Floor Statements

Mr. President, I urge my friend, the Senator from Delaware, to get to the train station.

First of all, I wish to thank Senator Heitkamp for bringing this group together. There has been a lot of talk about what ideas can fix the Affordable Care Act, and here we are hearing some of the ideas that we will offer.

Senator Kaine has had to hear this story before, but before I was in politics, I had a pretty long career in venture capital and invested in a lot of businesses. Some of those businesses managed to eke out a living, but the thing that was remarkable about the companies is that the companies that were the most successful weren't the ones that had the perfect business plan. They weren't the ones that had the newest ideas. The companies that were the most successful were the ones that were able to adapt and change. I never, ever invested in a business that ever met its business plan. Every one had to change in some way-- alter.

The truth of the matter is, as to the Affordable Care Act, for all its good things, there were things we got wrong. I will be the first to acknowledge that. There have been a lot of us in this body who over the last couple of years--again, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, who has been a part of these efforts--have said that maybe we need to do a little less bureaucracy in the ACA in terms of reporting requirements. Maybe we ought to have a cheaper option. We have gold and silver and bronze. I remember working with the former Senator from Alaska on this. Maybe we ought to have a copper plan, as well, to try to get those young people invested in buying that first plan.

We said that maybe we ought to take an idea that came from the other side of the aisle, and, as long as we have appropriate consumer protections, go ahead and let insurance products get sold across State lines so there is more

competition. Then, we saw more problems arise. Unfortunately, problems arose with the ACA, as we have seen this administration and others try to knock out some of the building blocks that built up the ACA--risk corridors, cost sharing, or more recently the administration saying that we may just ignore part of the bill that says there is an individual mandate. Consequently, that means the insurance company had to charge a heck of a lot more money because they weren't sure whether the law was going to be in force.

We have had people like the Senator from New Hampshire say: Well, I had an idea on cost sharing that might fix it. My dear friends, the other Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Delaware said: Let's go out and do that reinsurance plan, so that if there are extraordinarily high-cost plans, maybe that will be a secondary backdrop so premiums will not have to be so high. I am proud to support and be a cosponsor on both of those pieces of legislation.

Then, as only the Senator from Missouri can do, she came up with the most obvious of, at least, a short-term solution that says: My gosh, if for some reason, because there have been efforts to sabotage the ACA, we don't have enough offerings for at least some stopgap period, we ought to allow all the folks in our States, if they don't have any coverage, to at least get the same kind of coverage we get. That is kind of Harry Truman basic common sense--Missouri common sense.

So I hope our colleagues, after they get out of one more secret meeting in one more basement or secret location, will come back and start talking about these solutions--solutions that don't start with the premise that we are going to give folks like me a tax cut or that we are going to take a meat ax to Medicaid or that we are going to come up with a proposal that will take 22 million Americans off of health insurance.

The ACA didn't get it entirely right. There is a lot of room for improvement. We have asked our friends on the other side to meet us halfway and to try to bring the kind of bipartisan spirit we all talk about on this issue that affects each and every American and one-sixth of our economy. We can do it. We can do it right, but it is going to take the kind of cooperation and the kinds of good ideas that are being offered by my colleagues on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me join my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and not only express my concern about how we got here, but also acknowledge that an awful lot of folks in Virginia and a lot of decent folks in North Carolina and folks across the country breathed a little bit of a sigh of relief today. But that sigh of relief was just the fact that we have a bit of a reprieve from a proposal that, in my years here, I don't think I have ever seen--

Thank you, Mr. President.

Again, I am here joining my Democratic colleagues from the Senate Finance Committee.

I believe that folks in Virginia and, for that matter, folks across the country got a reprieve today when the majority leader indicated that we were not going to vote on the piece of legislation that he brought forward, a piece of legislation which, as has been acknowledged by the CBO, would take 22 million Americans off of healthcare, would transfer close to $800 billion of costs currently borne jointly by both the Federal and State partnership in Medicaid and then thrust that cost upon the Governor of North Carolina, the Governor of Virginia, and a host of others. I can't recall in my time here in the Senate where a proposal has been as universally panned by organizations from the left, right, center, and everywhere in between.

As perhaps the President is now acknowledging with the majority leader and a number of other Republican Senators, using his own quote, that ``nobody knew healthcare [was] so complicated.'' The fact is, the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle have realized healthcare is extraordinarily complicated. It is why it took years to fashion the ACA and why there are many of us, again, on this side of the aisle who continue to say we acknowledge, years after implementation of the ACA, that there are many things that need to be fixed, but the only way they are going to be fixed is if we do it in a bipartisan fashion.

Instead, the legislation that we were going to vote on tomorrow would have actually made healthcare much more expensive, less affordable, and less accessible for a whole wide breadth of Americans. Don't take my word for it; don't take these other elected officials' word for it. Let's look at well-respected, bipartisan groups.

The American Cancer Society said that the bill the majority leader put forward ``would be devastating for cancer patients and survivors.'' The American Medical Association said that the majority leader's proposal violates the very first dictate of the Hippocratic oath, which says ``do no harm.'' Obviously, this bill would have done a great deal of harm. The American Academy of Pediatrics says ``The bill fails [our] children.'' The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse says the Republican proposal ``will crush efforts to end the opioid epidemic.'' And the AARP says the proposal ``would leave millions, including our most vulnerable seniors, at risk of losing the care they need.''

But it is not just these leading healthcare organizations that have come out uniformly and virtually universally against what the majority leader had proposed. I am also hearing that from Virginians. On Monday of this week, I attended an opening of the new PACE Program in Fairfax, VA. The PACE Program--I know the ranking member on the Finance Committee has been a big advocate of the PACE Program--is a program that works in an extraordinary way at keeping seniors in their homes rather than having them migrate to nursing homes. Well, folks at the PACE Program in Fairfax were more than disturbed when they heard that the majority leader's proposal cuts Medicaid by $772 billion. Medicaid allowed so many folks to get access to healthcare, particularly if they had individuals in their family who might have severe disabilities. The majority leader's proposal, the per capita caps would actually take away the amount of health insurance they could receive.

The truth is, Medicaid covers 28 percent of all Americans and covers about 40 percent of all poor adults and seniors. In my State of Virginia, for those folks in PACE or in nursing homes, literally two- thirds of seniors who receive any kind of care receive care through Medicaid.

The cuts in this proposed bill would devastate our seniors and their families, and the cuts will not save money because so much of this is just the old-fashioned trickle-down that trickles down this responsibility to States that, again, would have to either raise their own taxes to take care of their responsibilities or, frankly, put out seniors who receive this critical care.

Mr. President, I also want to share with you and my colleagues a meeting I had last week with a series of families who came in. They had children or adults who had devastating disabilities.

I heard in particular from Marlo Dean from Virginia Beach, who was there with her 15-year-old son Dante, who has extensive health needs because of a rare brain disorder. Dante had just received a Medicaid waiver after being on the waiting list for 10 years. Ms. Dean, Dante's mother, said:

Cutting Medicaid is not the right thing. It's not the

humane thing.

There were other families. Angie Leonard, who traveled from the Roanoke Valley with her 22-year-old son Joshua, who has autism, said that this is not what America ought to be about.

Rebecca Wood, who brought her daughter Charlie from Charlottesville, said that she has private insurance, but she is wondering what would happen when that private insurance hits its cap, a cap that had been removed when we put in place the ACA. Again, Rebecca said: ``Our country is better than this.'' Boy, oh, boy, is she right.

