Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the anniversary of one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history, the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

I rise in strong opposition to the American Health Care Act, a callous and carelessly written bill that would roll back progress and strip health insurance from millions of Americans.

I rise on behalf of people like Chrystal from my home State of California. You see, I know Chrystal. She works in my dentist's office. In early 2011, just after I was elected attorney general of California, I went in for a checkup. It had been a while since I had seen her. Chrystal asked me how I had been, and I asked her how she had been, and then she shared with me great news. She was pregnant.

As a dental hygienist, she was working for a few different dentists and wasn't on the payroll of any of them as a full-time employee. This was before the ACA was in place, so Chrystal was on private insurance with only basic coverage, just enough to cover her annual exams.

When Chrystal found out she was pregnant, she went to her insurance company to apply for prenatal coverage. She was denied. When I asked her why, she told me that they said she had a preexisting condition. So you can imagine I asked her: Are you OK? What is wrong? What is the preexisting condition?

She told me she was pregnant.

When she applied to another healthcare company for insurance, again, she was denied. Why? Preexisting condition. What was it? She was pregnant.

So this young woman was forced to go into her sixth month of pregnancy before she received a sonogram. Instead, thankfully, there was a free clinic in San Francisco, so she could get her prenatal care.

Thank God she had a strong and beautiful baby boy. His name is Jackson. They are both doing well today.

Thank God that situation is no longer the reality for millions of Americans.

I share Chrystal's story to remind us what America's healthcare system looked like only a few years ago.

We should not forget that before the ACA, 48 million Americans lacked health insurance. That is more people than the entire country of Canada.

Before the ACA, when these people got sick, they had three choices: Go without treatment, go to the emergency room, or go broke.

Before the ACA, 129 million people--almost one out of every two Americans--could be denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. And the minute you got sick, your insurer could dig up some flimsy reason to drop your coverage. You could be denied coverage for chemotherapy or insulin if you had cancer or diabetes. You could be denied prenatal coverage if you were pregnant, like Chrystal. You could even be denied health coverage if you were a victim of domestic violence.

Before the ACA, healthcare costs were crushing low-income and middle- class Americans. Premiums--which, of course, are those monthly bills that we all pay for our insurance--were going up and up. Sky-high medical bills were the No. 1 reason Americans went broke, causing them to sell their homes, their cars, and even pawn their jewelry to pay off their debts.

One of the worst things about facing the healthcare system without coverage before the ACA was that it left you feeling utterly alone. Most Americans know what I am talking about: that knot in your stomach when you know there is something wrong with your health or the health of your child or your parent, but you are not sure what it is, whether it can be fixed or whether your insurance will cover it, and the frustration, the anger as you try to make sense of the fine print and codes on the medical bill that has so many zeros.

How many of us have walked into an emergency room with a loved one and felt time just stop? Maybe it was with your child who was running a fever or having trouble breathing. Maybe your partner is being rushed in with a possible heart attack. All you will know is that something is wrong. All you know is that you are overwhelmed and scared, and you know that you should not also have to fight on the phone with an insurance company or wonder if a doctor will even see you at all. That is how millions and millions of Americans experienced our healthcare system.

It was not right or fair. So the ACA set out to make things better, and 7 years ago today, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. It finally extended good, affordable health insurance to Americans like Chrystal all across the Nation. Vice President Biden was absolutely right when, at the time, he said that it was a ``big''--and then I will not quote the next word; let's call it blanking--``deal.''

It is a shame that people have been playing politics with this law and with America's health. The former Speaker of the House said that the ACA would be ``Armageddon.'' A Republican Presidential candidate who now sits in the Cabinet called the ACA--and these are his actual words--``the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.''

Earlier this month, the President of the United States tweeted that the ACA is ``a complete and total disaster.'' Well, I say: Tell that to the people of California because when a State wants to make the ACA work, it works--whether that is California or Kentucky, and real people living real lives know it.

For example, I recently heard from Myra from Sherman Oaks, CA, who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer. She wrote:

Before ObamaCare, my husband and I lived under constant

stress due to our lack of good health insurance.

But, because of the ACA, Myra told me:

We had a Silver Blue Shield plan that covered . . . well

over a million dollars in bills to date. I am happy to report

I am now well, but without insurance, I was facing a death

sentence. Without the ACA, we would certainly have had to

sell our home to pay my bills and try to figure out how to

make ends meet.

She wrote that it covered well over a million dollars. That is what the ACA does.

Here is how Cindy of from Oakley, CA, has experienced real life. She wrote:

My daughter was diagnosed with an eating disorder at 13

years old and I can directly thank the excellent care

received at Kaiser Northern California for her good health

today at age 17. Without the ACA and the mental health parity

it helps provide . . . I would not have had treatment options

available to me.

Again, coverage for mental health treatment--that is what the ACA does.

Honoree, a single mom from Samoa, CA, living with a spinal cord injury that has kept her from working for 3\1/2\ years, wrote to me and said:

I wanted to let you know that I love ObamaCare! My

healthcare has steadily improved since the ACA was enacted. .

. . I can't tell you how AMAZING it felt to get my teeth

cleaned and cared for after waiting more than a decade.

I walked around for weeks saying, ``thanks, ObamaCare!''

whenever I sensed how good my teeth felt.

I would be saddened to see the ACA get scrapped. It's made

a huge difference in our lives. Actually, I'd be more than

saddened, I'd be very scared.

Again, this is testimony about the ACA, in this case about dental coverage and improved healthcare. That is what the ACA does.

I will state that I believe there is a huge disconnect between the over-the-top criticism of the ACA and the law's actual impact. There is a disconnect between the politics and how people are actually living and thriving under the ACA. In fact, in a recent poll, one in three Americans didn't even realize that the ACA and ObamaCare were actually the same thing, and they are. So, everybody, let's be clear about this. The Affordable Care Act is ObamaCare, and ObamaCare is the Affordable Care Act.

