Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the deep and growing concerns about Russia's interference in the United States' 2016 Presidential election and the implications of Russia's broader malign activities for our national security.

On Monday, we learned from FBI Director Comey that there is an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and whether associates of then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump were communicating with Moscow. It is absolutely essential that Congress and the American people get clear and comprehensive answers on, first, what happened; second, what are Russia's strategic goals and intentions for further interference in democratic processes here and in Europe; and third, what we need to do to counter this threat going forward. That is why I have repeatedly called for an independent, transparent, special counsel to investigate the legal aspects of Russian efforts to influence our election and a bipartisan select committee within the Senate to look at all aspects of Russia's destabilizing activities here and around the world.

I am concerned that the politicization of the issue of Russia's

interference in our elections and its hostile actions against Western institutions and values is diverting our attention from what otherwise should be recognized as a clear and potent threat to America's security. We need to focus on what is critical: Russia is attacking American democracy as part of an even broader assault on our cornerstone NATO alliance and the post-Cold War international order.

The threat posed by Russia's actions is not merely ``fake news,'' as serious as that phenomenon may be, but a very real, very strategic threat to U.S. interests. Russia is testing America and the transatlantic community across multiple fronts.

Today, I will highlight just how broad and fundamental this threat from Russia really is.

What should be clear to everyone is that last year Russia engaged in a systematic and strategic effort to influence the U.S. Presidential election. While we do not know all the details of Russia's involvement, we know that in January the U.S. intelligence community--including the CIA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or the ODNI--issued its assessment that Russia engaged in bold and unprecedented efforts to influence and undermine trust in the U.S. Presidential election.

Among the January intelligence report's findings were the following: first, that President Putin, in their words, ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.''

The intelligence community also found that ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.''

The report further found that Russia's influence campaign was multifaceted and included covert intelligence operations such as cyber espionage against U.S. political organizations like the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. It combined the release of hacked information with overt propaganda efforts through Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media actors, or, as they are referred to, trolls.

Another key finding was that Russia's influence efforts in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election reflect--in the words of the intelligence community--``a significant escalation'' compared to previous information operations.

The intelligence community also warned that these Russian activities, including ``cyber-enabled disclosure operations'' likely represent a ``New Normal'' in Russian conduct toward the United States and our allies and partners.

The intelligence community further assessed that Russia will use the lessons learned from the 2016 U.S. Presidential election to influence future elections in the United States and overseas. We do not have to look very far for evidence supporting this conclusion.

Russia is alleged to have targeted an April 2016 referendum in the Netherlands on a partnership agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, which was overwhelmingly rejected by Dutch voters. This year, Russia is openly intervening in France's Presidential election to be held in April. For example, Russia has loaned tens of millions of dollars to the far-right National Front Party in France, whose leader, Marine Le Pen, has defended Russia's annexation of Crimea and criticized international sanctions against Russia.

Germany, which holds parliamentary elections in September, has also been targeted by Russian hackers and trolls--straight out of the Kremlin playbook we saw used here last year. Russia is attempting to steadily erode the integrity and western orientation of multiple Eastern European countries through a variety of state and state- controlled or state-influenced activities. These coordinated and focused Russian operations threaten to undermine the European cohesion which underpins the post-Cold War international order. This pattern of Russian interference will only intensify with time if it goes unchallenged.

Russia's malign activities also threaten our core security relationships with our transatlantic allies and partners. The NATO alliance has been the bedrock of our security relationship with our European allies. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, countries in Central and Eastern Europe have aspired to integrate more closely with the West, whether militarily through NATO membership or economically within the European Union, or both. But President Putin rejects the post-Cold War international order and seeks to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence over his immediate neighbors by weakening democracy, collective security, and economic cooperation across the region.

In pursuit of this strategic goal, Putin has demonstrated a willingness to use all tools at his disposal, including cyber hacking, disinformation, propaganda, economic leverage, corruption, and even military force, to violate the sovereignty of Russia's neighbors and undermine support for their further integration into Europe.

Since 2008, in neighboring Georgia, Russia has occupied two regions and recognized their independence, which the international community widely condemns as a violation of Georgia's territorial integrity. Georgia's aspirations since the 2008 Bucharest Summit to join the NATO Alliance have been on hold.

In Ukraine, Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing support to Russian-led separatists in eastern Ukraine are part of Putin's strategy of destabilizing the Kyiv government and blocking Ukraine's further integration westward. Putin has repeatedly used influence operations to hide the presence of ``little green men'' on Ukrainian soil, to spread disinformation about Ukrainian political leaders, and to influence financially corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs to support Russia. Putin is also using propaganda and other activities to try to break western unity in support of the United States and EU sanctions intended to pressure Russia to comply with its commitments under the Minsk agreements for ending the conflict in Ukraine. It is critically important to maintain, and potentially strengthen, these sanctions to change Russia's aggressive behavior and get to a peaceful political settlement to end the fighting in Ukraine.

In Montenegro, it appears that Russia has added political assassination as a potential weapon to block an Eastern European country from pursuing membership in NATO. Last month, the British press reported that ``Russian nationalists'' under the direction of Russian intelligence officials plotted to assassinate then-Prime Minister Djukanovic during Montenegro's elections in October. According to these reports, Montenegrin authorities foiled the assassination attempt just hours before the plot was to be carried out. This attempted coup d'etat represents a new and dangerous level of interference by Russia to discourage Montenegro and others from further integrating with the West.

As some of my colleagues have read in the February 14th New York Times article, Russia has fielded a missile system that violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty--a ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear missile that threatens all of NATO. The INF Treaty was signed by President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. This landmark treaty dramatically reduced Cold War nuclear tensions by eliminating an entire class of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles that could have struck Moscow or Berlin in less than 10 minutes.

Now Russia has moved nuclear-capable, short-range, ground-launched Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. The Iskander missile's range threatens German borders-- something not seen since the 1980s. The Iskander deployment runs counter to a detente that has been in place since 1989, when President Bush reduced U.S. conventional forces in Europe--and Russia did the same--in order to relieve destabilizing tension in the region and lessen the risk of escalation or miscalculation. Furthermore, Russian aggression goes beyond the violations of the INF Treaty and the Iskander missile.

During the 2014 invasion of Crimea, Russia practiced snap nuclear exercises to test the readiness of its Armed Forces to send a signal that there was

a nuclear backstop to the invasion. More disturbingly, by invading Ukraine, Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum, a multilateral commitment in which Ukraine and three other former Soviet states pledged to transfer to Russia the nuclear weapons they retained after the collapse of the Soviet Union in return for Russian recognition of their sovereignty.

Besides unilaterally reneging on its Budapest commitments, in 2014 Russia has pulled out of the DOD and DOE--Department of Defense and Department of Energy--Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs, which secured nuclear materials at storage sites and national borders. Russia has some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear materials in the world that are vulnerable to insider threats. In 2016, Russia suspended its participation in the agreement with the United States to convert 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium for use as fuel for reactors.

Since the very beginning of the Cold War, nonproliferation and arms control agreements between Russia and the United States have always received a high priority from both countries, regardless of how relations in other areas went up or down. Russia's recent actions call into question whether this can continue.