When our colleagues talk about cutting Medicaid, when they talk about cutting it at the numbers they are talking about or putting caps back in place, I hope they realize that this is more than about the numbers of a government program. This is about providing support and services to families facing the nightmare of chronic illness or crippling medical illness and bills, quite honestly, that they can't pay on their own. It is about peace of mind for these families.

I have said from the outset that there were mistakes made in the ACA, and I stand ready to work with any Member of either side of the aisle to make sure that we fix those mistakes. But this debate ought to be about healthcare reform, not about providing the wealthiest in our country a tax break they don't need or taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicaid.

I look forward--I hope our colleagues who come back from this meeting with the President will come back with a renewed sense of cooperation and collaboration. I know there are other members of the committee who want to speak on this issue. I stand prepared to work with them and the ranking member from the Finance Committee to do this right, but it ought to be done in a way--whether it is Rebecca and her daughter Charlie, whether it is Ms. Dean and her son--that they get a chance to have their voices heard through a regular order process, where at the front end of the process we can hear the concerns, get those concerns vetted, and make sure legislation that gets brought to the floor is fully vetted and actually improves the quality of care for Virginians and Americans all across this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank my friend, the Senator from Florida, for his comments. There is no one in this body who is more familiar with and more knowledgeable about our space programs than is Senator Nelson.

I also want to associate myself with two comments he made. No. 1, as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I echo what he said about the very real, tangible threat the Russians, their spy agencies, and their agents pose to not just our democratic process but--as the Senator from Florida has outlined, not only did they attack us in 2016, they attacked the Dutch, which is why they had to hand-count their ballots, and they attacked the French, and Facebook took down 30,000 Facebook accounts because of fear of Russian manipulation. They will attack the Germans.

One of the things that is so concerning to me is that if you add up the amount of disruption the Russians have caused in Western societies at large without firing a shot or shooting a missile--and all that for less than 5 percent of the cost of an aircraft carrier--it is a pretty good return.

Our country needs to be strong against Russia, and I support the Russia sanctions, but I also support, as the Senator has indicated, a really critical part--that we continue our space program. I stand here to join with Senator Nelson and my good friend, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, in support of this amendment No. 250, which will allow civilian agencies to continue to launch crucial science, civil, and commercial space missions and which will continue to support NOAA and NASA, which depend upon their research.

Without this amendment--and I think this is an amendment that corrects a mistake in the original bill--billions of dollars and years of planning that have gone into missions like, as the Senator mentioned, the International Space Station, commercial cargo, Mars 2020, and the Joint Polar Satellite System, just wouldn't be possible. In many ways, without this amendment, we could even become more dependent upon Russian technology.

Again, as the Senator mentioned, I think the overwhelming majority of this body is very supportive of sanctions against Iran. We are very supportive, and I appreciate the opportunity to add stronger sanctions against Russia and sanctions that this

President cannot arbitrarily withdraw. But we have to make sure that in this bill we don't do unintentional harm to our space interests--space interests that I know are in Colorado and Florida and my home State of Virginia, where we have a flight facility at NASA Wallops, which is over on our Eastern Shore, where we launch both NASA and commercial satellites.

We have one of America's leading commercial and military companies, Orbital ATK, which is headquartered in Virginia and launches the Antares rocket from Wallops. The fact is, without this amendment, Orbital ATK would be prevented from buying the Russian RD-181 engines for its Antares rockets. That will do nothing to help America's space mission. The fact is, without those engines, Orbital would not be able to fulfill a $1.2 billion contract for launching from Wallops.

Quite simply, as the Senator indicated and I am repeating, this amendment is broadly bipartisan. My friend Senator Gardner and I chair the Cyber Caucus. The amendment is supported by our leading expert in the Senate on space, Senator Nelson, as well as Senator Shelby and Senator Bennet and a host of others. I imagine the Presiding Officer is also a supporter of this. The amendment would simply provide civil and commercial space parity with the defense industry, for which an exemption has already been provided. It is in the interests of defense and civil space to continue the current status quo in order to maintain a competitive environment until a domestic capability has been developed.

Let me be clear. I think it is important that over a very short time, we get away from purchasing Russian rockets, but we need that transition period, and the transition period the chairman of the Armed Services Committee laid out on the defense side ought to be extended as well on the commercial side.

So a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 250 will support continued access to space for NASA, as well as for those equally important commercial space missions. One of the things that I feel is so important about the commercial space missions is that we have to have that competition, candidly, with NASA and to push our defense industry if we are going to bring down space costs. To put a dagger in the heart of our commercial space industry as it has been slowly evolving would be a grave mistake.

I have taken on this issue on the intelligence side as I have tried to get smarter on the whole question of our overhead capabilities. The amount of dollars that we spend and the lack of competitiveness that we have in terms of some of our more traditional government-purchased space assets are both a waste of taxpayer dollars, and, candidly, we have an architecture overhead that is not modern enough to recognize the threats that Russians, Chinese, and others pose in terms of the ability to jam our satellites and use laser beams and other things. In a sense, in many ways, it is almost as if our defense and the intelligence community, on overhead architecture--nobody ever saw a James Bond movie. We built these large, bulky platforms in the sky with the assumption that America would always dominate space. That dominance--it is unfortunate because our adversary changes, it is coming to an end, and we need the competition from the commercial industry, quite honestly, to push the IC and push the defense toward smaller, more resilient, and more flexible platforms.

While I share the desire of the chairman of the Arms Services Committee to get us off this Russian hardware, we do need this transition. I think the amendment that has been put forward by the Senator from Colorado provides that transition, led by the transition that was laid out on defense. I believe commercial space needs that same type of transition.

I hope the amendment will pass. I look forward to our continued bipartisan support of both NASA and commercial space and obviously our defense assets and IC assets as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute and offer my deep appreciation to Randy Bookout for his many years of dedicated service as a professional staff member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI. Randy joined the committee staff in October 1999 and served in various capacities, most recently as the committee's budget monitor for the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. During his almost 18 years with the committee, Randy established a solid reputation of fairness and professionalism that was widely respected by members and staff, regardless of party, and officials within intelligence community elements over which he conducted oversight.

Randall D. Bookout joined the committee after serving a 28-year career with the Army, retiring as a colonel in the infantry. His distinguished Army career included assignments as a company commander in Korea and Panama and as an infantry battalion commander in Alaska. He served as a staff officer in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff and later as the senior military aide to Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Jr. His last duty in the Army was as the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison for the Senate from 1995-1999. Randy graduated with a bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a master's degree in business administration from the University of Northern Colorado. He attended the Army's War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA, as well as airborne and Ranger training.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who often traveled with Colonel Bookout when he served as the Army chief liaison for the Senate, was chairman of the SSCI in 1999 and asked Randy to interview for a nonpartisan staff job on the committee. Randy retired from the Army on a Friday and began work at SSCI the following Monday. As often was the case, Randy took to the challenge of this new role with a deep commitment, including long hours of study to learn an entire new encyclopedia of acronyms from the ones he knew after 28 years in the Army.

Much of Randy's work for the committee must remain unspoken. I will simply say here that he has made significant contributions to this country's national security and to the operations and activities of the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community. He knew the Agency in detail, seriously challenged it at times, and fiercely defended it at others. He forced changes that improved its operations, while at all times respecting its mission and, most importantly, respecting the women and men who worked there.