We all know, of course, that there are ways to improve the ACA, but ending it is not the answer. The truth is that the ACA has largely done what it was supposed to do--expand, protect, and reduce--expand coverage, protect consumers, and reduce the pace of rising healthcare costs. Thanks to the ACA and Medicaid expansion, 20 million

more Americans have health insurance. That is the population of the entire State of New York. Thanks to the ACA, premiums are going up at the slowest rate in half a century. Thanks to the ACA, doctors are innovating and providing better preventive care, from keeping people out of the hospital to delivering healthier babies. Thanks to the ACA, insurers cannot set lifetime limits on your care, meaning your insurance company won't tell you in the middle of a cancer treatment that they have paid all they ever will. Thanks to the ACA, millions of underserved Americans in rural towns and in cities and everywhere in between have access to care for the first time. Thanks to the ACA, young people can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. Thanks to the ACA, 55 million women have insurance that works-- mammograms, checkups, and birth control with no copays. When you pick up your prescription at the pharmacy and see that the bill is zero dollars, well, that is the ACA. And thanks to the ACA, you can't be discriminated against if you have a preexisting condition, including that preexisting condition called being a woman.

Of course, navigating the healthcare system is still daunting, but things are better. There are now some rules of the road to keep insurance companies from taking advantage of you during some of life's most vulnerable moments. Because of the ACA, because of ObamaCare, you can sleep a little easier at night and know that your care will be there when you need it.

Let's fast-forward to today. Today, we mark the seventh anniversary of this historic life-changing law. But all that it covers and protects could also be ripped away, and that is because of the American Health Care Act, the Republican healthcare plan on the House side. That is what it will do--rip it all away.

They have done their best to mislead folks about their plan. They have criticized objective news reports, and they even questioned the Congressional Budget Office--which, as we know, is, by the way, a nonpartisan, independent office which crunched the numbers and found that this new plan would cause millions of Americans to lose insurance coverage.

Before we leap on to this new bill, let's all ask some key questions. Let's all take a good look at what this plan really would and would not do.

First, will this bill provide insurance for everybody, as President Trump promised? Well, the answer is no. In fact, the independent Congressional Budget Office says that under the GOP plan, 24 million Americans will lose their health insurance by the end of the decade. That is equal to the population of 15 States combined.

Who are these people? These are middle-class families, our Nation's teachers, veterans, truckdrivers, nurses, and farmers. These families include those who struggle with opioid addiction, have a child that needs support for autism, or have an aging parent who needs a nursing home. This bill threatens them all.

Let's ask: Will the plan help the folks who need care most? The answer is no. The House Republican plan's flat tax credits are based only on age, with no consideration of income level. So what that means is that a 40-year-old cashier making $10,000 gets the exact same amount as the 40-year-old banker making $74,000 a year. It doesn't matter whether you live in downtown Manhattan or the Cleveland suburbs or rural Alaska.

Let's ask: Will monthly costs go down for low-income and middle-class families who are stretched horribly thin right now? The answer is no. According to that same independent analysis, the Republican plan will immediately increase American families' premiums by 15 to 20 percent, with higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs after that. In the next decade, a person in their fifties could see their insurance costs go up 850 percent. Their insurance costs can go up 850 percent.

Let's ask: What about our seniors--will their monthly costs go down? Sadly, the answer is no. The Republican plan lets insurers charge seniors five times as much as other Americans, meaning that high cholesterol your doctor diagnosed could cost you $3,200 more a month.

Let's ask: Will all women still have access to affordable family planning? The answer is no. This new bill will give Americans choice in healthcare, but the women of America will not have choice. The bill denies women tax credits if they get a plan that covers abortions. It prohibits Planned Parenthood from providing care for millions on Medicaid. Some 2.5 million patients choose Planned Parenthood every year, including roughly 1 million in California. They should be able to see the provider they choose and trust.

Let's ask: Will this new plan protect Medicaid, as President Trump promised? Well, the answer is no. Medicaid covers many people whose jobs don't offer healthcare, and it also pays for half of all the births in this Nation. It supports people with disabilities and children with special needs. Most people don't realize that Medicaid is the primary payer for treatment of opioid addiction and substance abuse. But this new plan being offered by House Republicans would roll back Medicaid coverage and cut nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid benefits over the next decade.

Let's ask: Does the plan put American families ahead of insurance companies? The answer, tragically, is no. Under this plan, if you lose your job and it takes more than 2 months to find another, you will be charged a 30-percent penalty on top of the monthly costs you are already paying. That money goes right into the insurance company's pockets.

So, by now, you are probably wondering: Who exactly does this bill help? Well, here is your answer. It gives millionaires a $50,000 average tax cut every year. It gives the top 0.1 percent in this country a $195,000 tax cut every year. It gives insurance companies a $145 billion tax break over the next decade. The President and the Speaker want you to believe that this plan is good for American families, but under their bill, the only thing that gets healthier are the insurance companies' bottom line.

As far as California is concerned, this bill would devastate our families. Here are the facts, and, frankly, here is the fight. Over 5 million Californians have received insurance through the Affordable Care Act. I say they are worth fighting for.

Since the ACA went into effect, California's uninsured population has been cut almost in half, from 17 percent to about 7 percent. I say they are worth fighting for.

Medi-Cal went from covering 8.5 million Americans to 13.5 million today. One in two children are covered under Medicaid. I say they are worth fighting for.

The community clinics and health centers that so many Californians rely on would be cut back or closed. I say they are worth fighting for.

A UC Berkeley study estimates that repealing the ACA would cost California up to 200,000 jobs, everyone from home healthcare aides and janitors to workers in retail, restaurants, and accounting. I say they are worth fighting for.

I rise today to emphasize that it is really important that we understand the everyday consequences of this bill. We are talking about real people. If you are a farmer in the Central Valley on Medicaid, you can lose that coverage. If you are a Los Angeles senior with diabetes, you may no longer be able to afford coverage on the individual market. If you are a family in Shasta County with a child dealing with a prescription drug addiction, substance abuse treatment likely will not be covered. If you are a couple in Humboldt County with an ailing parent, your request for home health services could be denied. These are the kinds of Californians and the kinds of Americans who this plan would hurt.

When these folks wake up at 3 a.m. worrying about an ache or pain or their next chemo appointment, when they wake up with that concern and that thought at 3 a.m., I promise you, they are not thinking about that through the lens of being a Republican or a Democrat. They think about themselves as fathers, mothers, parents, daughters and sons, and grandparents. They worry about their health needs and how their health needs will affect not only themselves but their loved ones. These concerns are not about politics. These are universal concerns, and we have all been there.

It is because all of us share these concerns and because all of us would be badly harmed by this new plan that

this bill is opposed by the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the AARP. They are the most respected medical and patient advocacy groups in this country, and they know what is at stake.