Russian actions in Syria pose a further challenge to stability in the Middle East and the broader international community. Russia's military operations to prop up the murderous Assad regime belies Moscow's claim that it intervened to fight violent extremists, including ISIS and al- Qaida. Russia has provided significant political, economic, and military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even as he has slaughtered tens of thousands of Syrian civilians and used chemical weapons against his own people. Russia has repeatedly exercised its veto power in the U.N. Security Council on behalf of the Syrian regime in defiance of international standards and U.S.-led peace efforts, and, just last month, Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution seeking to punish Syria for using chemical weapons.

For all of these reasons, we must recognize that Russia's alarming interference in our election is only one aspect of a much broader and dangerous threat to our core national security interests. Russia's malign behavior needs to be investigated fully and in a manner that is free of political considerations. We need answers to key questions, including:

What are Russia's overall strategic security goals, and how do Russian influence activities in Europe and the United States advance those goals?

What are the tools of Russia's influence? How has Russia used, or continues to use, those tools in influencing campaigns in Europe? How do Russian activities in Europe compare to what was evident in the U.S. Presidential elections last year?

How has Russia used influence activities in concert with other unconventional warfare tactics and operational activities--for example, to support proxy forces in Ukraine and elsewhere?

What is the threat these Russian influence activities pose to U.S. democratic institutions? To NATO? To the European Union? To the post- Cold War liberal order and value system?

What are the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the United States and European countries that Russia is successfully exploiting and magnifying?

Finally, how can the U.S. Government counter and deter Russia's influence activities, and what capabilities, structures, and other resources are needed for these purposes?

An investigation of these questions would best be conducted by an independent, transparent, outside body appointed in a bipartisan manner. However, if Congress cannot reach consensus to make that happen, then, as a ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I intend to work with the chairman to undertake the necessary effort within the committee and across the Senate. I believe we can work in a bipartisan fashion on this critical threat to our national security. I look forward to shedding light on this issue and examining what we need to do as a country to defend ourselves against and deter Russian malign influence.

As a final point, we are focused, of course, on what happened in 2016--and it is a topic of daily discussions and newspaper articles-- but one of the most sobering factors is that we have an election in process right now for 2018. If it demonstrates the same interference, Russia could have an effect on that election. Indeed, there are indications that they are actually probing State election systems--the names of voters, how the States calculate and vote. Nothing has been established that would suggest they attempted to influence that activity, but the simple probing suggests that we have much to do to protect ourselves going forward--indeed, as much as looking back and finding out what went on in the 2016 election.

For these reasons, and many more, we have to work together, as I suggested and encouraged, in a bipartisan way to get at the answers-- not just to look backward but to protect ourselves going forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I voted to support Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster retaining the grade of lieutenant general while serving as the National Security Advisor to the President. To be clear, this vote was to permit Lieutenant General McMaster to remain in the grade of lieutenant general while serving in this position. It is not to confirm him as the National Security Advisor.

Lieutenant General McMaster was appointed by the President to a position that does not require Senate confirmation. Indeed, he is already serving as National Security Advisor. The only remaining question is whether he will serve in the military grade of lieutenant general on Active Duty.

The position of National Security Advisor is one of the most important in our government. Not only does it require someone capable of providing timely and thoughtful counsel on national security matters, it entails coordinating advice and action across multiple executive agencies with responsibilities in the national security arena. Further, it necessitates a large measure of independence and knowledge.

This is not the first time we have considered an Active-Duty military officer for this position. Lieutenant General McMaster would be the third such officer to so serve, following Admiral John Poindexter under President Reagan and General Colin Powell under President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Many of my colleagues are rightly concerned about this and question whether it would be more appropriate for him to retire and serve in a civilian capacity. While I strongly believe it would be better for Lieutenant General McMaster to retire and avoid all perceptions of politicizing the military, he believes that serving in uniform will help him remain apolitical in service to this Administration. He can expect Congress to hold him to his word that wearing the uniform in this position will serve to keep the military above the political fray.

Some Members have expressed concern about the proper functioning of our national security apparatus and clear chains of command with respect to military advice provided to the President under this arrangement. While Lieutenant General McMaster would be the National Security Advisor to the President, providing day-to-day advice and counsel on all national security matters, General Joseph Dunford, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would continue to be the ``principal military advisor'' to the President, while Secretary Mattis is the ``principal assistant to the President in all matters related to the Department of Defense.''

As Senator Sam Nunn described the issue with respect to the nomination of then-Lieutenant General Powell, in Senator Nunn's words, ``A military officer who knows that his next promotion depends on the Secretary of Defense and the top generals and admirals in the Pentagon may simply not, over a period of time, be able to make completely objective decisions based on the fact that his promotion, his pay, and his future depend on one department, and that one department is an active player in the government.''

This question centers on Lieutenant General McMaster's ability to retain the necessary measure of independence as he discharges his duties to the President. I ultimately believe, after careful consideration, that Lieutenant General McMaster will be able to balance these roles and provide advice and direction designed to further the Nation's interests and not simply those of the Department of Defense or indeed, to advance his own ambitions.

It is also my hope that Lieutenant General McMaster will be a moderating influence on a White House that desperately needs talented, informed, and professional advisers. This Administration has proposed a reorganization of the National Security Council structure that excludes the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from meetings unless specifically invited. Lieutenant General McMaster assured the Committee that General Dunford and the DNI will be invited to attend any meeting of the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, and I appreciated that assurance.

The Trump Administration reorganization also added the President's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, to the National Security Council. This politicization of the NSC is unsound, and I think without merit. The law creating the National Security Council is purposeful in trying to create a managerial and policy process that develops the best national security policy for our Nation. The idea that a partisan political operative like Mr. Bannon should serve on the National Security Council runs counter to longstanding practice, and must, in my view, be reversed.

It is my hope that Lieutenant General McMaster has the vast experience and knowledge and the requisite temperament and independence to provide the national security expertise that is sorely needed in the White House.

Moreover, Lieutenant General McMaster must have the support and the backing of the President so it is clear that he runs the National Security Council on the President's behalf. That support is not yet apparent. According to Politico just a few days ago, the President overruled Lieutenant General McMaster's advice and chose to listen to Mr. Bannon and the President's son-in-law, Mr. Kushner, in regard to the retention of a key intelligence analyst who had been brought in by Major General Flynn. This is a worrisome sign that Lieutenant General McMaster might have a title and responsibilities but not the authority he needs. I indeed hope he has that authority and exercises it wisely.

I would also like to note that there have been reports about decisions Lieutenant General McMaster made as Commanding General at Fort Benning in allowing lieutenants under his command to attend schools while being investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. I want to assure my colleagues that the Committee held a closed and classified executive session with Lieutenant General McMaster present to answer all our questions. The Committee thoroughly considered the facts and voted to confirm his third star by a strong bipartisan vote.

We are again taking a rather extraordinary step in voting on an Active-Duty military officer to serve as National Security Advisor for the first time in 25 years, but these are extraordinary times. Our Nation faces complex national security challenges, and 3 months into a new administration, we are on a second National Security Advisor already. We see a disorganized National Security Council and an enormous number of vacancies in the State and Defense Departments.

Lieutenant General McMaster has the opportunity to bring order to the chaos. Therefore, I believe the Senate should confirm his grade of Lieutenant General while he serves as National Security Advisor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act along with Senator Grassley. This bill permits the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process.

