Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Seema Verma for Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS.

We have before us a nominee that would run an agency responsible for the healthcare of more than 100 million Americans, with an annual budget of about $1 trillion. This is the agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and health insurance exchanges. In short, CMS is the single most consequential agency in health care.

Yes, I am deeply concerned about this administration's ideas on Medicare and on the individual insurance market, over both of which CMS has profound influence, but I am most concerned about their plans for Medicaid.

Based on Ms. Verma's history, her actions, her statements, and her testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, it is clear to me that Mrs. Verma is not only complicit but is leading the charge to wage a war on Medicaid.

Why do I say that? Let us look at Ms. Verma's record, actions, and testimony on Medicaid. In Indiana, Ms. Verma made millions of dollars in consulting

fees by kicking poor working people off of Medicaid for failure to pay monthly contributions similar to premiums. This plan forced people making $10,000 a year, $5,000 a year, or even homeless people with virtually no income to pay a monthly contribution or be penalized. As a result of Ms. Verma's work, about 2,500 Hoosiers have been cut from care. Evaluations of this plan by independent experts show it is confusing to beneficiaries and has not demonstrated better results than traditional Medicaid expansion. Meanwhile, enrollment is far lower than projected.

During my meeting with her and in her testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Ms. Verma stated that Medicaid should not be an option for able-bodied people. Ms. Verma seems to think the private sector can serve this population on its own. Based on what we know about the historical affordability challenges in the individual health insurance market, I find this notion hard to believe.

My State is innovating in Medicaid through ``rebalancing'' from nursing homes to home and community care, integrating behavioral health and primary care, and adopting of innovative new waivers through collaboration with the Federal Government. In fact, Washington State realized more than $2.5 billion in savings over 15 years through rebalancing efforts; yet Ms. Verma will not commit to a single delivery system reform idea.

Ms. Verma claims Medicaid is a top-down Federal power grab. On the contrary, Medicaid is an optional State program, with all States participating. Every State participates because they know Medicaid is a good strategy for covering a low-income and vulnerable population and supporting their healthcare delivery system. Medicaid is highly flexible right now, and States have wide latitude over eligibility, benefits, provider reimbursements, and overall administration of their Medicaid programs.

Ms. Verma claims Medicaid produces poor outcomes, but she cannot offer a single credible clinical outcome or quality measure that the program is not achieving. Meanwhile, data show that patient satisfaction in Medicaid is high and the program achieves improved public health and clinical outcomes for its patients.

Most concerning, Ms. Verma has repeatedly endorsed the administration and Republicans' plan to permanently cap Medicaid, which would hurt patients, States, health providers, and local economies.

I am voting no on Seema Verma's nomination for CMS Administrator because I cannot endorse a full-scale assault on the Medicaid Program.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to this resolution. Many of my colleagues know that we have had discussions in the Senate on several Congressional Review Act resolutions. In principle, Congressional Review Act resolutions-- besides repealing these existing Executive regulations--also have the unfortunate aspect to them that they negate an agency's ability to make new rules anytime soon in the same area. For example, if you like some of this rule but not all of it, by using the CRA, you are literally preventing the agency from moving forward on any improvements to the rule.

I always believe in the legislative process. Working with my colleague from Alaska or working with my colleagues from other areas, I think we have proved that we can resolve key issues. But passing this Congressional Review Act resolution on an issue so important as our public lands and negating the hard work that the executive branch did over a long period of time is something that my colleagues and I just have to say no to.

When it comes to public lands, we want transparency; we want sunshine. We want a bottom-up approach when it comes to land management, and we certainly want collaboration.

As was said earlier, the Bureau of Land Management manages about 245 million acres of public land. That is about 10 percent of the Nation and 30 percent of our Nation's minerals. So when it comes to this management, it is very important that they continue to follow a very good bottom-up process for land management.

I will read now from the actual requirements from the law that oversees them, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. They have to use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; consider present and potential uses of the public lands; weigh long- term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; consider the relative scarcity of the values; give priority to areas of critical environmental concern; provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and coordinate with Federal Departments and Agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes.

So all of these things are part of what is already in existing law. The concept here is to make sure that we continue to have a transparent and open process that is bottom-up. And I certainly believe in a bottom-up process because our public lands must not be territories owned and operated, for example, for the sole benefit of the oil, gas, and mining industries, and we can't have polluters polluting in these areas and not have input from the various communities about their concerns on those issues.

For example, in 2001, the Bush administration proposed revisions to six land use plans in eastern Utah, and these plans were finalized in 2008 at the end of the Bush administration, with only limited opportunity for public involvement. All six plans were challenged in Federal court by several motorized recreation and conservation organizations.

It is now 2017, and these plans still remain tied up in litigation. That is why those in the off-road vehicle industry did not feel as though they had input at the very beginning stages of the process. In January the Obama administration negotiated a settlement, which is still pending in court, but this shows how, if there isn't meaningful public involvement, we are just going to hit a logjam. This is why I think it is so important for us to update this rule.

It has been a long time since the agency updated this rule; I think since 1983. That was the last time--over 30 years ago. I guarantee you, in those 30 years, we can come up with a better process for input from our constituents on important land use issues.

I know the new Interior Secretary likes to talk about Teddy Roosevelt, who once said: ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.''

Ensuring we are preserving and increasing the value of our public lands is exactly what is meant by this planning rule that the Bureau of Land Management put out. This rule wants to make sure that we have input from the local community.

I think it is important to note that this is not a rule that regulates any specific use on public lands. It does not restrict any particular activity. It simply updates the current law in saying that it is better to have input from local officials and to use that input from local officials to update the process in an earlier way.

I said to my staff: It is like us huddling and saying that we should write legislation and then me not coming back for 7 years and then letting them know I am on my way to the Senate floor to drop a bill. We would never do that, and the land plans in these communities shouldn't be done that way either.

Once a local Bureau of Land Management official starts to discuss a plan, there should be transparency. The local community should know exactly what that plan looks like before it is going to be finalized. It needs to encourage collaboration of the stakeholders or else--as the example I just gave in Utah--you are going to end up in litigation or an elongated process before such management plans can take place.

It seems to me that these are pretty reasonable goals: Have a bottom- up process that encourages discussion throughout the plan so that local communities are not caught off guard, and continue to emphasize the roles of State, local, and Tribal governments and cooperating agencies so that they can have input in the process as well.

Finally, I know that there are some who would like to claim that the BLM State director oversees the planning process in their specific State and that somehow that might change, but that is not the case.

Many organizations understand that there will continue to be a bottom-up process under the new rule. That is why so many sportsmen and outdoors groups--like the Outdoor Industry Association, the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, and the National Parks Conservation Association--all say: Do not overturn the rule that was implemented. These groups know that 30 years is too long of a period of time to have to wait to encourage public involvement and collaboration, that

these issues are too important to try to turn back the clock and to try to exclude sportsmen and various interests of public access from the planning and use of our public lands.

I hope my colleagues will turn down this override of a very important project that has guaranteed public access, transparency, and sunshine in planning for our public lands.

Medicaid

Madam President, I would like to come to the floor to discuss the proposed Medicaid changes that are part of what the House is proposing to the Affordable Care Act. This is so important because, as many people know, Medicaid has been a bedrock of how individuals get access to healthcare in our country. And in many parts of our States--at least the State of Washington--Medicaid has been a lifeline in both rural communities and in urban areas and we have heard much from various people that it is actually helping to stabilize healthcare costs, so costs are not rising as fast and giving people access to care in the most serious situations where we are trying to fight opioids or are trying to find more efficiency in our healthcare system.

First of all, I think the House bill is literally a war on Medicaid. I say that because it is a capitation of healthcare costs.

The federal government, according to one budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, would shift the cost to the States by more than $500 billion over the next 10 years. That would mean that millions of people would lose coverage and be affected by this kind of repeal.

Now, many people have talked about how they might block-grant Medicaid. I also thought that was a horrible idea because, really, it just becomes nothing but a budget mechanism to reduce the Federal partnership that exists between the Federal Government and the States on Medicaid. But the House chose not to do exactly block-granting. They said, instead, that we are just going to have a budget cap at the Federal level on how much money they are going to spend on Medicaid and then work toward the repeal of Medicaid expansion. This is a very bad idea.

The actual per capita cut--I know my colleagues like to come out here and talk about a patient-centered relationship, which is exactly what getting off fee-for-service and going to managed care does. But a per capita cost is nothing but a budget mechanism to cap the Federal responsibility to Medicaid and cut costs and basically shift the pain onto the States.

I have been on various meeting tours in the State of Washington, talking to my constituents about this. In Seattle, Spokane, and Olympia. I met with hospitals, community clinics, women's health groups, local and State government officials, civic leaders, civil rights organizations, and I heard many things.

I basically heard hospitals say there is evidence that Medicaid is actually lowering the commercial insurance premiums because of less uncompensated care. And I heard a safety net hospital in Spokane tell me that the population is already 70 percent Medicaid and Medicare and that there is no way they can absorb this kind of a cut to the Medicaid program and it would just mean healthcare costs would rise in the future. I heard a hospital in Seattle tell me that this kind of attempt is nothing but a budget trigger. It is not a reform of the system. It is simply a way to cut the budget.

What we believe is that Medicaid is a key part of our healthcare delivery system. The expansion has worked well and we should continue to move to ways to innovate Medicaid as a way to save costs.

Unfortunately, right now, many people misunderstand how important Medicaid is in the mental health and addiction area. Basically, when you take what we have tried to do to address the opioid epidemic, those individuals who are working through the bills that we just recently passed to try to help patients in the emergency room or who are in psychiatric care or who are trying to deal with this grave problem we have in the United States, getting rid of Medicaid for those individuals, you might as well roll back all the assistance we just provided as part of the CURES and other legislation. Why? Because these individuals will not be able to access the type of care they need without the support.

I do believe that what we need to do is innovate instead. There are many examples of innovation in our healthcare delivery system. One example, as I have mentioned on the floor several times, is going from nursing home care to community-based care.

Medicaid is going to equal long-term care. So many Americans are not going to be ready to deal with their long-term healthcare issues, and when they are not, they are going to use Medicaid for their long-term care.

We showed in the State of Washington over more than a decade's period of time that we could save $2.7 billion by shifting our Medicaid population to community-based care instead of nursing home care. If we would do that same kind of innovation at the Federal level, we could achieve substantial savings instead of saving money by cutting.

The issue here is that innovation in our delivery system--innovation, not a budget cap--is what is going to help us with our healthcare needs for the future when it comes to the Medicaid population.

So I urge my colleagues to speak loudly against this proposal to try to cap Medicaid, to try to shift the burden to States and local providers, to county governments, to jails, to all of those individuals who are going to see that population when and if they don't have Medicaid coverage and instead work together on expanding the innovation in Medicaid and coming up with savings we need to take care of and to provide health insurance coverage to so many Americans.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we had a chance earlier today to talk about this Congressional Review Act resolution before us that I urge my colleagues to turn down. This resolution basically would negate a very important aspect of a rule that was put in place to help the public have more input on public lands.

The rule was pretty straightforward--common sense--to make sure that there was a lot of increased public input to bolster the decisionmaking process and to ensure that there are 21st century management policies in place.

There is nothing in this rule that was implemented in the last administration that erodes or takes away from the States' and local governments' planning processes and the decisionmaking they do.

So it is very important to me that we continue to have the transparency and openness and sunshine in our public planning. I think one editorial from the Post-Register from Idaho said it best. So I will read from it.

Resource management planning. Sound boring? Maybe. But if

you are a Westerner, it definitely shouldn't be.

Resource management planning (RMP) affects how you can or

can't use the vast swaths of public lands outside your back

door for things like hunting, camping, four-wheeling, hiking,

fishing, and rock climbing--a lot of the things you probably

love about being a Westerner.

With a new Republican presidential administration in power

and the GOP-controlled Congress rubbing its hands together in

delight, ready to implement part one of its grand scheme for

public lands--cashing in on

those resources--RMPs should get a whole lot more interesting

to Westerners.

Since 2014, BLM officials have been toiling away,

rebuilding the current rules for land use planning in a

significant way for the first time since 1983. . . .

One important change is that Planning 2.0 would let the BLM

take into account local impacts from the beginning.

Going on to read from the editorial:

The Republican-controlled House has already passed a

resolution to strike Planning 2.0 from the books once and for

all. The Senate will vote within days on whether or not

they'll use the same sledgehammer--the Congressional Review

Act (CRA). It's an especially diabolical weapon.

Once the CRA is used on Planning 2.0, it will be gone

forever. It prevents future BLM rules for planning land use

from being introduced if they are ``substantially the same.''

The utterly confounding part is why this rule is being

picked on in the first place. . . .

Planning 2.0 actually mandates more local control, gives it

more often and is a smarter, more elegant solution to sharing

use of our public lands.

I couldn't say it better than that editorial. Local communities are watching. They want more sunshine. They want more input. They want a smoother process. They don't want lawsuits that take forever. They want us to work in a collaborative fashion, guaranteeing the public input of local governments, States, and our citizens in how we manage our Federal lands.

I urge my colleagues to turn down this resolution.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following individuals with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: Frances Brie Van Cleve, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2017; Stephanie Teich-McGoldrick, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2017; Patricio Portillo, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2017; and Devinn Lambert, a Democratic detailee, through December 31, 2017.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the affordable housing crisis in the United States of America and to talk about the reintroduction of legislation from last Congress that is going to be reintroduced by me, Senator Hatch, Senator Wyden, Senator Heller, Senator Schumer, Senator Murkowski, and the Acting President pro tempore--Senator Young--and several other of our colleagues.

The reason we are introducing this important legislation is to say that we need to increase the tax credit for affordable housing in the United States. We are saying this because we know from reports and statistics that we have a housing crisis in the United States of America, and unless we increase the affordable housing tax credit, we are not going to see much more new supply. That is because 90 percent of the affordable housing that is built in the United States of America is built with a tax credit.

Today, we are also releasing a report that is showing that the demand for affordable housing is exploding and construction is definitely not keeping pace. We are showing that seniors and veterans are at a greater risk for homelessness and that about a 60-percent increase in the need for affordable housing is being driven by Americans who are paying more than 50 percent of their income in rent, making it an unaffordable situation.

We are introducing this important legislation that, we hope, will build 400,000 additional affordable housing units across the United States and that will also help create additional jobs.

This is an issue that we are sending to the Finance Committee before, and I would hope my colleagues on the Finance Committee would take swift action. I say that because the report found three key factors. One is an increase of 9 million renters since 2005. That is a huge increase since 2005. How did we get there?

Over 7 million Americans lost their homes due to foreclosure in the economic crisis. As a result, home ownership rates have been at their lowest levels since the mid-1960s. Over the last 10 years, we have seen the largest gain in the number of renters in any 10-year period of time on record. That is right. We increased the number of renters in this last 10-year period of time more than at any other time on the books.

It kind of makes sense if you think about it. If the economic crisis caused you to downsize, and you were in a home and you could no longer afford it,

you would put pressure on the rental market. For those already in the rental market, it pushed many of them out of market-based rates and into solutions that were less affordable. As we all know, in major cities and urban areas across our country, it caused an actual homelessness crisis, as well, as many people could no longer even afford basic rent.

The affordable housing crisis is exploding all over the country, and we face pressures from all sides. Demand for rental housing has increased by 21 percent, but we are building units at the lowest rate since 1970. It does not take more than basic economics to see that, with demand so high and supply so low, we need to do something if we are going to make a dent in this problem. If we do not increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, then, by the year 2025, we are going to have 15 million Americans who are spending more than half of their income on rent, and this is truly unacceptable.

Our report shows that in the last decade the total number of Americans who have faced this extreme housing problem--that is, paying more than half of their incomes in rent--ballooned by 60-percent, and that has put a lot of pressure on many of our States. For my home State, the affordability crisis is actually getting worse than the national average. Since 2000, median rents have risen by 7.6 percent, which is 2.5 percent higher than in the rest of the country. As I said, it is all of those people coming from the foreclosure market into the rental market. On average, there is about a 3.5-percent increase in rents across the United States. In addition, there are 16 percent fewer affordable rental homes available in Washington State compared to the U.S. average. Overall, 400,000 Washingtonians are paying more than half of their monthly incomes in rent.

We saw these numbers, and we saw specifically how seniors and veterans and homelessness are also driving the increase in demand. Senior unaffordability, which is the term given to people who are paying more than half of their incomes in rent, rose by 30 percent. With the veteran unaffordability, which is the number of the veterans who are returning and being part of the housing market, we will see an increase of over 500,000 veterans who need affordable housing.

I think the Acting President pro tempore knows well that in his home State there are people who are trying to provide solutions in small towns and urban areas for our veterans so that they can have affordable places to live. The report also shows that doing nothing is going to continue to exacerbate the problem. We will see another 25-percent increase in unaffordability. That is just unacceptable.

To help solve the problem of affordable housing, my colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and I are reintroducing the bipartisan Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to strengthen and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

Under this provision, the expanded tax credit would help create and preserve 1.3 million affordable homes over a 10-year period of time, which would be an increase of 400,000 new units nationwide. According to the National Association of Home Builders, annual LIHTC development--this is the overall appropriation--supports approximately 95,700 jobs and $9.1 billion in wages. Investing in the low-income housing tax credit, which gives our citizens more affordable housing, is good for them, but it is also good for our economy. Enacting the proposal would create an additional 450,000 jobs over the next 10 years and would support the construction of these important units.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Association of Home Builders that talks about the economic benefit of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and this particular proposal, with their estimates of increased Federal revenue of $11.4 billion, State and local revenue of $5.6 billion, and a total of 452,000 jobs being created in that 10-year period of time.

Mr. President, I enter that into the Record because it is so important for our colleagues not to get stymied over the next several months, as we discuss proposals for economic development and for infrastructure across the United States, and not take action on this issue because we do not know how we can afford it. What we cannot afford is the rising number of Americans who no longer can afford rent or home ownership. What we need to do is to make sure that there is a roof over their heads and that they can be productive parts of our economy.

Since its creation over the last 30 years, this tax credit has financed nearly 2.9 million homes across the United States, leveraging more than $100 billion in private sector investment. That is what I like most--a little bit of the tax credit going a long way to leverage the private sector into making investments in affordable housing. Between 1986 and 2013, more than 13 million people have lived in homes that have been financed by this tax credit.

I hope my colleagues will take a look at this legislation that we are introducing today and help us support it. The crisis is real across America. Our report shows the crisis is only going to be exacerbated because of demographics and demand. The best way out of this problem is for us to make an investment that only we can make, as 90 percent of the affordable homes are built with the tax credit. Without increasing the tax credit by 50 percent, we are just writing our own statistics for a very, very dire situation across the United States of America.

I see communities in my State that look like and reflect pictures that I have seen from the Great Depression. I know the recession hit us hard, but we have to climb out of this homelessness problem by making an investment in the affordable housing tax credit. It is a bipartisan success. I hope we can make its expansion a bipartisan solution that we all can get behind.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the nomination of Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, to be the Secretary of Energy. I just heard my colleague talking a little bit about the nomination process and hearings and the Cabinet. I want to emphasize that we have never seen a Cabinet quite like this--with their connections to the private sector, their financial holdings, a variety of other things.

The American people deserve for us to do a good job of digging into the backgrounds of the various nominees so that the people know who exactly the President has chosen to run these important government agencies. We are going to continue this process both for Cabinet-level nominees and also those nominated to serve in sub-Cabinet positions.

I am here today to speak about the nominee to serve as Secretary of Energy--Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Most people probably remember Governor Perry for his famous quip during a Presidential debate during which he announced he wanted to get rid of three agencies, but could not remember that the Department of Energy was one of them.

So he became famous for forgetting that he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy. In some ways, this allowed everyone to focus on exactly how important the Department of Energy is to our Nation. The Department's vital missions not only help us with the R&D of the future, but also with our national security. The national laboratories that are overseen by the Department drive our leadership in a global economy. They are based on innovation and play a vital role across the Nation for people who rely on affordable and efficient energy to heat their homes, run their appliances, and connect to the internet.