In fact, one of Randy's greatest traits and admirable qualities is that he cared not only for the organization, but genuinely cared about the individuals. His job was to focus on big programs, run by hundreds if not thousands of people, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and affecting the lives of countless others. He did that oversight job exceptionally well. He also saw and noticed each person who was a part of these big operations. Randy did what he could to help them perform their mission and to help them in their personal lives when something was amiss. For example, he helped a woman who served admirably for both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA, who unjustly lost her American citizenship. Randy helped get her legal resident status back. He helped an intelligence official, who left government service due to health problems incurred in a war zone, get the retirement ceremony he rightly deserved and was important to him and his family. After every trip he took for the committee, he left a trail of handwritten thank you notes that traced his path. He not only never forgot the little guy, Randy knew their name.

In the committee office, Randy always represents the highest standard of professionalism and collegiality. He always took the time to mentor young staffers, was willing to share his knowledge on programs or activities, and has never shied away from a request for assistance from a colleague. A fellow staff noted that Randy ``treats colleagues, superiors and the most junior staff member with respect and encouragement. He treats the intelligence officials with whom we interact in the same manner. So many times I've seen him engage with junior officers in challenging and remote settings at odd hours of the night, and his interest and enthusiasm for their work leaves them invigorated and inspired to do their work.''

Staff have shared many interesting stories and traits about Randy. He is generally the first to arrive in the office, around 5 to 6 a.m. For his 60th birthday, he ran an Iron Man triathlon. Colleagues talked about his love of travel, strange penchant for weird hats, participation in a Tough Mudder, and the particularly interesting fact that he and his family were chosen to be on the ``Family Feud'' TV show. They won. Staff also have noted his constant positive demeanor, even when addressing difficult and challenging issues, but, foremost, they noted his commitment to and pride in his family.

After 46 years of serving his Nation, Randy will retire next week to the

great State of North Carolina with his wife of 44 years, Cindi Bookout. He talks proudly and lovingly of her and their two children. Their son, LTC Josh Bookout, graduated from West Point and is currently serving his third tour in Afghanistan as a battalion commander. Their daughter, Whitney Corey, achieved a master's degree in psychology and is currently in San Diego. Retirement will give Randy and Cindi well- deserved time to be grandparents to their six wonderful grandchildren: Cade, Brock, Colt, Ali, Chloe, and Ainsley.

Let me close by again noting that Randy's commitment to his mission, his colleagues, his family, and his country is unquestioned. I want to thank him for his energy, his intellect, his passion, and his efforts on my behalf and on behalf of the committee. I am certain that I can on the Senate floor here today also express the appreciation of the six chairmen and vice chairmen of the committee, all of whom Randy served, for his service and share our collective wish for great joy and happiness in the next stage of his life.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with a number of my colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments on pensions, but there is another battle that a lot of us have been down here for a number of times over the last couple of years; that is, how do we make sure this country honors its promise and provides a permanent fix for our Nation's coal miners, particularly in terms of a promise that was made back in the late 1940s by then-President Truman in terms of healthcare for miners?

The last few months have been filled with an awful lot of uncertainty about whether the promise of healthcare for miners, retirees, widows, and others would be kept. As a matter of fact, earlier this year, 22,000 coal miners or their dependents received notices that their healthcare benefits would be terminated at the end of April.

After months of uncertainty and fighting, we stand ready later this week to pass a bill that would make sure America kept its promise. We have spent a lot of time on this floor arguing for causes, but rarely in the 8 years I have been here have I seen any Member of the Senate be more engaged, more obsessed, more of a pain in the neck--and a pain in other parts of bodies--on this issue than my great friend, the Senior Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin. The truth is, without Joe's tireless work and leadership, I am not sure the miners in West Virginia or Virginia or Pennsylvania or other States that were affected would be able to look at this piece of legislation and know that their healthcare benefits are going to be maintained.

This didn't come easily. If nothing else, this shows again the power of persistence. Joe first raised this issue in July of 2015, when he introduced the Miners Protection Act. Since then, he has brought it up--I ask my colleagues to contradict me if it is not the case--in every public meeting or private meeting. Whenever there were more than two or three Senators engaged in any topic, Joe would come bursting in and say: We have to take care of the miners.

Well, there are a lot of times here in this Chamber that those kinds of efforts are not recognized or rewarded. I just wanted to be one of the first to say on behalf of all the miners in Virginia--but more importantly to the 22,000 miners who otherwise would have lost their healthcare--that many of us played some small role, but we wouldn't be having a permanent fix to the law without the absolute leadership, dedication, and determination of Joe Manchin.

Before I turn it over to my colleague from Pennsylvania to make a comment or two, I know that at times Senator Manchin, as a former Governor, has wondered: Can you really get stuff done here? Well, there are a lot of issues we still have to work on; there are a lot of things we haven't gotten done. But for a whole lot of miners, their widows, and dependents, without the Senator's leadership, America wouldn't have

kept its promise. Because of his leadership and work, those miners, at least in terms of their healthcare, can rest easy.

With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my friend the Senator from New Jersey for his statement. I, too, share the belief that there was a better way to go about this judicial nomination process. I think as well that traditions such as a 60-vote margin should be maintained.

I think, frankly, neither party comes to this issue completely with clean hands, with the Democrats' action in 2013. But clearly our colleagues' actions of not even giving someone of such character as Merrick Garland the courtesy of meetings, a hearing, and then an up-or- down vote--for that and for many other reasons, I will be joining my friend from New Jersey in voting against Judge Gorsuch and making sure that we use all of our available tools. So I thank him for those comments.

Tribute to Federal Employees

Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend the Senator from Texas for giving me the courtesy of letting me get in my comments about the nomination of former Senator Dan Coats to serve as the fifth Director of National Intelligence, a position recommended by the 9/11 Commission and established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Dan Coats is a friend of mine and many in this body. He represented Indiana in both the U.S. House and for separate terms in the U.S. Senate. He was also U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005. As mentioned, for 6 years I served with the nominee on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have always found Dan to be fairminded and know him to be an advocate for strong oversight of the intelligence community. He believes in the need for intelligence that is timely, relevant, and free of political interference.

During my private meeting with him, as well as during his confirmation hearing, Senator Coats committed to find and follow the truth, regardless of where it leads, agreeing that his primary job will be ``to speak truth to power,'' to the President, to policy and military leaders, and to Members of Congress. I know these are traits he will continue to employ if confirmed as the next Director of National Intelligence.

During James Clapper's most recent tenure as the DNI, in 6 years he put in place some fundamental changes in how the Intelligence community operates. He reoriented the Office of the DNI to focus on intelligence integration with an emphasis on mission. He often was willing to roll up his sleeves and take on the hard challenges of trying to get the intel community to operate on the same IT backbone systems. If confirmed, I have encouraged Senator Coats to build upon former Director Clapper's efforts, which are critical to ensuring that policymakers, warfighters, law enforcement, and national security officers receive intelligence products that are timely, relevant, and objective.

Of course, if confirmed, Director Coats will take on the job as the Nation's chief intelligence officer, leading the intelligence community during a very difficult time because unfortunately this President, along with his closest advisers, has repeatedly and unfairly disparaged the professionalism and actions of the Nation's intelligence professionals. These are men and women who maintain the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. They anonymously sacrifice for the country, often in the face of grave personal danger.