Over 10 years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted multiple hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements.

In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99-to-0 vote. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong, independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.

To conduct its duties, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversees more than 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The board's ability to initiate proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight.

However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the board's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years.

These PCAOB disciplinary proceedings create a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.

Over the years, some bad actors have taken advantage of this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the years that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large.

For example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about its PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. Disturbingly, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations.

In addition to the reasons I have already provided, there are other reasons why the board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent.

First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB.

Second, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparent proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and nonsecret enforcement proceedings.

Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.

Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings is a critical component of bolstering and maintaining investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act along with Senator Grassley. This bill permits the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process.

Over 10 years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted multiple hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements.

In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99-to-0 vote. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong, independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.

To conduct its duties, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversees more than 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The board's ability to initiate proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight.

However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the board's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years.

These PCAOB disciplinary proceedings create a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.

Over the years, some bad actors have taken advantage of this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the years that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large.

For example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about its PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. Disturbingly, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations.

In addition to the reasons I have already provided, there are other reasons why the board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent.

First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB.

Second, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparent proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and nonsecret enforcement proceedings.

Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.

Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings is a critical component of bolstering and maintaining investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Ms. Seema Verma to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS.

As a $1 trillion agency with oversight over Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, as well as State health insurance marketplaces, CMS is providing affordable health insurance to 100 million Americans, including nearly half a million Rhode Islanders.

Given the responsibility that this post entails of ensuring access to health care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens, coupled with a lack of commitment to fighting back against proposals by this administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to dismantle these programs, I cannot support Ms. Verma's nomination to be CMS Administrator.

CMS is responsible for a key aspect of the Affordable Care Act--the health insurance marketplaces--which provide an avenue for all consumers to shop for the health insurance options that fit their needs and connect consumers with tax credits and subsidies that make the coverage affordable.

President Trump and his new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price are adamant about repealing the ACA and rolling back these benefits. In her confirmation hearing, Ms. Verma was asked multiple times to commit to protecting the ACA for the millions of Americans who were able to access coverage for the first time because of the law, but she would not do so. This, to me, is unacceptable.

CMS also works with States and other agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the plans offered on the exchanges are not only affordable but also provide real coverage for when it is most needed. I am concerned with Ms. Verma's beliefs about what health insurance coverage should look like.

During her confirmation hearing, she spoke at length about providing consumers more choices about their healthcare. Yet she opposes many of the protections the ACA provides for consumers. For example, she implied that she thought maternity care should be optional. It seems to me that for many families, they would be left with the choice to either pay for maternity care entirely out-of-pocket--all the while paying premiums and copays to the insurance company--or to go without care at all. I don't think these are the kinds of choices we should be imposing on families.

Turning my attention to Medicaid for a minute, I am deeply concerned about the Republican proposals to fundamentally change Medicaid and shift costs to States and to consumers. These proposals aren't new. Year after year, Republicans--often under the leadership of then- Congressman, now-HHS Secretary Tom Price--have proposed block-granting Medicaid, cutting the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. While Ms. Verma is not yet confirmed, she did express support in her confirmation hearing for this very concept--block-granting or capping Medicaid spending. Just this week, we saw a new version of this proposal, which simply delays cuts to Medicaid until 2020. In my opinion, this is just a veiled attempt to help gain support for the effort now and then turn around and decimate Medicaid in a few years.

In my home State of Rhode Island, nearly 300,000 Rhode Islanders access healthcare through Medicaid. That is about one-third of our population, roughly. That is a significant number for a small State like Rhode Island. Let's break down that number to see who would be impacted by these across-the-board cuts to Medicaid.

One out of four children in Rhode Island gets care from Medicaid and half of the births in the State are financed through Medicaid. One in two Rhode Islanders with disabilities are covered by Medicaid, and 60 percent of nursing home residents in the State get their care from Medicaid. Think about what would happen if this funding is cut--and that is the trajectory of the Republican proposals--States would have to decide, among these populations, who will get health care, children or the elderly in nursing homes, the disabled or other Medicaid recipients. If States try to make up the difference, that would result in cuts elsewhere, such as education and infrastructure. Indeed, given the demands for health care, given the tensions between seniors and nursing homes, and children needing care, the States will try their best to pull from other areas. What is the next biggest area of State expenditure? Education. Now you will have pressure on State education budgets. Higher education particularly will be pressured. All of this will be the ripple effect from these proposed cuts to Medicaid. And make no mistake, when Ms. Verma and my colleagues talk about converting Medicaid to a block grant program or capping spending, it is not about flexibility for the States, it is about reducing the Federal commitment to providing funding to the States.

Lastly, I am concerned about Ms. Verma's ability to safeguard Medicare for our seniors. Over 200,000 Rhode Islanders access care through Medicare, a benefit they have worked for and earned over their entire careers. I believe Medicare is essential to the quality of life for Rhode Island's seniors and for seniors across the country, and indeed for the children and families of these seniors. In fact, I supported the ACA because it made key improvements to Medicare that strengthened its long-term solvency and increased benefits, such as closing the prescription drug doughnut hole and eliminating cost- sharing for preventive services such as cancer screenings.

Over 15,000 Rhode Islanders saved $14 million on prescription drugs in 2015, an average of $912 per beneficiary. In the same year, over 92,000 Rhode Islanders took advantage of free preventive services, representing over 76 percent of the beneficiaries. Repealing the ACA means repealing these benefits for seniors and shortening the life of the Medicare trust fund by over a decade.

Unfortunately, Ms. Verma has little to no experience working with Medicare, and in her hearing and written responses to questions, she appeared to have very little to no familiarity with major aspects of Medicare. In her confirmation hearing and accompanying documents, she simply has not proven herself to be an effective advocate for protecting these earned benefits for our seniors.

We need an Administrator for CMS who will work to safeguard health care coverage for children, seniors, and people with disabilities, who will seek to strengthen Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, and our entire healthcare system. For the reasons I have outlined, along with other reasons some of my colleagues have raised, Ms. Verma, in my opinion,

is not up to this task. As such, I will oppose the nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I request the ability to yield the remainder of my postcloture time to Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2017 along with two members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Warner. In response to data breaches of various companies that exposed the personal information of millions of customers, our legislation asks each publicly traded company to include--in Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures to investors--information on whether any member of the board of directors is a cybersecurity expert, and if why having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary because of other cyber security steps taken by the publicly traded company. To be clear, the legislation does not require companies to take any actions other than to provide this disclosure to its investors.

Many investors may be surprised to learn that board directors who participated in the National Association of Corporate Directors, NACD, roundtable discussions on cyber security late in 2013 admitted that ``the lack of adequate knowledge of information technology risk has made it challenging for them to `effectively oversee management's cybersecurity activities.' '' More recently, in Deloitte's 10th Global Risk Management Survey of Financial Services Institutions, published this month, 42 percent of respondents considered their institution to be less effective in managing cybersecurity. And according to the 2016- 2017 NACD Public Company Governance Survey, ``fifty-nine percent of respondents reported that they find it challenging to oversee cyber risk, and only 19 percent of respondents said that their boards possess a high level of knowledge about cybersecurity.'' Indeed, Yahoo in its most recent annual report, which was filed with the SEC last week, disclosed that ``the Independent Committee found that failures in communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security Incident. The Independent Committee also found that the Audit and Finance Committee and the full board were not adequately informed of the full severity, risks, and potential impacts of the 2014 Security Incident and related matters.'' The 2014 Security Incident here refers to the fact that ``a copy of certain user account information for approximately 500 million user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014.'' This is particularly troubling given that data breaches are on the rise. Indeed, 2016 was a recordbreaking year for data breaches, which increased 40 percent from the prior year to 1,093 breaches according to the Identity Theft Resource Center.

Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether publicly traded companies are prioritizing cyber security and have the capacity to protect investors and customers from cyber-related attacks. Our legislation aims to provide a better understanding of these issues through improved SEC disclosure.

While this legislation is a matter for consideration by the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, this bill is also informed by my service on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. It is through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence perspective that I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy becomes increasingly reliant on technology and the Internet.

For example, when he was Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, appeared before the Armed Services Committee in 2015 and testified that ``cyber threats to the U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity of impact.'' He further said that ``[b]ecause of our heavy dependence on the Internet, nearly all information communication technologies and I.T. networks and systems will be perpetually at risk.''

Indeed, retired Army GEN Keith Alexander, who is the former commander of the United States Cyber Command and former Director of the National Security Agency, appeared before the Armed Services Committee this month and stated that ``while the primary responsibility of government is to defend the nation, the private sector also shares responsibility in creating the partnership necessary to make the defense of our nation possible. Neither the government nor the private sector can capably protect their systems and networks without extensive and close cooperation.''

With mounting cyber threats and concerns over the capabilities of corporate directors, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our Nation's cyber security before there are additional serious breaches. This legislation seeks to take one step toward that

goal by encouraging publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and customers on whether and how their boards of directors are prioritizing cyber security.

I thank Harvard Law School professor John Coates, MIT professor Simon Johnson, Columbia Law School professor John Coffee, and the Consumer Federation of America for their support, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2017 along with two members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Warner. In response to data breaches of various companies that exposed the personal information of millions of customers, our legislation asks each publicly traded company to include--in Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures to investors--information on whether any member of the board of directors is a cybersecurity expert, and if why having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary because of other cyber security steps taken by the publicly traded company. To be clear, the legislation does not require companies to take any actions other than to provide this disclosure to its investors.

Many investors may be surprised to learn that board directors who participated in the National Association of Corporate Directors, NACD, roundtable discussions on cyber security late in 2013 admitted that ``the lack of adequate knowledge of information technology risk has made it challenging for them to `effectively oversee management's cybersecurity activities.' '' More recently, in Deloitte's 10th Global Risk Management Survey of Financial Services Institutions, published this month, 42 percent of respondents considered their institution to be less effective in managing cybersecurity. And according to the 2016- 2017 NACD Public Company Governance Survey, ``fifty-nine percent of respondents reported that they find it challenging to oversee cyber risk, and only 19 percent of respondents said that their boards possess a high level of knowledge about cybersecurity.'' Indeed, Yahoo in its most recent annual report, which was filed with the SEC last week, disclosed that ``the Independent Committee found that failures in communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security Incident. The Independent Committee also found that the Audit and Finance Committee and the full board were not adequately informed of the full severity, risks, and potential impacts of the 2014 Security Incident and related matters.'' The 2014 Security Incident here refers to the fact that ``a copy of certain user account information for approximately 500 million user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014.'' This is particularly troubling given that data breaches are on the rise. Indeed, 2016 was a recordbreaking year for data breaches, which increased 40 percent from the prior year to 1,093 breaches according to the Identity Theft Resource Center.

Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether publicly traded companies are prioritizing cyber security and have the capacity to protect investors and customers from cyber-related attacks. Our legislation aims to provide a better understanding of these issues through improved SEC disclosure.

While this legislation is a matter for consideration by the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, this bill is also informed by my service on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. It is through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence perspective that I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy becomes increasingly reliant on technology and the Internet.

For example, when he was Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, appeared before the Armed Services Committee in 2015 and testified that ``cyber threats to the U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity of impact.'' He further said that ``[b]ecause of our heavy dependence on the Internet, nearly all information communication technologies and I.T. networks and systems will be perpetually at risk.''

Indeed, retired Army GEN Keith Alexander, who is the former commander of the United States Cyber Command and former Director of the National Security Agency, appeared before the Armed Services Committee this month and stated that ``while the primary responsibility of government is to defend the nation, the private sector also shares responsibility in creating the partnership necessary to make the defense of our nation possible. Neither the government nor the private sector can capably protect their systems and networks without extensive and close cooperation.''

With mounting cyber threats and concerns over the capabilities of corporate directors, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our Nation's cyber security before there are additional serious breaches. This legislation seeks to take one step toward that

goal by encouraging publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and customers on whether and how their boards of directors are prioritizing cyber security.

I thank Harvard Law School professor John Coates, MIT professor Simon Johnson, Columbia Law School professor John Coffee, and the Consumer Federation of America for their support, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, and me in supporting this legislation.

Madam President, I am strongly opposed to the nomination of Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy.

While Governor Perry has a long record of public service, he is the wrong choice to lead the Department of Energy. He does not possess the technical expertise or necessary qualifications. Moreover, his past statements calling for the elimination of the Department and questioning the science behind climate change, coupled with his reported lack a understanding about the scope of the Department's responsibilities, call into question his ability to lead an agency that is so critical to our national and economic security.

What Governor Perry learned during this confirmation process is that the Secretary of Energy not only oversees our country's energy initiatives and strategies, but is also the steward of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, a part of the Department of Energy, ensures the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. The NNSA brings together exceptionally dedicated men and women from our Armed Forces to work alongside some of our best scientists and engineers to provide expert advice in nuclear nonproliferation and counterterrorism. The Secretary of Energy must understand their work and advise the President on our nuclear arsenal capabilities and national security issues. Governor Perry has no experience in these areas and is not qualified to lead the agency tasked with maintaining our nuclear deterrent.

The Department of Energy also protects our Nation's security by strengthening the electrical grid's resilience in the face of natural disaster and cyber attacks. Its Office of Electricity works with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and utilities to protect the electrical grid; yet the Trump administration has reportedly proposed eliminating this office, something which Governor Perry has not sought to dispel.

The Department of Energy leads the country and the world in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency. For my home State of Rhode Island, renewable energy from the wind, sun, and ocean is not just a path to local energy production, but also a source of well-paying jobs ranging from steelworkers to scientists. Last year, Rhode Island became the first State to build an offshore wind farm, off the coast of Block Island, proving that offshore wind can be a viable renewable energy source for the United States.

This technological feat could not have been accomplished without the science, engineering, and policy research supported by the Office of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. This office drives the research in wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy that has made affordable renewable energy a reality. However, Governor Perry, in his written responses, refused to comment on reports that the administration would cut funding, or even worse, eliminate this vital department. Failure to invest in this department and its research risks our future as an energy-producing nation.

We need a Secretary of Energy who also can effectively manage the Office of Science and the National Laboratories, programs that have made the United States a global leader in scientific advancement since the Manhattan project. The National Laboratory system hosts equipment far beyond the capabilities of most universities or companies--such as massive particle accelerators, powerful supercomputers, and high- temperature laser ignition facilities--that are vital to expanding our knowledge base and technological advancement.