The Department of Energy safeguards our nuclear arsenal. It also is responsible for cleaning up the waste generated by our nuclear weapons complex facilities that helped us win World War II and the cold war. The Department also plays a key role in protecting our energy infrastructure from cyber attacks. It also makes important contributions to our understanding of climate science, enabling the collection and management of data needed to understand our changing environment and is a major driver of innovation.

Before Mr. Perry was even nominated, the transition team was already targeting Department of Energy climate scientists. The transition team sought a list of those Department employees and contractors that had worked on climate change issues during the Obama Administration. This came across as an attempt to try to shut down those climate scientists and target them in a Trump Administration.

Silencing scientists is outrageous. We need an Energy Secretary who is not only going to protect the scientists who work at DOE no matter what their responsibility is but who is also going to make sure we use that important data for research and for mitigating the impacts of climate change on our coastal communities and pristine areas. Climate change is already producing significant impacts in the State of Washington and throughout the West. We need scientists working on this issue to get our States and local governments the best data and information possible.

As I previously mentioned, the Department of Energy is also an important driver of innovation. There is so much happening in the areas of smart buildings and modernizing our grid and resiliency and energy efficiency.

The thing that concerned me most about Governor Perry was his unwillingness to commit wholeheartedly to preserving the Electricity Office and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy within the Department. We need these offices and their R&D so that the U.S. can continue to create jobs in our growing energy economy.

Continued aggressive research and development is necessary if we are going to become more energy efficient and consumers are going to have access to reliable and affordable electricity. We need a Secretary who is going to emphatically push the Trump administration in the proper direction. That is exactly what we wanted to hear from Governor Perry in the Energy committee. Four members of the committee asked about his commitment to these programs. Unfortunately, the nominee dodged the questions. I followed up with Governor Perry after his confirmation hearing, and he still failed to provide a commitment to fight for these important programs. So I regret that I will not be able to support this nominee.

We need to make sure that the United States will continue to support the R&D, the scientists, the investments in electric grid modernization, and the investments in cyber security that are going to help make our Nation safe and our economy strong. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination, and I hope that we can move forward on making sure that we have an aggressive energy strategy for the future.

With that, I see my colleague from Washington. I would like to yield some time to her.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for coming to the floor and for her statement on this important issue. She and I are partners in making sure that Hanford waste is cleaned up. We so much want to continue to make progress on this important issue for our State. Having dealt

with previous Energy Secretaries, we know that it is always a fight to make sure that Hanford gets the priority it deserves, so I thank her for that.

I want to resume my comments about the key functions the Department of Energy performs and why it is vitally important that the agency succeeds in its missions, rather than be dismantled by a President who may not understand the significance of the work the Department does.

I am speaking specifically about the Department of Energy's programs to enhance our energy efficiency, promote renewable energy innovation, mobilize, modernize and bolster the security of our electricity grid, and continue to make significant advancements in science. I have spoken to Governor Perry on a couple of occasions, but, as I mentioned earlier, I failed to hear him commit to these essential DOE programs.

Our Nation's energy sector is undergoing an unbelievable transformation from fossil fuels. These changes are giving consumers more choice and lower energy bills and producing a more robust job- creation environment.

There are now 2.2 million Americans who work in the energy efficiency industry alone. In fact, energy efficiency accounted for 14 percent of all new jobs created in this country last year. That is an incredible number. We need to continue making investments in smart cars and smart buildings and homes of the future and how they are going to be integrated to reduce energy use and lower bills.

We just had a hearing this morning in the Commerce Committee and talked about broadband and white space and the continued development of the mobile economy and how we need to continue to take advantage of those advancements, particularly in rural communities.

The solar power workforce is also growing at a rapid rate. Last year, 1 out of every 50 new jobs in the United States was from solar power. The solar industry now employs more people than the oil and gas extraction or coal mining industries. These are important economic sectors.

In the last administration, the Energy Department's Quadrennial Energy Review estimated that 1.5 million new energy jobs will need to be filled, many of which will be in emerging energy technologies that will help define our clean energy economy. There are approximately 60,000 people in my home State of Washington who are employed in the clean energy sector. In fact, clean energy employment is growing twice as fast as the overall job rate in the State of Washington.

We have made too much progress, we have come too far in continuing to advance these important technologies to reverse course now. These advancements are going to help drive more savings and efficiency for consumers and businesses so they can be competitive. We must have leadership at the Department of Energy making sure that progress continues.

I take Governor Perry at his word that he has now been fully briefed and he no longer believes the Department of Energy should be abolished. But his testimony raised questions about whether he will fight to protect the Department's essential programs from ideologues in a Trump administration that want to defund and eliminate these programs.

To better understand these challenges, let's briefly review the history. Just before the President was elected, the transition team's energy group sent a memo outlining 14 energy and environmental initiatives the new administration would be pushing. The memo pointed out that the Trump administration was going to eliminate and rescind and relax several Obama administration initiatives that are important to energy efficiency, important to reducing greenhouse gases, and require agencies to take the costs associated with climate into account. Shortly afterwards, the transition team sent an unprecedented questionnaire to the Energy Department, targeting scientists and civil servants who worked on these issues and asked the Obama administration to identify them.

The morning of Governor Perry's hearing, we awoke to news that the President's team was working on a proposal to eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity. So all those jobs I previously mentioned that are key in my State, key in the United States, and, I guarantee you, key to the U.S. economy's competitiveness in the future, would be at risk. Driving down the cost of electricity and keeping our businesses competitive is key to our Nation's economic strategy. I know that as a Senator who comes from a State with very affordable electricity. It has built our economy over and over and over and over again.

If you think about how our manufacturers have to compete in a global economy and look at where some of the manufacturing has gone or where our competition exists, these issues of cost-effective and efficient energy are key to our competitiveness as a nation.

We have seen in the State of California unbelievable results from energy efficiency. It is far cheaper to save a kilowatt of energy than it is to produce one, and this key factor is what has made California the leader in our Nation in energy efficiency and helped California businesses to be competitive. So we do not want to eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency or the Office of Electricity.

As I said earlier, we tried to get Governor Perry to take a solid stance on these issues and commit wholeheartedly to fighting any attempt to do away with these important offices, but he failed to make a commitment.

During the President's very first hour in office, the administration announced it was going to eliminate the Obama administration's climate action plan. This plan even included a program started by President George H.W. Bush--the Global Climate Research Initiative to assess and predict the impacts of climate change in the future.

This is not a partisan issue. President George W. Bush called on Congress to enact energy efficiency legislation, which he subsequently signed into law, and based on bipartisan energy legislation passed in 2005 and 2007, we improved lighting efficiency by 70 percent and increased fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. So I don't understand why the Trump administration is apparently so hostile to energy efficiency.

The Energy Department's energy efficiency programs are expected to save American consumers $2 trillion on their utility bills by 2030 and reduce carbon emissions by 7.3 billion tons over the same period. That is equivalent to taking 1.6 billion cars off the road. The fact that businesses could save $2 trillion by reducing their utility bills in the future is something we should all be passionate about. Our manufacturing base needs to remain competitive.

In addition, the Bush administration worked to get the United States and China--the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters--to work together on clean energy solutions. President Bush also chose in his State of the Union Address to be an advocate for energy efficiency, electric vehicles, biofuels, R&D, and a clean energy economy. I now appreciate even more now how much he advocated for those programs. It seems strange now to see a new Republican administration that seems so single-mindedly against these important energy advancements that are going to help our economy.

The Department of Energy also plays an essential role in protecting the electric grid from cyber and physical attacks. The Office of Electricity plays a very key role for our Nation, and, as we know, there is a full-throated debate about what cyber security attacks can do to the United States of America.

These issues about how some regime could undermine our U.S. democracy are critical. We need to address it, and we need to be aggressive as a nation about it.

The Office of Electricity plays a key role, and we want the Department of Energy to be aggressive in asserting its leadership on cyber security. If you are not committed to the Office of Electricity, if you are not committed to these vital programs, how are you going to be committed to protecting us on cyber security?

It should not have been difficult for Governor Perry to speak more urgently about these programs or to say he disagreed with the administration's reported desire to cut them. For instance, he spoke eloquently about energy diversification and pointed us to his record as Governor. But, as I looked

back at his record, I noticed that he tried to add 11 new coal plants, 8 of which were subsequently canceled after a court overturned his executive order expediting the coal permitting process. This is the kind of leadership we cannot afford at the Department of Energy. That is not about holding on to the past; we need a plan for the future.

Finally, I want to mention President Trump's recent Executive order regarding the National Security Council. While it is within the discretion of the President to structure his National Security Council as he sees fit, the Secretary of Energy is a member of the National Security Council by virtue of statute. The President's Executive order removed the Secretary of Energy from the principals committee and what under the Obama administration was called the senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States.

I can guarantee you that energy is an issue of national security. We need leadership out of the Department of Energy to be strategic on electricity, transmission, and cyber security.

The Department of Energy's technical expertise is vast and is not limited to the implementation of the Iran deal. The Department plays a key role on nuclear security issues.

I take the Governor at his word that he will come to Hanford, that he will look for funding to make sure that cleanup happens, and I take him at his word that he does want to work with Members of Congress.

Unfortunately, his unwillingness to commit to critical offices at the Department that are responsible for important scientific research, giving our government and our communities more data and information about climate science, making the investments we need in our electricity grid of the future, is something that concerns me about his nomination. I cannot support Governor Perry.

I know so much will get boiled down to this sound bite of him being the nominee of an agency that he said he wanted to abolish and then, at the same time, could not even remember the agency. I guarantee you, the Energy Department is a vital, functioning program not just for today's energy needs, but as the quadrennial review said, for our future energy needs.

So we could have an Energy Secretary who is going to help us with the transformation, protecting us on cyber security, making sure our businesses reap the benefits of greater energy efficiency, and, when it comes to the electricity grid of the future, making sure we plan for those 1.5 million jobs that are going to be needed. But those aren't the commitments we have had from Governor Perry.

I hope my colleagues will recognize that this nomination is not the direction the Department of Energy needs to go in and oppose Governor Perry for the Department of Energy.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, speaking in opposition to the Perry nomination, I would say this: We need an Energy Secretary for the 21st century, one who will help protect us by fighting for an electricity grid that will make our entire Internet economy more reliable and safe from cyber attacks. We need someone who is invested in an energy efficiency strategy that will save our businesses money and make them competitive.

The last two Presidents made energy efficiency a key priority-- President Bush by advocating for plug-in vehicles and energy efficiency legislation and President Obama, who made a major investment in the smart grid and made energy efficiency and creating clean energy jobs a top priority for the Nation.

Governor Perry has not committed to those same principles, to move us forward into the 21st century energy economy. We don't want this part of our economy to be left behind to our international competitors.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Congressman Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior.

The Secretary of the Interior is one of the most important jobs in the Federal Government and even more so for people in the West. I know the Presiding Officer would agree with that.

The Department of the Interior has an incredibly broad portfolio. It is responsible for managing our Nation's public lands, our national parks, our national wildlife refuges, and overseeing mineral and energy development on our public lands and in our Federal waters offshore, making sure that the taxpayers of the United States get a fair deal for the resources that the public--the public--actually owns. The responsibilities of the Department of the Interior also include ensuring that tribal trust responsibilities are met, as well as attending to our insular affairs. The Secretary of the Interior also manages a large part of water resources in Western States--again, which I know the Presiding Officer knows so well because there are so many issues related to drinking water and hydroelectric facilities that affect millions of our citizens.

So it is a far-reaching and diverse portfolio, and it requires the Secretary

to take into account not only the demands of the extraction industry-- the oil, gas, coal, and hard rock mining companies--the Secretary, above all, must protect the public's interests.

I think the public could probably best understand this by knowing what happened in the Gulf of Mexico and the implosion that happened with the Deepwater Horizon well. Here, the Department of the Interior and minerals management resource agencies, in my opinion, should have been doing a better job of protecting the public and protecting that vital resource.

The conclusion of hearings after this fact found that there were many recommendations to clean up and streamline the minerals management agency so that it was not catering to the interests of the oil and gas industry, but making sure that it adheres to what is the public interest. Now all that has been made famous in a movie, which many of the public I think should go to see. Taking shortcuts when it comes to extraction of mineral resources is not a good idea, and having an Interior Secretary who makes sure we manage these resources well is critical to our Nation.

Also, the outdoor recreation industry, in and of itself, in my opinion--and I am sure in the opinion of many others here who understand it--has become a juggernaut. I will talk about that in a little bit. It is an economy in and of itself. It is worth preserving. It is worth fighting for. It is a source of tax revenue, income, jobs, and, most importantly, a quality of life that so many Americans hold dear. I have been so touched by the letters I have gotten from veterans, who have said to me on their returning back from Iraq and Afghanistan that having the wonders of the outdoors as a place for peace and sanctuary has been so critical to them. They have argued in support of important programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and others, to make sure that our public lands are there for them to enjoy and for their children to enjoy in the future.

So, in short, the Secretary must balance the short-term demands of developing resources on these public lands against the need to protect the environment and sensitive areas and preserve that natural heritage, as I said, for future generations. It is very important that we have a Secretary who understands what our Nation's leading stewardship responsibilities are, understands what those special places are, like the Grand Canyon, and other places such as Mount Rainier, and makes sure they are protected.

I had hoped to be able to support Congressman Zinke's nomination based on his assurances that he would manage the Department of the Interior as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. However, I cannot ignore the Trump administration's plans for our public lands and resources, and I cannot ignore Congressman Zinke's commitment during our committee hearings to work to implement President-Elect Trump's energy independence policy, as well as a variety of positions on returning Federal land, taking public lands off the protection that they deserve today. These are very important public policy issues, and I note that President Trump has said to many people: ``My Cabinet is free to say whatever they want.'' So the fact that these important policies are going to be implemented that may erode what has been decades of policy for us in managing our public resources is quite concerning to me.

What exactly is the Trump administration's plan? Clearly, the Trump administration intends to pursue an aggressive agenda when it comes to mining and drilling on our public lands and waters. The President and his senior advisers have made clear their intention to undo what are reasonable protections put in place in environmentally sensitive areas. The administration will renew its efforts to reverse protections of important onshore and offshore areas. Based on energy plans posted on the White House website immediately after the President's inauguration, the President seems to be committed to simply opening up as much Federal land as possible to coal mining and energy development.

The administration has said it will use money from drilling and mining on all our public lands and waters to pay for a multibillion- dollar infrastructure package. My constituents want to know where they draw the line. Where does that stop?

The administration has already suspended rules ensuring polluters on our public lands don't have to pay their fair share. The President has signed into law a measure gutting the Obama administration rule that would have prevented coal companies from dumping toxic chemicals into our Nation's rivers and streams. So it is clear to me that the new administration will do everything it can to reverse the responsible management of our public land and instead pursue an aggressive energy development policy without regard to the environmental and public health consequences.

The bedrock principle, I believe, is that polluters should pay and they should clean up their messes on public lands. We may all have a different opinion here about how much public land should be developed, but I think everybody should be in agreement that polluters should pay, and they should leave our public land in a pristine nature.

It is equally clear that the new administration will be encouraged in this effort by the majorities in the House and the Senate by some of the legislation we have already seen, such as enabling coal companies to dump their mining waste into streams and impacting State drinking water, enabling oil companies to waste the public's natural resource without paying royalties on the gas they waste--that is costing taxpayers money--and reports that the President intends to issue an Executive order to overturn the current moratorium prohibiting new coal leases on Federal land. That is an issue about getting a fair deal for the taxpayer. The taxpayer is impacted by this coal extraction. Coal companies, instead of doing the job it takes to extract coal without an impact on the public, are taking Federal resources and making lots of money without responsibility to the taxpayer.

The previous Secretary, Secretary Jewell, basically said, for the first time in many years, that they would look at what the industry was paying as far as coal royalties. That process is underway, and we think it should be carried out. We think the taxpayer deserves a fair deal.

Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Congressman Zinke will be willing or able to moderate the Trump administration's extreme views on exploiting our public lands, and I am not sure he will be willing or able to stand up to the President to protect the public interest and ensure that our public lands are managed and protected for the benefit of all Americans--not just the oil, gas, and mining companies and their commercial interests.

The Secretary's principal job is to be a guardian, a steward of our public lands. To me, stewardship is so important. So many of my colleagues come to the floor and act like they are managing this resource for their lifetime and their generation. Stewardship is about managing these resources for future generations as well. If our past ancestors had been so callus with these Federal resources, where would we be today? It is so important that we not look at these Federal lands so narrowly as a source of natural resources that someone has in their particular State or interest but also to make sure that stewardship protects these resources for future generations as well. With that in mind, I have seen several laws and regulations under attack that are fundamental to keeping that mission of stewardship at the Department of the Interior, including the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and the Antiquities Act.

While Congressman Zinke said he would oppose the transfer of Federal lands to the States, which I appreciate, at the same time, he has indicated he is willing to consider transferring away management of certain Federal lands to the States.

What does that mean? For example, you could have a monument or a designation of Federal land--it could be even Mount Rainier or some beautiful place in the Pacific Northwest--consequently transferred back to the State and that particular State--it wouldn't happen in Washington but might happen in some other State--decides to start managing that land and extracting resources. You might think that

couldn't possibly happen. I have news for you. That is the debate du jour. This is exactly--exactly--the debate today.

Last Congress, Congressman Zinke cosponsored and voted for a bill to transfer to the States management of red snapper fisheries in Federal waters. He supports transferring Federal management responsibilities to the States, and it clearly undercuts the commitment to Federal resources.

We also know he has previously supported efforts to restrict use of the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments. In fact, he appears open to efforts to weaken or repeal certain recently designated national monuments. He has indicated one of his first priorities, upon confirmation, will be to visit Utah to consider a Republican proposal to rescind the recently designated Bears Ears National Monument. This is despite the strong support of many across the Nation and in Utah, as well as tribal support from the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, representing the five affected tribes in the region.

As somebody who enjoys the outdoors, I can state how important it is to be able to go and recreate. I have not been to Bears Ears, but I have heard incredible stories from climbers and those interested in seeing this unique terrain that it is a very special place.

As we enter this debate, the issue of the Bears Ears National Monument and whether they are going to roll back Federal land protection will be at the center of this discussion. Created by President Obama, Bears Ears encompasses 1.3 million acres of beautiful desert hills, mesas, sandstone canyons, spiritually significant lands to local tribes, and some of the best crack climbing in the world. The climbing community loves to recreate there.

The conservation community and tribes have fought for many years for this designation. If and when he is confirmed, Congressman Zinke will be under intense pressure from some quarters to try to undo this designation. In fact, heated debate on this subject boiled over just a week ago as the Outdoor Retailer show decided to leave Salt Lake City, after two decades and contributing at least $40 million to the economy in various shows that they had each year there, because of Utah's stated desire and the congressional delegation's interest in basically claiming Federal lands and selling them off for extraction from the oil and gas industry.

I was so proud of retailers, such as REI in my State or others such as Patagonia, Black Diamond, Outdoor Research and others, basically put their money where their mouth is. They decided that if a State was going to attack the very economy that was so important to them in jobs and recreation, that they were going to do something about moving their impacted industry somewhere else.

I would like to read what the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had to say about this issue.

``In the same week Utah announced that it had topped $8.17 billion in annual economic benefit from tourism, the $40 million Outdoor Retailer show announced it was leaving.

``Surely we can take a half-percent hit, right?

``No. The exit of Outdoor Retailer is so much more than just losing the State's largest convention. There will be hospitality jobs lost, and hotel rooms from Sandy to Ogden vacant for those two weeks a year. We're now building a 900-room downtown convention hotel--with public bonding authority--largely on spec. There is now no convention currently on Salt Lake City's docket that demands it.

``The reason Outdoor Retailer is leaving--their rejection of Utah's political leaders' values as shown in the stubborn and pointless fight against a Bears Ears National Monument--should make this moment a turning point.

``In the 1960s, Utah found itself at a confluence. One flow was fed by a collection of downtown Chamber of Commerce types who hatched a longshot bid to obtain the 1972 Winter Olympics. They knew they wouldn't win, but they saw it as a chance to sell Utah's ``Greatest Snow on Earth.'' It was the first time Utah took its outdoor tourism message to the world, and it was well received.

