Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the nomination of Betsy DeVos has triggered an outcry of deep public opposition. It has also inspired an outpouring of popular support for public schools.

Public education is what has made America great. It is at the heart of the American dream. Our schools are much more than just a collection of classrooms. They are expressions of our communities and our values.

This is a lesson I learned from my parents. My father was the school custodian in a public school. He took tremendous pride in ensuring that the school was clean, in good repair, safe, and welcoming to the students. He was part of the public school team entrusted with our community's children. He, along with the teachers, principals, and every staff member at the school were deeply committed to public education. We saw that commitment each and every day. He spoke of that commitment when he came home in the evening. The teachers would do much more than what was asked of them to ensure that students got the best opportunities and best education. Everyone in our school was pulling for our children. That is the way it should be, and that is the way it must be. This was free public education, the hallmark of America, and perhaps one of the most important contributions that we have made to progress, prosperity, and economic growth, not only here in the United States but around the globe. That is what we are talking about today-- the future of public education.

It is that kind of commitment to public education, going in early, working hard--I can remember of course in the wintertime, when the storms would rage through Rhode Island, it was not uncommon for my father and his colleagues to be out there on a Sunday afternoon, if the storm was bad enough, shoveling all night long so that Monday morning the school was open for the children, the teachers could get there, and the food could be prepared. That is the type of commitment that has been evidenced throughout our history when it comes to public education. That investment of effort but also of trying to understand and trying to improve public education has been at the heart of what we have all done.

Indeed, I believe it is that kind of commitment to public education that has caused millions of Americans to speak up about the nomination of Betsy DeVos. Teachers, parents, and community members have been calling across the country, writing, emailing, urging the Senate to reject her nomination. I have received over 12,500 calls and messages from Rhode Islanders, an unprecedented negative response to a Presidential nominee.

We are the smallest State in the Union. We have a population of just over 1 million people, and we understand that even for the most challenging and publicized issues, we rarely get this type of response. It is because this nomination touches a nerve. It touches a nerve with people who are products of public schools because they honor the success of public schools, but it also touches the nerves of people who may not have attended public schools because they recognize the value, the necessity, the need for good public education. Without it, we can't move forward as a nation; without it there is no alternative except typically very expensive private arrangements to educate our children.

Once again, free public education has been a hallmark of this country. It might have been one of the most dominant factors in ensuring equality. Our country is based on equality--equality before the law. But without a good education, how can one be equal? How can one understand their rights and use their rights, understand their abilities and use their abilities?

Our constituents all across the country want a champion for public education at the helm of the Department of Education. They want someone committed to public schools, someone knowledgeable about the Federal role in education, and they have determined that Betsy DeVos is not that person. Having looked at her record and viewed her performance during the confirmation hearings, they are telling us that she is the wrong choice to lead the Department of Education, and we should heed their pleas. Of the thousands of Rhode Islanders who have contacted me to express their opposition to Mrs. DeVos's nomination, I would like to share the sentiments of a few who exemplify the deep concerns I am hearing.

One teacher wrote:

Mrs. DeVos is not versed on the real concerns of families

and their children, and does not know the issues and concerns

educators face in our schools. As a teacher in a public

school, I believe she is completely unqualified to lead the

Department of Education. She does not understand the

definition of proficiency and she did not know our children

were protected by Federal laws (disability act). As a parent,

I do not believe Mrs. DeVos understands the concerns middle

income families have regarding their children and their

futures. She also does not believe that guns should be kept

out of our schools. This proves how out of touch she is with

our students, their families and teachers.

I think many Americans agree with the sentiment that Mrs. DeVos is out of touch and out of step with American families. Neither she nor the President seems to have much, if any, experience with public schools, as students, parents, educators, or administrators.

Another theme that Rhode Islanders wrote about was the double standard of this nomination. One vice principal wrote:

We as administrators are required to be highly qualified in

order to run our schools through an evaluation process. We

also require this of our teachers as well. How can we support

someone in a position to lead the educational process who is

not held to these same standards?

That is a fair question that neither Mrs. DeVos nor the Trump administration has answered.

But again, it is not purely about her resume. Another theme I heard about from many Rhode Islanders is their fear of the empathy gap from this administration. Here is an example from a letter written by a public school principal:

[M]y heart is sinking. I have worked as an educator in

urban public schools for the past 19 years, as a teacher and,

now, as a principal. I was an attorney before I was a

teacher--I came to the profession as a second career, by

choice, with a passion for righting the inequities our

students face. I have worked all of my career with our most

needy populations, a group whom I believe also to be our most

brilliant, caring, loving, and amazing young people. I feel

blessed to get to work with them and their teachers every

day. I ache for the things they don't have that other schools

have, and for my powerlessness to right that wrong. Betsy

DeVos wishes to take on a role with the power to right those

wrongs. Yet, she seems unaware that such inequities exist,

and is undisturbed by them. She has never worked with young

people in schools, much less in public schools, much less in

urban schools. She has never been a teacher or an

administrator or the parent of a child in a public school.

She has never wrestled with the incredible want for

resources, the choices we have to make every day, all within

a city and state with some of the most prestigious and

wealthy schools just a few steps away.

The realities for our urban students are so vastly different from the reality that Betsy DeVos and her contemporaries live in. To hear her unable to even comprehend the need for equal access and equal opportunity for high quality childcare and post-secondary education was painful. To hear her say it would be nice for everyone to have access to a college education, but nothing in life is free--she is completely unaware of her own privilege, the privilege of her children, and the privilege of her family and extended circle, those who have billions of dollars, who were born into great wealth, and who have never had to struggle economically. That is unacceptable in someone who wishes to fill one of the most distinguished offices in our land.

Our students and teachers and schools need a champion who will work tirelessly to reverse the inequities of our educational system-- inequities that I am painfully aware of every day here in Rhode Island. It isn't right that some students have football fields, and 1:1 computers, and huge libraries, and food choices and AP classes and much more, while others have no outdoor spaces, little access to technology, and crumbling buildings. We cannot allow

that to be who we are. Our families work incredibly hard and want the very best for their children. To say, ``everything in life isn't free,'' when it has been for Mrs. DeVos's family, is hypocritical and mean. We need a champion of equity. Please vote against her confirmation.

This next letter I want to share is from the mother of a special needs child. Like many Rhode Islanders, she is distressed by the fact that Mrs. DeVos has suggested that a landmark civil rights law should be left up to the States. She writes:

I have grave concerns about the nomination of Betsy DeVos

as Secretary of Education. As a parent of a special needs

child, it would not be an understatement to say that I was

horrified at Ms. DeVos' answers to the questions about the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act during her recent

hearing. The one thing we rely on the Department of Education

to do is to vigorously enforce and uphold the landmark

civil rights law that is IDEA. Without it, our children

will fall through the cracks. It is extremely difficult to

navigate the system and make sure your child gets the

support he or she needs. My son is 20 now so I've been

doing it for a long time. I've served on both state and

local special ed advisory committees, school committee,

taken special ed training, even mentored other parents,

and I STILL don't completely understand all of the nuances

of the IDEA laws. For someone to be appointed to the

highest office in the land in charge of upholding those

laws and not be aware of them, is unacceptable. It's too

big of a learning curve. Surely there are more qualified

candidates.