The future of many of these energy science programs in the new administration is of great concern to the scientific community. The same budget recommendations that would eliminate the Office of Electricity also showed plans to cut supercomputing research, even as China is making large investments to become the world leader in this area. Advanced computing is vital to national defense and economic competitiveness. Shortsighted budget cuts here, or in any of our basic research programs, threaten our Nation's future security and prosperity. Governor Perry has not pledged to protect or prioritize anfof these programs.

The Department of Energy's leadership in atmospheric science and climate change is also threatened. The Trump administration has gone beyond merely ignoring the threat of climate change; it has proposed cutting off funding to the critical programs that monitor our planet. It has also cast doubt that climate data will be accessible and available to the public and other researchers. We have already seen an unprecedented attempt by the Trump transition team to collect the names of scientists who study the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions. It appears that, for the first time in

the history of the agency, its scientists are worried that honestly reporting their findings may be a career-ending decision.

This is an alarming assault on the integrity of American science. The Secretary of Energy must be someone who understands science and will protect the government scientists who work in the national interest. The Secretary must understand and be able to present to the President the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing and that human activities are responsible. All Governor Perry committed to do in this and other areas is to learn more about the science.

This is not sufficient.

We have been fortunate that recent occupants of this post were not learning basic science on the job. Both Presidents Bush and Obama filled this post with experts possessing a deep understanding of science and technological issues. President Bush appointed Dr. Samuel Bodman, who served as a member of MIT's faculty before moving into business and government. President Obama appointed a Nobel prize winner in physics, Dr. Steven Chu, and a MIT physicist, Dr. Ernest Moniz. The result is that, for the past 12 years, the Department of Energy has been well equipped to respond to challenges in national security, energy, and science.

We need a Secretary of Energy who can build on that legacy. We need a Secretary of Energy who has the technical expertise to oversee our Nation's nuclear stockpile, the integrity to protect basic science from political attacks, and the willingness to fight for a secure grid and renewable energy technology. I am not convinced that Governor Perry has those qualifications.

For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. President, today I want to pay special tribute to an exceptional officer of the U.S. Army, MG Camille M. Nichols. Currently serving as the director of the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, General Nichols will retire after more than 41 years of Active military service on April 1, 2017. From enlisted private, to academy graduate, to two-star general, MG Camille Nichols has demonstrated the Army values of duty, integrity, selfless service, and dedication to country. Many of my colleagues and I have had the pleasure of working with Major General Nichols on a number of issues and programs, and it is my distinct privilege to recognize her accomplishments.

MG Camille Nichols began her military career in 1975, as an enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army. While serving in Germany and at the insistence of her leadership, she applied for acceptance as a cadet candidate to the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, thus enabling her to join the U.S. Military Academy Class, USMA, class of 1981. Upon her graduation from USMA, Major General Nichols was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers. Throughout her years of service, Major General Nichols attended numerous advanced military and civilian schools, receiving three masters degrees, and while working full time, earned a Ph.D. in engineering management from George Washington University.

After serving in several command and high-level staff positions, General Nichols developed expertise in contracting and acquisition procedures and systems. These demonstrated abilities were recognized by her selection as one of the general officers named to stand up the U.S. Army's Contracting Command. It cannot be overstated that, in all her leadership and staff roles, Camille Nichols positively influenced the lives of thousands of military personnel while she did the Nation's bidding around the world and at home. From Korea to Saudi Arabia; from Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn to commanding general of U.S. Army Contracting Command, Major General Nichols has been out front, pressing hard to ensure the Army is well-equipped with a 21st century fighting force capable of defeating the enemy.

As the director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Major General Nichols' undeterred leadership, soldier-scholar depth and breadth of knowledge, commitment to eliminating sexual assault, and commonsense approach to problem solving have contributed immeasurably to the improvement and execution of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program and the DOD-wide strategy. She also spearheaded specialized policies and strategies focusing on prevention efforts, combating retaliation, and addressing the needs of male victims. Major General Nichols' efforts have been instrumental in shaping and articulating program initiatives, plans,

and objectives to Congress, senior defense leaders, and the American public, earning the respect of both her superiors and peers.

I ask that you and our colleagues join me, as well as Major General Nichols' family, many friends, and peers in saluting this distinguished officer's many contributions and sacrifices in the defense of our great Nation. It is fitting that today we publicly recognize her service and wish her health, happiness, and success in the years to come. Congratulations, Major General Nichols, on completing an exceptional and exemplary career.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump has made it clear that he wants to savage environmental protections, and his administration has already started down this path of reversing some of our hard-fought progress to ensure we have a clean environment: clean water and fresh air. By nominating Mr. Pruitt, President Trump has chosen someone equally hostile to the very notion of defending our environment and our Nation's health.

Respected voices on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar alarm over Mr. Pruitt's nomination. President George W. Bush's former EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Agency from 2001 to 2003, stated in reference to Mr. Pruitt: ``I don't recall ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.''

This is a sentiment I have heard from over a thousand Rhode Islanders--environmentalists, researchers, conservationists, community leaders, parents, concerned citizens--who agree that Mr. Pruitt is a troubling choice for this role. They have contacted my office to express how distressed they are that someone with Mr. Pruitt's record and background could be chosen to lead the EPA.

Last week I hosted a roundtable to hear these concerns directly from my constituents. These Rhode Islanders shared their worries about the state of our changing environment, anxiousness about Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and concerns over what they have seen so far, and fear is coming with respect to the Trump administration's approach to our environment. Nevertheless, they remain committed to ensuring that we have clean air and clean water because these natural resources are so important to our economy, our health, and our quality of life.

I share that commitment. I have consistently voted for strong environmental policies that seek to limit pollution, promote renewable energy, and mitigate the effects of climate change.

The EPA oversees the Federal Government's role in protecting our health and environment. It needs a leader who fundamentally believes in its core mission. Scott Pruitt has a record of working against the Agency's goals to protect Americans from pollution. That is the goal of the Agency. He does not believe or respect the scientific findings regarding climate change, and his close ties to the oil and gas industry are a serious concern.

These kinds of beliefs and views should be of concern to everyone in this Chamber.

As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA multiple times seeking to eliminate pollution regulations. He has a record of not only challenging the legal, scientific, and technical foundations of EPA rules, but he has also questioned the EPA's authority to issue them.

Mr. Pruitt filed as the plaintiff in these lawsuits, many of which are still pending. If confirmed as the EPA Administrator, he would be switching sides to become the defendant in these lawsuits. And yet, he has refused to recuse himself from any of these or related cases. He has also failed to provide records of his communications with fossil fuel companies during the years he served as attorney general.

It is abundantly clear that he cannot be impartial.

This lack of transparency regarding Mr. Pruitt's connections to the oil and gas industry raises serious questions about what influence these conflicts will have on his ability to enforce regulations that protect everyday Americans from pollution generated by fossil fuel use.

The EPA Administrator must be someone who will uphold and enforce Federal environmental laws impartially and honorably, with Americans' health in mind.

One issue in particular that comes to mind is one I have worked on for decades across multiple Federal agencies--lead poisoning prevention. I have long advocated for better Federal policies and more funding to protect children from lead hazards. While the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do much of this work, the EPA plays an important role as well.