``The other flow came from a fundamental change in the American people, who were waking up to the natural world and the treasures in their own presence. In Utah, there was recognition that we held those treasures. A national park was created in Canyonlands, and national monuments in Arches, Capitol Reef were elevated to national parks. Utahns of all creed and color united in their pride of our shared national icons.''

I am sure the Presiding Officer also agrees with the concept, being from the home of the Grand Canyon. Continuing to read from the editorial:

``Where once we were a peculiar backwater, we became known the world over. Were it not for pioneering efforts, there would be no ski industry. No Olympics. No Sundance Film Festival. No Flat Tire Festival. No steady stream of tour buses climbing to Bryce Canyon. No $8.17 billion per year.

``Losing Outdoor Retailer over Bears Ears represents a reversal of a half century of progress in inviting the world to appreciate Utah.''

``The seeds of that failure were shown in the rejection . . . of the unprecedented unity of five Indian nations coming together to protect their ancestral homeland. Instead of recognizing the significance, our leaders emboldened the local pioneer descendants who were claiming their 150 years of ranching took precedent over centuries of Indian presence in Bears Ears. The tribes had no choice but to go to the president.

``That blindness that can be sourced to Utah's one-party political system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with their constituents. Dismantling the Bears Ears was a slam dunk in the Utah Legislature last week, but it's an issue on which every poll has shown Utahns divided, a division encouraged by the false narrative that the monument was a trade-off between fat energy jobs and low-paying tourist jobs.

``The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries and shared management Representative Bishop pursued with his Public Lands Initiative. In that context, Utah political leaders' vehemence looks to much of the nation like white rejection of the legitimacy of a black president listening to Native Americans.''

``The damage may not be over. What does Utah's sports equipment industry have to look forward to? What are Ogden-based companies supposed to do when their congressman refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuel consumption reduces the snowpack upon which their products glide?

``Are we receding to the backwaters where our superiority is apparent only to ourselves? Are we bent on separating Americans from their national identity instead of inviting them to share it?

``This isn't about $40 million. It's about who we are and where we are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a better appreciation of the magnificent gifts God has given everyone, not just Utahns.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think that editorial puts this debate squarely in front of my colleagues. We have a nominee who has been all over the map as it relates to public lands, and, certainly, he has been on record that he will implement the President's strategy. I know he plans to visit this area, and I am so concerned that it will be the first of many areas in which people run over the larger public and national interests in order to preserve special places just for immediate extraction when, in reality, the jobs from the outdoor economy are just as important and, if you add up numbers, may be more important economically in both the near term and the long term.

I should also note that those of us in Washington would gladly welcome the outdoor retailers with open arms. I am sure they will consider many different places, but we understand that protecting our most treasured places not only preserves them for this generation but for future generations, and it helps drive an economy.

In Utah, outdoor recreation is responsible for $12 billion in consumer spending--more than twice the value of oil and gas produced in that State. If we are talking about top dog economics, the outdoor industry wins. In Washington State, the outdoor economy supports 227,000 direct-paying jobs and wages of $7.1 billion. Nationwide, it is 6.1 million jobs and $646 billion in revenues from outdoor recreation, so this is a very valued part of the U.S. economy. It is also a very valued part of the American spirit.

Not only do the Bears Ears National Monument and others like it benefit county, State, and Federal coffers, but they also offer access to our shared heritage. As I said, it is that spiritual connection to nature that is so valuable to all of us, but I hold so dear that our veterans cherish it so much too. They deserve the relief of being able to go to our greatest and beautiful places and have some solace.

A second major responsibility of the Secretary is to manage the mineral resources that are on public lands and waters. One of the fundamental principles of the public resource management is that the American people should receive a fair market value for the energy and minerals that are extracted from our public lands. These resources are owned by every American.

I think, sometimes, people get confused that these are the rights of these industries, that they own them. We have allowed that extraction and the leasing of that extraction, but we need to make sure that the taxpayers' interests and the costs of impact are well represented and that extraction is done in an efficient manner--that it protects the resources for the future, that it cleans up its mess, and that polluters pay.

An important principle is that our public lands be managed so that their use will not permanently harm the land or the environment and that, in allowing companies to mine on public land, they must minimize the harm they do, clean up the messes they make, and repair and pay for the damage. ``Polluter pays'' should be a basic principle.

The Secretary of the Interior must be committed to preserving and enforcing those important principles and to making sure that the taxpayers get a fair deal. The previous Secretary, as I said--Secretary Jewell--took important steps to advance those principles. On her watch, the Department issued its new stream protection rule, its methane venting and flaring rule, its mineral valuation rule, and the comprehensive examination of its coal leasing program.

Most of these initiatives involve updating existing policies that have been in place for 20 or 30 years. That is just another way of saying that whether the taxpayer is getting a fair deal by allowing these companies to mine these Federal resources has not really been evaluated for 20 or 30 years, so I am sure my colleagues could understand that that kind of updating should take place. During these three intervening decades, technology has improved and science has advanced, and we need to make sure technology recognizes that, when pollution happens, it needs to be cleaned up.

Attacks on Secretary Jewell's public health and taxpayer initiatives are already underway, and I am concerned that Congressman Zinke will not stand up to make sure that the policies of ``polluter pays'' are followed and that the good work that has already been established is continued. At his confirmation hearing, Congressman Zinke stated that the war on coal is real and that he supports lifting the coal leasing moratorium. This is completely contrary to the rational view of energy market dynamics, and it is at odds with the energy policies our constituents expect.

While Federal coal leasing is an issue of national concern, it is also critically important in my State. They want to make sure that taxpayers get a fair deal for the leasing of that land. As people have discussed here on the floor, the advent of natural gas and its cheap value has done more to drive down the use of coal than any of this discussion about whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal.

Finally, the Secretary of the Interior must be committed to upholding our trust and treaty obligations for our country's 567 federally recognized tribes. That Secretary must be committed to recognizing tribal sovereignty and self-determination, protecting tribal lands and waters and mineral resources, and supporting adequate resources for tribal education, social services, and infrastructure.

Congressman Zinke has been a strong advocate of the Crow Tribes' coal resource in his home State; and while I respect his responsibility to his district, he will be required as Secretary of the Interior to have a much different position in representing all tribes across the United States.

I know that some of my colleagues think that one can be expedient on any

of these issues whether it is on the Antiquities Act or on coal leasing or on making sure that we live up to tribal sovereignty. In reality, it takes very little to sign an Executive order; it takes a lot to overrule the law of the land. Many of these issues will end up in court, and many of them will be battled for several years. I would suggest to my colleagues that we find a common interest in preserving our stewardship, in preserving our natural resources, and in continuing to develop this kind of economy moving forward.

I am not convinced that Congressman Zinke is going to show the leadership on these resources that is necessary, given his very different views on public lands as a Congressman--on all sides of the issue. We need someone who is going to stand up, just like those in Utah did, and say that the outdoor economy is worth it. The designation of public lands, as done by the President of the United States, should be preserved, and we should continue to fight for something that is providing so many jobs and such a great connection for so many Americans.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, for the last 47 years, the EPA has enforced science-based environmental policies that have resulted in cleaner air and water, the cleanup of some of our Nation's most contaminated lands and waters, and has improved our understanding of our changing climate. All of this has led to a healthier America.

Bipartisan Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency-- everybody from the great Washingtonian Bill Ruckelshaus to most recently Gina McCarthy--took on the role and responsibility as EPA Administrator, knowing that it was their responsibility to protect existing environmental law and to let science be the guide on research and new policies. They took the EPA mission to heart, and they fought to protect human health and the environment.

I have questions about whether the nominee, Mr. Pruitt, follows those same values, and I come to the floor to oppose his nomination to be the Administrator of the EPA.

Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly attacked needed EPA regulations, and he supports polluters at the expense of the environment and health laws. He doesn't believe the scientifically proven causes of climate change are real.

Less than a year ago, then-Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, working in their State, wrote: ``Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.'' That was written in the Tulsa World.

When questioned by my colleagues during the hearing process, he said: ``The climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that in some manner'' but the degree of that contribution is ``subject to more debate.''

The reason I raised these issues is that this issue of climate and climate impact is so real in the State of Washington. It is already happening, and it is already affecting our industries.

As EPA Administrator, Mr. Pruitt would have the responsibility for setting the Agency's agenda, including how to respond to climate change, yet the fact that he doesn't support the existing climate change science puts him in a role where I think he would not protect the economic interests of our State.

We cannot have a lackadaisical attitude about these issues. It is not a hypothesis. It is here. It is happening.

In the Pacific Northwest, it is altering our region's water cycle, putting Washington's farming jobs and our $51 billion agriculture economy at risk. Wildfire seasons are longer and more severe than ever before. It is costing our Nation billions of dollars.

Warmer water temperatures in our streams and rivers have degraded salmon spawning habitat, led to massive die-offs, and certainly our shellfish industry has been very challenged.

With 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed by our oceans, it is raising the acidity level, and that is impacting the chemistry of Puget Sound. Oceans and their absorption of carbon dioxide emissions and these acidic conditions are making it hard for our shellfish industry to do the type of seeding that needs to take place. It is severely impacting the Pacific Northwest's $278 million shellfish industry. Ocean acidification has been found to dissolve the shells of important prey species, and the ocean acidification effects then carry up the food chain, if they are not addressed.

If we have an EPA Administrator who isn't going to work to cut down on carbon emissions and thinks that it is only part of the impact, aren't there a lot of Northwest jobs at stake? For example, our maritime economy alone is worth $30 billion, so I would say there is a lot at stake.

In looking at the record of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, he fought EPA regulations that protect public health, including the cross-state air pollution rule, the regional haze rule, the clean air standards for oil and gas production sites, and the clean water rule.

Despite this issue of repeatedly suing the EPA, he recently told Congress: ``I do not expect any previous lawsuits to adversely affect my performance as EPA Administrator.''

Well, I have serious concerns about how Mr. Pruitt's past lawsuits will influence his aggressive attitude as EPA Administrator in not fighting for the things that are going to protect the jobs and economy in Washington State that count so much on a pristine environment.

A letter was sent by 773 former EPA employees who served under Democratic and Republican administrations, stating: ``Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest that he does not share the vision or agree with the underlying principles of our environmental statutes.''

His record does not give me the confidence that he is the right person to lead this Agency at this point in time.

But there are other issues. During his time as Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt planned the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels. This summit brought together energy industry executives with attorneys general to strategize against EPA, and they specifically discussed EPA's overreach, as they put it, regarding a very important issue called the Pebble Mine.

The Pebble Mine is an attempt by some who want to actually establish a gold mine in the very place of one of the most successful salmon habitats in the entire world: Bristol Bay, AK.

The EPA followed the letter of the law in their multiyear, science- based assessment of Bristol Bay. They basically made sure that everybody understood what was at risk: that Pebble Mine would destroy up to 94 miles of salmon spawning streams; it would devastate anywhere from 1,300 to 5,350 acres of wetlands; and it would create 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste, which is nearly enough to bury Seattle. And all of this would occur in the headwaters of the greatest salmon fishery on Earth, where half of the sockeye salmon on the planet spawn.

So the notion that this is how this nominee would spend his time--as I said, the mine itself is a direct threat to the $1.5 billion salmon industry in Bristol Bay. That is 14,000 jobs just in the Pacific Northwest. The importance of making sure that the mine is not located there is of the utmost importance, I say, to the salmon fisheries of the entire Pacific Northwest.

I want to make sure we are putting someone in place who is going to fight for the laws that are on the books and to show leadership, not spend time trying to undermine the Agency, the organization, and its existing authority.

If Scott Pruitt allowed Bristol Bay to go forward, it would be devastating to our State. It would be voting in favor of these polluters instead of making sure that we are protecting science and environmental law.

I have very serious concerns, and that is why I am opposing this nominee. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will realize that these economies--the ones that depend on clean air and clean water, safe salmon spawning grounds--are dependent on our doing the right thing to protect what is really our stewardship of this planet that we are on only for a very short period of time. I hope my colleagues will consider all of this and oppose this nominee.

Mr. President, 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 this morning to join my colleagues to speak on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the EPA. Like my colleagues who have been out here tonight, the great Senator from Illinois, Senator Duckworth, and my colleague from Hawaii who preceded her, we are here to talk about the importance of our environment and what a critical asset it is to each of our regions of the United States.

Certainly, you can say for the State of Washington that the environment is our economy--the beautiful aspects of our clean water, the resources of our beautiful mountains and wonderful streams, Puget Sound itself, our mountains that so many of my colleagues ask me about. These are all assets that make Washington State a great place to live, work, and recreate in.

Our companies would tell you that one of the great things they have in recruiting people to the State of Washington is that it is a competitive advantage to say their business is located in Washington. People understand what that means to the quality of life and to the opportunities for those workers. It is with that in mind that I rise in strong opposition to this nomination.

I had a chance yesterday to discuss Mr. Pruitt and to discuss some of the concerns that I have with his role as Administrator, and in Oklahoma in the attorney general slot, and also his nomination process. Many of my colleagues this morning have brought up his record, what that record represents, and their concerns about his answers to very important questions.

This is about stewardship. Stewardship is about how we are going to manage our resources and apply the laws of clean air and clean water to protect not just this generation of Americans, but future generations of Americans.

Mr. Pruitt's poor environmental record--in my opinion, he is choosing to side with those companies that have been polluters of clean water and failed to protect in an aggressive way the important public health issues that were before people in his State.

Obviously, there is a big discussion tonight. My colleagues have been out here discussing whether there is transparency in Oklahoma regarding his ability to discuss with them his failures or his successes, if you will, in a public process. That is why people have been demanding these emails. These important documents are things that, not only the people of Oklahoma, but people in the U.S. Senate have a right to have answers to as we consider his nomination.

I join my colleague from Hawaii in saying, What is the rush? What is the rush to push forward somebody as an administrator for something that is about the stewardship of our air and water--something that is going to be important, not just to our generation but future generations? We want an EPA Administrator who is going to protect that. That is what we want to know: Are you going to be an aggressive steward for future generations?

I had an opportunity a couple of years ago to hear one of the great authors who has written all these books about economics. He was talking about the great implosion of the economy in 2008, 2009. His point was that was going to cost future generations--not just this generation, but maybe three generations of Americans were going to be affected by that big great recession of our economy. It is the same issue tonight.

Our future environment is going to be impacted, not just for today, but for future generations by what the next EPA Administrator does. It is critical that we recognize the important need for clean air and clean water now and take steps to be aggressive about it.

This is something that is important to our State because it is affecting us economically. It is affecting us with water and ocean acidification, challenging our seafood industry and our food chain, and challenging us with wildfires. We want to make sure that we have an EPA Administrator who is going to do their job.

In my opinion, Mr. Pruitt has ignored big polluters and discharge in drinking water in Oklahoma. In my opinion, he has not been strong enough with regards to the big oil and big mining companies who have attempted to undermine what is EPA law. As attorney general, he tried to undermine the laws that are already on the Federal books. It leaves my colleagues and I questioning, How could he ever stand up for those laws if he has spent so much time trying to undermine them?

He has helped organize strategies and discussions about how to aggressively stop the EPA from doing its job. Some of these discussions used the example of the Pebble Mine. The Pebble Mine is a mine that companies are proposing in Alaska at the headwaters of the largest sockeye salmon run in the world, one of the most important sockeye salmon runs in the world. So as EPA Administrator, when he is supposed to be protecting clean water, is he going to side with those mining companies? He spent a whole strategy session with them trying to figure out how to overrun EPA. Is he going to be the kind of person who is going to help us stand up for clean water so we can have salmon on the west coast? Or is he going to join with those who think that you can degrade the environment and still preserve these incredible resources?

I know that people think Mr. Pruitt and his statements about climate change are important. I agree because part of that stewardship on clean air is basically implementing and carrying forward strategies to make sure that polluters reduce pollution in our air and that we come up with a plan to diversify energy sources to reduce that pollution. I should say his job is not that, but it is clearly to call out what the Supreme Court has said is implementation of the Clean Air Act.

My colleagues, I think, are failing to recognize that Mr. Pruitt's hesitancy on this issue is really going to cause problems or challenges for us here in the Senate. It is going to cause challenges for us to move ahead when we are seeing so much impact.

I know my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and I have asked the GAO for an analysis of what climate change is costing us. What is the impact of climate change costing us? Why did we ask for that letter over a year ago? Because we are seeing devastating impacts in the shellfish industry, in the timber industry, in various aspects of our economy as it relates to that.

In the Tulsa World Mr. Pruitt said: ``Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.''

That is what he said in the newspaper in Oklahoma.

I know several of my colleagues and I have further discussed exactly this issue, but the United States has made great strides to reduce carbon dioxide, and we need to have someone who is going to be aggressive about doing more work on this. The consequences of increased carbon dioxide have been everything from extreme weather patterns to impacts on water quality, which causes impacts to our salmon, to drought conditions, which a lot of legislation--various committees have been discussing exactly what to do about the drought situation in Washington, Oregon and California. I am sure it is going to continue into many other States. It is impacting even the chemistry of Puget Sound--something I will get into in a minute with ocean acidification.

To have somebody who doesn't get how aggressive we have to be on addressing these issues is very problematic. It is an economic issue.

I would like to say, as I mentioned earlier, it is about good stewardship because it is about future generations and whether someone did their job in leaving this place to the next generation, but it is also about economic issues.

Mr. Pruitt failed to be accountable as attorney general in releasing emails, and that is so much of the discussion today about his nomination. During his confirmation hearing, he repeatedly failed to answer questions. And he told Senators: Submit an open records request to the attorney general's office--his own office. It is as if Mr. Pruitt is taunting our colleagues, not answering the questions about his policy, hoping that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this side of the aisle will support him, even though he will not give us answers on his policies. And then he says: Well, if you want to know, you can submit an open records request. We have; people have. We want the answers, and a court today has said: Let's give people those answers.

We don't have those answers today, yet my colleagues want to rush to have his nomination pushed through when something as important as the environment is at stake.

On average, Oklahoma State government agencies complied with their open records request within 68 days. That was the average, yet Mr. Pruitt, as attorney general, has taken over 2 years. A few weeks ago when a lawsuit was filed against Mr. Pruitt on this very issue, the suit requested that he respond to 9 open records requests, asking for as many as 3,000 emails.

As I just said, yesterday, a judge said that he has to turn over those records, those documents, and he has to do so by Tuesday. It is not a long time to wait. It is not a long time to discuss the concerns that our colleagues have with this position. In fact, I would be happy to come back on Wednesday and make sure we have consideration then, giving people time until Tuesday. But people are pushing us to vote for this nomination tomorrow or, I should say today.

What do my colleagues not want to see in the Pruitt emails? What is it that they don't want to know? Attorney General Pruitt has been part of close to 30 anti-environmental legal actions. Is that what they don't want to see?

I know one of my colleagues has said he is going to make polluters pay. He is going to assure that these issues are implemented.

Scott Pruitt has sued the EPA 14 times. He fought the cross-state air pollution rule. He fought the regional haze rule. He fought the clean air standards for oil and gas production sites. He fought the clean water rule. He fought the mercury rule twice, and he fought the Clean Power Plan four times.

So are my colleagues interested in giving this job to someone who has fought the EPA and tried to stop them from making sure that polluters pay? This is what the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency is, to make sure that we have good stewardship.

In one case, Attorney General Pruitt failed to pursue a Phillips 66 refinery in an Oklahoma City, which the EPA found was one of the worst polluting refineries in the entire country. Phillips 66, in this case, impacted groundwater. That was the pollution in this case. Yet Scott Pruitt failed to enforce the environmental laws there.

As attorney general, Scott Pruitt has been absent in other cases. There was a groundwater case and pollution by Halliburton. Where was the attorney general in that case?

In another case, in Bethany, the city's water wells were impacted by a toxic plume of chemicals that impacted access to safe drinking water.

This case is still going on. But the attorney general failed to step in and protect those citizens.

So this is what we want to understand, given what Attorney General Pruitt said in his testimony: Ask for requests. Get the emails. See the positions.

That is what we have done. As we can see from his record, he knew very well it took a long time, that he had every tool to make this a very hard process for people to get the answers. Yet we are now within days of having those answers. My colleagues want to go ahead and vote.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt was asked to identify lawsuits he filed against private companies in Oklahoma for violation of pollution laws. Despite these examples I just mentioned, Mr. Pruitt could think of only one specific instance in which he filed a settlement after his predecessor completed an investigation into how a dozen or so poultry producers illegally disposed of animal waste. So let's take a closer look at that case.