As DNI, Senator Coats is committed to defending the values and integrity of the men and women of the intelligence community, even when the White House may not like to hear it.

Another challenge Senator Coats will face on his first day on the job is to effectively support the Senate Intelligence Committee's ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Last week, I went to CIA headquarters in Langley, along with a number of other Members of the committee, to review the beginnings of the raw intelligence that led the community to conclude that Russia massively interfered in our last Presidential election. Both in public and in private, Senator Coats has promised he will support the committee's investigation to the fullest. We will hold him to that commitment.

On this topic, I want to reiterate on the Senate floor what I have already said numerous times. This investigation is not about being a Democrat or Republican nor about relitigating the 2016 election. The investigation is about upholding the core values and sanctity of democracy that all Americans hold dear. It is also about holding Russia accountable for their improper interference in our elections and arming our allies--one of which has an election today--with information about the means employed by Russia in our elections so they can use that information to protect the integrity of their own electoral process.

We will work to ensure that this critical investigation is done right, done in a bipartisan manner, free of any political interference, and as the chairman and I have both reiterated, that it follows the facts wherever they may lead.

I have every reason to believe Senator Coats will be forthcoming in supporting this investigation. If at any point it becomes clear to me that the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to keep up these commitments, I am prepared to support another process.

Finally, let me acknowledge two other things.

During Senator Coats' confirmation hearing, he was asked about his role on the National Security Council, including the Principals Committee. He assured us that he will be attending these meetings and participating in them despite the confusion created by an Executive order that appeared to disinvite the DNI from these meetings. If he is not included in these meetings, I will expect to know about it and the reason why.

Senator Coats has also committed to me personally and to the committee that he will not support the return of waterboarding and other so-called enhanced interrogation practices, nor will he support reestablishing secret detention sites into the activities of the intelligence community. He reassured the committee that he will follow the law as it now stands and that he will not advocate for changes to the law or recommend a reinterpretation of the law based on any personal beliefs. The law is clear: No interrogation techniques outside the Army Field Manual are allowed.

Finally, Senator Coats has also reassured me and all of the members of the committee that if confirmed, he will always present to the President, to his Cabinet advisers, and to those of us in Congress the unvarnished facts as represented by the best judgments of the intelligence community whether or not that analysis is in agreement with the views of the President, with ours in Congress, or with anyone else's who might receive them.

For these reasons, I support the movement. I was glad to see 88 Members of this body support Dan's movement forward. I believe he will be a great fifth Director of National Intelligence.

I thank my friend the Senator from Texas for giving me time.

Madam President, I want to compliment my friend, the Senator from Ohio, for his comments. I know my friend, the Senator from Washington, is going to make comments after this, so I will try to make mine as brief as possible.

I apologize. I joined the majority of Senators who are a little bit raspy today after our late night last night.

I rise in opposition to the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to serve as our Nation's next Secretary of the Treasury.

As the President's principal economic adviser, the Treasury Secretary holds a special significance in our system of government. The Treasury Department must ensure America's debts are paid, secure our role as a global economic power, and develop policies that help build an economy that works for all Americans.

Based on Mr. Mnuchin's record, my meeting with him, along with his answers during the Senate Finance hearing and followup questions, I am unable to support his nomination to serve as Treasury Secretary.

I want to take time today to discuss some specific policy issues that Mr. Mnuchin and I disagree with and some of the areas where I hope that if he is confirmed, we might be able to find common ground.

On financial reform and protecting the economy from too big to fail, Mr. Mnuchin's comments, coupled with comments and announcements from others in the administration, are deeply concerning.

Mr. Mnuchin's statements of ``concern'' about title II of Dodd-Frank, in particular, revealed to my mind, at least, a disturbing lack of understanding about how the financial system has evolved since the 2008 crash.

We should never forget that Lehman Brothers' collapse caused enough uncertainty across the financial system to trigger a run on nearly every other bank. The Lehman collapse also was part of the requirements that required that $700 billion much fabled taxpayer bailout.

The resulting financial chaos destroyed millions of jobs, devastated home values, and froze lending to consumers and small businesses. The truth is, many Americans are still trying to dig their way out of that financial crisis.

To ensure that taxpayers didn't end up on the hook again for another bailout, Congress passed Dodd-Frank that required banks to put in additional financial capital to make sure there were living wills so these large, significant financial institutions actually had ways that they could resolve themselves and, in a sense, get ready for bankruptcy. But we also said, in the event that bankruptcy was not adequate, there would be, as a cause of last resort, the ability using the FDIC to unwind these large institutions.

Well, we are years later and what we have seen is that other countries around the globe had basically modeled their systems after what we created in terms of title I and II in Dodd-Frank.

Since 2010, our regulators have worked diligently with the Bank of England and other foreign counterparts to ensure a global megabank can be resolved without using taxpayer dollars.

I would further note that even the National Bankruptcy Conference, which is composed of bankruptcy judges, lawyers, and academics, believe ``orderly liquidation authority under Title II should continue to be available, even if the bankruptcy code is amended.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Mnuchin and other members of the administration have expressed great concern with title II, and that causes me concern in terms of his nomination.

In tax reform, the Secretary of the Treasury has also historically played an important role. I have long argued that our Tax Code is broken. It is simply not working for enough Americans and American businesses.

I would welcome efforts to smartly--and on a bipartisan basis--work to reform the Tax Code, but I am concerned about how a tax reform process under this administration might play out.

First, Mr. Mnuchin has repeatedly said there should be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. I found that good. Some have even started to call this the ``Mnuchin rule.''

As the nominee, though, he has failed to commit to following his own rule or to provide any specific answer on how he would reduce the tax burden on middle class and working families. In fact, President Trump campaigned on a plan that based upon independent budget analysis, would add close to $5 trillion to our national debt and that would, in the same amount, slash taxes for corporations and those at the top of the income scale. Yet this same plan and any effort to be revenue-neutral would end up then raising taxes on middle-class families.

The truth is, again, an independent analysis of President Trump's plan shows that while middle-class earners might see a smaller increase in their aftertax income, the increase and the benefits to the upper 1 percent would be where most of the benefits went to. That is before we even get to issues like the President's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the implications that has for middle-class Americans.

Because of this and because of his unwillingness to explain how we would pay for this tax reform and the notion that somehow through dynamic scoring this would all, in effect, self-correct leaves me with great concerns. I would simply point out to my colleagues that when Mr. Camp proposed a tax reform plan that I didn't agree with--but it at least had some basis in financial reality--there were eight separate dynamic scoring plans put together; in effect, magic dust that could somehow resolve even big tax cuts that would suddenly, somehow mysteriously pay for themselves.

We saw the effects of that kind of action with the Bush tax cuts early in 2003. We have seen this well in terms of actions that have led our country to $20 trillion in debt.

So I believe that Mr. Mnuchin's failure to come through with a truly revenue-neutral or legitimate plan that would not misuse dynamic scoring raises enormous concern as well.

Finally, I am concerned that Mr. Mnuchin lacks an understanding of the critical role the Treasury Department plays in both crafting and implementing economic standards.

It was useful to hear that Mr. Mnuchin committed to 100 percent sanctions during his nomination. I am not sure, with some of the actions of the administration since then, if we can actually hold him to those commitments.