Ultimately, I believe this bill is not just about medicine or math; I believe this is about morals. The plan that the House is voting on today is a values statement, and it is not a good one. As our former President said about the ACA, this is more than just about healthcare; it is about the character of our country, and it is about whether or not we look out for one another.

I think we need to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask: Who are we as a country? Are we a country that cuts the deficit by cutting care for our most vulnerable?

Let's look in the mirror and ask: Are we a country that gives tax breaks to insurers while giving higher medical bills to patients?

Are we a country that tells seniors and cancer patients and women ``You are on your own''?

Are we a country that sees healthcare as a privilege for a few or a right for all?

I believe that is what we have to decide.

The ACA is not perfect. It can be strengthened, and I am willing to work with anyone who will work in good faith to do that, but it is time to stop playing politics with public health.

Our government has three main functions: public safety, public education, and public health. We shouldn't be turning these responsibilities into partisan issues. Instead, we should be figuring out how to improve the lives of all Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

People are counting on us, people like one of my constituents in Kern County--a woman who is suffering from lung disease, who said:

We are not asking for much . . . decent healthcare. . . .

Don't take it away. . . . Make it better.

I say to my colleagues: Do not take away American people's healthcare. Let's make it better.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, humbled to offer my first official speech as the junior U.S. Senator from the great State of California. I rise with a deep sense of reverence for this institution, for its history, and for its unique role as the defender of our Nation's ideals.

Above all, I rise today with a sense of gratitude for all those upon whose shoulders we stand. For me, it starts with my mother Shyamala Harris. She arrived at the University of California, Berkeley, from India in 1959 with dreams of becoming a scientist. The plan, when she finished school, was to go back home to a traditional Indian marriage. But when she met my father Donald Harris, she made a different plan. She went against a practice reaching back thousands of years, and

instead of an arranged marriage, she chose a love marriage. This act of self-determination made my sister Maya and me, and it made us Americans, like millions of children of immigrants before and since.

I know she is looking down on us today, and knowing my mother, she is probably saying: Kamala, what on Earth is going on down there? We have to stand up for our values.

So in the spirit of my mother, who was always direct, I cannot mince words. In the early weeks of this administration, we have seen an unprecedented series of Executive actions that have hit our immigrant and religious communities like a cold front, striking a chilling fear in the hearts of millions of good, hard-working people, all by Executive fiat.

By fiat, we have seen the President stick taxpayers with a bill for a multibillion-dollar border wall, without regard to the role of the U.S. Congress under article 1 of the Constitution. By fiat, we have seen a President mandate the detention of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, creating a dragnet that could ensnare 8 million people. By fiat, the President has ordered the creation of what essentially will be a 15,000-member deportation force. By fiat, he wants to take away State and local authority by making local police officers act as Federal immigration officials. By fiat, the President wants to slam the gates of freedom by instituting a Muslim ban--a ban which was as carelessly written as it has been incompetently enforced.

In recent days, we have seen an increased severity in immigration raids sweeping across this country, including the arrest of a DREAMer in Seattle and a domestic violence victim in Texas. And we have seen an administration violate court orders, attack the First Amendment, bully Federal judges, and mock Americans exercising their right to freely assemble.

I rise today to discuss how these actions impact my State of California and our country. In particular, the State of California, I believe, is a microcosm of who we are as America. In California, we have farmers and environmentalists, welders and technologists, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and the largest number of immigrants, documented and undocumented, of any State in the Nation.

I rise because the President's actions have created deep uncertainty and pain for our refugee and immigrant communities. I rise on behalf of California's more than 250,000 DREAMers, who were told by the Federal Government: If you sign up, we will not use your personal information against you. I rise to say the United States of America cannot go back on our promise to these kids and their families.

I rise today as a lifelong prosecutor and as the former top cop of the biggest State in this country to say that these Executive actions present a real threat to our public safety. Let me repeat that: The President's immigration actions and Muslim ban will make America less safe.

As a prosecutor, I can tell you it is a serious mistake to conflate criminal justice policy with immigration policy, as if they are the same thing. They are not. I have personally prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides. I know what a crime looks like, and I will tell you, an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. But that is what these actions do; they suggest all immigrants are criminals and treat immigrants like criminals.

There is no question, those who commit crimes must face severe and serious and swift consequence and accountability. But the truth is, the vast majority of the immigrants in this country are hard-working people who deserve a pathway to citizenship.

Instead of making us safer, these increased raids and Executive orders instill fear in immigrants who are terrified they will be deported or have to give up information resulting in the deportation of their family members. For this reason, studies have shown Latinos are more than 40 percent less likely to call 9-1-1 when they have been a victim of crime. This climate of fear drives people underground and into the shadows, making them less likely to report crimes against themselves or others--fewer victims reporting crime and fewer witnesses coming forward.

These Executive actions create a strain on local law enforcement. Any police chief in this country will tell you that they barely have enough resources to get their job done. So when you make local law enforcement do the job of the Federal Government, you strain the resources for local law enforcement and that hurts everybody's safety.

Let's consider the economic harm this order will cause. Immigrants make up 10 percent of California's workforce and contribute $130 billion to our State's gross domestic product. Immigrants own small businesses, they till the land, they care for children and the elderly, they work in our labs, they attend our universities, and they serve in our military. So these actions are not only cruel, but they cause ripple effects that harm our public safety and our economy.

The same is true of this Muslim ban. This ban may as well have been hatched in the basement headquarters of ISIS. We handed them a tool of recruitment to use against us. Policies that demonize entire groups of people based on the God they worship have a way of conjuring real-life demons. Policies that isolate our Muslim-American communities take away one of the greatest weapons we have in the fight against homegrown extremism.

Here is the truth. Imperfect though we may be, I believe we are a great country. I believe we are a great country. Part of what makes us great are our democratic institutions that protect our fundamental ideals: freedom of religion and the rule of law, protection from discrimination based on national origin, freedom of the press, and a 200-year history as a nation built by immigrants.

So this brings me to my message today. We have a responsibility to draw a line with these administrative actions and say no. This is not a question of party. This is about the government of coequal branches, with its inherent checks and balances. This is about the role of the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world. I know, having spent now a few weeks in this Chamber, that we have good men and women on both sides of the aisle--men and women who believe deeply in our immigrant communities and who understand that nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.