The poultry companies in the northeast corner of Oklahoma were not properly disposing of 300,000 tons of animal waste per year. Attorney General Pruitt's predecessor had sued the companies for damages caused by pollution and forced the companies to change disposal practices. But Mr. Pruitt in this case, rather than advocating for the judge to make a ruling, negotiated an agreement with the company to do a study on the appropriate levels of phosphorus in the Illinois River.

So while some might say ``Well, isn't that a good step?'' he let the agreement expire that was already in place to reduce that waste and did not seek a formal extension. He shut down the environmental unit that helped start the lawsuit against those companies. This unit was in charge of making sure that agricultural waste cleanup and millions of dollars to clean up those toxic sites were in place. Yet he let that expire.

So I have grave concerns about whether he is going to be aggressive about these issues all across the United States. Is he going to work to make sure these laws that are on the books already continue to be enforced? Is he going to fight to make sure that clean air and clean water--the rights of the citizens here in our country--are preserved and preserved for future generations?

I noticed that in Oklahoma there was question 777, a ballot measure. On that ballot measure was Oklahoma's right-to-farm statute that was proposed by the Oklahoma Legislature. If the voters in Oklahoma approved it, it would have created an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution prohibiting the legislature from enacting laws restricting agricultural production unless laws were needed to advance a ``compelling State interest.''

I think this is a very interesting demonstration of how people are trying to use a process, just like the House colleagues are sending over regulatory reform bills. They are going to hide behind regulatory reform when in reality they are trying to curtail clean water and clean air rules.

Well, the people of Oklahoma were a little smarter than that. Right- to-farm laws are not uncommon, and there are currently variations in all 50 States. But many such statutes, including Oklahoma's current law, protect farmers and ranchers from nuisance claims as long as they operate in acceptable practices.

This question that was put on the ballot to Oklahomans went further than the typical right-to-farm law; it would have amended their State constitution. The State constitution holds a higher authority than these State statutes. So if that initiative was enacted, it would have guaranteed that

agriculture can engage in farming practices without interference from the legislature, and it would even have prohibited the public from suits. Can you imagine that? I know that that is what some of the proponents of these issues want; they want to do whatever they want on the land whether it impacts the neighbors or impacts clean air or clean water. They just want to keep moving it forward.

So Mr. Pruitt was in support of question 777. He talked about the ``intrusive rules from government regulators'' that often ``fail to achieve the stated health, safety and environmental goals.'' Well, we know we want to have a balance. We can have jobs, we can have agriculture, and we can have environmental stewardship. I think we, in Washington, work very hard to achieve that.

Drought issues like we are experiencing in the Yakima Basin got everybody to the table--farmers, Native Americans, fishermen, everybody. Instead of trying to pass initiatives like this--which, by the way, failed in Oklahoma--people said: We need to work together in these challenging times of a changing climate and work on preserving what is most important to all of us. They have done a good job in doing that.

So what we are looking for is an Administrator who is going to help in that process, who is going to continue to make sure we live up to these laws that are on the books and help in the challenging times of drought and environmental impact.

Of Attorney General Pruitt's 14 cases against EPA, 13 of those suits were joined by the fossil fuel industry. The attorney general has been known to send letters to Federal agencies that basically were identical to the fossil fuel industry letters; that is, as attorney general, he wasn't making his case, he was just making the case for the fossil fuel industry.

The CEO of Continental Resources, a top oil producer in the United States--their organizations basically were trying to push Mr. Pruitt during his time as attorney general, instead of standing up for clean air and clean water. And we want to know what he is going to do in this new job--work with Members here in the Senate on continuing to implement the law.

One of the best examples of what I would expect him to do is to continue the good work of the Federal Government in protecting salmon. Of particular importance, as I mentioned earlier, is the issue of Pebble Mine. During his time as attorney general, Scott Pruitt, as I said, planned the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels. That is a pretty interesting task to take if you are the attorney general of a State, the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels. That summit brought together energy executives with attorneys general to strategize against what they thought was so-called EPA overreach and how to defeat it.

One of the key examples they brought up was the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to protect Bristol Bay, AK, from a proposed mine that is called Pebble Mine. Pebble Mine is a proposed large hard rock mine, as I mentioned earlier, in the headwaters of Bristol Bay. Each year nearly 40 million sockeye salmon return to Bristol Bay. In total, Bristol Bay supports 29 species of fish, including all 5 North American salmon species. That is why Bristol Bay is called one of the greatest fisheries on Earth. Bristol Bay supports a $1.5 billion sockeye salmon fishery, which provides 14,000 jobs throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Even my colleague, the late Ted Stevens, was opposed to the Pebble Mine. I think he knew the great resource and the importance of Bristol Bay.

This fishery, and the people in that fishery, and the tribes of Bristol Bay, petitioned the EPA to evaluate the impact of the proposed Pebble Mine and what it could do to salmon.

In 2014, after years of research, EPA finalized a science-based assessment of the Pebble Mine called the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. This assessment found that Pebble Mine posed a direct threat to Bristol Bay salmon.

I am not sure this is a picture of Bristol Bay salmon, but this is definitely an iconic symbol of what we are talking about here tonight, that thousands of jobs in our State rely on salmon, and the subsistence culture of many Native Americans also rely on Bristol Bay salmon. That is why so many people weighed in at meetings with EPA and agencies in various parts of the Northwest to talk about this issue, because so many jobs would be impacted. That mine would destroy up to 94 miles of salmon spawning streams, devastate up to 5,350 acres of wetlands, and create 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste.

So you can imagine my concern when the attorney general out of Oklahoma decided he was going to take a very lenient attitude on animal waste and hold the summit trying to basically figure out ways to disrupt EPA's questioning and assertions about Bristol Bay. How far he is going to go as EPA Administrator to basically have a negative impact on our salmon economy?

He could have said: It was just a session, and I support EPA's actions. But that is not the message we are receiving. The toxic mine waste that would exist at Bristol Bay would contaminate massive amounts of areas behind the second largest dam in the world, and that mine waste would be there in perpetuity in Bristol Bay.

So the science was very clear. The Pebble Mine was in the wrong place, and it was the wrong idea. Large mining companies have come to that same conclusion. Just a few weeks ago, an analyst issued a report that said Pebble Mine is ``not commercially viable.'' That is because of the tremendous costs that are associated with it and the risks associated with it.

After the EPA assessment found that salmon were at risk from the Pebble Mine, I definitely want to make sure that Bristol Bay salmon are protected forever. The EPA had the authority to basically use a section of the Clean Water Act to make sure those Bristol Bay salmon were protected. That is what I expect. That is what I expect after public hearings, an open process, using the authority. Why would it be a good idea to let a mine be located at the headwaters of one of the most important salmon runs in the world? Why would we do that? Yet Mr. Pruitt took time to join an effort to say: How can we overturn EPA's efforts here?

I need an EPA Administrator who is going to stand up for our environment in the Pacific Northwest and protect us on clean air and clean water. It is critical that those individuals who were proposing this mine continue to be thwarted.

While the EPA has been close to making sure there are permanent protections for Bristol Bay, I am very concerned that this EPA Administrator could start this process all over again. That is something we can't afford. We cannot have an EPA Administrator who is on the wrong side of the Pebble mine issue. They need to protect Northwest salmon.

I would also like to talk about another threat to our environment, to our fishing economy that is certainly happening today and why we need an EPA Administrator not to be spending their time joining forces with polluters, figuring out ways to avoid law, but figuring out ways to implement the Clean Air Act that the Supreme Court says we must follow through on.

Last year, Attorney General Pruitt stated that there is a disagreement about whether human activity has had an impact on climate. When he was pressed on this issue during his hearing, he continued to question scientific facts. He said he believed climate change is irrelevant to his role as EPA Administrator. Well, I disagree. Climate change is not a future hypothetical issue. We are seeing it today, and we are seeing it in our State.

Our fishermen want to continue the great legacy that we have in our fishing traditions, and we are going to get to why this picture is affected by what I am going to talk about next, but we want to continue to have thriving Northwest fisheries. We want to continue to have a healthy environment and food chain that is going to allow us to have a robust fishery in the Northwest.

I think our fisheries can be cited as some of the best managed fisheries in the entire world. That is how good we are at it. That is how scientific we are at it. That is how collaborative we are at it. That is how much hard work has been put into stewardship and managing the resources and making sure the jobs still exists. I would match that with any other part of the United States or this planet. The Northwest

fisheries are managed well, but they are being challenged. They are being challenged by the fact that our climate is changing and that the oceans absorb 25 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions, which resulted basically in a changing of the chemistry in our waterways. That is right; the oceans absorb 25 percent of carbon emissions. So basically they become this sink for the emissions.

We have scientists who are out on the Olympic Peninsula studying this very issue, not for us in the Northwest; they are studying it for the entire United States. It is part of our National Laboratory system. They are looking at this very important issue and the challenges we face from it.

The fact that the oceans have been the sinks for that carbon has made the rate of ocean acidification 10 times faster than anything we have seen on Earth in the last 50 million years. In Puget Sound, that means that ocean acidification has resulted in massive die-offs of young oysters. Juvenile shellfish cannot survive in these corrosive waters, and their shells actually dissolve.

So this economy for us is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the shellfish industry. A few years ago, we were successful in getting some very minor--I think it was in the definitely thousands of dollars--to help that industry figure out what was happening because the shells weren't forming. We were able to see that ocean acidification was having such a corrosive impact, we helped the industry figure out when a better time for seeding was and to get to a point where those extreme conditions weren't having their most devastating impact.

This die-off in 2005 caused a major plummeting of the shellfish industry. An industry that employs over 3,000 people in the State of Washington. I have met shellfish growers who are fourth-generation shellfish growers in our State. So this way of life around Puget Sound is important to us. You can go to probably a dozen restaurants here. I am sure you could have gone across the street to Johnny's Half Shell and ordered a product from Washington State. It would be one of the premier products on the menu.

We have to fight to keep this industry. We have to make smart decisions about our environment. We have to make good stewardship decisions or those four generations of shellfish growers are not going to be here anymore.

The pollution that is coming from carbon into our water is a big deal. How big a deal is it? Well, it is a big enough deal to put on the front page of the Seattle Times above the fold--and probably not just once, probably several times. Why? Because we live and have a huge population around the shores of something called Puget Sound.

Almost everyone, everyone there understands the importance of clean water and a healthy environment to protect this maritime economy and to make the right decisions moving forward.

We don't want to see what happened in 2005 and in 2006. We don't want to see that. We want to see more of our shellfish actually able to survive the seeding process, and we want to continue to be smart about this. This is where the science question comes in.

If we have an EPA Administrator who doesn't believe this impact is happening, if he is going to thwart the efforts to do the research and the science, if he is going to spend more time trying to thwart these laws than implement strategies to mitigate the impact of climate change, we are not going to be successful economically. We need technology like ocean acidification sensors.

Why were we successful at turning that situation around with the shellfish industry and making sure? It is because we were able to locate buoys in the water to give us data and information about these warming temperatures, what problems it was causing, and come up with a strategy to lessen the impact of acidification. They measured our waters and how to modify growing practices. That is basically what they did. If you are denying that climate change is even happening or that it is having this impact and you are not planning for it, you are not going to go out and help our growers strategize for the future.

They use that real-time information to increase the production from the 20 percent of historical levels that it was to 70 percent, but without that data in collaboration with places like NOAA, our shellfish industry would have continued to just decline.

I need an EPA Administrator who is going to support monitoring; that is going to understand this impact and do something about it.

Now why did I have the other picture of the salmon fisherman? Because ocean acidification, as I mentioned, basically dissolves the shells of important prey species we call pteropods, and they are the base of the food chain. So not only am I just talking about the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars associated with the shellfish industry, if you have so much carbon sinking into our waters that you are destroying this part of the food chain, it impacts the rest of the food chain. It impacts all the way up the species, including salmon, herring, mackerel, and other species. So this is why we have to have an EPA Administrator who is going to follow science and be aggressive at protecting these issues.

Last month, a new study published by scientists at the University of Washington and NOAA found that even Dungeness crabs are at risk because of these pteropods. I think that is what it says right there: ``Scientists fear ocean acidification will drive the collapse of Alaska's iconic crab fishery.'' Thank you, thank you, Seattle Times.

That is what this is about, are we going to leave it up to the newspapers of America to describe the scientific impact of what is happening so we can force people whose job it is to be the stewards here to do their jobs?

They should be the leaders, the people we put in this position. They should be the ones who lead our Nation in protecting our most valuable natural resources and making sure these pristine areas that we need for our economy, for our quality of life, for our recreation are there, and we need an EPA Administrator who is going to be aggressive about that.

So that is a little preview of this issue and what it looks like in the State of Washington, but on this climate issue, as I mentioned, my colleague from Maine and I actually joined forces probably 6 or 7 years ago on this issue when the Senator from Maine was aggressive about pushing legislation, asking Federal agencies to make sure they had a response to climate change. I think the Senator from Maine probably saw then how important this issue was, and it was legislation we actually passed out of the Commerce Committee. I don't think it was actually implemented into law, but it was a very good directive at saying to agencies: This is going to impact us, and what is your mitigation plan.

We, in the Commerce Committee, held a hearing about this because what we were finding was that a huge part of the U.S. economy--it was definitely a high number, maybe as much as 50 percent--was driven by States with coastal economies. A report was issued about how all of these changes impacted sea level rising, impact in ocean acidification, all of these things were going to impact these coastal economies and thereby have a dramatic effect on the U.S. economy.

For example, just because it might not be front and center for somebody from Oklahoma, it was going to become very front and center for the U.S. economy if we didn't have a mitigation plan and did something about it, and this report was a heralding call for the United States to wake up to this issue.

I will never forget that hearing because the actress Sigourney Weaver was there to testify. She was there to testify because she really wanted to make the point about how important these issues were, as it related to our waters and the impact.

You would think a brilliant actress like Sigourney Weaver would steal the show. You would think her testimony before the Commerce Committee would be it. That would be the news of the day, and that is what would be written about, but it was actually a fisherman from a Southern coastal State who stole the show because he spoke about how his job was threatened, how fisheries were threatened, how, if we don't protect our oceans and our air, we are going to have devastating effects on our fisheries. This gentleman, whose family and livelihood was dependent

upon it, spoke in such an unbelievably meaningful way, he upstaged her.

So this isn't something we are coming at just because President Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt; this is something we are going to fight for every single day because it is important that our Nation have a response to it.

My colleague from Maine was on it a long time ago. She said: Let's make sure that every agency is going to have a plan for what we are going to do about mitigation and impact as a result of climate.

As I mentioned just recently, in the last year or so, she and I joined and sent a letter to GAO asking them to actually give us an estimate across the whole Federal Government. What is going to be the cost and impact of these changes to climate on our economy and the Federal Government? This is a very important answer to have from the GAO because my guess is that they are going to show that it costs a lot of money. It is not surprising to me because I have seen it in my own State, with catastrophic wildfires that have burned up hundreds of thousands of acres of land at an unbelievable cost to the Federal Government.

We are trying to come up with a better strategy for combatting these wildfires. We can't get our House colleagues to engage in a serious Energy bill process. Hopefully someday we will get them to understand that the Senate in a bipartisan fashion did its homework and had approval.

But these issues are not going away. Next summer there will be another part of the United States that will be in the hot spot again, and instead of making sure we are addressing that, some of our colleagues just want to ignore it, just like they are ignoring Mr. Pruitt's emails and his answers to these important questions.

That is the Northwest. Let's look at other parts of the country on ocean acidification. Here is an example of a coral reef in the State of Florida. In 2016, the University of Miami published a study which found that Biscayne Bay coral reefs are already suffering the impacts of ocean acidification. I would expect that coral reefs in Florida are probably as important to their economy as salmon is to our economy. I say that because I know people go to visit those coral reefs. Actually, their reefs, according to economic analysis, are worth over $7.6 billion. That is what coral reefs are worth, apparently, due to their importance in recreational and commercial fisheries and tourism.

Everybody wants to stand up for the fossil fuel industry because they have jobs, but they forget the jobs that are related because of our environment and how important it is to our economy.

In this particular picture, we are seeing the devastating impact and changes of this coral reef in just a very short period of time.

This upper picture taken in 1976 shows a very vibrant coral reef. I think this is an area where there has been a lot of discussion. I am not exactly sure where Carysfort Reef is, but I think there has been a lot of discussion here in the Senate about making sure people have access to it or what ways the public can enjoy this particular site. But when I look at this picture and I look at the devastating impact we see on this coral reef, I question what our strategy is to preserve what is an important recreational and commercial asset to Florida. What is our strategy?

When I think about an EPA Administrator, are they going to act now in balancing this issue and making sure that things like the Clean Power Plan, which is saying to polluters: You must reduce pollution--are they going to do that for the fishermen and recreationists and those who believe in the beauty of these coral reefs in Florida? Just like the Washingtonians in my State who go out and recreate on Puget Sound and want to fish salmon and want to make sure our fishing economy stays strong--are they going to have an Administrator who is going to do this?

I can tell you that next summer I guarantee you there are going to be unbelievable discussions about fishing in the Northwest. Why? Because there is going to be an impact on salmon, and everybody is going to want to fish--commercial fishermen, sports fishermen--everybody is going to want to fish, and unless we have an EPA Administrator and a NOAA Administrator and people who are implementing great conservation strategies, we are not going to be successful because this pollution is impacting our natural areas.

I can see here that it is impacting Florida's economy the same way.

During an interview, Scott Pruitt's predecessor, former Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who served as Oklahoma attorney general from 1995 to 2001, stated:

``Under his tenure as attorney general, I don't think

environmental crimes have disappeared. It is just the filing

of cases alleging environmental crimes that has largely

disappeared.''

So I think that somebody knows something about this.

I have constituents who are also writing and communicating to me about these issues, about whether they think Mr. Pruitt is the right person to be EPA Administrator. It is not surprising that we have a quote here from one of my constituents from Poulsbo, WA. I just talked about the Puget Sound economy. I just talked about this economy. Puget Sound is town after town of communities with fishermen who go out and take advantage of that economy within our waters and also go as far away as Alaska to fish. So I am not surprised that somebody from Kitsap County has written to the Kitsap Sun and said: ``I voted for Trump, but I certainly did not vote for a government takedown of my State's most important asset, our water and our economy.''

It doesn't surprise me that that is what somebody in Kitsap County said--not somebody in Poulsbo. You should just go look it up, people who are listening. People listening, anybody listening tonight from other parts of the United States, go look up Poulsbo, WA. It is a beautiful community that is all about what Puget Sound can deliver for us, and they will be the first part of our State to tell you what ocean acidification is doing in Hood Canal to impact our fishermen. They will be the first people. They know because this has been part of their livelihood.

So I want to close tonight--this morning, I should say--by saying that I hope our colleagues will at least consider the fact that we are raising concerns, because we have great concerns about the economy of the future, and that economy of the future depends on clean air and clean water and an Administrator who is going to fight to implement the law.

We need an Administrator who is going to be there not on the side of the polluters but on the side of the people in dealing with some of the thorniest environmental problems because of the change in climate this country has seen. We want someone who is going to use that science and information to help provide the stewardship for future generations. I don't think that is Mr. Pruitt.

I ask my colleagues to help turn down his nomination and to move forward--at least give us the chance to look at his emails so we know exactly what we are dealing with and to make sure that our country is going to continue to be committed to these men and women who work in this resource economy that depends so much on clean water and air.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon with my colleagues to speak about the nomination of Steve Mnuchin for the Secretary of Treasury.

We all know this is a very important economic position in our Federal Government, but it is also a position of great importance for the entire world economy. The Secretary of Treasury is a key Presidential adviser on important economic and tax policy, and has an impact on the lives of millions of people across the United States. But most importantly, the Secretary will be on the front lines protecting and restoring our economy from the unbelievable economic crisis that we faced in 2008.