Treasury obviously has a role that is much more important than just enforcement. Treasury's role vis-a-vis Iran, Treasury's role vis-a-vis the Russian sanctions are extraordinarily important in his unwillingness, particularly around Russia, to make a firm commitment. Again, this raises a clear concern for me, and this is a concern that is shared by both Democratic and Republican Members of the Senate who feel that we need to keep the pressure on Mr. Putin's behavior not only in the Middle East but in Ukraine and, candidly, Russia's unprecedented involvement and interference in our own election.

Again, the Treasury Secretary plays an important and critical role.

There are areas--let me make clear though--where, if Mr. Mnuchin is confirmed, I hope to work with him, and that one area in particular is housing finance.

I believe very strongly--and having worked with many Members on the other side--that we need to reform our housing finance system so we don't have, in the case of Fannie and Freddie, instances where when times are going good, there is private sector gain, but when crisis happens, the taxpayer pays the bill.

We saw this take place back in 2008, where the American taxpayers literally had to put up $188 billion of taxpayer money to bail out Fannie and Freddie.

It is true, many years later, most of those funds have been repaid, but as somebody who spent longer as a venture capitalist than I have as a Senator, I can assure you, the taxpayer did not get fair return on those funds that were taken out in the midst of the crisis.

Now we see certain hedge funds were trying to take advantage of this arbitrage, buy in to Freddie and Fannie, and then hope that policymakers will turn a blind eye and simply return to the old style of doing business, where as long as things are going well, hedge funds and others will do well by owning Fannie and Freddie, but if the stuff hits the fan again, taxpayers will be caught holding the bill.

I was happy to hear--and I was pleased to hear that Mr. Mnuchin went on record during the Finance hearing, opposing the so-called recap and release plan and was supporting a bipartisan solution to reform these entities.

Again, if Mr. Mnuchin is confirmed, I look forward to working with him in this area.

Finally, there is an area that I think most of us on both sides of the aisle realize that we can't play Russian roulette with and that is dealing with our debt ceiling. Here again was an area where I would actually give Mr. Mnuchin some credit because he acknowledged that the notion that some have put forward that if America would prioritize to pay one bill and not another is both financially unsound and practically impossible. On that item, I want to give Mr. Mnuchin his due.

On balance, because of some of the comments that Mr. Mnuchin has made around tax reform, around sanctions, around the issues related to making sure we have a vigorous and independent Treasury, I don't believe he brings the characteristics and qualities needed to be a Treasury Secretary. So I will not be able to support his nomination, and I will urge my colleagues in joining me to oppose him when his vote comes up on Monday.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, in honor of African-American History Month and in support of efforts to promote education and training in 21st century careers involving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, I want to bring the attention of this body to the stories of three remarkable African-American women. Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson broke through barriers of gender and race as trailblazers at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA, more than a half century ago. Together with my colleagues Senator Tim Kaine and Congressman Bobby Scott, we honor these women.

Before John Glenn orbited Earth or Alan Shepherd walked on the Moon, several hundred female mathematicians used pencil and paper, slide rules, and adding machines to perform the complex equations which launched America's journey into space. Among these ``human computers,'' as they were known, were Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson--three women who have become symbols for many other women, many of them women of color, who worked at NASA Langley's West Area Computing Group complex and helped America dominate space and aeronautics research.

Virginia author Margot Lee Shetterly grew up surrounded by this little-known history, much of it relayed by her father, who also was an internationally recognized scientist with NASA's Langley Research Center. And Shetterly masterfully tells the story in her book ``Hidden Figures'', which currently is an Academy Award nominated motion picture of the same name.

Thanks to Margot Lee Shetterly's book and the popularity of the film, these hidden figures are hidden no longer. And the stories of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson reflect America's story: the powerful combination of individual drive and accomplishment and the certain knowledge that America is at its very best when we are inclusive and welcome everyone's contributions of capability and talent.

The stories of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson also provide compelling testimony to support our bipartisan efforts to promote education and training in the STEM disciplines: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Those are the disciplines which will continue to provide the opportunities of the future, and these are the disciplines where we must do a much better job of recruiting and retaining young women, especially girls of Color.

It is an honor to place in the record of this body the stories of these exceptionally talented individuals. They were among the brightest minds of their generation, and their intellect and their collective body of work helped change America's future.

Mr. President, I am here to speak about Mr. Price, but I want to respond to my friend the Senator from Nebraska.

I appreciate very much the independence the Senator has shown in his tenure in the Senate. My hope would be that his comments about civics, his comments about our three branches of government--I hope we will take that speech and actually send it down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because I concur with him. I concur with him about the basic civics lessons he laid out. I concur with him about three equal branches of government. I concur with him about the fact that I look forward to hearing from Judge Gorsuch and having my chance to view him.

But I would also think that in any kind of objective analysis of what our country is going through right now, we have currently a President of the United States who--I have real questions whether he has read that document, the Constitution, whether he understands the basic tenets of three coequal branches.

We saw his activities during a campaign where he called out a judge because of his ethnic heritage and somehow impugned that judge's independence. At some point, he walked that back, and perhaps those of us who were kind of scratching our heads thought, well, that is just during the campaign, and candidates do strange things during the campaign.

Then we saw the President get elected, and we saw throughout a transition period decrees by twitter that are, again, unprecedented in modern activity. I know the President wants to be a disrupter, but there is some level of comity and some level of civics and some level of recognition of coequal branches that--candidly, when the President of the United States attacks a judge because he doesn't like the ruling in a way that calls into substance not the substance of the ruling but the very nature of the judiciary, I think all of us--and I know the Senator from Nebraska would agree with this--all of us need to sit up and say this is not what the Founders intended.

I look forward to giving Judge Gorsuch and everyone else the President might nominate a fair look, a fair appeal, and then making a judgment on whether I think one of the most important positions--a lifetime position of serving on our Nation's highest Court--whether he is appropriate or not. But this President makes that case harder for his nominee when he shows such blatant disregard of the fundamental basics of our Constitution.

I would be more than happy and glad if we would all dial it back a bit, but we are in uncharted territory in a way that, as somebody who believes every bit as much in the Constitution as the Presiding Officer does, it makes me very concerned about making sure we maintain those basic liberties, making sure we have a government that can live within its means, making sure we maintain the independence of the judiciary, the independence of our legislative body, and an Executive who knows there are limits on Presidential powers.

I appreciate his comments and particularly appreciate the fact that through his tenure in the Senate, he has shown a level of independence. I have taken some hits from my own team for showing similar levels of independence. I commend his words, but I do hope that those words would actually make their way down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I am curious to see what the President's tweeting response to that speech would be.

Mr. President, I did come here, though, today to rise and talk about a need that Virginians and, for that matter, Americans have, about a health care system that is affordable and accessible and provides high- quality health care.

I voted for the Affordable Care Act back in 2010, and I have acknowledged, I think along with many of us, that just like every major reform--just like Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid--Congress never gets it 100 percent right the first time and that Congress needed to revisit and improve certain aspects of the ACA.

As anybody who serves in the legislative body knows, you have to have partners in order to get to yes. Unfortunately, that is what we have heard from folks on the other side for the last 7 years. We have heard all the critiques, we have heard the screech of repeal, but we have not heard any kind of plan on what you replace.

The fact is, like it or not, ACA has played a critical role in driving health care innovation, protecting consumers, and reducing overall health care spending. Those are just facts--not alternative facts, not alt acts; those are just facts. The increased coverage to more people now makes it all the more difficult to find some way to repeal and maintain all the things that people liked, yet replace it with a plan that is actually more cost-effective.