Last Congress, we came together to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act. We passed the Every Student Succeeds Act on a strong bipartisan vote--85 to 12.

We moved toward giving States and school districts more flexibility in designing their accountability systems, especially regarding how they identify and intervene in schools that are struggling to serve their students as well. We strengthened transparency, including greater transparency about resource equity. We agreed to maintain key Federal protections--or, as Senator Murray calls them, ``guard rails''--to ensure that we do not return to the days when students, such as students with disabilities, English language learners, poor and minority students, routinely fell through the cracks.

For the Every Student Succeeds Act to work, States and school districts need a strong partner at the Department of Education--a partner who understands how public schools work, a partner who is committed to strengthening public schools. Mrs. DeVos is not that partner. Her life's work has been to divert taxpayer dollars to fund alternatives to public schools.

Some on the other side of the aisle have argued that private school vouchers are no different from Pell grants or GI Bill benefits. This claim is another one of those alternative facts that the new administration is so fond of.

Public elementary and secondary education is enshrined in our States' constitutions. Attendance is compulsory. Public schools do not charge tuition, and they must accept all students.

Pell grants and GI Bill benefits support postsecondary education, which is voluntary. Schools do not have to accept all students, nor are students required to attend. Individuals must pay to go to college.

We do not want a system of elementary and secondary education where students and families must pay and schools can choose which students they serve. That is not the universal system of public education that has made our Nation great.

Our constituents understand that, which is why we have seen the public outcry against this nomination. And with this public outcry, they reaffirm our commitment to public education, recognizing that it has been the force that has pulled this country forward over generations; indeed, generation after generation. With that understanding, we have just, in fact, on a bipartisan basis, provided more flexibility and more discretion to the Department of Education. We need a Secretary who will take that discretion and flexibility in the spirit of public education with a fundamental and primary commitment to American public education, with a desire to see American public education succeed, not fail. We need that type of Secretary. Unfortunately, Mrs. DeVos is not that type of Secretary.

So I urge my colleagues to heed the call of all of our constituents in an unprecedented outpouring of messages and phone calls and text messages and rallies, and join me in voting no against this nomination.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, after a great deal of careful thought and consideration, I have decided to oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

I have long served with Senator Sessions. While he and I have frequently disagreed on certain legal and civil rights issues, I have never doubted the sincerity or heartfelt nature of his positions. I am deeply concerned, however, that he cannot be the effective check on the Executive Branch that our nation currently needs.

In just the short time since President Donald Trump took office, our Nation has faced upheaval and challenges to the way our government typically runs. The President's unprecedented refusal to divest himself of his business holdings while in office has created legal and constitutional conflicts that are unique in our Nation's history. His use of social media to antagonize American businesses has already caused needless volatility in our economy, which is the cornerstone of global financial stability. Most recently, he has unilaterally enacted a ban on travel to the United States from several Muslim-majority countries--creating chaos in airports, separating families, and tarnishing our Nation's image around the world. It is of great concern to me that Senator Sessions has already stated his unwillingness, if confirmed, to recuse himself from investigations into potentially unlawful activities of the Trump campaign and Trump administration.

Moreover, Senator Sessions and I disagree on how the law should treat immigrants, refugees, the LGBTQ community, women, and racial minorities, among others. These disagreements go to the heart of the Justice Department's law enforcement and civil rights functions. For instance, in 2013, Senator Sessions voted against a bipartisan effort to reform our Nation's immigration laws. This effort garnered overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle and would have done much to address the immigration problems facing us today. He also voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides much-needed support to and protections for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities--and is overseen by the Justice Department that he hopes to administer. Additionally, his statements and votes in opposition to reaffirming the prohibition on torture run counter to our values and basic precepts of international law. And he has voted against every recent effort in this Chamber to establish the most basic, commonsense laws that would keep our communities safe from the threat of gun violence. He also has called into question the Voting Rights Act and praised the Supreme Court's harmful decision striking down a key section of this law.

These are just some of the clear disagreements I have with the positions Senator Sessions has taken over the years, which cause me to doubt his ability to effectively lead the Justice Department. Our next Attorney General should be a champion for all Americans' civil rights and civil liberties. The occupant of that office should give Americans confidence in our judiciary, our elections, and the impartial due process that is the hallmark of the rule of law. Therefore, I cannot support Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General of the United States.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be the Secretary of Education. This is not a position I take lightly. I have never opposed the confirmation of a nominee for Secretary of Education. I also have never seen the intensity of opposition to a nominee for this position as we have witnessed with Mrs. DeVos.

Thousands of Rhode Islanders--educators, parents, community leaders-- have written or called to express their dismay that a person with Mrs. DeVos's record and background would be chosen to lead the Department of Education. What I have seen and heard about Mrs. DeVos leads me to agree with my constituents--she is uniquely unsuited and unqualified for this critical position.

The U.S. Secretary of Education oversees the Federal Government's role in ensuring educational equity in our public schools regardless of family income, race, ethnicity, language, or disability. Mrs. DeVos's work has been in the opposite direction. She has dedicated her time, political capital, and personal fortune to creating private sector alternatives to public education.

She has also fought to shield those alternatives from the same standards and accountability that apply to public schools. For example, she spent a reported $1.45 million to reward or punish Michigan legislators as part of her effort to kill an accountability plan that would have included charter schools. This hostility to public schools and affinity for using public dollars to fund private schools or for- profit education companies makes her, in my estimation, a poor choice to lead the U.S. Department of Education.

Mrs. DeVos's crusade for vouchers raises another fundamental question about whether she respects the separation between church and state. This is a founding principle of our Nation. However, in the past, she has talked about her education reform efforts in religious terms as advancing God's Kingdom and reversing what she feels is a trend of public schools displacing church in community life. In an administration that has signaled a willingness to discriminate based on religion,

these views are cause for real concern and they have no place at the U.S. Department of Education.

Mrs. DeVos's crusade for school choice in Michigan has been a failure for students. Since 2000, student achievement in that State has fallen. In 2000, Michigan students scored above the national average on the National Assessment of Education Progress in fourth grade reading and math. By 2015, they were below average.

As a single-issue educational reformer, Mrs. DeVos does not have the breadth of knowledge necessary to oversee our national education policy from preschool through adult education and postsecondary education. Her policy solution for education is choice. As they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. This one-size-fits-all approach is a real danger given the diversity of our students, our institutions, our communities, and the different educational challenges across the lifespan of individual Americans.