I like to say that this crisis--which, according to the Dallas Fed, which cost us $14 trillion--is not over. That is, average Americans still have not recovered from the crisis when it comes to their 401(k) or their pension or the opportunity to send their kids to school or perhaps even homeownership. It is very important that we have a Treasury Secretary who not only says that they will protect the United States in the future from another financial crisis, but that they are also on the job making sure we restore economic opportunities for everyday Americans.

I would have to say that Mr. Mnuchin certainly has lived the American dream. You would say that he is a man who has achieved financial success. But is he going to fight for the average American who has not achieved that success because of the economic downturn in 2008? Is he going to make sure that our resources and dollars not only grow the economy, but make sure that those who have been impacted the most are restored in some way?

I personally did not support the bailout of the banks. I did not give the keys of the Treasury to those big organizations, and many people in the State of Washington and across America during this last campaign want to know why they did not receive financial help during that downturn, but people were so willing to bail out these

large organizations. So it is very important that we look at the nomination today in light of what has transpired and what we are going to do moving forward to help the economic security of so many Americans.

This position, which includes chairing the Financial Stability Oversight Council and moderating systemic risk to our entire financial system, is a very big job. It requires someone with both expertise in policy and experience in public service, as well, because you are balancing these issues for the public.

I find it sometimes very difficult to explain in detail those policies to my constituents, particularly about balancing the public interest, when they have seen that all some want to do, as I said, is give the keys to the Treasury to those large financial organizations. There is a lot to talk about that here today.

In my opinion the Treasury Department needs a seasoned and experienced public servant who understands our ship has been sailing through turbulent waters, and will focus on making sure that America returns to economic stability.

I had an opportunity to meet with the Treasury Secretary nominee. He has admitted throughout his confirmation hearing that he was the chief fundraiser for President Trump during his election. In fact, when I asked him why he wanted to be Treasury Secretary, he told me that he had spent many hours campaigning with the President-elect around the United States and he wanted to continue that relationship. This isn't exactly the type of experience that I am looking for. I want somebody who is going to continue to help us dig out of those economic problems that plague so many average Americans--on many issues, whether it is pensions or investing in education or growing our economy at a robust rate, that bring everybody up to a higher economic standard of living.

One issue that plagues me the most in thinking about this particular nominee is the issue of Glass-Steagall, the separation of commercial and investment banking.

Why would that issue be so important?

It is so important because this was the law of the land for more than 60 years in the United States of America after the Great Depression. Why? Because people understood we should not be putting individual savings--and taxpayer money--at risk when you have a financial crisis. So we implemented that law of the land.

I have not been shy about trying to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and, during the financial regulatory reform debate, make sure we were putting strong laws on the books. I always felt that there would be a time when average Americans really could look back on all that Congress had done and say they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the rules that were in place.

Well, I think that time happened during the last election. There was a lot of discussion that while we had passed what was then called Dodd- Frank--the regulatory reform that this Congress passed, I felt like we could do more. A lot of the discussion was that Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough, that somehow we needed to do more. The compromise shaped here in the Senate, was said by some people, was as much as we could do, and that we should put those rules in place and see how they worked for the U.S. economy. I supported it because it was enough to get on the books, to start getting disclosure, to start making sure that these transactions would have more oversight, but I never thought--never thought--it was the bright line that we needed to separate commercial and investment banking.

So you can imagine that it was to my great delight when I saw last summer the debate between the Republican and Democratic platforms in which the Republican platform actually started to embrace Glass- Steagall. They had a campaign, they had a Presidential candidate, and they certainly had a Presidential campaign manager who were all embracing it and touting it. I don't know if that was an effort to try to distinguish between some of the candidates on the other side of the aisle, or my colleague from Vermont who has also been a big supporter of Glass-Steagall, but they clearly put in their platform something that was unambiguous. It basically said: ``We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibits commercial banks from being engaged in high-risk investment.'' That is what their platform said, and that is what our now-President's then campaign manager also said they were for. That caught my ear because I thought maybe we had finally reached a point with the frustration of the American public about how they had been left behind after the financial crisis, and that they finally were seeing two candidates and several campaigns talking about this issue, putting it in their platform, and moving ahead.

It was the Trump campaign manager who said:

``We are supporting the small banks and Main Street. We

talk about legislation that affects, you know, some of the

mistakes that were made in repealing Glass-Steagall.''

This was the party platform of the other side of the aisle. In fact I have to say I almost thought it was probably a better platform than we had on the Democratic side, and I wanted to make sure that my colleagues knew and understood that. But now I see that it was nothing more than a cynical ploy to try to convince the American people that somehow the Trump administration was really going to be on the side of Main Street against Wall Street.

In fact, one of my first conversations with Secretary-nominee Mr. Mnuchin was to ask him whether he in fact supported Glass-Steagall. He said to me: No, that was just a campaign promise in our platform. That is not what we are going to do.

That caught me by surprise because I really had hoped that maybe President Trump, having been in business, having seen the challenges of working with big banks, maybe was really going to be on the side of Main Street, was really going to fight to make sure that we protected the capital that needed to go into small business, that needed to go into investment, that needed to go into new products and manufacturing, and protect us from those kinds of Wall Street shenanigans.

My constituents want to make something in America besides exotic financial instruments. They want those dollars to be invested in small businesses that are creating products and selling them in a worldwide market.

Mr. Mnuchin, instead, came to the Finance Committee and basically said he is not for that version of what was in their party platform. In fact, he and the President now support rolling back the minimal law that we put on the books, known as the Volcker rule, within Dodd-Frank. So, the fact is that not only are they not supporting what we were led to believe they did support, but they are now putting someone in the position of the chief economic official on these issues, who is saying: Let's start rolling back the regulations that already exist.

So I am very frustrated by that, and I can say just on that point alone that I would oppose Mr. Mnuchin's nomination to be Treasury Secretary. I think it is time that we have someone who is not like putting the fox in the hen house, but is instead there to do the job and will protect our investment in the future and hopefully unwind this economic problem from the past.

There are other reasons, though, why I don't support Mr. Mnuchin's nomination to Treasury Secretary, and many of my colleagues here this morning have already talked about that as related to the economic crisis. OneWest Bank, with Mr. Mnuchin as chair, booked billions in profits on the backs of foreclosure victims. According to reports, Mr. Mnuchin's investors pocketed nearly $4 billion in the time they controlled the bank. Mr. Mnuchin reportedly made $100 million when he sold OneWest in 2015 for double what he paid the government.

We saw this in the Northwest, and I can tell you it was a great frustration. These profits were booked on the backs of thousands of struggling Americans, and we don't know exactly how these people suffered because we don't have all the information.

The victims of OneWest are at least 50,000, including 1,600 in the State of Washington. OneWest used ethically troubling and actually illegal methods to seize homes from struggling homeowners and not give them a fair process.

Under their agreement with regulators, they were supposed to modify mortgages whenever possible and keep people in their homes. However, according to the California attorney general, OneWest engaged in ``widespread misconduct'' to kick many people out of their homes. Even Mr. Mnuchin admitted this. In 2011 he signed a consent order with the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision that found that OneWest had filed or caused to be filed potentially false affidavits ``not based on personal knowledge or review of relevant books and records.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record one of these actual agreements.

This is an actual foreclosure document from one of my constituents. What is most amazing

about this is that they are basically saying that this property should be seized and foreclosed on, saying that there was no one living there. But when one actually sees the service of the document, the service of the document shows that it was served at an address where somebody answered the door and took the document. So even in and of itself, you can see how ludicrous this operation was--just going through a robo- list of names, signing documents, and putting people out of their homes, when in reality, they were there living in them and should not have been foreclosed on.

Many of these behaviors have been described by my colleagues, and I hope that we get to the bottom of this issue. We heard from victims of a foreclosure, where on a 98-year-old woman, being 27 cents short on a payment, and another where they changed the locks on her home in Minnesota in the middle of a blizzard.

Is that what we did for Goldman Sachs? I don't think so. I think we gave them the keys to the Treasury.

This behavior, the callousness of this issue, is another reason why I cannot support Mr. Mnuchin's nomination for Treasury Secretary.

Mr. Mnuchin's answers to questions about the administration's tax reform plan are another issue. His tax reform policy and that of the administration just doesn't add up to me. The nonpartisan analysts who have looked at the President's tax reform plan found that it would do just the opposite of what Mr. Mnuchin says, and it would actually increase the deficit by $7.2 trillion over 10 years.

I don't think those are economics that I can support, and I don't think I can support his nomination.

I would just say, in concluding, that there are other issues that also concern me with this nominee and his responsibility to help us solve our economic challenges.

I did have a chance to talk to Mr. Mnuchin about our pension programs. One-third of Americans have zero retirement savings or a pension plan--one-third. Those who do are not saving nearly enough and the median balance for those nearing retirement is only $14,500. This is going to be a crisis for us.

According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, our nation's retirement savings gap is somewhere between $6.8 trillion and $14 trillion. That is the gap that we are looking at in the United States.

So, yes, when the Dallas Fed says that bailing out Wall Street and the implosion of the Wall Street problems cost our economy $14 trillion, and that just happens to be the same gap in pensions and retirement savings, it makes me furious.

I want to see a Treasury Secretary who has a plan on how we are going to deal with these issues. The Secretary of the Treasury sits on the Board of Directors of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. They make important decisions as it relates to the multi-employer pension plans and the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act. The PBGC currently has a deficit of $76 billion.

These issues are so important, not just to mineworkers but to average Americans. When Mr. Mnuchin sat on the board of Sears, he oversaw the finances of the company's pension, which was massively underfunded and accumulated $8.3 billion in net losses. We cannot afford to let that happen to the PBGC.

If that is not enough, I want a Treasury Secretary who is going to be aggressive in protecting the American taxpayer from further cause and effects of the crisis in Puerto Rico. I was not a fan of the plan that we crafted here in the Congress. Why? Because, again, we gave Wall Street all the opportunity and left the taxpayers of the United States and Puerto Rico with all the cost. That is going to be a challenge for all of us in the future, and I hope that we will have a Treasury Secretary who will be aggressive in recouping our losses as taxpayers from Wall Street.

So while I know that people here and on the other side of the aisle think their minds are made up, I would just ask them to look at his record, to look at what we need to do as a country to move our economy forward to recoup from the financial crises, and to say that Mr. Mnuchin is not the man to lead us where we need to go. He certainly has realized his financial dreams, but we have not heard enough from him that makes me convinced he is going to help Americans realize theirs.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to continue my remarks from earlier today in opposition to the nomination of Congressman Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and to continue talking about the Medicaid program.

My colleague from New Jersey was talking about the affordability of health care in general and some of the critique about where we are going with health care in the future. That is really what I think the next few years here in the Senate are going to be about--the future of health care.

Unfortunately, the nominee before us is more about the past of health care, focusing on issues like fee-for-service instead of the patient- centric health care that we need.

Earlier today, I was talking about the innovation that is happening in Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act and, specifically, what is happening in Midwestern States, Eastern States, Southern States, and Western States--how the expansion of Medicaid is not just giving more people access to health care but how innovative programs that are reaching that population are allowing people, instead of going into nursing home care and costing States more and having more expense, going into community-based care and home-based care that will help us keep costs down and give patients what they want: the ability to stay at home and have care.

I also talked about how, on top of the Medicaid expansion, we put a program like the Basic Health Plan into place, which drove down the costs of premiums for people in that program.

Through Medicaid, not only have we expanded health insurance by helping states cover their citizens, but the uninsured rate has also dropped. I mentioned that in our State of Washington, it dropped to just 6 percent. Through delivery system reforms, we are also driving a better way for us to improve the Medicaid Program.

Now I want to contrast that to the position of this administration and to Congressman Price, because it is a very different view. As I said, I think it is a very backwards-looking view about what we need to improve our health care system. I want to make sure that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand this.

Now, my biggest concern is that the current administration and members of that administration are talking about what they want to do with Medicaid. I know that Speaker Ryan has said that he would like to block-grant Medicaid back to the States. This may sound like some great idea until you realize that, right now, Medicaid is already a state option. Medicaid is a voluntary program for States to participate in. The money goes back to the State based on the need. It is not block- granted.

I talked earlier today about when you block-grant it and cap it at a certain level, you are asking people to do more with less. Instead of addressing their needs and improving the system,

like I mentioned on rebalancing to community-based care versus nursing home care, or making it more affordable like in the Basic Health Plan, all you are doing is capping it and continuing to give an amount of money that doesn't meet the needs of individual citizens. So I did not like the fact that Speaker Ryan seems to be on this parade of saying: Let's block-grant Medicaid.

The reason we came to this is that my dear colleague from Vermont came to the Senate floor one night and showed a tweet from--I think it was actually then-Candidate Trump, but it might have been President Trump--that said: No, I am not touching Medicare or Social Security or Medicaid. My colleague from Vermont wanted to know whether the President was going to stick to that promise. What has happened since then is we have seen that there has been a promise, so to speak, on some of these programs, but not on others.

I know Vice President Pence said that he and Donald Trump will give States new freedom and flexibility through block-granting Medicaid. So they are for this idea of block-granting Medicaid.

In fact, White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway said: block-grant Medicaid to the States.

So many on the other side are saying you are going to keep your health care; don't worry, it is going to be there for you; no one is going to lose it. I guarantee that if we block-grant Medicaid, which is the premise that Mr. Price has been rallying on, not just once but many times, it is not going to work out for many Washingtonians in my State, and it certainly is not going to work out for many people all across this country.

Mr. Price wrote a budget that would block-grant Medicaid. And he wrote a bill that would repeal the Medicaid expansion in its entirety and repeal all of the Affordable Care Act. So I know for some people, as I said, that might sound like giving the States flexibility, but right now, that dollar goes up and down based on need. When Medicaid is block-granted, you are going to give States a set amount of money and, as I said, that set amount of money may not keep pace with the cost of care.

Through Medicaid waivers authorized by Congress and approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, States can work with the Federal Government to deliver flexibility. I just mentioned two programs that are already in the Affordable Care Act.

Earlier today I mentioned all of the States that were utilizing rebalancing programs and the shift they are seeing in keeping people out of nursing home care and putting them in community-based services. So that is a huge win.

A number of States have pursued these Medicaid waivers through a section of the Social Security Act called 1115. It is really not necessary for anybody to know the number, but basically those innovations are allowing States to continue to improve the delivery of health care. In the State of Washington, that means we are delivering better care, better outcomes, at lower cost. That should be our target--not taking a hatchet to Medicaid and chopping it and saying we are going to give you less and less money.

We know that our health care delivery system is going to be challenged in the future, and we know Mr. Price's budget would cut one- third of Medicaid funding within 10 years. That is a huge cost to the Medicaid program. So what would it mean? It would mean millions of Americans would lose their health insurance because States will not have the investments to cover them. Uncompensated care will skyrocket, and that would really hurt the safety net that hospitals provide. People don't go without health care just because Medicaid doesn't cover them. They show up in the emergency rooms, they get uncompensated care, it is more expensive, or they ignore their health care needs until they can absolutely afford it. We are seeing this across America even now. We have had physicians tell us stories of people who are just waiting until they can afford coverage.

So that is why it is so important to get affordable coverage like the Affordable Care Act has been able to provide and to unleash innovative programs within these systems, like the Basic Health Plan that I mentioned earlier today, which allows us to buy in bulk, like a Costco model. Costco delivers Americans a lot of cheaper products because they buy in bulk; it drives down the price. The consumer wins and the insurer wins because they know they are going to get big purchases, and that provides flexibility. I mentioned how New York has more than 600,000 people on the Basic Health Plan, and instead of paying a yearly premium of about $1,500, they were basically saving about $1,000 or more on their annual insurance premiums. Why? Because the State was able to offer up a bundle to New York residents and drive down costs. That is the kind of flexibility we need in the health care system. We don't need to just say we are going to cut one-third over a 10-year period of time.

Let me again contrast this progress with Mr. Price's ideas. Congressman Price's budget would cut $1 trillion from States over 10 years through Medicaid block grants--$1 trillion, leaving States with a hole in their budget that I know, if they are like our State and are challenged with other issues, they would not be able to cover. The notion that block-granting Medicaid and repealing the Medicaid expansion is the way forward is absolutely not what the people of Washington State think. I am here to represent the viewpoint that innovations in the Affordable Care Act are working, and we shouldn't just simply block-grant and cut Medicaid.

So instead of improving the delivery system of health care and instead of expanding coverage and giving peace of mind, here is what Mr. Price's Medicaid cuts would do, according to some of the independent experts who study Medicaid.

The National Council on Disability says about block grants: ``Older Americans and people with disabilities would be at special risk. . . . States would face strong financial pressure to reduce services to low- income seniors and people with disabilities if the Federal Medicaid funds were capped.''

The Center on Budget and Priorities says: ``To compensate for the federal Medicaid funding cuts a block grant would institute, states would either have to contribute much more of their own funding or, as is far more likely, use the greater flexibility the block grant would give them to make draconian cuts to eligibility, benefits, and provider payments.''

The Commonwealth Fund says that ``the federal contribution under a block grant program would remain the same, or grow only according to a present formula, no matter how large the population in need becomes or how much a State actually must spend on health care for Medicaid recipients.''

So we can see that people understand that block-granting Medicaid is nothing more than a war on Medicaid--nothing more than a war on Medicaid.

That is why I cannot support Mr. Price's nomination. We gave him chances in the hearing to talk about why this kind of approach is not acceptable and why the programs within the Affordable Care Act that are driving down costs, giving people access, making improvements, working all across the United States in various parts of our Nation are actually the right ways to improve the delivery system, but we couldn't get commitments.

So if my colleagues are being honest with themselves or if they actually understand this, they should be very afraid of the notion that Mr. Price is putting forward in wanting to block-grant Medicaid. I think some of them do understand. It is why the Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, and the Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, and others, are asking Congress to let them keep the Medicaid gains already in the Affordable Care Act and not shift those costs to the States.

So while shifting costs to the States might be exactly what some people want to do, this is exactly why we need to fight to make sure that the Medicaid expansion remains supported, and that we have the right focus moving forward--a delivery system, that is, that works for the patients and improves outcome and lowers costs. That is why I mentioned two aspects of the Affordable Care Act. We did the Medicaid expansion, and then, for a working family just above the Medicaid eligibility level, which is 138 percent of the federal poverty level, they were able to buy in bulk and get the kind of cost savings in health care that, as I said, let more than 600,000 New Yorkers

sign up for truly affordable health care in impressive numbers.

So that kind of progress being made in Medicaid and in the income levels just above it is exactly the kind of progress we must keep pursuing. Our colleagues seem to want to turn back the clock on this plan.

We did not get a single commitment from Mr. Price on keeping Medicaid healthy for more than the 70 million Americans that depend on it. Therefore, all I can do is go back to his record, his votes, and his comments to understand his desire to block-grant Medicaid, which is a war on Medicaid. It will not make that population healthier. It certainly will not really control health care costs for the future, and it is certainly the reason I will be voting no on Mr. Price.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to speak on the nomination of Congressman Price to lead the Health and Human Services Department. But I have to respond to my colleague from Texas on his remarks. He wanted to know why Members of our side of the aisle wanted to have information about nominees or why it might take so long.

There are a record number of billionaires in this Cabinet. There is nothing wrong with people making money. But when you have conflicts of interest, clearly people on this side of the aisle feel like we should do our job and find out about those conflicts of interest. Even in record time, these nominees have moved through this body, coming to votes in committee without our even having all of this information that we wanted to have on their conflicts of interest.

For one nominee, the Commerce Secretary, we were negotiating even the day of the vote to clarify whether he was going to recuse himself if any of his transport vessels ever entered U.S. waters and would have a conflict on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

So there is the notion that somehow we have been dragging our feet on a Cabinet, when a billionaire Cabinet has been nominated by this President, who seems to want to tweet against commerce. The conflicts are here, and we want them cleared up.

As to Mr. Price, there are issues here that even the committee was not given the chance for a second hearing to get information about his conflicts of interest. So for my colleague--who thinks for a party that railroaded Zoe Baird because of a housekeeping issue, and yet there are nominees that we have moved forward on who have the

same issue--now to say to us that we don't have the right to find out what these conflicts of interest are, I would say that you are wrong.

On this issue for Mr. Price, my issue is the issue of our health care delivery system, which was very hard to pin him down on as it relates to the Affordable Care Act. My view is that this vote is the first vote in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because Mr. Price held nothing but his own views about this before coming to our committee.