I know that it was the junior Senator from the State of Texas who said: ``It is an enormous blessing to be the child of an immigrant who fled oppression, because you realize how fragile liberty is and how easily it can be taken away.''

It was the junior Senator from the great State of Kentucky who said: ``We must always embrace individual liberty and enforce the constitutional rights of all Americans, rich and poor, immigrants and natives, black and white.''

It was the senior Senator from the great State of Arizona who said: Undocumented immigrants should not be ``condemned forever'' to a twilight status.

So, yes, we have good people on both sides of the aisle. I say that we must measure up to our words and fight for our ideals because the critical hour is upon us.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to convey my wholehearted opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.

The EPA, at its core, is an Agency established to protect the environment and the public health of our Nation. This Agency looks to establish policies and guidelines that would benefit all Americans--and in essence is not an Agency of partisanship. In fact, the EPA was created through legislation led by a Republican President, Richard M. Nixon, and enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1970.

The EPA has a duty to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the environment we hope to pass on to future generations. In accomplishing this mission, it enforces some of our most valued laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which have been in effect for more than 30 years.

Unfortunately, this President asked the U.S. Senate to confirm a nominee who has dedicated his career to undermining the very Agency he is asked to lead. Mr. Pruitt's record and consistent failure to commit to being a fair Administrator of the EPA further demonstrates that the Trump administration's agenda is to weaken protections that guarantee every American access to clean air and clean water. From his actions as attorney general of Oklahoma up to his testimony at his hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is clear Mr. Pruitt is simply unqualified.

I express my strong concerns, as a Senator from California, a global leader in environmental protections that allow our 39 million residents to live healthy lives. It is my hope that with similar smart Federal regulations, which are led by the EPA, our Nation can enjoy these same benefits that I have seen Californians experience firsthand.

Californians have always been and will continue to be proud of our environmental leadership. In 1977, California passed the first energy efficiency standards in the country. Our friends from the States of Florida, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York quickly followed suit. This set a precedent. Federal officials agreed that having responsible renewable energy guidelines should be a priority.

Ten years later, the EPA implemented national standards across the United States, saving a tremendous amount of energy, sustaining our precious environment and resources for future generations, and providing financial benefits for families and households across the country.

To put it into perspective, one of the national energy standards for refrigerators--that was the result of a policy initially enacted in California--has saved more than 130,000 megawatts of electricity to date. This is equivalent to the production of energy that roughly 250 powerplants might produce. This example is not a rare occurrence. Energy policies have continued to be adopted from smart initiatives started in various States.

Starting as early as 1978, California passed an energy efficiency standard for newly constructed buildings. This standard is now adopted not only in our Nation but worldwide. The State legislature listened to the objective and factual data from scientists on the dangers of climate change and, as a result, passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. We created the California Cap-and- Trade Program, which implemented an innovative, market-based system to allow companies to continue to produce while also helping to reduce emissions; instituted a low-carbon fuel standard, which reduced the carbon intensity of all transportation fuels in California. We passed the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, which urged local transportation planning agencies to consider the statewide greenhouse reduction standards and goals in their long-term transportation plan, and we set a renewable portfolio standard, which implored retail sellers of electricity to provide 33 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030.

We are proud indeed of what we have accomplished in California, but the importance of this issue goes beyond just the environment. It is an economic issue, and it has been undeniable in helping California grow to be the sixth largest economy in the world. California shows that a healthy environment and a healthy economy and the choice between the two is a false choice. We can have both. From 1990 to 2014, California's population and economy grew while achieving a 36-percent drop in emissions per gross domestic product. This clearly demonstrates that you can successfully have economic growth and reduce carbon intensity. The State has done a great job of creating employment through the promotion of clean energy technology and green economies. A report by the University of California Labor Center found that the California renewable portfolio standards contributed to the creation of 25,500 hours for what was referred to as ``blue-collar'' job opportunities and 7,200 hours of what was referred to as ``white- collar'' jobs.

Most importantly, the environmental laws that the EPA enforces protects the health of future generations. Science has shown that children living in communities with a higher concentration of particulate matter developed respiratory difficulties and those children living in regions with higher ozone levels were more likely to develop asthma and miss school.

This is only a small part of the impact that ignoring the protections of our environment can cause to the ones we love most. On that point, of children missing school because of health concerns, there is a significance to this because of a connection between what we need to do to educate our population and also what we see in the criminal justice system.

For example, it is well known and established the significance of a third grade reading level. By the end of the third grade, if the child is not at the third grade reading level, they literally drop off because, when we think about it, we know before third grade a child is learning how to read, and then comprehension kicks in, and they are reading to learn. If they have not learned how to read, they cannot read to learn and they drop off.

What is the connection between that and the concern we have about pollution in the air and water? Well, there is a connection between pollution in the air and asthma rates. Asthma causes children to miss school. What we know is that we have seen that an elementary school truant is three to four times more likely to be a high school dropout; 82 percent of the prisoners in the United States are high school dropouts; African-American men between the ages of 30 and 34, if he is a high school dropout, is two-thirds likely to be in jail, have been in jail, or dead. There is a real connection between elementary school truancy and what we see in public safety systems. What we also know is that it costs money when children miss school. It costs us money in terms of the money that schools miss out on because they are not being reimbursed for attendance every day. All of these issues are connected.

As a former attorney general, I have worked to enforce California's cutting-edge environmental laws. This is what an attorney general should do and is obligated to do as a representative of her State. Without reservation, I can say I am proud of the work of my office--of my former office, the California Department of Justice, and the work that is happening and has happened throughout the years doing the right thing for the people of the State and for the environment.

In February of 2011, I filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court to support the efforts of the Port of Los Angeles to reduce air pollution through its Clean Trucks Program. In 2011, I had the pleasure of being a voice to protect an area of Southern California known as Mira Loma Village, a town of hard-working people, by representing them in a lawsuit to assure that a project would not significantly deteriorate the air quality in their community.

I had been hearing stories of the grandmothers in that community for years asking that they would be heard. I had been hearing for years, before I visited Mira Loma, about the fact that studies showed the children of that community had the lowest rate of lung development of any region in that part of California. There was a serious concern about the pollution in the air and the children of that community and their ability to be healthy.

