways on behalf of polluting industries to stop the EPA and thought of using creative legal approaches for doing it. Yet, when it came to the children in his State, 111,000 children suffering from asthma, one of the highest rates in our country, could he think of one novel thing to do on their behalf? Did he file one lawsuit to try to help those children? No, he claimed he lacked the legal authority.

What Scott Pruitt lacked was not legal authority. What I believe he lacked was any interest in trying to truly help those kids, to stand up for people against polluters. Those sick children were not powerful. They didn't have millions of dollars for a super PAC. They couldn't make campaign contributions. It seems, when it comes to their advocacy, that they were not important enough for him to even try.

When Mr. Pruitt was questioned by a reporter on his practice of letting polluting companies write letters challenging EPA regulations, which he then copied onto his official attorney general letterhead and he then sent, this is what Scott Pruitt said. This is his defense for letting polluting companies write letters that he put on his letterhead and then sent off to the EPA, advocating for them: ``That is actually called representative government in my view of the world.''

That is, simply, not an acceptable world view for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. His view of representative government isn't any one of those 111,000 children. His idea of representative government isn't a family living next to a lake from where they are advised not to eat the fish anymore. His idea of representative government isn't pregnant mothers who are worried about eating fish that are caught in the State. His idea of representative government is giving voice to the polluters--to the powerful, money-laden interests-- and not to those of the people.

If Scott Pruitt wants to be the EPA Administrator, we as Americans should insist that we have transparency into what he did in his work beforehand--what he did on air quality, which I just went through. But the truth of the matter is that it is the same story for water pollution in the State, and it is the same story for other health and safety issues that the EPA was doing.

I conclude by saying that it is unfortunate that, at a time when we are finally going to get transparency into Scott Pruitt and what he has been doing as attorney general, after his stonewalling week after week, month after month, saying he wasn't going to release these records--by the way, the

person in charge of enforcing Oklahoma's Freedom of Information Act is the attorney general. So it is kind of ironic that the attorney general was refusing to enforce them himself--the laws that public officials have to abide by in the State. It finally took a judge to order him to release that transparency. Now we are going to get these letters and see more about his connections to polluting companies--what kind of potential collusion went on and what conversations went on. Was he fundraising even from his official capacity? What was happening?

Alone, that is unfortunate that we are not, at least, postponing this vote until we get transparency in the Senate. Our role, as spelled out by the Constitution, is to advise and consent the President on these choices, and we are about to vote on somebody on whom we don't have full transparency to give advice.

The final point is that here is someone who is going to be the head of an agency that was started under the Nixon administration that is focused on protecting the health and safety of Americans, and he has demonstrated in no way his commitment to doing that--that he is putting people first. More than that, he has the ability to pull back these regulations that he himself has been fighting and that the scientists are saying will literally save lives.

It is not just what he will do. It is what he won't do in that job that is so threatening and so potentially devastating to families and communities like the one he is coming from. I cannot support someone who denies climate change, someone who clearly prioritizes polluting companies over people, someone who has spent his career in not protecting folks but in fighting the EPA.

I end where I began, with this Nation's ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would hope that an EPA Administrator, regardless of party, would understand the sanctity of those ideals and those aspirations. This person is clearly, clearly not someone who will support the common good but narrow interests to the detriment of, not just of his State, not just of our United States, but to the detriment of our children's future and of the future of the very planet.

I yield the floor.