I think we saw that very clearly over the last year with the situation in Flint, MI.

I was deeply concerned that when asked about lead poisoning among children during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt told the committee that he, in his own words, ``really wasn't familiar with the basic science surrounding

the health effects of lead poisoning.'' For the sake of his education on this issue--and to make all my colleagues who might not be aware of the impact--lead poisoning in children can cause serious and irreversible developmental and health problems.

We need an EPA Administrator who is familiar with and committed to protecting the health of our children from these and other kinds of environmental health hazards. Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr. Pruitt is qualified to do so.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt also displayed a lack of understanding of the role human activity plays in climate change, as well as a disregard for the scientists who have spent their lives studying and carefully observing our Earth's changing climate.

Our next EPA Administrator should understand the threat of climate change and base the Agency's policies on scientific data and findings without ideological influence. Many people across the Nation were distressed and deeply concerned by the removal of climate change reports from the EPA's website shortly after President Trump took office. I share that concern, and I am disturbed that the EPA has recently put a hold on issuing new grants and instituted a gag order on all communications.

This is alarming. The halting of Federal funds means that our investments in our water infrastructure, remediation of our watersheds, and support for numerous others environmental initiatives so vital to our local communities and States will be affected, and this will seriously harm environmental protection efforts. In Rhode Island, these cuts could have devastating effects, such as hindering the State's ability to provide clean air and clean drinking water for all residents.

We need an EPA Administrator who is committed to safeguarding clean water and clean air and who is experienced in environmental protection. This role demands someone who is prepared to preserve and defend our environment from harm, who can make decisions based on scientific evidence, and whose financial ties will not impact his decisions when it comes to protecting the American public from pollution.

Scott Pruitt is not the EPA Administrator we need. The nature of the lawsuits he filed attempting to dismantle EPA regulations that protect clean air and water--the very regulations he would be charged with enforcing--demonstrates that he is not committed to defending our natural resources, our health, and our well-being. Mr. Pruitt, in my estimate, is unsuited and unqualified for this critical leadership position.

For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. President, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the remainder of my time on this nomination to my colleague, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to rescind my previous request and reclaim my time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Based on his appearance before the Senate Budget and Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committees, he appears to be a smart and articulate individual, but after examining his record and his testimony, I believe he lacks the fundamental judgment to serve in this important role.

Mr. Mulvaney's tenure as a Member of Congress has been marked by symbolic stands and stunts that have been most successful in generating bipartisan opposition rather than support. Until now, it has mattered little whether his proposals have been motivated by firmly held principles or other motives. We have just been fortunate that few of Mr. Mulvaney's ideas have been made into law. However, with an appointment to a position of real authority at OMB, Mr. Mulvaney will have great power to put his ideas into practice. For that reason, it is worth reflecting on the positions he has taken.

At times of national fiscal and economic turmoil, Congressman Mulvaney could consistently be found among those stoking the flames of pandemonium in order to advance a partisan or ideological point. Indeed, he was among those Republican Members of Congress who cheered efforts to force the country to default on our financial obligations in 2011, dismissing the domestic and global alarm over Republican brinkmanship as ``fear mongering'' and as promoting a ``fabricated crisis.''

In 2013, he voted to support the Republican shutdown of the Federal Government, which ultimately cost American taxpayers $2 billion in back wages for Federal workers who were locked out of their jobs. In addition to this and other fiscal waste, the 16-day shutdown hurt the economy. Moody's estimated that it ``cut real GDP by $20 billion, shaving half a percentage point off growth in the fourth quarter [of 2013].''

In 2015, Mr. Mulvaney was part of another Republican shutdown effort. This time it was to shutter the Department of Homeland Security to protest President Obama's immigration policy. Thankfully, House Republicans relented before the shutdown took effect. Otherwise, the closure would have caused about 30,000 furloughs and about 200,000 other people, including Coast Guard personnel, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol and Customs officers, to report to work, most of them without the promise of a paycheck.

When Americans have suffered natural disasters, Mr. Mulvaney has shown himself among those who are the least sympathetic about providing Federal assistance, insisting, for example, that emergency aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy should be offset. He has at least been consistent in this regard, since he voted against similar aid to his home State of South Carolina. Of course, his opposition in that instance was mainly symbolic because it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass. But this should give every American pause. Mr. Mulvaney's record of supporting brinkmanship and his responses to written questions show that his first instinct will be to use any one- time emergency as an opportunity to force lasting budgetary cuts.

I am also concerned about Mr. Mulvaney's intentions with regard to the elimination of the sequester-level budget caps. In 2013, with sequester cuts on the horizon, Mr. Mulvaney ruled out revenue increases or scaling back the sequester. He said: ``We want to keep the sequester in place and take the cuts we can get.''

As the nominee to OMB director, Mr. Mulvaney now believes, like President Trump, that the sequester caps should be lifted for defense, but he has made no allowance for nondefense discretionary programs and agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Mulvaney has thus far failed to grasp that there is simply no way to secure support for sequester relief without addressing both the defense and nondefense sides of the ledger. Moreover, he has not recognized that it is repugnant to many to suggest that one side of the budget can be cannibalized to fund the other side. The best way to fund sequester relief is through the proven combination of additional revenue and reasonable cuts. It has worked before, and we should look to that solution again.

We should also reject efforts to use Overseas Contingency Operations accounts, or OCO funding, to fill the gap when it comes to defense spending. It is not a legitimate tool to fix the sequester. Despite my many disagreements with Mr. Mulvaney, this is one point where we do appear to see roughly eye to eye in terms of using the OCO for those overseas contingencies they were designed to fund.

Where we disagree most vehemently is on the matter of core programs that help Americans lift themselves up so they can participate fully in our economy and society. Although he has recently changed his position, Mr. Mulvaney, as a State legislator, voted for legislation that questioned the constitutionality of Medicaid and Social Security, and today he still questions the constitutionality of Federal involvement in education. This is more than a philosophical stand. His position will color how the administration invests in schools and students over the next 4 years. I am especially disturbed that Mr. Mulvaney is not even willing to commit to protecting funding for the Pell Grant Program and to reducing college debt, a burden faced by students and their families all across this country.

I have also been disturbed by Mr. Mulvaney's cavalier position about benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare, by such measures as increasing the retirement age. Let's be clear. When you force a person to wait 2 or 3 more years to begin collecting the full benefits they have earned, it is a cut. If poor health or lack of job prospects forces a person to begin collecting benefits before reaching the normal retirement age, he or she will see a significant reduction in monthly benefits.

These cuts fall heaviest on the most vulnerable--low-income workers and workers in the most physically demanding jobs, those who simply cannot continue to work for another few years. We can make changes to sustain these programs without the deep cuts to benefits that Mr. Mulvaney would promote.

In this one area, I would hope the President could prevail over his staff. Many times during the campaign, President Trump promised to protect Social Security and Medicare. In fact, last March he said: ``It's my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as it is.''

It remains to be seen how sincere the President is on this issue. Last month, he was effectively rebuffed by 49 Republicans who voted successfully to kill Senator Sanders' amendment to create a point of order that would prevent the Senate from breaking President Trump's promise that ``there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.''