So today we consider a candidate for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the lead Cabinet member who will oversee our critical health care programs. Congressman Price has advocated for dismantling the ACA, and he has made it clear that, as Secretary of HHS, he would seek to implement policies that, I believe, will make health care more expensive and less accessible to Virginians.

Today, after a great deal of reflection, I join my colleagues in opposing Congressman Price's nomination to be Secretary of HHS. And rather than going through the statistics and facts--I know I have other colleagues who want to speak--I want to reflect briefly on a couple of stories I have heard from Virginians.

One of the things that was a benefit but I don't think folks have focused on enough is that the ACA, with all its challenges, did allow people freedom from the trap of being caught in a dead-end job that they couldn't move from because of the fear of losing their health care benefits. This was the first move toward an affordable benefits system, something I think we are going to have to move beyond health care to retirement and other aspects, as well, as more and more workers work not in traditional full-time and long-term employment, but more and more--one-third of the workforce today already is in some form of contingent work: part-time work, independent contractors, gig work. They have no benefits, other than the fact that through the ACA they are able to maintain health care. The ACA has actually reduced this phenomenon of ``job lock.''

A couple of weeks ago, I met Andrea in Richmond. She always dreamed of opening a software business, but she and her business partner were considered uninsurable because of preexisting conditions. The ACA changed everything. After obtaining insurance through the exchanges, Andrea and her business partner were able to take that risk. Today, that successful company has a staff of 12. As Andrea said: ``Simply put, my business would not exist without the security the Affordable Care Act provided.''

The coverage gains we have seen are remarkable. That is clear from hundreds of Virginians who have contacted me with stories like Andrea's. In fact, never before in our Nation's history has the rate of uninsured dropped below 10 percent. In Virginia, a State where our legislature unfortunately would not expand Medicaid, we have still seen an uninsured rate drop from 15 percent to 9 percent, and 327,000 Virginians got additional coverage. This is especially true in rural areas.

Nationwide, the ACA lowered the percentage of uninsured by eight points in rural communities. Rural communities often struggle with hospitals that, without ACA, would be on the brink of financial extinction.

Here is another quick example from Janet in Mosely, a rural area south of Richmond, who grows and sells organic vegetables to support her family, which includes four children. She said:

We went through various attempts to manage the cost of

health insurance and health care in our finances before the

ACA--with no

good results. [Because of ACA], we have been able to have an

appropriate plan, with a realistic deductible, access to

quality doctors, and be able to go to preventative care

annual appointments. We are quite fearful about what life and

business may be like without the ACA, or an improved-upon

version of the ACA. A repeal would be disastrous.

Unfortunately, not only has Congressman Price strongly opposed the ACA, but his plan--or what framework of a plan you see--and other proposals dramatically scale back the individual market reforms that allow people like Andrea and Janet to obtain meaningful coverage. As our workforce becomes more mobile than ever, Congressman Price has said people should have access to care, but access to care without affordable care isn't true access.

For example, if you got rid of the ACA with no plan to replace it, we would see the reinstatement of lifetime and annual limits on coverage. They are what turned getting sick into a financial calamity for so many people. Plans would be required to cover far less in terms of conditions, moving away from the ACA's promise that insurance is worth more than the paper it is written on.

As I mentioned already, the close to one-third of the workforce that is already in some level of nontraditional work and doesn't work full time in a long-term employment facility would lose that flexibility to move from job to job.

We have also heard from Congressman Price plans to block-grant, for example, Medicare. We in Virginia have a very trim Medicaid program. We have also not expanded Medicare, which I think was a grave mistake of the legislature. The Governor and I agreed we should expand it. Putting a Block Grant Program in place for Virginia would be a disaster in terms of Medicaid. As well, Congressman Price has voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CHIP program, one of the things I was proud to expand in Virginia, where we ended up signing up 98 percent of all eligible children. Congressman Price called the CHIP program ``government-run socialized medicine.'' What he didn't say is what he would say to the 200,000-plus kids in Virginia who get their health care coverage through CHIP.

So I believe that Congressman Price's approach--whether it is on Medicaid block-granting, whether it is on the ACA, whether it is on the CHIP program, whether it is his failure to come up with a sufficient plan to provide access and affordability--means that if we go forward with his nomination, the kind of chaos that would be created if you repeal the ACA without a replacement plan in place will not only affect the 20 million-plus Americans who got health care coverage through the ACA but literally everyone else because it will absolutely pull the bottom out of the overall insurance market. These are chances that we can't take.

I have a series of other stories, but I see my friend the Senator from Connecticut, who spent a great deal of time on this issue back when there weren't that many people coming to the floor to defend the ACA. I guess it is better to be early and right, but Congressman Murphy has been a great leader on this issue. He was here, as I mentioned, on the floor, when many of us were active in other activities, an absolute native of the ACA, when we went through the bad rollout. But what we have seen in America, as we get closer now to the reality of the new administration, is that the new majority wants to actually repeal this program without fixing it--simply repeal. I think his forewarnings about what would happen are all coming to pass.

I will personally be opposing the nomination of Congressman Price to be Secretary of HHS. I hope my colleagues will join me.

I do want to yield the floor to the Senator from Connecticut, who has been such a great leader on this issue.

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank my friend the Senator from Michigan for her comments and her views on this nominee.

I rise today to add my voice to those expressing concern about the nomination of Betsy DeVos to serve as U.S. Secretary of Education. The chorus of concerns not only comes from those colleagues who have already come to the floor last week or earlier today or throughout the evening and into tomorrow morning, but it also comes from literally tens of thousands of my constituents who have contacted me about Mrs. DeVos. I have been flooded with phone calls, emails, and social media messages from Virginians all across the Commonwealth, in many ways, in numbers that I haven't seen since the debate about the ACA. These Virginians worry about Mrs. DeVos's confirmation. They worry about what it would mean for our children, our students, and for progress toward improving and providing every child with a quality public education regardless of their ZIP Code.

Like many of my colleagues, I bring to the debate some direct experience as both a State and local elected official. I had the great honor of serving as Governor of Virginia. I was responsible in that job for how we were preparing our students for success in college and in the workforce. I took that responsibility very personally.

As somebody who attended good public schools all of my life, as somebody who was lucky enough to be the first in my family to graduate from college, I realized that I wouldn't have been able to have been Governor or, for that matter, obviously, Senator without that foundation I received from my education. Those public schools--and I had the opportunity to go to public schools in three different States growing up, and many of those public school teachers were the folks who framed my views about government, about our system, about how we actually get through in life.

I believe in many ways public schools and the whole notion of public education really form the cornerstone of what is the social contract in America--that getting that basic public education is the right of all individuals. When I think back on everything I was able to accomplish as Virginia's Governor, the validation I valued the most was that when I left the Governor's office in 2006, Virginia was consistently recognized by independent validators as the Nation's best State for a lifetime of educational opportunity from pre-K to college and beyond.

So as someone who is committed to reforming and looking at how we can make sure our public education can work for all, as someone who spent a career before in business and tried working in a philanthropic sense on how we could expand educational opportunities, I believe I bring some experience to this debate. That is why I stand here today unable to support the nomination of Betsy DeVos to serve as Secretary of Education.