When we asked repeatedly what would he endorse as it related to the reforms in the Affordable Care Act that are saving Americans money, that are clearly working for Americans, he failed to make a commitment. So my newspaper in Washington State, the Seattle Times, has said: ``President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee for U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services have doubled down on Republican promises to scuttle the Affordable Care Act (ACA).''

So that is not what I want. That is not what I am going to vote for in the nomination of Mr. Price. If Mr. Price had given us a little bit of an inkling of his desire to work across the aisle on what is working in the Affordable Care Act, what is working in Medicaid expansion, what is working to help save Americans dollars on their health care, it would be a different discussion here. But Mr. Price has put forth a budget in the House of Representatives that would cut Medicaid by one- third within 10 years. His budget cuts $1 trillion from States over a 10-year period of time.

So this philosophy has raised a lot of concerns by my colleagues here. We had no other choice but to look at his record since he would not give us any answers on these programs. His record clearly shows that he has actively and aggressively worked to cap Medicaid with a block-grant program; trade away Medicare's guarantees with a voucher, instead; defund Planned Parenthood; and switch guaranteed benefits for a fixed tax credit that would steadily buy less and less and less and become more of a standard of actually giving Americans less health care.

Why is this so important? The reality is that 7 percent of Americans get their health insurance through the individual health insurance market, and that while people talk about the exchanges, the expansion of Medicaid, which so many States took advantage of, is a critical program. Nationally, nearly half of pregnant women depend on Medicaid for prenatal and postnatal care to ensure healthy pregnancies.

Medicaid covers 64 percent of nursing home residents and is the largest payer for long-term care. Many Americans in the United States are now going into nursing homes because they can't afford to save for retirement. Medicaid is critically important. In hospitals across the Nation, one in two births are financed by Medicaid. Medicaid insurance actually costs less than private insurance. So, it is a very efficient way to cover a population.

I know a lot of my colleagues are going to come out here and talk about Medicare. I am sure seniors in America will be very anxious about Mr. Price's statements on Medicare. But I am speaking here now about a program that is keeping people off of uncompensated care, keeping them from flooding our hospitals, and putting them on a system that is working for our Nation to cover people who need to have an option.

Now, I say ``option.'' Why? Because Medicaid itself is an optional program. States don't have to participate. But guess what. Every State in this country does participate. In fact, in Washington State, we know that Medicaid reduces, as I said, infant mortality. It helps with long- term health care, and it is helping us make sure we are becoming more efficient in our delivery system.

So in Washington, we expanded Medicaid and covered 600,000 additional Washingtonians, most of whom were previously insured. It helped us reduce our uninsured rate by 60 percent, to less than 6 percent; that is, 6 percent of Washingtonians are now not with a health insurance program.

So why am I so concerned about this? Because in the Affordable Care Act, reforms are working. We would like a nominee who would at least address and agree that those things are working. For example, as I just mentioned, because the Medicaid population and long-term care costs are rising, and the number of people are living longer, they are going to drive a huge balloon into our Medicaid budget. So we came up with an idea of saying: You should ``rebalance'' from nursing home care to community-based care.

Why? Because people would like to live in their homes longer, because we can deliver more affordable care that way. It is better for the patient, and it is better for our health care delivery system. So what did we do? We put incentives into the Affordable Care Act to give the patients a cheaper, more affordable way to stay in their homes and get long-term care.

It is really amazing to me how many States in our Union took up the opportunity to participate in this program: Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Illinois, Maine, Ohio, Nevada, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.

All of those States decided to use this part of the Affordable Care Act because they agreed in philosophy that taking this population and rebalancing would save dollars in Medicaid, give people better health care choices, and save us money overall. In fact, the State of Georgia received $57 million from the Affordable Care Act to do this and has been able to shift 10 percent of its long-term care costs from nursing home care to community-based care with the help of this program. So it is a winning strategy.

Yet we could not get a commitment or an awareness by Mr. Price about this program, what it does, why it is so successful, or the concept that having people get care in their homes would be appropriate for so many Americans over the very expensive nursing home care that so many States are burdened with and so much of our Federal dollars are going to be burdened with in the future.

We also tried to discuss with him another incredible idea from the Affordable Care Act; that is, the Basic Health Plan: the idea that customers should be able to buy in bulk. I call it the Costco plan, because everybody knows that when you buy in bulk, you are going to get a discount.

But beyond the Medicaid eligibility level, so much of what Americans have not been able to do is to buy in bulk. So part of the Affordable Care Act said that you could buy in bulk as a State and give a benefit.

What is the outcome of that? Well, the State of New York is using the Basic Health Plan and has signed up more than a half million people under that plan.

Right now, a family of four in New York making about $37,000 a year, if they were buying just on the exchange, might have to pay $1,500 in annual premiums, with tax credits. Because of the Basic Health Plan, they are paying about $250 per year in premiums. That is a savings of over $1,000 per year for those families. This is an important program. Why? Because those in the delivery system have certainty that they are going to see those patients, just as Costco, when they buy in bulk for so many Americans across the country, knows that Americans are going to shop there and take advantage of the discount that they were able to negotiate, and it works for everyone. The producers know they will have volume, the customer knows they will get the best price, and more people are covered.

The fact that New York has used the Basic Health Plan, as well as Minnesota, has shown us that these kinds of expansions of Medicaid--and programs like the Basic Health Plan that exist just above the Medicaid eligibility rate--work successfully for us and are the types of things we wish Mr. Price would endorse. But, again, he failed to endorse these kinds of things.

What he has said, instead, is that he wants to cap these programs, which is not an improvement to the system but almost a truncating of the cost. In my mind, it is like a surgeon going into surgery but instead of taking a scalpel, he is taking an ax.

Given what the people of Washington State have done successfully in driving down health care costs and improving outcomes, I am not willing to take a risk on somebody who will not take a risk and say that these programs are working successfully.

I hope our colleagues will listen to these concerns. This is the first vote in the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act. It is the first opportunity we have to say: Either tell us what is working or tell us what you are for.

But on Mr. Price, all we have is his record. And I hate to say, his record, by capping and desiring to cut Medicaid and Medicare, is not the direction our country needs to go.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join my colleague from the Pacific Northwest speaking in opposition to the nomination of our colleague to the position of U.S. Attorney General.

I thank the Senator from Oregon. I know he has been here for several hours. I listened to much of his remarks, and many of the issues he brought up in his statement reflect the issues that we in the Pacific Northwest are dealing with--the population of the Pacific Northwest concerns--and how many people in our part of the country have moved forward on so many important issues of equal protection for all Americans under the law. So I thank my colleague for being here. I thank him for the many things he had to say this evening on this subject.

I hearken back in my own life, as I reflect on this decision, to the time I grew up. This is something that has been instilled in me as a young person growing up in the 1960s and 1970s.

I saw the most incredible events happen in our Nation's government, and I saw a position--both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, someone who is now a Pacific Northwest resident--use that office, the power of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, to say they disagreed with the President of the United States. Not only did they disagree with the President of the United States, they would rather resign from office than carry out the acts he was asking them to carry out.

As a young person, that Saturday night massacre was an incredible indelible image of how people should act responsibly in carrying out their duties.

So when I think about this position of Attorney General, I think of that very issue; that I want an Attorney General who will stand up for the citizens of the United States, no matter what, even if he has to go against the President of the United States. That, to me, is the ultimate in serving the people of this country.

In many ways, in the last several weeks, I feel like we have been relitigating the 1960s and 1970s. When we

talk about the civil liberties of American citizens, whether they are the LGBT community; or whether we are talking about government maybe using backdoor devices to spy on American citizens; or whether we are talking about immigrant rights, we are talking about the same things people fought for in the 1960s and 1970s. So it is no surprise that my colleague--also from Massachusetts--reflected on this in some of the comments she made last night that raised such a ruckus and concern on the floor. I certainly supported her and supported her in her rights to make those comments, but these larger issues about how one wields power at the enormous office of responsibility of Attorney General is what is at question in the Senate. I could go on this morning about many other issues I am concerned about in relation to the nexus of the Attorney General to the other positions that we are also considering, but this morning I am going to keep my remarks specifically to the Attorney General.

In this new information era--and I have been out here on other nights, in fact with my colleague from Kentucky Mr. Paul, to discuss these very important issues of encryption and making sure the U.S. government does not unduly spy on U.S. citizens.

I am concerned that the President's nominee has supported President Bush's warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance programs. He also has supported law enforcement's backdoor key to encryption.

I will say, there are many things we need to do to fight this war on terrorism and to be strong in working together with law enforcement all across the United States and on an international basis. I will be the first to say there are great things we can do as it relates to biometrics and using biometrics effectively, but when it comes down to it, it is all about us working with the international community and getting cooperation from them to work that way, as opposed to running over the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. So I do have concerns that the President's nominee on this issue may not stand up to the President of the United States in making sure civil liberties of Americans are protected.

I am also concerned this nominee will not fully protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The reason I say that is because of his record, and the doubts it raises because of his opposition to various pieces of legislation which have moved through these Halls--opposition to gay rights, same-sex marriage, hate crime laws, voting rights for historically disfranchised communities, and workplace protection for women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. All of these are things I wish we would have in an Attorney General who had been a greater advocate for the transition that America has made in protecting civil liberties in these issues.

These are very big issues in my State. They are very big issues that have been long discussed--probably discussed before they reached this body--and decided decisively in favor of the civil liberties of these Americans. So I find it troubling that in his position, the nominee used his power to target the LGBT student housing and education conference at the University of Alabama, and that he consistently voted against LGBT Americans' right to live where they choose, and voted for the constitutional amendment my colleague mentioned, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act--not being supportive on those issues.

These are important issues that mark our country's ability to stand up for civil liberties. It is important in this era and time, because of the hate crimes and the horrific things that have happened to these individuals, that we have someone who not only recognizes those, but embodies the fact that these individuals are facing discrimination and must continually--continually--have someone to fight for their civil liberties.

The nominee sponsored legislation to roll back, as I said, LGBT rights in housing, employment, and health care, and there are an estimated 10 million LGBT Americans who are protected by our Nation's hate crime and anti-discrimination laws. What we want is leadership. We want leadership to continue on these issues. We want leadership that when we see problems, they are going to be addressed, even if it means fighting what the President of the United States has to say.

My colleague also had opposed the reinstatement of the Voting Rights Act and strongly supported voter ID laws that put barriers up for the elderly, indigent communities, and communities of color to get access to their ballots. I can tell you as a Washingtonian that nothing is more important to us than this issue of voting rights, and I would match our system with any other State in the Nation. We vote by mail. We have seen as high as 84-percent voter turnout in a Presidential year, and incredibly high turnout even in a midterm election.

We know that giving our citizens the right to vote, and making progress on everyone having the right to vote, including the use of provisional ballots, making sure the law is clear in embracing and making sure people have the opportunity to vote, and have their votes counted, are going to continue to be issues in the United States of America. We want people to have total confidence in our voting system, and we want them to have confidence that every citizen has a right to cast a vote, and will not be turned away at the ballot box because of an artificial barrier.

Believe me, there are lots of ways to catch fraud and corruption in the voting system in the State of Washington because it is based on your signature. Have we had people make mistakes in the system? Yes. They have been caught or corrected.

The notion that our system needs all of these other artificial barriers is not true. It is a system that has worked well for us and, as I said, has empowered more people to participate in our electoral system.

I want someone who is going to help us move forward in this country. The notion that we are putting up lines of obstacles for voting in this country should not be the way we are going. We need to go in the other direction.

I am concerned that the next Attorney General will fail to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, irrespective of their race, and protect opportunities to participate in our democracy and to make sure we are continuing to move forward. He has called the work of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union ``un-American.'' Let us remember that in our time, we need people who are going to recognize the rights of individuals and stand up for them. If in the past his judgment and temperament on these issues has expressed a lack of concern for these individuals, my question for all of us is, what kind of leadership will that drive for the next Attorney General?

He has called the decision in Roe v. Wade ``a colossal mistake'' and has cast 86 anti-choice votes, including a vote against protecting abortion providers and their patients from anti-choice violence. Washington State has one of the strongest statutes in the country for protecting a woman's right to choose. It was something we did before the national law. It is something many people in my State feel strongly about, and, yes, in the past, we have experienced violence at clinics.

In fact, in September 2015, there was a devastating bombing of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, WA--a tragedy that was unbelievable. The fact that those clinicians showed up in the parking lot the next day and continued to deliver services, and that law enforcement was there to help them and respect them is what I expect out of our system and the U.S. Attorney General--that someone will be there to help enforce the law and deter these kinds of crimes and make sure that we are moving forward as a country.

I said earlier that I feel as though we are relitigating the sixties and seventies. I wish that those issues had all gone away, but I feel as if they are still with us. These examples of disrespect toward the civil liberties of individuals, and using violence as a way to demonstrate that disrespect, require a swift hand of justice to oppose them.

My colleague voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that gender-based pay disparity claims could be heard in court. This is also something of great concern to many Americans, not just women. It is a concern to men as well, because men want

their wives to make the salary they deserve, to make certain their family has the income it deserves.

These are battles that we are going to continue to fight in the United States of America until we have fair pay. I do view it as a civil rights issue. As I said, Lilly Ledbetter amended the Civil Rights Act.

He also voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which ensures that law enforcement has the every resource necessary to investigate cases of rape, and provides colleges with the tools to educate students about dating violence, sexual assault, and to maintain the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which fields 22,000 calls a month from Americans facing threats of domestic violence.

That issue in and of itself, along with the amount of domestic violence that women face in the United States of America, is something that needs constant vigilance and constant attendance in order to fight against. I don't know all the reasons he did not support that legislation, but I know one aspect. He opposed language in the Violence Against Women Act allowing tribes to prosecute nontribal members who commit domestic violence against tribal members on reservation land. That is right. People were coming onto Indian reservations across our country. In Washington State, we have 29 recognized tribes. On those sites, people were committing crimes of domestic violence but, because of a loophole, weren't being prosecuted. There were unbelievable amounts of violence.

The last administration came up with a way to work together to make sure that those crimes were prosecuted. It is as if the Federal system couldn't affect all the activity that was happening, but it could work in concert with local law enforcement officials to come up with a way to make sure that women, who were being abused just because they were Native American on a tribal reservation, would get their fair justice.

I do have concerns about these issues as they relate to tribal sovereignty, to the issues of domestic violence and, particularly, domestic violence that is happening in Indian Country.

I also want to bring up an issue I think my colleague from Oregon brought up, which is something I don't know that all of our colleagues agree on, but I am here to advocate for my State; that is, the nominee in his testimony said that he would leave to the States the question of legalizing and regulating marijuana in this administration.

In the past, he has refused to respect the rights of States that have democratically chosen to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use. This is an important subject for us in the Pacific Northwest because we had a previous Attorney General who, after we had passed medical marijuana laws, tried to shut down our medical clinics. This was years before we passed legislation allowing for the legalization of marijuana by the broader public, not just medical marijuana.

We have seen an Attorney General who has aggressively pursued this medical use, and now we have concerns, as our State and several other States have legalized marijuana, about how this Attorney General is going to treat those actions.

We hope that this past record is not a reflection of the future and how he plans to treat individuals, but I know my colleague from Hawaii was here earlier and mentioned several cases of individuals in his State who needed that medical attention, who needed that product, who were given great comfort in their medical treatments by having access to that.

Is that now all in question? Is that something that Americans who have resided in States that have taken this action now have something to fear from the next Attorney General?

I know that there were many discussions in the confirmation hearing, and that there are concerns today relating to the issue of a ban on Muslims entering the United States. I will not go into great detail here, but will say that it is clear that the State of Washington has an opinion about this and that our State Attorney General and our Governor are trying to represent that viewpoint in the judicial process.

It is important to me that we get these issues right because I want to protect the civil liberties of individuals, and I see a path forward for us to be tough on these cases; that is, the true cases of terrorist activity. I say that because Washington had a case in 1999 of an individual who entered the United States at Port Angeles, WA. He had come from Algiers, and then when he got to France, he cooked up a new identity. When he left France and went to Canada, he cooked up another identity, and then he arrived at the U.S. border from Canada on a boat with explosives and a plan to either blow up the Space Needle or travel to LAX and blow up the LAX Airport.

There was very good work by customs and border agents who found something unusual about this individual. It didn't add up. His passport looked as though it was valid, but something that was said gave the border agent reason to conduct a more thorough check.

In fact, they did. They opened the trunk of his car, and as they did, he ran, and with good reason because they saw a car full of explosive materials in the trunk. That so-called Millennial Bomber was caught. Since then, I have been an advocate for using biometrics as a standard for us pushing visa waiver countries for letting people into their country, as Mr. Ressam did travel, as I said, from Algiers to France, cooking up a new identity, and then France to Canada, and Canada to the United States, each time cooking up an identity.

But if we had cooperation with these countries on biometric standards; if we had implemented those biometric standards, and pushed those countries that give access to our country through the Visa Waiver Program, we would be a lot further down the road in finding those individuals who mean to do us harm.

We need cooperation by these other countries and the best techniques and standards to help us. That is far different than denying access to individuals, for example, from the Somali community that is a very big refugee community in our State. As I said, I will leave it to our Washington attorney general and our Governor to continue to pursue that effort.

I have heard from many Washingtonians who are concerned about this nomination. I heard from a young woman from Yakima, WA, who said she was flabbergasted by this nomination, that ``if he was deemed inadequate during the days that Strom Thurmond was in office, why now is he adequate?''

I heard from a constituent in central Washington who said: ``I am a transgender and gay, and much of the time I worry about my rights as a U.S. citizen, whether they'll be revoked despite the fact that my family has fought in every war in the U.S. since the Civil War. I am worried that legislation would be implemented that would dehumanize me and other LGBT community individuals, and that doesn't align with the nominee's religious beliefs.''

So these are concerns my constituents have, and I have to agree with them, that our nominee's record leaves question about his ability to fervently advocate on behalf of these individuals, given his record and history in the past. And I know that my colleague, the ranking member from the Judiciary Committee, has been out here on the floor, going in detail about the questioning that happened during the committee process on all sorts of issues, as it relates to women's rights and reproductive choice, and how we are going to continue to move forward to make sure these individuals are protected.

So, to me, my constituents are loud and clear. They want these civil liberties protected. They want an Attorney General who is going to make sure that those civil liberties are fought for and respected every day and are going to get equal protection under the law.

Here are some additional excerpts from the letters of our concerned constituents.

KS from Yakima, WA, a concerned constituent, writes: ``I am simply flabbergasted that Jeff Sessions was chosen to be our Attorney General. If he was deemed inadequate in the days when Strom Thurmond was in office, then he's certainly inadequate in 21st century America. As you are politicians, I shouldn't have to remind you of this, but I'm going to anyway. One, America was built by immigrants from

all over the world, on top of an already diverse nation of the First Peoples. Two, there are over 300 languages spoken in the U.S., nearly half of which are indigenous. Three, people have had to fight tooth and nail against discrimination based on their race and ethnicity, and the fact that so many are still doing to that today is extremely worrisome. Four, it's been our legally protected right since 1967 to marry and have a family with someone of a different race. Five, it's only been our legally protected right to marry and have a family with someone of the same gender since 2015. Six, my generation, the Millennials, is the most diverse of any in American history. Since 2000, 40 percent of all children have been born to multiracial families. And those children will be eligible to vote before you know it. The ones born in 2000 will likely have a lot to say come the midterm election. This America cannot, should not, MUST NOT have an attorney general who thought the Klan was too liberal. He has no place at a school crosswalk, let alone leading the most powerful nation in the free world. PLEASE do not let this happen!''

SL from Wenatchee, WA, writes: ``He has repeatedly shown within his career that he clearly sees the LGBTQ+ community as something that is acceptable to discriminate against. Most notably is his support of the Defense of Marriage Act. This worries me very deeply since I am Transgender and gay. Much of the time I worry that my rights as a US citizen will be revoked, despite the fact that my family has fought in every war in the US since the Civil War. I am worried that he would allow legislation to be law that would dehumanize me and other LGBTQ+ individuals because it doesn't align with his apparent religious beliefs. He also seems to not hold much issue with civil rights as long as they don't go `too far.' Additionally, his continual stance against immigrants could have a distinct impact on my city and community. We have a large Hispanic and Mexican population, many of them around the neighborhoods where I live. The many years I've lived here I've found our multicultural community to be hard working and not the `evil' that Trump is adamant to make them out to be. I do not feel reassured if he becomes the Attorney General that he would stand up to Trump and fairly support these marginalized individuals in the Department of Justice.''