I know many parents and students and employers are worried about our schools. I share that worry, and we need to do more, but Mrs. DeVos's plan to eliminate those neighborhood schools rather than do the hard work of repairing, renovating, and providing the supports that enable all schools to be ready to learn at school is cause for alarm.

During her hearing, Mrs. DeVos displayed little understanding of the Federal student aid programs that provide approximately $150 billion in assistance to students struggling to pay for college. So not only does she have a single-minded focus on private charter elementary schools, she has very little grasp--from her hearing testimony--on the challenges for postsecondary education in the United States.

She also appeared confused about questions regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--the landmark law enacted in 1975, and updated many times since, that protects the rights of children with disabilities to a free and appropriate education. At first, she suggested that States should be allowed to decide whether or how to enforce the law, and that, in my view, is a disqualifying answer. This has been a Federal initiative that has proved successful.

Indeed, many of us can recall when students with special needs were ignored--totally ignored--until the IDEA, and now they have been incorporated into our public school systems and into our educational system, which has benefited these students, their families, and our country.

I also share my colleagues' concerns about Mrs. DeVos's finances and her ability to carry out her duties as Secretary free from conflict of interest. Her ethics disclosures show investments and relationships across a range of education interests from for-profit early childhood education companies to for-profit education management entities, advocacy organizations, education software, campus services, private student loans, and student loan debt collectors. She has not fully disclosed her assets to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and has declined to provide information on the holdings in two family trusts that she will retain if she is confirmed. This lack of transparency raises real questions about whose interests will be served under her administration at the Department of Education.

Education is really the launching pad for the American dream. It is the engine that drives this country forward. The Secretary of Education must be a champion for public education.

As we have seen from the Office of Civil Rights data collection, we have significant gaps in opportunities and resources in schools across this country. Our Secretary of Education must be dedicated to helping States and school districts close those gaps. These children cannot afford to have resources drained from their public schools for vouchers that will do little to improve the quality of education in their communities.

And as many of my colleagues in rural States have indicated, there is just, in many places geographically, the inability to substitute a public school with a vouchered charter or private school. If we break faith with these public schools, we will leave thousands of Americans, particularly in rural communities, without any real choice.

The Secretary of Education should be working toward helping our teachers, principals, school leaders, and parents ensure that we are reaching all students and helping them succeed. All students include students with disabilities and English language learners. All students, together, learning from one another and not in separate and, indeed, perhaps inherently unequal environments. Our goal should be equal opportunity. And if we pursue that goal, we will see the progress and success of America continue.

We need a Secretary of Education who is prepared on day one to lead our Federal student aid system that includes a student loan portfolio of over $1 trillion with more than 40 million borrowers. This is another aspect of the responsibilities in postsecondary education that, in her testimony and in her presentation, Mrs. DeVos appeared to be ill-informed about. Our Secretary of Education must be at the forefront of expanding college access, improving affordability, and ensuring that students' educational and financial interests are protected.

We need a Secretary of Education who is prepared to address the needs of adult learners, especially those who have been left behind in a changing economy. Mrs. DeVos has provided no insight as to how she will lead the Department of Education's efforts to support adult learners.

In fact, one of the realities of this economy is that learning today is lifelong, lifetime learning. We have left the period in which a high school diploma would be adequate for a person to get a good job, move up through the ranks in a company, retire comfortably, and provide for the next generation. Now, the intensity of education and the duration of education has to be for a lifetime. And, once again, that knowledge, that expertise, was not demonstrated in her testimony.

Sadly, I do not believe that Mrs. DeVos is the Education Secretary that we need. She has dedicated her time and wealth to promoting alternatives to public education, which I believe is the bedrock of our democracy. I think one of the most significant reasons this country grew and expanded was that going back to our earliest days, we, more than any other Nation in the world, pioneered free public education, accessible to all, and that engine drove this country forward. To ignore that, to abandon public education, would be a tremendous setback to not only our economy but to the fabric of our society.

Her focus on vouchers and for-profit education calls into question-- very dramatically--her commitment to public schools. It does not seem to be her major priority, and I would argue that has to be a major priority of the Secretary of Education, along with the Federal role of ensuring that the rights of all students are protected, regardless of where they live. This can't be a Department of Education that is focused on certain ZIP Codes and ignores other ZIP Codes.

Furthermore, nothing in her background and in her testimony before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee inspires confidence that she has the experience or vision necessary to oversee public education policy, including higher education and adult education.

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

As I indicated in my opening remarks, having served under both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, this is the first time I have ever felt that I could not support a nominee for the Department of Education.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Capito, Van Hollen, and Isakson in the introduction of the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act of 2017. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to get us closer to the goal of hopefully one day curing cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults. Representatives McCaul, Speier, Kelly, and Butterfield are introducing the companion legislation in the other body.

I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just nine years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain.

With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced bipartisan legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

This was an important step. Yet, more work remains. The STAR Act seeks to advance pediatric cancer research and child-focused cancer treatments, while also improving childhood cancer surveillance and providing resources for survivors and those impacted by childhood cancer.

If a treatment is working, doctors elsewhere should know immediately. The same should happen if a treatment isn't working, or if other major medical events occur during the course of a particular treatment. It is critical that doctors, nurses, and other providers are able to effectively communicate information about the disease, the treatment process, and what other health and development impacts children can expect to experience with a particular course of treatment.

As such, the STAR Act would reauthorize the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, creating a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study and would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases.

This legislation also includes provisions dealing with issues that arise for survivors of childhood cancer. Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors are likely to experience at least one late effect of treatment; as many as one-fourth experience a late effect that is serious or life- threatening, including second cancers and organ damage.

We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore improved models of care for childhood cancer survivors.

Lastly, this bill would ensure more pediatric expertise at the National Institutes of Health to better leverage the research investment to improve pediatric cancer research by requiring the inclusion of at least one pediatric oncologist on the National Cancer Advisory Board and improving childhood health reporting requirements to include pediatric cancer.

Last year, Senator Capito and I were able to get a provision of this bill included in the 21st Century CURES Act, which was signed into law at the end of the year. That provision will provide some clarity for patients and their physicians attempting to access new drugs and therapies from pharmaceutical companies. When a patient has run out of other options, the last thing they and their families need is to spend months being given the run-around trying to access a potential treatment.

I am hopeful that we can build on this momentum. Indeed, it was heartening to see the House of Representatives pass the Childhood Cancer STAR Act as one of its last acts of the 114th Congress by a unanimous vote. While, the Senate was unable to follow suit as time ran out at the end of the year, HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have committed to working with Senator Capito and me to move the legislation this year.