So this is what we did and what I was able to do as the attorney general of the State that year. We met them with the developers in that community, we sat down, and we had some tough discussions, but we agreed that there had to be mitigation. They had to reduce the emissions in that community that resulted in the public health problems for that community. Two years later, that resulted in the city and the developer moving forward with the project while implementing measures to protect the residents from being exposed to diesel contamination. Litigation was critical. The role of the attorney general to be able to intervene and be a voice for that community and so many voiceless and vulnerable people was critical.

In June of 2014, as attorney general of California, I publicly opposed the lack of environmental review for the expansion of a Chevron refinery project in a place called Richmond, CA, and demanded they consider the public health of the nearby residents.

These are examples of the role and responsibility of a State attorney general to take seriously their oath in terms of protecting the health and welfare of the residents of their State. I offer these examples to further support the concerns we have that this nominee--when he has held such an important position and has taken an oath to represent the people--has failed to perform his duties. I would suggest that his past is prologue for the future. His past is an indication of what he will do if he is confirmed as the next head of the EPA.

I would hope that instead we would have a nominee--someone who would head these most important agencies in our government--who could say the same thing about their record as I am proud to say about the record of the California Department of Justice.

In my opinion, our current nominee cannot in good conscience speak to the same type of record. Instead, Mr. Pruitt has talked about how he wants to protect States from what he believes is ``overreach'' of the Federal Government. His commitment to what he would call States' rights is so strident that a December 6, 2014, New York Times article reported that Mr. Pruitt has a painting in his office ``that shows local authorities with rifles at the ready confronting outsiders during the land rush era.'' He also established what he described and named as a Federalism Unit in the Oklahoma attorney general's office that was committed to fighting against Federal regulations. When he came before the Environment and Public Works Committee for his confirmation hearing, of which I am a Member, Mr. Pruitt stated that ``it is our state regulators who oftentimes best understand the local needs and uniqueness of our environmental challenges.'' He then went on to speak about how States ``possess the resources and the uniqueness of our environmental challenges.''

These statements might lead one to believe that Mr. Pruitt would be in support of any opportunity possible to give power back to the States to create environmental regulations. However, when I asked Mr. Pruitt at the committee, when he came before us, if he would commit then to upholding California's right to set its own vehicle emission standards, he would not commit to doing so.

I will remind this body that the EPA has a long tradition of respecting California's and other States' ability to set higher standards where they can control the emissions and the greenhouse gas emissions that as we have mentioned before, directly have an impact on the health and well-being of the residents of our State and particularly the children and the elderly of our States.

Under the Clean Air Act, California has set its own standards for how it wants to regulate vehicle emissions. We have done this for decades now, and previous EPA Administrators have upheld California's right to set them.

Although there is precedence for doing so, Mr. Pruitt would not commit to granting California the waiver to allow my State to continue to set its own vehicle emissions standards. This is simply unacceptable.

This is a blatant double standard for someone who claims to be committed to breaking down regulations at the Federal level and giving power back to the States. In fact, it makes me wonder how truly committed Mr. Pruitt is to States' rights or if States' rights are just a convenient argument for him in order to pursue actions that are beneficial to industries that pollute instead of the residents and the people of his State and, by extension, our country.

Just look at his record as attorney general of Oklahoma, a position he used to challenge the laws of other States. As attorney general, he challenged a California law when he joined a lawsuit that targeted a referendum that California's voters approved in 2008 to require more space in cages for egg-laying hens. That measure, California proposition 2, prohibited the confinement of hens used to produce eggs in California in any manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The law is popular, and it was passed by the voters in my State by 63.5 percent. In 2010, the California Legislature expanded that law to make it so that it applied to all eggs sold in California.

Mr. Pruitt joined a lawsuit suing California over this law, presumably because he did not like that a regulation approved by our voters and affirmed by our State legislature would do a good job. He just didn't like it. Mr. Pruitt's case was ultimately rejected by the Federal appellate court because his lawsuit failed to demonstrate how the California law presented a harm to his State. You would think that a States' rights proponent would appreciate that one State passes a law and it should be respected, especially when it doesn't create any harm to his own State, but that was not the case.

Mr. Pruitt has filed seven lawsuits against the EPA that have since been settled. In those lawsuits, he opposed the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Act. He sued over regulations to make electricity- generating powerplants install technology to curb air pollution. He sued over a plan to reduce pollution from coal-fired powerplants and a regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. He sued and filed a lawsuit that claimed that the EPA encourages environmental nonprofits to bring lawsuits.

It is important to know that Mr. Pruitt lost six out of those seven lawsuits. Mr. Pruitt is a baseball fan, as am I. I love my Giants. I find it hard to believe that my San Francisco Giants would look at a hitter who slogged through spring training with a .142 batting average and have no concerns whatsoever calling him up to the big league roster. Why does the U.S. Senate have a lower standard for reviewing a nominee who would be charged with safeguarding human health and our environment?

What about the opportunities Mr. Pruitt has had to defend the interests of the people he was elected to represent? What about issues that directly impact the people of Oklahoma?

In 2011, 49 States signed on to a $25 billion mortgage settlement. There was only one State's attorney general who decided not to sign on. I think you know where I am heading. That one attorney general was Scott Pruitt. Mr. Pruitt said he didn't think it was the appropriate role of the State attorney general to advocate for the homeowners of their States but wanted to be sure to protect the banks instead.

As a former State's attorney general, I am here to say that the role of an attorney general is to represent the people of your State. When an injustice is committed to one person, an injustice is committed to all of the residents of

your State. In fact, after doing the work of an attorney general over the course of 7 years in California, I will tell you that every time we filed a suit, that document, that complaint never read the name of the victim versus the name of the offender. It always read the people versus the offender because in our system of democracy and in our system of justice as a country, we have rightly said that a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us. Mr. Pruitt has failed to appreciate the significance of that point.

He has developed a long list of lawsuits filed. Through all of that litigation, he has delivered very little for the people of Oklahoma-- the very people who elected him to represent them. Why should we expect that he will protect the interests of all Americans and the environment we all share?

During his 6-year tenure as attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt stated only in one instance--a lawsuit against Mahard Egg Farm-- could he recall initiating an independent lawsuit as attorney general against private air polluters. It was later revealed that even this claim was misleading, and it turned out it was his predecessor who had done the legwork and initiated the proceedings, along with the assistance of the EPA.