To put it simply, Mrs. DeVos's single-minded focus on charter schools, on vouchers, and on converting Federal education dollars into a different program is simply out of step with the education climate in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Let me make clear that I have supported public charter schools. I believe they are a tool that ought to be in the toolkit. I have taken on those forces who stand for simply no reform in education. But I am unconvinced that Mrs. DeVos's complete setting of different priorities at the Federal level is in the best interest of our students, our teachers, or our public schools. That is exactly what I have been hearing from constituents all over the State, and I would like to very briefly share some of those concerns I have heard.

Laura from my hometown of Alexandria writes this:

While many of our . . . President's cabinet picks worry me,

none worry me more than Betsy DeVos for Secretary of

Education.

She says:

I come from rural Appalachia, where [I] worked my way

through public school in one of the poorest counties in the

country, but that didn't stop me from ending up here in

Northern Virginia working for the intelligence community.

In areas like my hometown, where public schools are the

only option, they become the lifeblood of a community. . . .

On limited resources, our high school had to get creative

about how to provide for the students, often partnering with

the local university. But shutting the school down in favor

of charters, or adding a for-profit alternative, definitely

wasn't an option in my low-income area.

Another letter from a school administrator from the Shenandoah Valley says this:

At her confirmation hearing it was quite clear she had no

knowledge of instruction, curriculum, federal programs and--

most disturbing--had no understanding of the federal laws

that are in place to protect children with disabilities.

It is a serious business to educate children, and the

consequences are huge if we do it wrong.

Another comment--and again, these are just samples of thousands--is from Olivia, a teacher in Williamsburg, who shared this:

I see so much potential in my students every day, and I

feel very energetic as a young teacher about the

opportunities that I know our public schools are providing

already--and are capable of providing in the future.

She said:

I am concerned for my LGBT students, low-income students,

and for the future of myself and my colleagues as public

school educators trying to do good for our students.

I have received thousands of similar heartfelt messages from every corner of Virginia. I welcome this level of public attention and citizen engagement.

Sometimes, as the President's nominees have come forward, I voted for many of them, much to the consternation of some folks. But it is my job to weigh, regardless of that public opinion, what I think is best for students in Virginia and, for that matter, students across the country.

With this outpouring from teachers, parents, students, administrators, civil rights groups, charter school proponents and opponents, and from both sides of the political aisle, I believe it does weigh. That is what I have done. I have listened to my constituents, but more importantly, I have listened to Mrs. DeVos's own words before the Senate HELP Committee, and let me say that I still have a lot of unresolved questions after reviewing Mrs. DeVos's testimony.

For starters, Mrs. DeVos did not demonstrate that she understood the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. She didn't understand that it is actually a Federal law passed by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush, contrary to the impression Mrs. DeVos seemed to have at her confirmation hearing, saying that somehow complying with IDEA was simply a voluntary measure. That is not right, it is not the law, and, boy oh boy, did that frighten a whole lot of parents whose kids have special needs and without IDEA, would not have those needs met. They are concerned that Mrs. DeVos's seeming lack of familiarity with IDEA is indicative of how, if confirmed, her Department of Education would fail to protect the rights of these children--and every child--toward a free and appropriate public education that allows even kids with special needs to flourish.

Another area under the Department of Education's jurisdiction where I have concerns about Mrs. DeVos's commitment and level of understanding is campus sexual assault compliance and enforcement. Since 2014, I have been proud to support bipartisan legislation led by my colleagues, Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill, the Campus Accountability and Safety Act. At the end of last Congress, this legislation had the support of more than one-third of the U.S. Senate, as well as a broad coalition of advocacy groups, law enforcement organizations, and many of our leading colleges and universities. The Department of Education's own Office of Civil Rights has also played a very important role in initiating and in conducting title IX investigations. So you can understand why so many folks, including myself, were concerned when Mrs. DeVos did not demonstrate any depth of knowledge about the difference of opinion surrounding particular policy issues related to campus sexual assault.

Similarly, when asked about a basic principle of education policy related to measuring student achievement, Mrs. DeVos was not able to articulate an understanding of the difference between growth and proficiency.

In the same vein--and while this has become the subject of late night comedy, I think it is a very serious matter--Mrs. DeVos was not able to clearly express her understanding or her commitment to enforcing the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which, again, is Federal legislation, also signed by President Bush, where compliance is not optional.

These are fundamental tenets of Federal education policy, not some obscure metrics, not small bills that languish in committee or small compromises. These are the principles and cornerstones of Federal education civil rights policy, and they cannot be more central to the Secretary of Education's core responsibilities of safeguarding students' civil rights and safety.

For all of those reasons and others, I am not able to support Mrs. DeVos's nomination to be Secretary of Education.

I know the Presiding Officer has had to hear a number of these comments. I hope that if she is not confirmed, the President will send down an Education Secretary nominee who brings more mainstream views to this very important issue. There are those of us, like me, who are all for education reform, but it has to be led by someone who will always put the needs of our kids first, and making sure they get a fair and appropriate education is guaranteed.

With that, I yield the floor.

First of all, Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, for his statement, and remarkably, the events of the last 24 hours, with Senator Warren's comments and now Senator Sanders' comments and others, and the fact that it is now out there-- using social media, this letter has now reached this morning more than 5 million Americans. I know that Senator Sanders' comments this morning continue to expand, reaching Americans. And out of every challenge comes an opportunity--the opportunity to make sure more Americans hear the very powerful words and her rationale against Senator Sessions I think was very important, and so I thank him for his work.

Mr. President, I also rise today to voice my concerns about Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as U.S. Attorney General. While I respect Senator Sessions' public service, I cannot and will not support his nomination.

I also rise to raise the concerns of thousands of my constituents who have contacted me about Senator Sessions. These Virginians worry about what his confirmation would mean for the rights of all Virginians and all Americans.

Senator Sessions' long record of opposing bipartisan, commonsense policies relating to voting rights, anti-discrimination, domestic violence, and criminal justice reform leads me to conclude that he is not the right person to serve as Attorney General.

I would like to take a couple of minutes--and I know I have my friend the Senator from Minnesota coming after me--to talk about five areas of concern I have with his nomination.

First, voting rights. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder to gut a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Senator Sessions applauded that decision which eroded voter access and protection in several States once covered by the preclearance provisions in the Voting Rights Act. Those States included the Commonwealth of Virginia. Moreover, he has failed to support important legislation that would restore those protections.

The bipartisan legislation, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, was introduced last Congress and would serve to once again protect our Nation's hard-fought equal access to the ballot. I was proud to cosponsor this bill and remain committed to working with my colleagues to put a fair process in place that ensures our elections are open to all. Senator Sessions unfortunately opposed this legislation.

The second area is nondiscrimination. I also have concerns about Senator Sessions' record on a broad range of anti-discrimination provisions. He was one of only four Senators to oppose an amendment in the Judiciary Committee that would have reaffirmed the principle that the United States does not discriminate against immigrants on the basis of religion--an issue that unfortunately has reared its head most recently by the President's action.

He opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which codifies protection for LGBTQ Americans, and denies the reality that too many of our LGBTQ neighbors still face down discrimination and hatred every day.

While nearly two-thirds of the Senate voted for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009, Senator Sessions stated this instead: ``I'm not sure that women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.''

From opposing the DREAM Act, to opposing the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, Senator Sessions' views are well outside of the mainstream.