Unfortunately, the President said nothing about this vote, which should lead all Americans to ask how committed he is to his promise. His choice of Mr. Mulvaney also leaves me concerned that he is not sincere about this

promise, since Mr. Mulvaney seems clearly intent on making cuts to these vital programs.

Mr. Mulvaney has also proven himself unsympathetic to the challenges facing working men and women in this country. He has sponsored legislation to bar the Federal Government from requiring project labor agreements. He has voted to repeal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements, and he has cosponsored legislation to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain.

Moreover, Mr. Mulvaney failed to pay more than $15,000 in unemployment and FICA taxes for a household employee between 2000 and 2004, only making good on that obligation during his nomination process. Even if this could be characterized as an oversight, it is worth noting that Mr. Mulvaney has previously proposed legislation to bar tax delinquents from serving in elected office in South Carolina and to authorize supervisors of Federal employees to take punitive action against workers who have failed to pay taxes.

One wonders how Mr. Mulvaney would feel about the fitness of a Democratic nominee with a similar challenge.

Finally, let me say a few words about Mr. Mulvaney's laissez-faire approach to regulation, particular the oversight of Wall Street. I believe strongly that the lack of effective regulation, the lack of oversight, and the lack of appropriations for the financial regulatory agencies contributed heavily to the great recession, which is why I worked so hard to support the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, including the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Mr. Mulvaney, not surprisingly, takes a different view. As a member of the Financial Services Committee in the House, he said: ``I don't like that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exists.'' The CFPB is a consumer-focused agency that has brought nearly $12 billion in refunds and restitution to consumers for Wall Street's abuses. This includes more than $120 million that have been returned to our military families through the efforts of the Bureau's Office of Servicemember Affairs, which I worked with Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts to establish.

Because of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, working Americans have an advocate in the consumer finance marketplace that is laser-focused on protecting them. Mr. Mulvaney would prefer to transform this agency into a paper tiger that is subject to partisan political pressure and influence from the various industries it is attempting to police. We should not allow him the chance to do that from a perch at OMB.

The country has been fortunate that House Republican leadership, with good reason, in my view, did not reward Mr. Mulvaney with a position of authority from which he could exercise real control. Unfortunately, the promotion that President Trump has offered would give him great power-- power that will ultimately, I believe, be destructive in his hands. As a result, I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury.

No Cabinet official can have such a profound impact on our economy, on family budgets, on taxes, and on consumer protection as the Secretary of the Treasury. It is a job of immense reach that requires a steady hand, a commitment to fairness, and a deep

knowledge of our Nation's financial markets and the rules that protect the savings and investments of middle-class Americans. In light of this reality, I do not think Mr. Mnuchin meets these requirements.

I know that for many of my fellow Rhode Islanders and for many Americans, the economy is not producing the jobs and wages they want and they need. I share that sentiment and have pushed for job and wage policies like the minimum wage, paid leave, and health care that help struggling families cope. I have pushed for job creation by putting people to work by rebuilding our Nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, schools, and new housing. But I think it is important that everyone in this Chamber take a step back and understand where our economy was, where it is today, and what is at stake.

In 2007, the housing market began to collapse. One measure of the housing market is the seriously delinquent rate, which is the percentage of loans that are 90 days or more past due or in the process of foreclosure. Here are just a few examples of the hardest hit States: 13.2 percent in Arizona in December 2009, 9.63 percent in Ohio in December 2009, and 20.61 percent in Florida in March 2010.

By the end of President Obama's term in office, here are the seriously delinquent rates for those same States: 1.35 percent in Arizona in September of 2016, 3.59 percent in Ohio in September of 2016, and 4.14 percent in Florida in September of 2016. Just to remind on this, Florida went from a seriously delinquent rate of over 20 percent in 2010 to just over 4 percent in 2016 because of the policy, the programs that were initiated by the President and supported by this Congress.

In 2007, the unemployment rate began to skyrocket. Again, here is what that meant in a few States at their highest unemployment rates: 11.2 percent in Arizona in November of 2009, 13.6 percent in Nevada in December 2010, 11 percent in Ohio in January 2010, 11.2 percent in Florida in January 2010, and in my home State, double digit unemployment rates also.

By the end of President Obama's term in office, here are the preliminary rates for those states as of December 2016: 4.8 percent in Arizona, 5.1 percent in Nevada, 4.9 percent in Ohio, and 4.9 percent in Florida. We have seen improvement across the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to take all of this into account when they consider Mr. Mnuchin.

These are sobering numbers, and behind each of these numbers is an individual or a family, our constituents, who suffered real and serious harm. We owe it to our constituents to do something so that these generational losses will be prevented from happening again. We came out of a deep abyss through difficult work, through cooperative efforts; we have reached a point where we are poised, I hope, to continue to move forward, and we don't want to go back. That was at the heart of our work on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It was to learn the lessons from this catastrophe so that we would never endure another in our history.

Unfortunately, for some of my constituents in Rhode Island and others around the country, the aftershocks of that financial crisis have not fully dissipated. We are still living in some respects with what happened. There are still too many looking for a decent-paying job or facing gut-wrenching financial decisions like whether to turn the heat off or to skip feeding the family another day, just to make ends meet.

Indeed, one of my constituents recently wrote:

My wife and I lost nearly half our assets in the 2008

financial crisis. Over eight years later, and our house is

still worth less than the mortgage that remains on it. We are

both professionals, and will have to stay that way until we

are 75 in order to come close to the standard of living we

enjoy now during retirement. The financial reforms enacted

under Dodd Frank, and Obama's regulation that requires

financial advisers and brokers to act in their client's best

interests, are critical to my family's well-being and to the

health of the US economy. I would like to know how you plan

to defeat any attempts to unravel these rules. Given the

clear threat that Trump poses to our economy, and the losses

I have already suffered due to bankers' greed and

incompetence, without these rules I feel better off putting

my money in my basement and will do exactly that. At least we

won't lose half of what we own.

Those are the words of a professional family in Rhode Island who have seen this struggle firsthand, and they ask this question: What are you going to do to protect the reforms and the advances we have made that have been manifested in the economic statistics that I shared with my colleagues?

As you can see, for this Rhode Islander and for many others, the law we put in place to stanch the bleeding and stabilize the financial system is a critical help.

But some have so demonized Dodd-Frank that they would have you believe otherwise. That may be why its opponents prefer calling it Dodd-Frank instead of its full name, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, because it is about reforming Wall Street and protecting consumers. It is a lot easier to be against something called Dodd-Frank than it is to be against Wall Street reform and consumer protection. But as my colleagues just heard in my constituent's own words, Dodd-Frank is ``critical to my family's well- being and to the health of the US economy.''

The question I have to answer as my constituent's Senator is whether Mr. Mnuchin will support Dodd-Frank, push efforts to further reform Wall Street, and place as his highest priority the protection of consumers as our next Treasury Secretary.

Based on a review of Mr. Mnuchin's record, the answer, to me, is very clear: No, he will not.

As chairman of OneWest Bank, Mr. Mnuchin made a fortune employing questionable foreclosure practices that made the financial crisis worse for families and seniors. What is particularly worrisome is that OneWest engaged in so-called robo-signing, where companies cut crucial corners by not properly reviewing or even bothering to read foreclosure documents.