In the 2014 New York Times article, it was reported that Mr. Pruitt used his official position as Oklahoma attorney general to protect the interests of a private gas and petroleum company, Devon Energy, not the people of Oklahoma. Using his official government position, Mr. Pruitt sent a three-page letter to the EPA stating that Devon Energy did not cause as much air pollution as was calculated by Federal regulators.

In open records of exchanged emails between Devon Energy and the Oklahoma attorney general's office, it was discovered that the lawyers at Devon Energy were the ones who actually drafted the letter and that Mr. Pruitt used a nearly identical letter to express it as his State's position. Following the letter, Devon Energy wrote to his office:

Outstanding! The timing of this letter is great given our

meeting with both the EPA and the White House.

``Outstanding,'' the energy company said--not the people of the State of Oklahoma.

It is also unclear how far this abuse of power has gone. A lawsuit by the Center for Media and Democracy has been filed in an Oklahoma district court to release information on Mr. Pruitt's dealings as attorney general. It is with great concern that we would try to rush this nomination without these records coming to light. Senators should have all the facts before us before we vote.

Should Mr. Pruitt be confirmed as EPA Administrator, I am deeply concerned that he has refused to use his discretion to recuse himself from litigation he was involved with in his role as Oklahoma attorney general unless required to do so by the Ethics Commission.

I asked him about this during our hearing at the Environment and Public Works Committee. I asked him if he would be willing to recuse himself notwithstanding a finding by the Ethics Commission but based on what is right and an appearance of conflict. He agreed, after many questions, that he has the discretion--regardless of action, regardless of waiting until the Ethics Commission rules--to recuse himself from those lawsuits that he as attorney general of Oklahoma brought against the Agency he wants to lead. He agreed he had the discretion and yet failed to agree that he would exercise that discretion and recuse himself because of an appearance of a conflict. That is simply unacceptable.

It is so important that in our government, the public has confidence in us, that they trust we will do the right thing, that they trust we will use our discretion in an appropriate way. But this is a nominee who has asked us to trust him to lead the EPA, the people's Agency that has been charged with protecting the resources that are vital for all human life. A nominee who has failed to represent his own constituents' interests by making a career of partisanship is not the right nominee for this office, period. He is a nominee who has lobbied for corporations instead of the people he was charged with representing. He is a nominee who has a clear record of using his position in a way that has not been in the best interest of the people he serves.

There is evidence, unfortunately, of his record that is before us as a body. We should take heed of this evidence. We should pay attention to it, and we should not confirm this nominee to be the next head of the EPA.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nominee for the Department of Education, Betsy DeVos. I cannot vote for her confirmation.

The mission of the Department of Education, as mentioned, ``is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.'' The Department achieves this by establishing policies on Federal financial aid for education and distributing as well as monitoring those funds, collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research, focusing national attention on key educational issues, prohibiting discrimination, and ensuring equal access to education. After considering that mission, I do not believe Betsy DeVos should be the next Secretary of Education.

Surely we can agree that every child in the United States should have access to a first-rate education to ensure a chance of a good job and good pay. I know this from my own life experiences and, in particular, the impact that a good teacher can have on a young child. You see, my first grade teacher, Mrs. Frances Wilson, God rest her soul, attended my law school graduation. I would not be standing here were it not for the education I received, and I know that to be true for so many of our colleagues in the Senate.

After I reviewed Betsy DeVos's nomination, including her record and confirmation testimony, and after speaking with teachers and students and parents from across California, it is clear she does not understand the importance or the impact of a public school teacher like Mrs. Frances Wilson.

Why? Well, first and foremost, our country needs a Secretary of Education who has demonstrated basic competency when it comes to issues facing children. They just need to know what they are talking about. When questioned in the hearing by my colleague Senator Franken, it was clear Mrs. DeVos didn't know the difference between two basic theories of testing: proficiency and growth. This, in fact, is one of the biggest debates occurring in the education community today, and she was unaware of the significance of the nuances and the difference between the two. As we know, proficiency essentially asks whether a student has a basic competency or understanding of a subject; looking at a child and asking: Is that third grader reading at third grade reading level?

Growth. It is a question of whether a student is progressing from year to year or asking if a third grader who started their year reading at first grade level can now read at second grade level. Has there been progress? This debate will define how we are judging schools across the country, and her lack of knowledge and fluency demonstrates her complete lack of experience, understanding, and curiosity about one of the hottest issues in modern education.

Now let's talk about guns in schools. At first, she at best showed ambivalence toward gun-free school zones, but it gets better. She went on to say that she does not have any questions, and that without any questions, she does not believe you need guns in schools. Then she went on to say, well, but we need guns in schools, yes, because grizzly bears may pose a significant threat to the safety of our children and perhaps their education.

I say Ms. DeVos poses a far greater threat to public education.

Let's talk about title IX. Another moment in her hearing is when the

nominee refused to commit to actually enforcing title IX. Now, let's be clear that title IX was brought into being because our country had a rampant policy of discrimination against women in our education system. For example, women were not being admitted to the University of Virginia. Even Luci Baines Johnson, the daughter of President Johnson, was barred admission to Georgetown University after she got married because it was common perception at that point in time that if she was married, then that is what she should pursue. She should pursue a career in the home and could not be capable of doing that as well as working outside the home. Title IX is a law that guarantees women and girls the right to a safe education, free from discrimination.

Let's be clear how title IX helps today. It is title IX that required universities to prioritize a safe environment for girls--safe from abuse and sexual assault. We know this is a real issue. In fact, the Department of Education estimates that one in five women has been sexually assaulted during her college years.

As attorney general of California, I was proud to bring together colleges and local law enforcement agencies to create protocols for investigating and prosecuting sexual assaults. It has helped schools and law enforcement implement changes to California law to better protect survivors of sexual assault. I championed new methods to allow California to process rape kits and clear a longstanding backlog of rape kits in the State crime labs. I fought to ensure that survivors have the support they need and that their attackers face swift accountability and consequences for their crimes.

There is no question that ending campus sexual assault should be a moral imperative for our country, and it should be a priority for the next Secretary of Education of the United States. For that reason, it is unfortunate--and, yes, troubling--that Mrs. DeVos will not guarantee enforcement of title IX.