The Childhood Cancer STAR Act has the support of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, St. Baldrick's Foundation, and Children's Oncology Group, among others. I look forward to our continued work with these stakeholders to build support for the bill and with the HELP Committee to see this bill advance through the legislative process.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Capito, Van Hollen, and Isakson in the introduction of the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act of 2017. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to get us closer to the goal of hopefully one day curing cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults. Representatives McCaul, Speier, Kelly, and Butterfield are introducing the companion legislation in the other body.

I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just nine years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain.

With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced bipartisan legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

This was an important step. Yet, more work remains. The STAR Act seeks to advance pediatric cancer research and child-focused cancer treatments, while also improving childhood cancer surveillance and providing resources for survivors and those impacted by childhood cancer.

If a treatment is working, doctors elsewhere should know immediately. The same should happen if a treatment isn't working, or if other major medical events occur during the course of a particular treatment. It is critical that doctors, nurses, and other providers are able to effectively communicate information about the disease, the treatment process, and what other health and development impacts children can expect to experience with a particular course of treatment.

As such, the STAR Act would reauthorize the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, creating a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study and would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases.

This legislation also includes provisions dealing with issues that arise for survivors of childhood cancer. Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors are likely to experience at least one late effect of treatment; as many as one-fourth experience a late effect that is serious or life- threatening, including second cancers and organ damage.

We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore improved models of care for childhood cancer survivors.

Lastly, this bill would ensure more pediatric expertise at the National Institutes of Health to better leverage the research investment to improve pediatric cancer research by requiring the inclusion of at least one pediatric oncologist on the National Cancer Advisory Board and improving childhood health reporting requirements to include pediatric cancer.

Last year, Senator Capito and I were able to get a provision of this bill included in the 21st Century CURES Act, which was signed into law at the end of the year. That provision will provide some clarity for patients and their physicians attempting to access new drugs and therapies from pharmaceutical companies. When a patient has run out of other options, the last thing they and their families need is to spend months being given the run-around trying to access a potential treatment.

I am hopeful that we can build on this momentum. Indeed, it was heartening to see the House of Representatives pass the Childhood Cancer STAR Act as one of its last acts of the 114th Congress by a unanimous vote. While, the Senate was unable to follow suit as time ran out at the end of the year, HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have committed to working with Senator Capito and me to move the legislation this year.

The Childhood Cancer STAR Act has the support of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, St. Baldrick's Foundation, and Children's Oncology Group, among others. I look forward to our continued work with these stakeholders to build support for the bill and with the HELP Committee to see this bill advance through the legislative process.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss why I intend to oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State. This is not a decision that I make lightly. I have no doubt that Mr. Tillerson has been a successful businessman, managing one of America's largest corporations at ExxonMobil. Many have attested to his being a man of character who has given back to his community and, particularly, through his work with the Boy Scouts of America.

I have no reason to doubt that he does have the character and decency that we would applaud in any person. However, when the United States faces some of the most complex global challenges in a generation, this is not the time to appoint as our Nation's top diplomat someone who has no demonstrated experience articulating and advocating for America's interests, values, and commitment to our allies and partners.

As the events of this past week make clear, we need a Secretary of State who will speak up and candidly tell the truth to the President when he acts contrary to who we are as a nation and harms our relations with our partners and our standing in the world. Without an effective voice at the State Department for America's best interests, both within the executive branch and outside our borders, we will continue to see this administration, I fear, take steps that undermine cooperation with our closest allies and neighbors, violate our values, and ultimately make our troops and citizens less safe. I am concerned that Mr. Tillerson will not be such a voice for the American people.

Throughout the confirmation process, Mr. Tillerson has repeatedly demonstrated either his lack of preparation or his unwillingness, perhaps, to specifically declare himself on key issues. In particular, I am concerned about his views on Russia, climate change, and immigration, and how he will influence a White House that already seems determined to pursue campaign promises regardless of the impact on American foreign policy.

On Russia, Mr. Tillerson has demonstrated a familiarity with Putin and the Russian Government that is deeply concerning. Mr. Tillerson has spent his professional life advancing the interests of ExxonMobil-- indeed, almost to the exclusivity of any other purpose. That is of concern, and should be of concern to all of us.

Even as the United States was reevaluating its relationship with Russia in recent years, Mr. Tillerson has deepened his personal relationship with Putin, to the point that the Russian President awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship in 2013, supposedly a very high honor for a non-Russian. It appears that Mr. Tillerson opposed U.S. sanctions against Russia after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 because his multinational corporation stood to lose very lucrative oil contracts if sanctions were put in place.

International sanctions against Russia, imposed by the United States and the European Union, have sent a clear and effective message to Russia that their invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable. These sanctions are absolutely critical to multilateral efforts to hold Russia to its commitments to end the violence in Ukraine and restore its sovereignty, consistent with the Minsk agreements. The Russians claimed that these are separatists, that these are Ukrainians rising up, but the truth is that this is Russian-inspired, Russian-directed, and at the behest of Putin.

Mr. Tillerson's wavering on Russian sanctions, however, could weaken the resolve of our European allies in maintaining these sanctions. It could encourage Putin in his efforts to cut a

deal for sanctions relief and cause our allies in the Baltics and elsewhere to question the U.S. and NATO commitment to their security. This ultimately will make us less safe.

On climate change, Mr. Tillerson's career up to this point has been marked by a disregard for the environment. Strong environmental policies, including coordinating global efforts to address climate change, are in the best interest of the American people and help fulfill our moral responsibility as stewards of the Earth for the next generation. That is why I have consistently supported limits on oil and gas exploration, bans on drilling in pristine areas, eliminating oil and gas tax subsidies and giveaways, increases in research into new sustainable energy technologies, and the negotiation of international climate treaties. Mr. Tillerson's time at ExxonMobil stands in stark contrast to these policy goals and makes me doubt whether, if approved, he would effectively protect our environment and work with our partners around the world to uphold our commitments as Secretary of State.

On immigration, I am concerned about whether Mr. Tillerson can be an effective advocate for policies that keep the American people safe while preserving our ties with key partners and upholding our values internationally.

President Trump's Executive order blocking immigrants from certain Muslim-majority nations is, in my view, unconstitutional, un-American, cruel to those fleeing danger and injustice, and ultimately makes us less secure. It ignores the horrific circumstances refugees are fleeing in numerous war-torn regions. It suggests the insertion of arbitrary religious and ethnic considerations and fails to account for the strict vetting procedures already in place for refugees, particularly from Syria and areas of conflict. It is also contrary to our history as a nation that, from its birth, has benefited from the contributions of hard-working and successful immigrants.

In particular, this Executive order is a betrayal of our commitment to those who risk their lives to serve as translators for our troops fighting in Iraq. Through the Special Immigrant Visa Program, we promised these brave Iraqis the opportunity to resettle in the United States in recognition of their invaluable contributions to our wartime missions. Yet this administration has effectively blocked these SIV Program recipients without a second thought.