JH from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I trust that you will protect and stand for the ideals of our country and vote no to the appointment of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. The job of the Justice Department is to protect all people, and to enforce the laws of the land to do so. Sessions has not in word or deed demonstrated he is capable of doing so. Even while awaiting confirmation, he is supporting discrimination against LGBTQ people by his support of the FADA. I expect any person confirmed in our government to clearly support all people--black, brown, white, male, female, transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Native, atheists, and people of all ethnicity. The Attorney General is responsible for upholding The Constitution--including Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This means upholding the Constitution, including Press's right to cover Mr. Trump and report as they see fit--not censored news. This also means supporting The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This means insisting that the Justice Department hold themselves and local police forces accountable for detaining and searching people--and do promulgate brutality from behind the badge. Instead of Jeff Sessions, please garner support for and vote for a legal mind who has a demonstrated record of upholding all people's rights. There are many fine minds and hearts in our country who are up to the task. It is your responsibility as a Senator of our fine Democracy to vote only for one of them.''

Gary from Spokane, WA: ``Jeff Sessions does not believe that our laws should protect everyone. He believes certain groups should have less rights and/or less protection under the law. He will allow discrimination, based on his record. There is enough volatility in this time of ours to understand the importance of a fair minded, tempered and balanced person to head the department of justice. There is no denying we are entering a tumultuous time. There is enough concern over Jeff Sessions to give pause, consider the times we are in, and come up with a better choice. Concerns over our country turning to totalitarianism are real. The president elect is extremely polarizing and may very well be breaking the US Constitution as soon as he's sworn in, due to conflicts of interest. The attorney general certainly needs to understand these concerns and be able to enforce the laws of the American people. There are many other talented legal professionals with a wide variety of skill sets related to law enforcement. This is the time to slow down a bit; delay . . . at least this appointment. There is an appointment process for a reason. Make Mr. Trump come up with a better choice. No matter your party, there is no win in becoming a rubber stamp for Mr. Trump. I vote nay for Jeff Session as Attorney General. Consider the importance of this time, consider the future of our country, consider the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights. The choice then is easy, nay for Sessions, yay for thoughtful, accountable and tempered governance.''

Betsy from Waldron, WA, writes: ``Please oppose the appointment of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. He is opposed to basic civil rights for all people and he cannot be put in charge of protecting those same rights. Please do not compromise with Trump or try to compromise as if he were a normal president. Please oppose, blockade, filibuster, and refuse to go along with Trump's plans to tear our country apart. I am relying on you to be our first wall of defense against this terrifying man.''

RaGena from Spokane, WA, writes: ``As a constituent I urge you to oppose the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States His voting record as senator and the content of his speeches to the Senate do not inspire confidence in his ability to discharge the responsibilities of the Attorney General's office in keeping with role of the Department of Justice in contemporary American society. His responses to the Judiciary Committee raised further, serious concerns. All this, coupled with the reasons for his failure to be confirmed as a federal judge decades ago, suggest that he is not the person for this job.''

DH from Tacoma, WA, writes: ``I am writing to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Everything I know about this man makes him uniquely unqualified for the post. He has not supported equal rights of minorities and has supported vote suppression as a means to reduce the effect of minority votes. In the attorney general seat, Sessions will be able to make decisions that will negatively affect the daily lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Please reinforce my belief in you as a leader and vote no on Jeff Sessions for attorney general.''

JG from Seattle, WA, writes: ``You must vote against confirming Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. His record makes clear that he will not support voting rights for all Americans and will not act to protect the rights of minorities or work to improve the criminal justice system. In fact, his record makes clear he will move to suppress voting rights and will promote DOJ actions that will hurt minorities in particular. He is not fit to serve as this country's Attorney General.''

AM from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I am a criminal defense attorney in Seattle. I write to ask you to vote against confirming Jeff Sessions as United States Attorney General. Under the Obama administration, many inroads have been made into remedying the harms of mandatory minimum drug sentencing and other forms of drug sentencing reform. Additionally, states like Washington have been allowed to sell marijuana, legal under state law, without

fear of federal prosecution. Finally, the Obama administration made good use of the civil rights division to assist in reforming police departments engaged in improper policing practices, such as Seattle. I have no confidence that Jeff Sessions will continue to support any of these policies. Please do not vote to confirm him.''

LB from Seattle, WA, writes: ``Please block Jeff Sessions from becoming Attorney General. The idea of having a racist attorney general is appalling. We need to improve race relations in this country and in our law enforcement officers, especially. I am 41 and feel like the race relations in this country had been improving steadily throughout my life, at least on the west coast. It's very scary to me that this new administration has to brought to light all the issues that still remain but to be a great country we cannot be a divided one and with half our population being minorities this appointment seems like a huge huge step in the wrong direction.''

LR from Seattle, WA, writes: ``I am writing to ask you to do everything you can to stop the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. His record shows his hostility toward civil rights, the ACLU, the NAACP, the LGBT community and more. I am especially concerned about his ability to send us backwards on gay marriage and other civil rights laws. His appointment to head the Justice Department would be a disaster for civil rights law in this country. Please help stop this travesty.''

MY from Edmonds, WA, writes: ``I am writing to urge you to continue due diligence on the appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. I do not believe the political commercial I just saw trying to paint him in a wonderful light and asking people to contact senators to urge confirmation. I continue to have concerns about what he will do to lessen voter rights and other issues under his authority. The advertisement did not change my opinion and I feel it's just full of alternative facts. Please continue to ask tough questions on all of these appointments.''

RR from Bellingham, WA, writes: ``Please do not consider Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. His views, clearly displayed over the course of his career, are the antithesis of what our country stands for around the world. The United States has been a bastion of freedom, truth and inclusiveness. Sadly, those qualities are rapidly disappearing, faster than o thought possible, under the Trump administration. ALL of our citizens are entitled to equality under the law. All of our citizens are entitled to live freely regardless of their race, religion, lack of religion, gender or sexuality. Jeff Sessions is dangerous. He will dismantle civil rights laws, allow racial profiling, support laws that prevent access to voting and encourage the abuse of the LGBT community. Please vote no.''

I also know there are letters from many organizations that also have opposed this nomination, and my colleague has talked about many of those, but the NAACP, civil and human rights organizations, the HRC, and the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees have said they question the objectivity and sense of justice needed on these important issues.

I mentioned the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and other issues of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, things that people are concerned that they get the fair attention and enforcement of law. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

I also note that the National Nurses United, on behalf of 150,000 registered nurses, also urge the opposition to this nominee. And the record of this individual has made these individuals concerned about the resources and focus on crimes and actions that they see in their day-to-day lives.

They want to make sure they are going to work effectively in addressing these issues that they see through the health care system. All of these issues add up to a great deal of concern about this next vote that we are going to be taking.

We are not under the illusion that somehow, magically, the vote is going to turn out any differently than it did on the last nominee. Why are we here at 4:30 in the morning to talk about this? Why are we going to continue to pursue efforts, as the minority, to get time to discuss these nominees? We are going to do that because we have great concerns about their record. And, frankly, in the case of the next two nominees who are coming before us, we had specific questions asked about their actual actions and statements and the testaments before the Finance Committee. Instead of the majority answering those questions for us, they decided not to answer them and push the vote to the floor of the United States Senate.

I am very concerned about the Price nomination, and the discussion that I hope we are going to have time to have here on that nomination and to bring light to the issues that we didn't get to bring to light in the Finance Committee.

The Treasury nominee that we will give time to in the next several days, the discussion of that record, the things I am interested in, obviously, are the protection of Medicare and Medicaid, and making sure we expose what is the concept and idea to either cap or cut the benefits that Americans are getting under those programs today and to have a great discussion about a very important issue that was talked about during the campaign and was put into party platforms on both sides of the aisle, but now all of a sudden seem to be forgotten. That mysterious, but all-important issue, something called Glass-Steagall, the separation of commercial and investment banking. That is what the Trump campaign, now President Trump, working with Republicans, put into a platform. Let us have Glass-Steagall.

Let us have separation of commercial and investment banking. Why? Because it is the disaster that brought us the implosion of our economy and cost our economy $14 trillion, according to the Dallas fed. Yet, many Americans have not fully recovered from that event. I get that a lot of banks have recovered because we gave them the keys to the Treasury, and they got bailed out, but a lot of everyday Americans have not recovered. And certainly there are pension issues in the questioning of nominee Mnuchin. There was some discussion, ``Well, that is not what we meant. That is in the party platform, but that is not what we meant, and that is not what we are going to pursue.'' And certainly the rollback of Dodd-Frank provisions, that were just done in a Congressional Review Act, without very much discussion or fanfare or understanding by the American public, these kinds of actions are the things we seek debate on.

As these nominees come right after this, my constituents in the State of Washington are feeling as if these nominees need to be questioned on how they are going to uphold existing law and how they are going to implement and enforce existing law as it relates to these many issues. We are doing our best here. We would rather not do it at 4:30 in the morning. We would rather not do it at 4:30 in the morning, but we will do it at 4:30 in the morning if that is what it takes to get the airing on these issues and this amount of attention.

So I do find that the other side of the aisle, trying to gavel down my colleague from Massachusetts, was an attempt to try to say that you can control this debate. You can control the questions we have or the discussions we want to have or the concerns that our constituents have, which are real. I don't think it takes a genius to see that many people marching in Seattle on women's issues or an attorney general or a Governor who files a case or all the discussion that is happening, as I said, in response to a bombing at a health clinic just within the last few years or a bombing that happened in Spokane, an attempt on a Martin Luther King Day parade just several years ago, where somebody left a backpack trying to do harm--these are issues today.

They may be the same struggles that our Nation has had, but we have made it through, and we want a law enforcement officer in the land to uphold the law, enforce it, and to fight for the civil liberties of these individuals.

So I go back to my opening comments about this. And that is that I truly believe that mark that was set in the Saturday night massacre is the mark we should always strive for. I happened to ask at the time, when I first got on the Senate, I sat on the Judiciary Commission for 2 years, and I asked Attorney General Ashcroft about these issues. I asked him specifically, if you become the Attorney General for the Nation--at this time we had a law that had been implemented, the roadless area rule. Even though it had become the force of law, would he enforce that, even though the new President wanted to overturn it? Because I wanted to get across this very issue: Are you working for the American people? Will you uphold the law if, in fact, that is the law of the country? At this point in time, Mr. Ashcroft hesitated about whether it did have the force of law but said that if it did have the force of law, he would certainly uphold it. Obviously, we saw a lot of Executive orders in the early days of the Bush administration trying to overturn many of these things, and we saw an Attorney General's office that stood by. Instead of defending these laws in court, basically they were effective at not implementing fighting them because basically they did a very poor job in the court process--or decided not to argue or to file on behalf of the existing law, as opposed to answering to the Senate of the United States.

So we have seen examples of this. We have seen examples of Attorneys General who are responding more to the President of the United States than upholding the laws of the land.

I think Americans--at least the Washingtonians who are writing me in record numbers, who are speaking out in record numbers, who are concerned in record numbers--want the laws on the book to be enforced, and they want the steps they are taking and making progress on as a State to also work in coordination with the next Attorney General.

I will be honest with people. I did not vote for the law to legalize marijuana in my State. I did not vote for it. I did not think that given some challenges and issues we had, it was the right thing to do. That is how I cast my vote. But more than 20 counties in our State, out of 39, voted for this law. It is not something that just Seattle did and it dominated the State, and there were just a bunch of people in Seattle who wanted to legalize marijuana; it was counties throughout our State. Some of our most rural counties voted for the legalization of that product.

In the ensuing years, we have had a good relationship with the Attorney General and the Department of Justice on how that law was going to continue to play out. So, as you can imagine, it is a much more integrated system now several years later. Several questions still remain about how this country is going to address that issue as a nation as a whole.

But right now, right now, we want to know we are going to have an Attorney General, and my obligation to a citizenry who has passed by initiative this decision is to make sure that I am looking for people here who are going to work with the State of Washington on that right that our State has to continue to move forward.

So it is of concern. As I said, the notion that a previous Attorney General did not agree--not this past Obama administration, but the previous Bush administration literally came to our State when we had a medical marijuana law and forced the investigation and shutdown of some facilities, caused great concern to medical patients throughout our State. So this is raising a question for people here. It is my obligation to make sure these issues are raised and brought up as we seek this discussion on the Sessions nomination to be Attorney General for our country.

I again thank my colleagues for being out here and for all of the discussions we have had on these issues. We should not be afraid to have these discussions. We should not be afraid to think about how we are going to work not only across the aisle, as I have done with my colleague Susan Collins on those homeland security Court issues--we worked successfully with Jeh Johnson, the last Homeland Security director, to make sure that we were moving some of our airport border control issues to overseas airports. We were able to get that done in December

after the San Bernardino event and make sure that we are now working.

Why do we want them over there? Why do we want the border control and efficiency over there? Because then you can work more in coordination with law enforcement about who bad actors are before they reach the shores of the United States. By working with local law enforcement in those countries, we have better ways to find information about individuals we have concerns about. That is the best nexus for us, and so she and I have worked on that issue.

As I mentioned earlier, Senator Collins and I are big advocates for the use of biometrics because you can identify people. As I mentioned, in the Ressam case, if we had identified Ressam the first time he entered France, we would have known who he was when he got to Canada. It would not have taken him going to the U.S. border. We would have found out when he arrived in Canada. But this is the United States using our clout and using our efforts to say to our European counterparts: We have implemented these biometric standards, and we want you to implement them, and we want to work together to make sure people we have great suspicion and concern about are being addressed.

So, yes, we can work across the aisle on these issues. We can find ways to make sure that we are protecting civil liberties and also addressing the most heinous of these crimes and working to find individuals in a cooperative fashion, knowing that we are going to have to do this on an international basis.

So I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to think about what America now needs in moving forward on the protection of civil liberties. I hope that--I am sure it is tempting to want to reach and to do some of these issues in Executive orders.

I mentioned the other issues of government surveillance in the Pacific Northwest that the State of Washington for sure has concerns about. These are our issues.

Infringing on the civil liberties of American citizens is not a pursuit we should be following. We should be working in coordination with law enforcement on verifying that people are who they say they are and pursuing an agenda, working with our international counterparts, to stop people in those countries before they even plot a case like the Ressam case in the State of Washington.

I know my other colleagues will be showing up here shortly, but I just wanted to put an additional note in. If any of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are up early and just happen to turn on the television, if that is one of the things they do in the morning--we asked our colleagues to give us ample time to debate on the Price and Mnuchin nominations. We can continue to do the all-night thing. We can. I feel for the floor staff and the people who are here all night and the extra strain that it puts on the stenographers who are here and have been working around the clock. But what we want is to have a hearing on the issues we are concerned about. We want to be able to have these issues discussed not necessarily in the middle of the night but during the broad daylight so that we can engage the American people on what these choices are so that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will hear from their constituents and will hear why these issues are so important.

In the two cases we are going to see following this nomination for Attorney General, we are going to individuals who did not fully respond and answer the questions we wanted answered as it related to information they supplied to the Finance Committee.

So when you talk about--some people say: Why are you guys doing this? We say: Well, it is the Treasury nominee and the head of our health care system. So basically it represents all our revenue and a big chunk of our spending. That is what those two individuals represent. They represent the revenue that our country raises and a big chunk of the money. In fact, I think health care is 7 percent of our economy. It represents a big aspect of our economy--those two individuals. So we want to make sure we have ample time to discuss those nominees, to raise the questions we have about those nominees. Maybe in that discussion here on the Senate floor in the bright light of day, we will get some answers. We will get some answers about some of the things that were discussed in the hearing about opposition to certain issues or incorrect information. We will engage our colleagues in a debate, and maybe they can help us understand the support for ideas like basically, you know, changing Medicare into a program that caps the benefits on individuals or taking Medicaid and doing the same thing.

I am a big proponent of changes in delivery system reform that have driven great efficiencies into the health care system. I think many of our colleagues don't know, for example, about a program that got people out of nursing homes and into community-based care; that a lot of States in the country that use this part of the Affordable Care Act now are driving more efficient health care services into those States--a lot of States that did not support President Obama, did not support the Affordable Care Act, but took the money from the Affordable Care Act and are now implementing a much better delivery system for those who are living longer and need assistance on health care.

Why is that so important? Because back to my point about Glass- Steagall and the implosion of our economy, what we are going to see is a very great tragedy on retirement issues. We are going to see a lot of people who don't have enough money to retire and certainly not enough to take care of their health care. So what happens then? Those individuals end up on Medicaid. If they end up on a Medicaid system that is based on nursing home care, the U.S. Government is going to be paying a lot more money for those services.

Those are all issues that we want to discuss with our colleagues, and we want to have an opportunity to do so during the next several days. We hope you will give us the ability to do that instead of holding all- night sessions--do that during the day--and give us ample time on those nominees and push those to next week so that we can have that discussion now.

Again, I want to thank the floor staff and everybody who has been here these two nights. It is a long haul. It is a long haul to do there. But behind every Member who has spoken on my side of the aisle, I can tell you, there is a passion of our constituents. There are true concerns, both by individuals and I would say businesses, as you can probably see from those who joined the case Washington State brought. You can see that there are issues here of how our economy works and how businesses work as well.

The passion and fervor that drive people to come here and speak on these issues is really one that represents the whole society we in the Northwest represent, the economic issues and the challenges that we face and how we have lived together in the diversity that has emerged and how much that diversity in the Pacific Northwest has grown our economy. That is what people are telling us. People want to know: What is the economic engine of the Pacific Northwest? And one of the things that scientists and researchers come up and say is that it is diversity.

The diversity adds to the creativity, the creativity adds to the inventiveness and the ingenuity, and the ingenuity is what is propelling these various businesses all across the various sectors. I am not just talking about high-tech sectors; I am talking about in agriculture, in aerospace, certainly in tech, but in many other aspects of manufacturing as well. So we want a nominee for Attorney General who is going to recognize that diversity, fight for that diversity, who is going to stand up to the President of the United States when they need to stand up and continue to make the effort that previous Attorney Generals have made in doing the job that it takes to be the top law enforcement officer in the land of the United States.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I see my colleague from Texas. Did he want to make remarks in leader time?

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the action today in the Senate, which is to try to overrun the clean water rule as it relates to the mining industry.

The bottom line is, polluters should pay for the pollution, and that is what the rule says, and that is what is trying to be overrun today after a very short debate in the Senate.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to say it is about the coal industry and a war on coal. If they are so concerned about the coal industry, I would suggest to them

and coal workers that they take up the pension bill they promised to take up in the last Congress and have failed to take up.

Last December, thousands of coal miners came to Washington, DC, and asked the Senate to live up to their promise that was made and put their health on the line and make sure that they had a pension program. More than 20,000 retired coal miners are at risk of losing their health care if we do nothing by April, and they have a very small pension-- averaging about $530 a month--that is also at risk.

I know some of my colleagues would like to believe this is somehow entirely related to a war on coal, but that narrative ignores the facts. In 2008, right before the financial crisis, the United Mine Workers' pension plan was 93 percent funded--in 2008, 93 percent funded. Its actuaries projected it was on track to reach full funding in several years.

So this notion that somehow the discussion behind the scenes by the Interior Department or the EPA caused an implosion in the mining industry and thereby they didn't have resources is not the case. What is the case is that the financial crisis hit, and Wall Street speculators blew up our economy, costing it $14 trillion--according to the Dallas Fed--and many in this body bailed them out. But we did nothing to bail out the miner pension program. Those pensions were thrown into crisis. By 2009, the United Mine Workers' plan had dropped from the 93-percent funded level down to the low seventies--a 20- percent drop in a single year. So despite the fact that the plan was well managed, the investment returns continued to be problematic. Wall Street--not the Department of the Interior or EPA--is the reason mine workers have so much challenge today.