Then let's talk about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. I know my colleague Senator Hassan has spoken extensively about this. This act has been around for decades--four decades, to be exact. Before it existed, we were not prioritizing these children. We did not give them the services they needed. We had written off a whole population of our children. When asked by my colleague Maggie Hassan about this piece of legislation, the nominee showed a complete lack of knowledge about how it is implemented. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot go back to a time when we wrote off a whole population of people, and it cannot only be the parents of those children--but all of us, as the adults of a society and a country--who look out for our most vulnerable children.

Then, let's talk about for-profit colleges, which I know something about since I had to sue one of the biggest for-profit colleges, which was defrauding students as well as taxpayers. I know about the reality of abuses of for-profit colleges, and I applaud my colleague Elizabeth Warren, who asked whether or how she would protect against waste, fraud, and abuse at for-profit colleges. She asked this of the nominee, and it was troubling to see that the nominee was equivocal at best.

Now, let's talk about the nominee's record as it relates to the children of her home State of Michigan. Since the growth of charter schools, Michigan has gone from performing higher than average on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in the year 2000 to below average by the year 2015. A 2015 Federal review found an ``unreasonably high'' number of charters in Michigan which were among the bottom 5 percent of schools nationwide. According to a report from Chalkbeat, an education publication, when the Michigan legislature attempted to add oversight for both charter schools and traditional public schools in Detroit, the nominee's family opposed the measures and poured $1.45 million in the legislature's campaign coffers--an average of $25,000 a day for 7 weeks. The oversight measures, she is happy to say, never made their way into the legislation. We cannot have someone who wants to lead our highest Department of Education who does not support the importance of oversight, of making sure that the children are getting the benefit of their bargain.

According to data released from the Michigan Association of Public School Academies in 2015, only 17 percent of Detroit charter school students were rated proficient in math, compared to 13 percent of students in traditional public schools. Even Eli Broad, a great Californian and strong supporter of dramatic education reforms, has expressed strong concerns about the nominee's nomination. That should tell us all something.

Now let's talk about the impact on California. During the campaign, President Trump said he would take $20 billion from existing Federal education programs--which, by the way, is more than half of the Department's budget for K-12 education--and instead put that money into a voucher-like system. The President also committed to getting rid of the Department of Education in its entirety, which would put half a million teachers out of work. The nominee has committed to working with him on these plans.

Let's be clear. This plan would be devastating for public schools, including the schools in California that serve over 6 million students. This also means California students could lose $2.3 billion in Federal education funding, which could end critical programs. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act serves thousands of California's disabled students and serves them well. But his plan would slash $1.3 billion in Federal funding--money that our children rely on. The Trump proposal to cut the Department of Education budget would also harm California's students. Some $3.8 million in Pell grants for California students could be lost, 43,000 or more teacher positions in California could be eliminated, and $8.96 billion in student loans could be at risk for California's college students.

The bottom line is this--fewer teachers, fewer resources for students and parents, and less aid to make college affordable. Maybe one school will cut their after-school program or stop teaching the arts, or it doesn't have a guidance counselor or decides they will just let class size balloon because they don't have enough teachers. We know that is not good enough for any of us.

There is a clear connection between public education and public safety. When I was the district attorney of San Francisco, there was a rash of homicides one year. All of us in a position of leadership were rightly concerned, and we did the predictable and the right thing: We figured out how to put more cops on the street, we looked at our gang intervention strategies, and we figured out very predictable and good ways of reacting to these crimes after they occurred.

But I asked a question. I asked a member of my staff: Do an assessment and tell me who are these homicide victims? In particular, who are the homicide victims under the age of 25? The reason I asked that question is pretty simple. There were just a lot of them. Sure enough, the data came back to me. It included the fact that, of the homicide victims under the age of 25, 94 percent were high school dropouts.

Over the years, I have taken a closer look at this issue. I have learned that 82 percent of the prisoners in the United States are high school dropouts. I have learned that an African American man who is a high school dropout between the age of 30 and 34 is two-thirds as likely to be in jail, have been in jail, or dead. There is a direct connection between what we do or do not do in our public education systems and the price we all pay in terms of our public safety. I say to everyone concerned: There are good reasons to care about the education of children. If nothing else, be concerned about why you have to have three padlocks on your front door. If we don't educate our children in our public school system, we all pay the price.

Mrs. DeVos's agenda means fewer teachers and resources and worse schools. Fundamentally, her lack of understanding of the rights teachers have today, the rights parents have today, and the rights students have today mean one thing: She cannot--and will not--uphold the law if she does not understand the law. Her testimony has made clear that she does not understand IDEA, she does not understand initiatives like gun-free zones in schools, and she does not understand the history or the need for title IX.

If Betsy DeVos gets her way and cuts funding for public schools, that means fewer teachers. If she does what she did in Michigan, that will mean poor outcomes with fewer high school graduates. What we know is that these are the kinds of policies that prevent us from actually achieving all that we know we can be as a country, which is about paying attention to all the members of our society, and, in particular, our children, and investing in them with the education they so richly deserve so they can one day stand in this Chamber as a Member of the Senate, doing the best of what we know we can do as a country.

Simply put, I will say this. It is clear from her testimony that Betsy DeVos has not done her homework. She hasn't done her homework in terms of preparing for the job, and she did not do her homework in terms of preparing for her hearing. I say that right now the Senate must do our job, we must do our homework, and we must refuse to confirm her as the next Secretary of Education.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the suggestion that reciting the words of the great Coretta Scott King would invoke rule XIX and force Senator Warren to sit down and be silent is outrageous.

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

Mr. President, my parents met when they were graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s when they were active in the civil rights movement. In fact, my sister and I joke that we grew up surrounded by a bunch of adults who spent their full time marching and shouting for this thing called justice.

I was part of only the second class to integrate Berkeley, CA, public schools almost two decades after the U.S. Supreme Court declared that separate was inherently unequal in the great case of Brown v. Board of Education--a case, I might add, that was supported by an amicus brief from the then U.S. Attorney General.

In fact, it was the lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education--Thurgood Marshall, Charles Hamilton Houston, and Constance Baker Motley--who inspired me at a young age to become a lawyer.

Simply put, it is likely that had the U.S. Supreme Court not decided the

way it did in Brown v. Board of Education, I would not be standing here as a Member of the U.S. Senate.