In addition, the President's actions on immigration are making America less safe by undermining key relationships with allies and partners. The President's Executive order on immigration hands ISIS a self-inflicted propaganda victory that reinforces their claim that the United States is at war with all of Islam. It damages our diplomatic relationships with Muslim-majority nations, whether on the list or not, by undermining their willingness and ability to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies in sharing information on potential terrorist attackers. It may also compel these countries to reciprocate by prohibiting Americans from entering their borders.

Just this morning in the Armed Services Committee, we heard from an eminent expert. She indicated to us that the Iraqi Parliament has already had a meeting and has essentially resolved to reciprocate by banning Americans from Iraq.

We have examples today of Iraqi pilots training in the United States so that they can go back and work with our military personnel to attack ISIS. Had their training been scheduled--

Yes, I will.

The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. That is the point I was going to make, and she made it more distinctly and more decisively.

This is something that has been ongoing for many years. I can recall visiting a training facility in Rhode Island--formerly Quonset Point Naval Air Station; now it is a National Guard station-- where they were training Iraqi Air Force pilots to fly C-130J aircraft. Again, had this order been in effect, those pilots would not have been allowed in for the training that not only helps them but helps the thousands of American military personnel in Iraq, shoulder to shoulder, fighting together, depending on not just the presence but the confidence of the Iraqi military in the United States and that reciprocal mutual relationship. This measure sends a terrible signal to them saying: Go ahead and fight, but you won't get to the United States.

It is particularly the case I make with respect to these people who feel threatened because they helped us. We have a special visa program, but right now that is in limbo because we essentially said they can't come in, even though they risked their lives to protect our interests and the interests of their own country.

We are creating huge problems, and, again, I haven't heard the nominee speak out decisively and clearly about the problems this policy is engendering, and that is incumbent upon the individual.

We have traditionally granted nominees broad deference out of respect for the President, and I don't think this is an issue of simply stopping a nominee for the sake of stopping a nominee. But we are not a rubberstamp either. We have to come here and make the case. When we see examples of behaviors that demonstrably threaten the security of the United States, our ability to cooperate with others, our image in the world, and we are not confident that our Secretary of State will not only reject those but effectively argue within and without that we have a higher purpose, a better goal, a better policy, then it is our obligation to stand and to render a vote of no, and I intend to do that.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have the privilege of being the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, working with Senator McCain with respect to the nomination of General Mattis.

I am strongly in favor of the general's confirmation for many reasons. He possesses three distinct qualities that are absolutely critical: confidence, courage, and character. And he will eminently demonstrate those virtues as Secretary of Defense, in my view.

I would like to also inform the body and everyone else that we just did this in a very thorough, careful, thoughtful way.

General Mattis was subject to a 60-vote procedural vote because we had to waive his time from retirement to his ability to serve as Secretary of Defense.

We had a hearing under the auspices of the chairman about the policy with two noted historians and policy experts. Then we had a hearing with General Mattis. We have collectively--and the chairman's leadership is invaluable--moved to ensure that today we can confirm General Mattis.

This has been an opportunity that we have not used to delay, defer, or deflect the Mattis nomination. In fact, it was the one that we all recognized that would have been subject to a 60-vote point of order. So this represents the demonstrated good faith of our focus to ensure that we can get people in place for the President.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 84, a bill that would provide a one-time exception from the longstanding law that requires a member of the military to be retired from the armed services for at least 7 years before being appointed as Secretary of Defense. We are considering this legislation today because the President-elect's nominee for Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, has only been retired from the U.S. Marine Corps for 3 years.

In considering the unique situation presented by this nomination, this week the Armed Services Committee held two hearings. The first hearing, on Tuesday, had a panel of two excellent outside witnesses who discussed the history of the retirement restriction law and the benefits and challenges of legislating an exception to that law. Then, this morning, the committee held a nomination hearing with General Mattis and examined his views on a wide range of defense challenges facing our country and the Defense Department.

General Mattis has a long and distinguished military career, and he is recognized by his peers as a thoughtful and strategic thinker. However, since its passage in 1947, the statutory requirement designed to protect civilian control of the Armed Forces has only been waived one other time. Therefore, I believe it is extremely important that we carefully consider the consequences of setting aside the law and the implications such a decision may have on the future of civilian and military relations.

Civilian control of the military is enshrined in our Constitution and dates back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. This principle has distinguished our Nation from many other countries around the world, and it has helped ensure that our democracy remains in the hands of the people.

The National Security Act of 1947, which established the Department of Defense, included a provision prohibiting any individual ``within ten years'' of ``active duty as a commissioned officer in a regular component of the armed services'' from being appointed as the Secretary of Defense. However, in 1950, President Harry Truman nominated former Secretary of State and former Chief of Staff of the United States Army General George Marshall to serve as the Secretary of Defense, thus causing Congress to pass an exception to the statute.

While Congress ultimately waived the restriction for General Marshall, the law included a nonbinding section that stated: ``It is hereby expressed as the intent of the Congress that the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of the continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of the Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.''

Nearly 70 years later, Congress again must make a determination if an exception should be made in the case of General Mattis. Let me remind my colleagues why making this change is so significant. During our committee hearings, Dr. Kathleen Hicks astutely noted: ``The Defense Secretary position is unique in our system. Other than the President acting as commander in chief, the Secretary of Defense is the only civilian official in the operational chain of command to the Armed Forces. Unlike the President, however, he or she is not an elected official.''

As I stated during the committee's consideration of the waiver legislation, we must be very cautious about any actions, including this legislation, that may inadvertently politicize our Armed Forces. During this past Presidential election cycle, both Democrats and Republicans came dangerously close to compromising the nonpartisan nature of our military with the nominating convention speeches from recently retired general officers advocating for a candidate for President.

I am also concerned about providing a waiver for General Mattis in light of the fact that he will join other recently retired senior military officers who have been selected for high-ranking national security positions in the Trump Administration. Throughout our Nation's history, retired general officers have often held positions at the highest levels of government as civilians. In fact, a few have even been elected President.

What concerns me, however, is the total number of retired senior military officers chosen by the President-elect to lead organizations critical to our national security and the cumulative affect it may have on our overall national security policy. Specifically, there may be unintended consequences having so many senior leaders with similar military backgrounds crafting policy and making decisions as weighty as those facing the next administration.

In the course of our review of General Mattis' nomination, the reason most often cited in support of a waiver allowing him to serve is that a retired four-star general known for his war-fighting skills and strategic judgment to lead the Department of Defense will counterbalance the President-elect's lack of defense and foreign policy experience. As Tom Ricks wrote recently in The New York Times: ``Usually I'd oppose having a general as Secretary of Defense, because it could undermine our tradition of civilian control of the military. But these are not normal times.''