Indeed, according to one news report:

Erica Johnson-Seck, vice president of OneWest's department

of bankruptcy and foreclosures . . . robo-signed an average

of 750 foreclosure documents a week, according to a sworn

deposition she gave in a Florida case in July 2009 . . .

Under oath, Johnson-Seck acknowledged that she did not read

the documents she was signing, taking only about 30 seconds

to sign her name. To speed up the process, Johnson-Seck said

she shortened her first name on her signature to just an

``E.'' She said in the deposition that OneWest's practice was

to review just 10 percent of the foreclosure documents for

accuracy.

As part of the confirmation process, when asked whether his company engaged in robo-signing, Mr. Mnuchin responded that OneWest did not robo-sign documents. However, it is not clear that this was the case, and not just because of Ms. Johnson-Seck's deposition. Quoting from a Bloomberg article written by one of Rhode Island's finest exports, Joe Nocera, who writes: ``But here's the clincher: In 2011, the man who now says his bank never robo-signed documents signed a consent order with the Office of Thrift Supervision, which had accused it of--you guessed it--robo-signing.''

Disturbingly, Mr. Mnuchin's response on this issue either raises troubling questions about his management capabilities or his willingness to be forthright, or potentially both.

Ironically, Mr. Mnuchin's confirmation process mirrors his career in at least one way. While the Senate Finance Committee normally requires at least one Democratic Senator to be present in order to vote in committee on a nominee, the normal rules were suspended so that Mr. Mnuchin could be reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate. In other words, the rules were not followed, special shortcuts were created for him, and much like the robo-signing that occurred at OneWest, Mr. Mnuchin is on the path to robo-confirmation without a full and proper vetting by the United States Senate.

The last thing this body should be doing is robo-stamping Mr. Mnuchin's nomination so that he, as Treasury Secretary, can change the rules and rig the system in favor of the insiders at the expense of working-class Americans who are working overtime just to, in many cases, make ends barely meet.

For example, Mr. Mnuchin has stated that his first priority would be enactment of the Trump tax plan. This plan makes deep, unfunded cuts to revenue, and roughly half of the reduced tax burden is just for the top 1 percent, the wealthy, who don't have to worry

about how much a gallon of milk costs, what it costs to ride the bus or fill the gas tank. We have seen what huge tax cuts for the wealthy will do to the economy. Just look at the economy in the late 2000s and the deficit. The economic plan endorsed by President Trump and Mr. Mnuchin will not help the middle class, but will only further skew the economy in favor of the wealthy and well-connected and do precious little for job growth.

In addition, the incoming Treasury Secretary will be tasked with rolling back the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in support of a President who said:

We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because,

frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that have

nice businesses, and they can't borrow money. . . . They just

can't get any money because the banks just won't let them

borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.

Indeed, Mr. Mnuchin seems all too eager to assist because he himself has said that ``we want to strip back parts of Dodd-Frank that prevent banks from lending.''

We are simply not seeing this, though. According to JPMorgan's chief financial officer, Marianne Lake, on an analyst conference call last month, ``loan growth remains robust.''

According to Bloomberg:

At JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, core loans increased 10

percent to $806.2 billion last year, with gains in every

category, including credit cards and wholesale debt. Bank of

America Corp.'s total loans climbed 1.1 percent to $906.8

billion, while Wells Fargo & Co.'s grew 5.6 percent to $968

billion.

According to the same article, ``banks now have a record $9.1 trillion of loans outstanding.''

Based on this, it seems that big bank lending is actually doing well, and maybe the reason the President's friends have not gotten loans is that they borrowed too much and possibly have gone bankrupt too much, and the megabanks want to be careful about whom they lend to.

Indeed, Anat Admati, a finance professor at Stanford University and a member of the FDIC's Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee, notes that:

The claim that regulations are prohibiting lending is

simply false. . . . The banks have plenty of money and can

raise more from investors like other businesses if they have

worthy loans to make. If they don't lend, it's because they

choose not to lend and instead do many other things.

This is a key point. According to Bloomberg:

Banks don't actually ``hold'' capital. In banking, capital

refers to the funding they receive from shareholders. Every

penny of it can be loaned out. A 5 percent minimum capital

requirement means that 5 percent of the bank's liabilities

has to be equity, while the rest can be deposits or other

borrowing. The more equity a bank has, the smaller its risk

of failing when losses pile up.

Given the protection that equity provides, you are left to wonder why Mr. Mnuchin and President Trump are so anti-capital.

Indeed, from that same Bloomberg article:

Former Goldman Sachs partner Phillip D. Murphy, who was a

member of the banks' management committee with [National

Economic Council Director Gary] Cohn and Treasury Secretary

nominee Steven Mnuchin, said he's mystified with the changes

they're pushing. ``To think that undoing those regulations is

going to lead to a better result is folly,'' said Murphy,

who's seeking the Democratic nomination in this year's

gubernatorial race. ``The fox is in the hen house, that's

what this is. This is people on Wall Street who should know

better.''

For an administration that campaigned on a claim of dismantling a rigged system, I am confused why President Trump nominated Mr. Mnuchin to be his economic quarterback for working-class America. Mr. Mnuchin has spent his professional life spotting value, and he has done quite well for himself. But despite this ability to value assets, Mr. Mnuchin still seems puzzled about how to value the assets that matter most to working class Americans. My constituents don't need fancy Wall Street calculators or formulas to understand that there is a value and a benefit to reforming Wall Street and keeping reckless greed in check. There is a value and a benefit to protecting consumers and their hard- earned wages. And there is a value and a benefit to keeping a family in their home and avoiding foreclosure.

Indeed, an individual who made his fortune aggressively foreclosing on his fellow Americans does not possess the right values, in my view, to be our Treasury Secretary.

Based on his record, I am not convinced Mr. Mnuchin is capable of draining the swamp, and I fear he may end up further rigging the system in favor of the 1 percent at the expense of working class Americans. For all of these reasons, I do not support Mr. Mnuchin's nomination, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the remainder of my time to Senator Wyden of Oregon.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel McCartney, a fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for this session of Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President Trump's nomination of Congressman Tom Price for the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department he has been picked to lead is charged with protecting the health of all Americans, from safeguarding Medicare and nursing home care for seniors to investing in medical research and supporting public health programs, such as lead poisoning prevention and youth suicide prevention.

Unfortunately, Congressman Price has demonstrated over the last decade in Congress that he is unwilling or unfit or both to protect these critical health programs. In his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Price has offered plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and turn Medicare into a privatized voucher program. This is the opposite of protecting the safety net programs for our most vulnerable citizens.

Time and again, Congressman Price has proved that he favors corporate interests over patients, which has raised ethics concerns. For these reasons, I will oppose his nomination.

First, I would like to talk about the Affordable Care Act. About a month ago, I was here talking to my colleagues on the floor about the impact of the ACA in my home State of Rhode Island and the consequences of repeal. In short, repeal of the ACA would be catastrophic in Rhode Island and across the country. Yet Congressman Price has led the efforts in the House of Representatives to repeal the ACA without any replacement. In fact, he is the architect of legislation to do just that.

The uninsured rate today is at its lowest point in recent history. That holds true in my State of Rhode Island. The uninsured rate there has fallen from nearly 12 percent to under 4.5 percent. That translates to over 100,000 Rhode Islanders who have gained coverage because of the