The third area is the Violence Against Women Act. In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation, originally drafted in 1994, provides crucial protections and resources for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. The 2013 reauthorization bill updated those programs within the Department of Justice and extended resources and protections to additional populations, such as those in same-sex relationships. That bill passed with the support of a large bipartisan majority in the Senate, including a majority of the Republican caucus. However, Senator Sessions opposed the entire bill due to concerns about one provision in the legislation related to domestic violence against Indians on tribal lands.

We in the Senate have all on occasion been faced with legislation that contains one or more provisions that we have concerns about or would not have included in the legislation. Yet my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can attest that we very often strike compromises to get important legislation over the finish line. Oftentimes the sign of a good bill is when not one of us gets 100 percent of what we may have wanted. Opposing a much broader, commonsense bipartisan bill meant to reduce violence and protect domestic violence victims calls into question Senator Sessions' commitment to administering these important programs at the Department of Justice.

Fourth, various sentencing reforms. There is broad, bipartisan recognition in the Senate that our broken criminal justice system is badly in need of reform. Likewise, there is bipartisan support for updating outdated statutes that tie judges' hands and often force them to hand down overly punitive mandatory minimum sentences. Yet last year Senator Sessions again was one of only five Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to vote against this bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act.

There is overwhelming support both in this body and among the American public for reforming a broken justice system and giving thousands of Americans a second chance to be productive members of society. I believe that Senator Sessions' views on criminal justice are at odds with what the American people want and at odds with the basic principles of fairness and equality under law that are supposed to be the hallmark of our Nation's justice system.

Finally, on the question of independence, I am concerned that Senator Sessions won't be sufficiently independent to execute the responsibilities of Attorney General effectively. Doing this job the way our Founding Fathers intended requires a certain level of impartiality to fully and independently enforce our laws and protect the rights of the disenfranchised. Senator Sessions has said achieving this level of neutrality means saying no to the President sometimes.

This is one area in which I agree with my colleague and very much want to

take him at his word; however, given his vocal, partisan support for President Donald Trump and his refusal to commit in his confirmation hearing to fully enforce certain laws, I am not convinced that Senator Sessions is fully prepared to faithfully execute this new set of responsibilities with the amount of independence that the job demands.

Again, I stress that the main duties of serving as Attorney General include enforcing our Nation's laws and by doing so, protecting the civil rights of all Americans. That is the most basic tenet of being Attorney General. Given Senator Sessions' long record of opposing many of these fundamental laws that protect civil rights and equality for all, I have grave concerns about him fulfilling and taking this position.

For these reasons, I am unable to support Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General, and I encourage my colleagues to take these concerns under consideration as we move toward a final vote on this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before my friend, the Senator from Texas, leaves, I am sure he understands that I am rising now in support of the nomination of Congressman Mike Pompeo to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But before I speak on the nominee, I do want to take a moment to address the criticism that has been leveled against my colleagues who asked for time to debate the nomination.

As Members of the U.S. Senate, we are responsible to the American people to make measured, thoughtful decisions. I will support this nomination, but, again, I fully respect the right of my colleagues to ask for time to debate the nomination on its merits. I know Senator Wyden and others will be coming to the floor later today to address their issues.

To be clear at the outset, I do not agree with some of the views that Congressman Pompeo has expressed, and our personal and political views are wildly divergent. While Congressman Pompeo and I disagree on many issues, I believe he can be an effective leader of the CIA.

In our private discussions, and in the open and closed hearings, he has convinced me that he will follow the law banning torture. And let me be clear. As the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I will oppose any effort to change law or policy to once again torture detainees, and I will keep a careful watch to ensure that no one ever tries to do so again.

I have also received public and private assurances from Congressman Pompeo that he will accurately represent the unvarnished views of the analysts and folks who work for the CIA and that he will relay those views no matter what the President or others want to hear.

One of the most important jobs of the Intelligence Committee is speaking truth to power.

Congressman Pompeo has also given me assurances that he will support those who work for the CIA and not discriminate against anyone based on their personal views and, not in the least, that he will cooperate with Congress, particularly as we look into Russia's efforts to interfere with our election system.

I heard my friend, the Senator from Texas, call out the former Director of National Intelligence, General Clapper, who has over 50 years in the intelligence business. And again, Mr. Clapper, along with all the other leaders of the intelligence community, basically has said that the Russian efforts to interfere in our elections in this past year were unprecedented.

We all know that President Trump has said some unacceptable things about the intelligence community, accusing them of leaks and of politicizing intelligence. Those of us who serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence--indeed, all of us in Congress, and I know I see my friend, the chairman of the committee, is sitting here on the floor--know that those attacks were unwarranted and should not be continued.

Congressman Pompeo did not participate in those attacks. Instead, throughout his tenure on the House Intelligence Committee, he showed respect for the intelligence community and worked to help make them even better.

His former colleagues and staff on the committee speak highly of him, even when they disagree.

Since he was nominated for the position of Director, Mr. Pompeo has spent a great deal of time at the CIA, working with the professionals there to understand his new role and the challenges he will face. We have had a number of conversations about that.

I have heard nothing that undermines my view that he will treat the employees of the Agency with the decency and fairness they deserve. And since most of those employees also happen to be my constituents, I will watch his actions very carefully.

Under Congressman Pompeo, the CIA will face many challenges. For example, the growth of open source information and big data will supplement and challenge traditional collection means. The Agency has the increasing need to operate in expeditionary and nontraditional environments, which will drive a need for changes in personnel, support, and training. The Agency will have and will need an increasingly diverse workforce which grew up online, which will create new opportunities but also new problems, for example, in establishing and maintaining cover. And if he is confirmed as Director, Mr. Pompeo will have to complete and sometimes tweak the reorganization begun by his predecessor, John Brennan.

While Congressman Pompeo and I disagree on many issues--and I suspect will disagree on many in the future--I support his nomination. I believe he can be a good leader for the CIA and will cooperate with the oversight of the SSCI and Congress.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the children of the Commonwealth of Virginia I vote no.

First, Mr. President, I commend my good friend, the Senator from Indiana, for his good work on laying out, with the Senator from Oregon, one approach on reforming the Tax Code and his willingness to look at this issue of our national debt.

Let me echo, at $18 trillion--he cited some statistics--interest rates go up 1 percent. That is more than $120 billion a year off the top. That is more than we spend each year on the issues I am going to speak to--the Department of Homeland Security.

The only issue I would raise with my friend is that we do need that grand bargain. But no one who has looked at this problem hasn't said: You are not going to solve it without revenues being part of the mix. You have to do entitlement reform. But even with the so-called revenues from the fiscal cliff, let me just point out that we brought the country to the brink of unforeseen financial areas.

To raise $600 billion, well, in the past few years we have had unprecedented one-time revenues from the Federal Reserve north of $400 billion, $200 billion-plus that CBO counts as revenue from paybacks of Fannie and Freddie. We do not have the revenue streams. If we can get back to revenue streams from the late 1990s, revenue as a percent of our GDP, when the economy was booming and jobs were being created and there was bipartisan collaboration, I think that, combined with entitlement reform--to make sure Social Security and Medicare are truly sustainable for the next 50 years--there is a path there and I thank the Senator for his work.

I thank the Senator for his comments. We might agree or disagree on the role the President has played, but that still doesn't beg the fact that we need to continue our efforts in this body and in the body down the hall.