Likewise, Dr. Eliot Cohen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, and he argued that if it weren't for his deep concern about the Trump Administration, he would oppose the waiver for General Mattis. Specifically, he stated: ``There is no question in my mind that a Secretary Mattis would be a stabilizing and moderating force . . . and over time, helping to steer American foreign and security policy in a sound and sensible direction.''

If Congress provides an exception for General Mattis, we must be mindful of the precedent that action sets for such waivers in the future. The restriction was enacted into law for good reason, and General George Marshall is the only retired military officer to receive this exception.

Based on General Mattis' testimony this morning, as well as his decades of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, and weighing all of the other factors, I will support a waiver for him to serve as Secretary of Defense. General Mattis testified to the fact that the role of Congress does not end with the passage of this legislation. As Dr. Hicks stated, ``The United States Congress, the nation's statutes and courts, the professionalism of our Armed Forces, and the will of the people are critical safeguards against any perceived attempts to fundamentally alter the quality of civilian control of the military in this country.''

Any of us who support this bill have a profound duty to ensure that the Department of Defense and its leaders,

both civilian and military, are following and protecting the principles upon which this country is founded.

Let me be very clear. I will not support a waiver for any future nominees under the incoming administration or future administrations. I view this as a generational exception, as our bipartisan witnesses recommended. I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle make this same commitment. Indeed, I intend to propose reestablishing the original 10-year ban which was in place when the Defense Department was established. Restoring the threshold for service to 10 years would send a strong signal that this principle of civilian control of the military is essential to our Democratic system of government.

At this point I would ask if the chairman of the committee might engage in a colloquy. I do that first by thanking him for the extraordinarily fair, thoughtful, and careful way he has guided this nomination through the committee and here to the floor.

I wish to thank the Senator from Arizona for the thoughtful and thorough process we have had in considering the nomination of General Mattis. I think one of the high points was a hearing on civilian military relations with Eliot Cohen and Kathleen Hicks. Both witnesses emphasized that while they supported this waiver, it should be a rare, generational exception to ensure the integrity of civilian control of our military, which is the bedrock of our democracy.

I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment, and I would ask the chairman if he also agrees with that assessment.

Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. President, I believe the chairman does concur with me regarding the fact that this is a rare and generational exception; I think that is fair to say.

We hope so, and I think, if we recognize Senator Merkley for his comments, and then I think the chairman of the committee has comments, we would be on that schedule.

Mr. President, I believe I still retain the floor.

Let me make the point that I appreciate very much the Senator from Arizona allowing me 5 minutes, but I will yield that 5 minutes so that at the end, the Senator from Arizona would have 5 minutes, and then I would suggest we recognize Senator Merkley so that we can conduct the vote at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam Clerk, for the people of Rhode Island I vote no.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senator Blumenthal. This legislation would end special tax exemptions for huge CEO bonuses by closing a glaring loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. If executives perform, companies may compensate them however they wish, but U.S. taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize these massive bonuses.

Under current tax law, when a publicly traded corporation calculates its taxable income, it is generally permitted to deduct the cost of compensation from its revenues, with limits up to $1 million for some of the firm's most senior executives. However, a loophole relating to performance-based compensation has allowed many public corporations to avoid such limits and freely deduct excessive executive compensation. To illustrate how this loophole works, if a CEO receives $1 million in cash compensation and $14 million in performance-based compensation in a given year, the public corporation's taxable income would decline by $15 million. With the current corporate tax rate at 35 percent, the corporation in this case would receive a tax giveway of $5.25 million.

The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act puts an

end to that giveaway and limits public corporations to a single $1 million per employee deduction as was originally intended. Using the same example above, a profitable public corporation could deduct $1 million of the CEO's $15 million compensation package but could not claim a deduction on the remaining $14 million. So instead of claiming $5.25 million in Federal subsidies for the CEO's pay, this public corporation will be contributing $4.9 million toward improving our roads, our schools, and our military--costs that middle-class families are already underwriting.

Indeed, over a 10-year window, the Joint Committee on Taxation, in their most recent assessment, estimated that closing this loophole would save U.S. taxpayers over $50 billion.

Specifically, our legislation first applies section 162(m) of the Tax Code to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. Publicly traded corporations would still be permitted to pay their executives as much as they desire, but compensation above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized by other hard-working taxpayers through our Tax Code.

Second, our bill removes the exemption for performance-based compensation, which currently permits compensation deductions above and beyond $1 million when executives have met performance benchmarks set by the corporation's board of directors. As a result, publicly traded corporations would still be able to incentivize their executives, but all such incentives would be subject to a corporate deductibility cap of $1 million.

Finally, our legislation makes a technical correction to ensure that all publicly traded corporations that are required to provide quarterly and annual reports to their investors under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations are subject to section 162(m). Currently, this section of the Tax Code only covers some publicly traded corporations who are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. Discouraging extravagant compensation packages shouldn't turn on whether a publicly traded corporation falls into one SEC reporting requirement or another, and our bill closes this technical loophole.

Even our President-elect has acknowledged the problem of excessive CEO pay. When asked about this issue on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' on September 13, 2015, then-Presidential Candidate Trump said, ``Well, it does bug me. It's very hard if you have a free enterprise system to do anything about that. The boards of companies are supposed to do it. But I know companies very well. And the CEO puts in all his friends. And so you will take a company like, I could say Macy's or many other companies, where they put in their friends as head of the company, and they get whatever they want, because the friends love sitting on the board. So that's a system that we have. And it's a shame and it's disgraceful. And, sometimes, the boards rule. But I would say it's probably less than 10 percent. And you see these guys making these enormous amounts of money. It's a total and complete joke.''

Our legislation tackles this issue head on by ending the public subsidy of excessive CEO compensation, derailing the lavish tax breaks that exclusively benefit public corporations. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not hard-working taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multimillion-dollar bonuses they have decided to dole out to their CEOs.

We need to prioritize tax breaks that grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. This bill would eliminate some of the inequity in the Tax Code. Again, companies are free to pay their executives as much as they want, but the American taxpayer shouldn't help foot the bill for a CEO's multimillion-dollar bonus.

I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and MIT professor Simon Johnson for their support. I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this issue, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senator Blumenthal. This legislation would end special tax exemptions for huge CEO bonuses by closing a glaring loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. If executives perform, companies may compensate them however they wish, but U.S. taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize these massive bonuses.

Under current tax law, when a publicly traded corporation calculates its taxable income, it is generally permitted to deduct the cost of compensation from its revenues, with limits up to $1 million for some of the firm's most senior executives. However, a loophole relating to performance-based compensation has allowed many public corporations to avoid such limits and freely deduct excessive executive compensation. To illustrate how this loophole works, if a CEO receives $1 million in cash compensation and $14 million in performance-based compensation in a given year, the public corporation's taxable income would decline by $15 million. With the current corporate tax rate at 35 percent, the corporation in this case would receive a tax giveway of $5.25 million.