So then, as a direct beneficiary of landmark rulings by the U.S. judicial system and the American judicial system, I am acutely aware of the lasting and profound impact our courts can have on the everyday lives of Americans. It is with a deep sense of respect and admiration for the role of our justice system that I rise to oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

The mission of the Department of Justice is clear: ``To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats, foreign and domestic; to provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.''

It is those words--``justice for all''--that best articulate the spirit behind our judicial system.

I am a career prosecutor. In fact, I started my work as a young deputy district attorney in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. That office was once led by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. Every time I filed a case, it would never read with the name of the victim versus the name of the defendant. It always read ``the people'' versus the defendant because in our democracy, in our great judicial system, we have rightly said a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us, especially because we know that harm is most often directed at some of the most vulnerable and voiceless among us. So we rightly have declared that as a civil society, we will not require them to fight alone. We will stand with them. Justice for all.

This point is what raises my question of whether this nominee can fulfill the role and responsibility of this job. Let's be clear. This is not a debate about a President's nominee. It is not simply a debate about a President's nominee. This is a debate about the fundamental ideals of our country--ideals that date back to the founding of our country and those great words we spoke in 1776: ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.''

All men are created equal, with unalienable rights. In other words, President Lincoln was fulfilling the promise first made in the Declaration of Independence, a promise that made clear the basis for legal equality derives not through a right that is given but from natural rights--rights that have been endowed upon us by our Creator; rights that cannot and should not be taken away or given up.

So let us recognize that civil rights are not given through the enactment of a law or the publication of a court decision. Rather, our inherent civil rights are fulfilled when we guarantee them through the implementation and enforcement of the law.

Well-meaning people indeed can argue over the best means to ensure our fundamental rights, but it is crucial that we do not allow ourselves to be drawn into a suggestion that enforcing civil rights is favoring one group over another. Protecting civil rights is not about taking care of someone else. It is in our common interests. It is in each of our self-interests.

Liberty for each of us depends on liberty for all of us. It is just like the Department of Justice's mission, which articulates in those three words, ``justice for all.''

This is the Department's charge. It is its mission, and the next Attorney General of the United States must use his powers as a prosecutor to uphold it.

This brings me to the troubling and, frankly, unacceptable record of the nominee for this office. It is the U.S. Department of Justice that is charged with enforcing the rights of those trying to cast a ballot, but Senator Sessions cheered the Supreme Court's decision to gut the Voting Rights Act, used his power as a U.S. attorney to prosecute three African-American Civil Rights activists in Alabama, and then called the NAACP ``un-American.''

It is the U.S. Department of Justice that addresses systemic inequalities that we know, unfortunately, still exist in our criminal justice system and have led to mass incarceration--but Senator Sessions led the opposition to bipartisan sentencing reform.

It is the U.S. Department of Justice that investigates and prosecutes crimes motivated by hate based on race, religion, gender, nationality, disability, or sexual orientation of its victim--but in the 1990s, when lawmakers worked to pass hate crime legislation after the brutal killing of Matthew Shepard, Senator Sessions was a vocal opponent.

It is the U.S. Department of Justice that uses the power of the prosecutor to protect women who have been victims of crime--but Senator Sessions voted no when both Democrats and Republicans came together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which gives support and assistance to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, including members of our LGBT community.

It is the U.S. Department of Justice that defends that most fundamental right of freedom to worship--but it was Senator Sessions who was one of the most outspoken defenders of then-candidate and now- President Donald Trump's unconstitutional Muslim travel ban which, by the way, was roundly denounced by many of his fellow Republicans.

It is the U.S. Department of Justice that enforces Federal laws prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, religion, and national origin. But Senator Sessions has opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act, Lilly Ledbetter Act, and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act.

It is the U.S. Department of Justice that implements the Americans with Disabilities Act. But when both Democrats and Republicans worked to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provides resources to children with special needs, Senator Sessions said that providing educational services for these children ``may be the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today.''

Whether you are the father of a special needs child in a classroom, a woman trying to earn fair pay, an African-American man in a voting booth, or a victim at a police station trying to report a crime, Senator Sessions has not been your advocate.

As a former U.S. Attorney General, the great Bobby Kennedy once said:

We must recognize the full human equality of all our people

before God, before the law, and in the councils of

government. We must do this, not because it is economically

advantageous, although it is; not because the laws of God and

man command it, although they do; not because people in other

lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and

fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

The right thing to do. That is what makes us special as a country. That is what makes us right. That is what makes us great--our values and our ideas. It is the belief that no matter who you are, whether young or old, rich or poor, gay or straight; whether you are a child from Oakland or a child from Birmingham; whether you came here by plane to escape the hardships of war and torture or by foot to build a better life; whether you have been the victim of gun violence or opioid addiction; whether you are paid less than others doing the same work or stopped at a red light because of the color of your skin, you deserve an Attorney General who recognizes the full human quality of all people.

It is what led Attorney General Herbert Brownell, when there was rampant voter discrimination and intimidation here in the United States, to create in the United States Department of Justice the Civil Rights Division, whose mission is to ``uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society.''

It is what led Attorney General William Rogers to forcefully demand the integration of an elementary school at the Redstone missile center in Alabama when the children of Black servicemembers were being denied entry.

It is that commitment that led Bobby Kennedy to send 500 U.S. marshals to Oxford, MS, to escort a young Black man, James Meredith, to enroll at Ole Miss. It is what led U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson to resign rather than do the bidding of a corrupt President during Watergate.

It is what led my friend, Attorney General Eric Holder, to sue the State

of Arizona over SB 1070, a law that led to the unjust racial profiling of immigrants and to say that the U.S. Government would no longer defend a law that prevented LGBT Americans from expressing their love for one another.

It is what led Attorney General Sally Yates, on a Monday evening this month, to stand up and refuse to defend a Muslim ban.

More than most Cabinet positions, the U.S. Attorney General enforces the principles that are the founding of our country, but I have seen no evidence in his record or testimony that Senator Sessions will approach this office in furtherance of these noble ideals. The gains our country has made are not permanent, and it is incumbent on the Attorney General of the United States to fight for the civil rights of all people.

No one said it better than Coretta Scott King:

Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it in

every generation.

If Senator Sessions won't, then it is incumbent upon the rest of us to persist.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield my hour of postcloture debate time under rule XXII to Senator Cardin.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the 5 million Californians--

--who will be stripped of their right to have health care, my vote is no.

The clerk will continue to call the roll.