If they care so much about the mining industry and the workers, then bring that legislation forward on the floor of the Senate today instead of trying to overturn a rule that says polluters should pay.

These safe drinking water issues and fishing issues are so important to an outdoor economy that employs a million-plus workers and is a vital part of practically every State's economy. The notion that somehow this is a jobs issue--if they want to protect jobs in the outdoor industry, then please allow people to fish in rivers where they don't have to worry about selenium. This is a big issue, whether talking about Montana, Colorado, Washington, or the State of Alaska.

I will say that the Alaskan issues of salmon and habitat far outweigh the 113 jobs the Alaska coal industry produces. Both can be seen as valuable jobs, but if we want to know about an economic impact to the State, it is dwarfed by the issue of making sure salmon have clean rivers and streams to migrate through.

This legislation today is about trying to protect those waters. I would again say that the effects of mountaintop removal have been called out by the press for a long time. I wish to quote from a Washington Post editorial:

For decades, coal companies have been removing mountain

peaks to haul away coal lying just underneath. More recently,

scientists and regulators have been developing a clearer

understanding of the environmental consequences. They aren't

pretty.

In the 1990s, coal miners began using large equipment to

strip away mountaintops in states such as West Virginia. The

technique made it economical for them to extract more coal

from troublesome seams in the rock, which might be too small

for traditional mining or lodged in unstable formations.

Environmentalists were appalled, but the practice spread and

now accounts for more than 40 percent of West Virginia coal

production.

Burning coal has a host of drawbacks: It produces both

planet-warming carbon dioxide and deadly conventional air

pollutants. Removing layers of mountaintop in the extraction

process aggravates the damage. The displaced earth must go

somewhere, typically into adjoining valleys, affecting

streams that run through them. The dust that's blown into the

air on mountaintop removal sites, meanwhile, is suspected to

be unhealthy for mine workers and nearby communities.

Scientists have recently produced evidence backing up both

concerns. Over the summer, a U.S. Geological Survey study

compared streams near mountaintop removal operations to

streams farther away. In what should be ``a global hotspot

for fish biodiversity,'' according to Nathan Hitt, one of the

authors, the researchers found decimated fish populations,

with untold consequences for downstream river systems. The

scientists noted changes in stream chemistry: Salts from the

disturbed earth appear to have dissolved in the water, which

may well have disturbed the food chain.

Last week, the Charleston Gazette reported on a new study

finding that dust from mountaintop removal mining appears to

contribute to greater risk of lung cancer. West Virginia

University researchers took dust samples from several towns

near the mountaintop removal sites and tested them on lung

cells, which changed for the worse. The findings fit into a

larger, hazardous picture: People living near these sites

experience higher rates of cancer and birth defects.

Again, all this is from the Washington Post editorial.

With these sorts of problems in mind, the Environmental

Protection Agency is taking a more skeptical look at

mountaintop removal mining permits. The Clean Water Act gives

the government wide authority over industrial operations that

change rivers and streams.

The EPA has already used its efforts, in some cases where there was concern, to revoke a permit and has instructed its branches and offices to be more careful.

The coal industry and its allies--

And we have heard some of them here--

are howling. Skeptics of mountaintop removal, one industry

pamphlet insisted, ``promote an anti-coal, anti-business

agenda that uses environmental issues as a mere pawn to

redistribute wealth, grab power, and put forth liberal,

social ideology. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that

would strip the EPA of some of its permitting power. But just

this month--

Because that was a couple years ago--

the Obama administration once again prevailed in court,

beating back another industry challenge.

This editorial ends by saying:

The emerging scientific evidence should cut through the

rhetoric. The EPA is right to move more firmly to protect

health and the environment.

We are right to defend this rule and law and say that polluters should pay.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I know we are going back and forth. I wish to inquire if my colleague seeks to speak.

Go ahead because we are expecting someone on our side.

Madam President, I would like to continue the debate on the measure before the Senate, which is to basically overturn a provision that would require coal polluters to make sure they clean up the damage they do to the clean water streams of our Nation.

We are here today because the agency who is in charge of setting these rules has finalized a rule. They did so after more than 5 years of discussion. They set it because there was so much scientific information about the great degradation to our streams caused by mining, when rocks are blown up and selenium is introduced into the stream. I have pictures I showed last night of deformed fish, pictures of river streams that are polluted. I have pictures of obvious degradation of the environment around them.

The real issue is, the rule is now in place, and my colleagues want to exempt the coal industry from such regulation. Why would you want to exempt anybody from cleaning up their mess? Polluters should pay. I know my colleagues are starting to chorus on some refrain about the economy, which makes no sense. Natural gas has driven a very competitive market to consuming more natural gas than coal,

and Wall Street blew up the pension program of the miners, and now it is in jeopardy. If you want to help miners, then come address their health and safety and their pension program. If you want to make natural gas more expensive, maybe you could make coal competitive again, but I don't think that is what we really want in America.

My colleagues somehow ignore the fact that the people of the United States of America are going to demand clean water one way or another. You can protect the coal industry here with special interests and the amount of lobbying they do, or you can step up this process and have a regulation that works for the United States of America so the outdoor industry, sportsmen and fishermen--who have many more jobs--can continue to thrive. Why do I say that? Because my colleague from Texas brought up the EPA nominee, Mr. Pruitt, who is coming to us from Oklahoma. I found, with great pleasure, the same arguments that the other side of the aisle is trying to make, they tried to make in Oklahoma. ``Oh, my gosh. It is environmental regulation that is stopping us from producing a greater, more robust farming economy. We need to do something to stop those untoward regulations.''

What did they do? They had a big initiative for the ballot that basically said: Let's make it really hard for anybody to regulate in regard to farming, unless they show it is somehow in the greater State interest. Even in red-state Oklahoma, they got it. They knew it was a fast run on the Clean Water Act, and they defeated that basically 60 to 40.

If we want to have a debate by debate, State by State, a discussion about clean water because people here will not defend the right for people to have clean streams, then we will have that debate. My colleagues sometimes try to say: Well, this is what attorneys general are concerned about. Some of them don't like the rule. You have ample opportunity to change the rule. You could come here and propose legislation. You could ask your colleagues now to do something and move forward on an alternative, but that is not what is happening. This egregious approach is not only getting rid of a rule that currently protects us, for safe streams, but because it is a Congressional Review Act overriding that rule, it will prohibit us from taking up, in the same fashion, an approach to make sure this is regulated in the future. That is right. Turning down the rule this way will stop an agency from doing the job it is supposed to do. Why not just leave it to the States? That is like saying: I am going to leave clean air, clean water, or nuclear waste cleanup to whatever a State decides. That is not what Federal law is about.

Here is an editorial from Kentucky where a ``proposed $660,000 settlement of the Clean Water Act violations between the State's environmental agencies, and two of its largest companies, underwent a 30-day review.'' What was that about? That was about the State of Kentucky failing to implement the old law. This was in 2010. The State of Kentucky's Attorney General--they were such laggards at this--people sued the companies in the State because the State wasn't doing its job. Eventually, they uncovered, as the article says, ``massive failures by the industry to file accurate water discharge monitoring reports. They filed an intent to sue, which triggered the investigation by the State's energy and environmental cabinet.'' The notion that States are on the job and doing their job in Kentucky--they weren't.

A State case was provoked by other people who were monitoring for clean water. It is our prerogative to set a standard for miners to clean up their mess. That is what we are talking about. Now the other side of the aisle wants to overturn that, saying that polluters don't have to pay.

How did we get to this situation? As mentioned, the past administration worked hard at coming up with a stream protection rule. Why did they come up with a new stream protection rule? Because it had been 33 years since we had a stream protection rule. The old rule did not prohibit mining through streams. Guess what? Neither does the new rule. The new rule says you are not prohibited from mining through a stream, but by gosh you ought to be required to mitigate the mess you create in the water system by mining through that stream.

We are talking about mitigation requirements, and we are talking about measurements. Why do we need that? Because since 1983, when the previous rule was put in place--we now know that things like selenium cause very bad things to happen in water, with rocks and the discharge. We know selenium can cause the deformation of fish and that eating those fish can make you sick. That is why we want to have a rule to understand the impacts and to mitigate for them. I think about this particular picture, and the deformation in the fish tail and in the fish lip--the front end of the fish--are extreme examples of what selenium is doing in our water supply. Why would you not want--as someone blowing up a mountaintop and creating this kind of stream damage, why would you not want them to mitigate that? Why would you want to protect them? Because you think you are protecting some coal industry jobs that basically have fallen off because natural gas has become a cheaper product? Your economic strategy is a race to the bottom. You think if you have the lowest environmental standards in the United States of America, that is somehow going to generate jobs? I think it is just the opposite. I have so many people in Washington State who say: I can't attract employees unless we have a clean environment here because people want to live in a clean environment, they want to fish, they want to hunt, they want to recreate, and they want an opportunity to do so. As a company, I can attract the best and the brightest because they know they are going to live in that kind of environment.

The notion that this kind of ``let us make sure the coal industry doesn't have to play by the rules, they get an exemption from clean water'' is some sort of economic strategy for the future of coal country, it is absolutely not.

Saying that AGs are going to do the job, we have many examples of where they haven't. There are also examples from Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the degradation is so bad it is nearly impossible to clean up.

Let us talk a little bit about the comparison of jobs from outdoor industry and the coal industry. It is not to demean the jobs of the coal industry and the individuals who have worked their whole lives in that sector or to say that one job is better than the other. There are over 6 million jobs directly in the outdoor industry. They generate $80 billion in tax revenue, but if you come to Montana and there is a mine on top of a stream and people don't want to go there to fish and recreate anymore, then you have caused damage. What are we talking about by State? Let's look at it. Montana, there are 64,000 jobs related to outdoor recreation. Why? Because Montana is beautiful. It has so many streams. I mentioned last night that wonderful movie called ``A River Runs Through It.'' It doesn't say, ``A River Runs Through It and a Mountaintop Mine Sits on Top of It.'' That is not what that movie was about. It was about the beauty of the great outdoors. There are 122,000 recreation jobs in Utah. There are 125,000 in Colorado, 50,000 in Wyoming. There are 28,000 in North Dakota. Are people down here defending those jobs? I am defending them because a clean stream is a great source of recreation for people. I don't want to fish or hike in a stream with selenium that could poison me or poison other people. What is wrong with polluters paying? I say nothing.

The economic cost of this legislation is very minimal. The industry would be responsible for less than .01 percent of the economic cost; that is, the pollution that would be required to clean up from this type of effort would be minimal to the industry. So what are they complaining about? What are they complaining about? They don't want to measure selenium in the water. They don't want to be responsible for mitigating it.

The economic challenges that the industry faces from natural gas have nothing to do with this issue. This issue is about whether polluters should pay and whether we as a body are going to not only overturn this rule that is about clean water and safety for our communities by having streams protected. It is also about whether we are

going to preclude another administrative approach to fixing this issue.

The Congressional Review Act is a very large cannon blowing a hole in the clean water requirements for the coal industry. Once you turn this down, you cannot easily reinstate something new. So our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they truly wanted to do something about this, could come to the floor today and say: I propose something different. President Trump, if he wanted to propose something different that both guaranteed clean water and moved us forward, he could propose something. Instead, they simply want to repeal this.

So this chart shows just what I have been referring to; that coal basically now in 2016 is getting beat by natural gas. It is getting beat by natural gas because it has become a cheaper source. We are not going to get into the details of how that happened, but we are going to say here today that the notion that you want to let them off the hook from meeting environmental rules and regulations as a way to be competitive is a dangerous, dangerous precedent for the United States to be setting.

We will not win, and our economy will not win from that situation. What we have to do instead is make sure that we are taking care of our environment and being competitive in all sorts of industry issues. For example, this story was about, in West Virginia, how mountaintop mining caused a fish species to disappear. ``We are seeing significant reductions of the species of abundant fish downstream from mining operations.''

To me, that would be an anathema in the Pacific Northwest. Fishing is everything. If somehow we were involved in a mining process that was killing fish, that would be the worst thing that could happen to our economy. There is no reason for us not to set rules and regulations to make sure the mining industry cleans up their mess.

I hope our colleagues will understand how detrimental this rule is. Do not give the mining companies an exemption from cleaning up messes in their streams. Let's say that we are going to do the public interest and not special interests.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think my colleague from Massachusetts is here on the floor to speak. I will let him have some time.

I would say to my colleague from Alaska, the real bait-and-switch is the side of this aisle that allows the Finance Committee to pretend like it is going to do something on the pension program and votes a month before the election, and then after the election, fails to act on such an important issue. I hope people are not advocating pollution as an economic strategy because it will not work.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for being on the floor to speak. He is right. We are going to keep score. There are going to be attempts by the Trump administration and the other side of the aisle to level the score against clean water; that is to say, polluters don't have to pay. So if we pass this override of existing clean water rules--yes, this will be the start. Trump 1, clean water 0.

Unfortunately, it is probably not going to the end because what is happening now is, Republicans control everything in Congress. They want to use their ability to have very little debate and to then override rules that are on the books to protect streams in the United States of America.

I so appreciate my colleagues coming to the floor to explain this issue, as this is critical. It is critical because the impacts of mining destroy headwaters. Between 1992 and 2000, coal mines were authorized to destroy about 1,200 miles of headwater streams, and this resulted in the loss of 4 percent of our upper headwater streams in areas of Appalachia in a single decade.

The surface mining impact on water from fractured rocks above coal seams react chemically with the air and water and produce higher concentrations of minerals, irons and trace metals, and those headwaters in West Virginia typically measure with electricity conductivity on an order of magnitude of those downstream. What that is saying is, these chemicals react in the water to create problems. Understanding what has been going on with that level of conductivity is one of the big advances in science in the last 10 years. That is why we want to update the rule because we now know what goes on when selenium is in the water. The conductivity is highly correlated with the loss and the absence of various species that are very pollution sensitive.

This level of stream degradation comes from the various fractured rock. When sulfate is present, you get acid mine drainage. That acid mine drainage then mobilizes metals toxic to fish--such as iron and aluminum and zinc--and that is where we start to have problems. A 2008 study found that 93 percent of streams downstream of surface mining operations in Appalachia were impaired, and our colleagues don't want to make sure that the mining companies monitor that and do stream restoration?

Another study found that adverse impacts of Appalachian mines extended on an average of 6 miles downstream; that is, this acid mine drainage is flowing 6 miles downstream. Why not have the mines measure this at the top of the stream, understanding what the selenium impact is, and doing something to minimize the impact on our streams that we are going to have to live with forever.

What is wrong with selenium? It causes very serious reproductive problems, physical deformities, and at high concentration it is toxic to humans. Basically, it is the similar effect to arsenic poisoning.

These coal mines are transforming our landscape, lowering our ridges, and raising our valley floors. One study in 2013, in Central Appalachia, found that mining lowered these ridgetops by an average of 112 feet. What we are trying to say is, you are impacting wildlife downstream; that the deforestation of these sites allows the flow of these rivers to increase flooding. The effects are worsened because the compacted soil on these sites also causes a problem. It is not much better than just plain old asphalt; that is, it means that plants and forests cannot grow back, it means that it impairs these various species, and it causes problems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The discharge from the long-abandoned Boston Gas Mine in Pennsylvania turned a 4-mile stretch of the Monongahela River orange. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said the plume likely contained iron, aluminum, and manganese. A geologist at West Virginia University who studies abandoned mine discharges said the abandoned mine is a large mining complex that has approximately eight outcrop discharges and created this large plume.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an AP story dated January 28, 2017.

The article talked about Preston, WV, and a fire in an abandoned coal mine that smoldered for several years. This mine is one of ``thousands of problem decades-old coal sites in West Virginia awaiting cleanup.''

These abandoned sites include old mines that leak acidic water into streams and killing wildlife. Tunnels and caverns beneath homes threaten water sources where wells are polluted.

All of these are examples of the kind of damage that is being done by these mines.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record another article from the Columbus Dispatch.

The article states: ``The report found that the number of species was cut in half and the abundance of fish fell by a third, downstream from these mining operations.''

I wish to talk about a mine now owned by Murray Energy that in 2009 spewed pollution in Pennsylvania, killing 43,000 fish and 15,000 mussels. Seven years later, the fish and mussels are still missing and not returning. They have paid a fine, but we are still living with the damage.

As my colleagues can see, this issue is about overriding a rule that helps protect our streams and rivers and makes sure that the wildlife there has safe drinking water and to make sure that we enjoy these natural areas. As I have pointed out through this debate, there are many jobs in the outdoor industry, and that is why sportsmen such as Trout Unlimited and the wildlife federations that are coalitions of hunters and fishermen all support this rule and don't want it overturned.

I know that the coal industry has spent $160 million over the last dozen-plus years trying to defeat regulation of its industry. Actually, the 0.1 percent they would have to pay was a lot lower than what they were spending on their lobbying issues. Instead, they should help us all get to the bottom.

But why have we done this by trying to fight today? That is because the science has told us that since 1983, we have a lot more information about the toxic level in the streams because of these products. We simply want a rule that reflects that the mining industry must measure and mitigate that impact. What is wrong with allowing science to lead the way?

I know our colleagues like to say that States should be left to do this, but you do have to have a Federal standard. You do have to have a Federal standard that they adhered to. It would be as if today I said: Let's override what we have done in this Nation in setting a miles per gallon for automobiles and just leave it up to the States instead.

Well, we are saying we should have fuel efficiency but let's just leave it up to the States about how many miles per gallon we really should have in automobiles.

If we did that, how many regulations do you think we would have? Do you think we would have the same fuel efficiency we have today?

What is happening is these coal companies are going into States, going into their areas, and lobbying lawmakers there against regulation, and in a couple of cases I have discussed today they were successful in getting Kentucky to fall asleep at the switch so the citizens brought the lawsuits to clean up the mines. They were successful because they finally caught the attention of people who should have been doing their job.

This rule, as it has been put in place, does give States flexibility. Its key definition says States get discretion to establish an objective criteria for measuring standards and restoring the streams. It basically says the final rule has several options to demonstrate compliance on the area of fish-and-wildlife. States can use their judgment about the types, scope, and location of enhancements. It says on groundwater, States can choose their sampling, protocol, subsequent analysis, and baseline. On rain measurements, States can choose whether to require mines to prepare a hydrologic model about the mine, and States can choose to allow mining companies to change their drainage patterns as they look at rebuilding ephemeral streams.

There is a lot of flexibility for the States. A lot of them haven't been doing as good a job as we would like, but you have to have a Federal standard. Your Federal standard is decades old. Science is telling us we have a problem. Please, please, do not pass this override of an important clean water law. Instead, if we want to fix it, let's sit down and do that legislatively. Let's not allow the polluters to get away with having their way on so many streams across America.

Mr. President, my comments here reflect my understanding as ranking member of the Senate committee of jurisdiction over the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA.

I am strongly opposed to disapproving the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's stream protection rule because I both support the substance of the rule and I believe the Congressional Review Act is an inappropriate and extreme legislative tool.

While my opposition to H.J. Res. 38 and its Senate companion, S.J. Res. 10, is clear, in the event that either resolution is enacted, I would look forward to a timely reissuance of a new rule. Notwithstanding the delay resulting from enactment of either disapproval resolution, the authority SMCRA grants to OSMRE through the Secretary of the Interior will persist--so will the clear obligations in the statute.

The provision in the Congressional Review Act that prohibits reissuance of a future rule ``in substantially the same form'' as the rule being disapproved, unless specifically authorized by another future law, does not diminish my confidence. Under the ample authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior under SMCRA, a large variety of forms of implementing its obligations under SMCRA remain available to the Agency.

The resolution represents a major setback for many communities affected by coal mining that had participated in an extensive 8-year rulemaking process. But it does not limit OSMRE's ability or obligation to implement SMCRA's statutory requirements fully, including but not limited to regulations that define material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area; give effect to the SMCRA's prohibitions against material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area; prohibit harmful mining activity within a certain perimeter, including the stream buffer zone as under the 1983 regulations; require permitting decisions to be based on full and complete information; ensure protections

for fish and wildlife; and guarantee that adequate financial assurances are put into place to provide for full and complete reclamation.

I expect any Secretary of the Interior to follow the law and fully implement the ongoing obligations under SMCRA.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.