The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act puts an

end to that giveaway and limits public corporations to a single $1 million per employee deduction as was originally intended. Using the same example above, a profitable public corporation could deduct $1 million of the CEO's $15 million compensation package but could not claim a deduction on the remaining $14 million. So instead of claiming $5.25 million in Federal subsidies for the CEO's pay, this public corporation will be contributing $4.9 million toward improving our roads, our schools, and our military--costs that middle-class families are already underwriting.

Indeed, over a 10-year window, the Joint Committee on Taxation, in their most recent assessment, estimated that closing this loophole would save U.S. taxpayers over $50 billion.

Specifically, our legislation first applies section 162(m) of the Tax Code to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million. Publicly traded corporations would still be permitted to pay their executives as much as they desire, but compensation above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized by other hard-working taxpayers through our Tax Code.

Second, our bill removes the exemption for performance-based compensation, which currently permits compensation deductions above and beyond $1 million when executives have met performance benchmarks set by the corporation's board of directors. As a result, publicly traded corporations would still be able to incentivize their executives, but all such incentives would be subject to a corporate deductibility cap of $1 million.

Finally, our legislation makes a technical correction to ensure that all publicly traded corporations that are required to provide quarterly and annual reports to their investors under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations are subject to section 162(m). Currently, this section of the Tax Code only covers some publicly traded corporations who are required to provide these periodic reports to their shareholders. Discouraging extravagant compensation packages shouldn't turn on whether a publicly traded corporation falls into one SEC reporting requirement or another, and our bill closes this technical loophole.

Even our President-elect has acknowledged the problem of excessive CEO pay. When asked about this issue on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' on September 13, 2015, then-Presidential Candidate Trump said, ``Well, it does bug me. It's very hard if you have a free enterprise system to do anything about that. The boards of companies are supposed to do it. But I know companies very well. And the CEO puts in all his friends. And so you will take a company like, I could say Macy's or many other companies, where they put in their friends as head of the company, and they get whatever they want, because the friends love sitting on the board. So that's a system that we have. And it's a shame and it's disgraceful. And, sometimes, the boards rule. But I would say it's probably less than 10 percent. And you see these guys making these enormous amounts of money. It's a total and complete joke.''

Our legislation tackles this issue head on by ending the public subsidy of excessive CEO compensation, derailing the lavish tax breaks that exclusively benefit public corporations. This is simply a matter of fairness, ensuring that corporations--and not hard-working taxpayers who face their own challenges in this economy--are paying for the multimillion-dollar bonuses they have decided to dole out to their CEOs.

We need to prioritize tax breaks that grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. This bill would eliminate some of the inequity in the Tax Code. Again, companies are free to pay their executives as much as they want, but the American taxpayer shouldn't help foot the bill for a CEO's multimillion-dollar bonus.

I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and MIT professor Simon Johnson for their support. I also want to thank Senator Blumenthal for working with me on this issue, and I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution that the Senate will vote on this week. We are nearly half way through the fiscal year, and the Republicans have offered this budget resolution not to set a path forward for spending for the year but to give them the ability to repeal the Affordable Care Act through the budget process, requiring less support than is needed under regular order. This budget is nothing more than a sham, being used to take away health insurance from more than 20 million Americans. What is worse is that my Republican colleagues intend to do so without any plan in place to mitigate the impact and protect the people who will be harmed.

The uninsured rate is at its lowest point in recent history. Since the implementation of the ACA in my State of Rhode Island, the uninsured rate has fallen from 12 percent to under 4.5 percent. In real terms, that means that over 100,000 people in Rhode Island have gained coverage because of the ACA. That is about 10 percent of my State's population. Over 30,000 middle-income Rhode Islanders get tax credits averaging $250 a month to help them afford coverage on the State's health insurance marketplace.

We cannot go back to a system that allows private insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or charge more to those who need insurance the most. In fact, the Republican plan for repealing the ACA means that nearly half a million Rhode Islanders with preexisting conditions, about half the State's population, will be denied coverage or will be charged more. Again, as Senator Murray described so eloquently in the case of a young man who needs years of expensive treatment, if preexisting conditions are once again possible and if that young man is dropped from his parents' plan at 21, both of those factors will probably deny him the coverage that he enjoys today, and that is not what we want to do. I hope that is not what we want to do.

In my State, there are over 106,000 Rhode Islanders with diabetes, over 112,000 with asthma, and nearly 63,000 cancer survivors who will be forced to pay more for coverage. These are huge numbers in my State--roughly 1 million people in population. They have these conditions, and insurance companies said in the past: We won't cover

you, or, by the way, you will be spending 2, 3, 5, 10 times as much for the coverage we extend to someone else.

We have also been able to improve coverage through the ACA for those who are getting their care through their employer. Before the ACA, insurance plans, including employer-sponsored health coverage, could impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, meaning that coverage could end when it was most needed. You could have a job, and you could have insurance at a job, but if you have a serious condition, when you reach that limit, that is it--no more responsibility by the company. That is exactly the time you need the help because you have already either exhausted some of your own resources or you are in a position where you have been sick for so long that your ability to go back into the workplace is practically nonexistent. The ACA prohibits these limits, along with ensuring free preventive care and coverage of dependents up to age 26, ensuring real coverage for nearly 600,000 workers in Rhode Island with employer coverage.

There is a perception out there that the ACA doesn't apply to employer coverage and that it has no effect--that if it is repealed, it is fine because I get my health insurance from my employer. That is not the case. The impact will be there, and it could leave many people devastated.

Additionally, the ACA strengthened the rate review processes to help control premiums. Prior to the ACA, double-digit increases were always the norm. When I served in the House and in my first years in the Senate, invariably, when trade associations came to visit me, the first or second issue on the list was this: Our insurance coverage just went up 20 percent. We can't afford it anymore. We are dropping coverage or telling our workers: Do you want a raise, or do you want coverage? You can't get both.

Well, we have to do more to keep premiums under control and bring down costs, but there has been an improvement under the ACA in my State and in many other States. In 2 of the last 3 years, premiums actually went down from the previous year in Rhode Island. During open enrollment for 2017, Rhode Islanders saw decreases of as much as 5 percent in their premiums. In fact, due to the ACA, consumers in Rhode Island have saved nearly $220 million since 2012, according to the State resource.

This program has done something that we were feverishly trying to do, which was to somehow bring costs under control and reduce them if we could but certainly eliminate the double-digit growth, when every year every employer group was coming in and saying: We can't afford this. We want to cover our workers, but we can't. We are giving them that choice, or we will have to sadly say we can't give you insurance anymore. Repealing the ACA would end all of these consumer protections and put insurance companies back in charge.

One other thing that it has done is that we actually required that a significant amount of the premium be used for health care, not overhead. We actually built into the law that, if you are going to charge a premium, it better go to help people get health care, not just to boost your profits, dividends, or anything else. That is another factor that has helped positively this rate and premium structure.

Then, of course, there is a huge economic impact of ACA repeal. For years I have heard my Republican colleagues very sincerely and adamantly declare that the ACA is a job killer, that it was going to destroy millions of jobs. That was one of the refrains that echoed throughout this Chamber as we were debating the ACA for months and years afterwards. But what has happened? We have had an unprecedented 75 consecutive months of job growth--something we haven't seen since 1939. Repealing the ACA would wreak havoc on this progress. Premiums for everyone, not just those in the individual market, will skyrocket. Large businesses will see their health care costs go up, which means workers will forgo pay increases as their employers struggle to simply maintain health care coverage or they will drop the coverage entirely.

We have come a long way since the economic downturn in 2008, and we have much more work to do to keep things moving in the right direction, but one of the worst things we can do for the economy is to repeal the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Martin and Jeremy Gelman, fellows in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation that would require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

In 2010, I worked to include a provision with similar language in the Senate version of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but it was ultimately not included in the final version of this law.

I noted then that, ``if the Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington are required to be confirmed by the Senate, then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who played a pivotal and perhaps more powerful role in obligating taxpayer dollars during the financial crisis, should also be subject to the same public confirmation process.''

In short, the New York Fed is unlike any of the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks.

For instance, along with the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve System who each require Senate confirmation, the president of the New York Fed is a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, and also acts as the FOMC's Vice Chairman. This is a significant distinction because the FOMC establishes the Federal Reserve System's monetary policy, which in the wake of the financial crisis resulted in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet growing to almost five times what it was before the crisis in an attempt to reduce long-term interest rates.

Also, the New York Fed is solely responsible for implementing an aspect of monetary policy known as open market operations through which U.S. Treasury securities are purchased and sold on a secondary basis to influence the levels of bank reserves. This means that the New York Fed is in a position to pick and choose its counterparties in these secondary market transactions, giving considerable advantages to one market maker over another, which raises the potential for conflicts of interest.

In addition, the New York Fed is entrusted with protecting the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets.

According to the New York Fed itself, ``though it serves a geographically small area compared with those of other Federal Reserve Banks, the New York Fed is the largest Reserve Bank in terms of assets and volume of activity.'' Indeed, the New York Fed in its regulatory role is not only in charge of supervising some of the largest banks in the country, but also some of the most active financial institutions.

While this is not a comprehensive list of the New York Fed's special and distinctive responsibilities, these examples demonstrate the powerful and pivotal role the New York Fed plays in implementing our Nation's monetary policy and enforcing our banking laws. As such, we should have every expectation that the New York Fed has the public interest in mind to the fullest extent when it conducts its duties.

Unfortunately, these expectations have not been met. Last year, the Office of Inspector General, OIG, of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System described the New York

Fed's oversight efforts with respect to one large banking institution that eventually suffered billions of dollars in trading losses as a ``missed opportunity.'' Additionally, a report aired in September of last year on the public radio program ``This American Life'' cast doubt on whether changes the New York Fed made after the financial collapse to address regulatory capture were sufficient to ensure it would be a more proactive banking regulator and could prevent a future financial disaster.

All of this is unsettling, and it is past time that we add meaningful layers of accountability so that we can be better assured of the New York Fed's ability to address potential financial pitfalls in advance.

By subjecting the president of the New York Fed to the confirmation process, an important check and balance will be added. The Senate will have an opportunity to evaluate whether a nominee has the experience, character, judgment, and skills to serve effectively as one of the most powerful banking regulators in the country, if not the world. Also, this legislation requires the New York Fed president to testify before the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee at least once a year, so that Congress no longer has to negotiate about whether the New York Fed president will appear before Congress for oversight hearings. Simply put, this legislation is about holding the New York Fed accountable. The New York Fed is just too powerful to be left unchecked.

I thank Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and the Independent Community Bankers of America for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation that would require the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

In 2010, I worked to include a provision with similar language in the Senate version of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but it was ultimately not included in the final version of this law.

I noted then that, ``if the Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington are required to be confirmed by the Senate, then the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who played a pivotal and perhaps more powerful role in obligating taxpayer dollars during the financial crisis, should also be subject to the same public confirmation process.''

In short, the New York Fed is unlike any of the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks.

For instance, along with the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve System who each require Senate confirmation, the president of the New York Fed is a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, FOMC, and also acts as the FOMC's Vice Chairman. This is a significant distinction because the FOMC establishes the Federal Reserve System's monetary policy, which in the wake of the financial crisis resulted in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet growing to almost five times what it was before the crisis in an attempt to reduce long-term interest rates.

Also, the New York Fed is solely responsible for implementing an aspect of monetary policy known as open market operations through which U.S. Treasury securities are purchased and sold on a secondary basis to influence the levels of bank reserves. This means that the New York Fed is in a position to pick and choose its counterparties in these secondary market transactions, giving considerable advantages to one market maker over another, which raises the potential for conflicts of interest.

In addition, the New York Fed is entrusted with protecting the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets.

According to the New York Fed itself, ``though it serves a geographically small area compared with those of other Federal Reserve Banks, the New York Fed is the largest Reserve Bank in terms of assets and volume of activity.'' Indeed, the New York Fed in its regulatory role is not only in charge of supervising some of the largest banks in the country, but also some of the most active financial institutions.

While this is not a comprehensive list of the New York Fed's special and distinctive responsibilities, these examples demonstrate the powerful and pivotal role the New York Fed plays in implementing our Nation's monetary policy and enforcing our banking laws. As such, we should have every expectation that the New York Fed has the public interest in mind to the fullest extent when it conducts its duties.

Unfortunately, these expectations have not been met. Last year, the Office of Inspector General, OIG, of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System described the New York

Fed's oversight efforts with respect to one large banking institution that eventually suffered billions of dollars in trading losses as a ``missed opportunity.'' Additionally, a report aired in September of last year on the public radio program ``This American Life'' cast doubt on whether changes the New York Fed made after the financial collapse to address regulatory capture were sufficient to ensure it would be a more proactive banking regulator and could prevent a future financial disaster.

All of this is unsettling, and it is past time that we add meaningful layers of accountability so that we can be better assured of the New York Fed's ability to address potential financial pitfalls in advance.

By subjecting the president of the New York Fed to the confirmation process, an important check and balance will be added. The Senate will have an opportunity to evaluate whether a nominee has the experience, character, judgment, and skills to serve effectively as one of the most powerful banking regulators in the country, if not the world. Also, this legislation requires the New York Fed president to testify before the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee at least once a year, so that Congress no longer has to negotiate about whether the New York Fed president will appear before Congress for oversight hearings. Simply put, this legislation is about holding the New York Fed accountable. The New York Fed is just too powerful to be left unchecked.

I thank Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and the Independent Community Bankers of America for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward.