Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and dedicated service to our country of my friend and colleague, Eni F. H. Faleomavaega of American Samoa. I had the honor of serving with him in the U.S. House and was deeply saddened to hear of his passing on Wednesday, February 22, 2017.

Eni served 13 terms as the Delegate from American Samoa, and we worked together because of his close ties to Hawaii. Eni's strong ties and service to Hawaii makes him a ``keiki o ka aina.'' He was a graduate of Kahuku High School and the Church College, the forerunner to Brigham Young University in Laie, HI. Eni was a passionate advocate for indigenous peoples including native Hawaiians. Whether it was Federal recognition or health and housing programs for native Hawaiians, Hawaii could always count on Eni's outspoken support and assistance. One of the stories Eni enjoyed sharing was about his experience sailing on the voyaging canoe Hokulea in 1987, and in August 2014, he welcomed the arrival of the Hokulea and Hikianalia arrival in American Samoa and offered his best wishes to Malama Honua Worldwide Voyage.

I always appreciated his warm presence at the annual Kamehameha Day Lei Draping Ceremony at the capitol where he would often perform traditional Samoan chant and dance. Of course, he also served his American Samoa constituents in Congress with distinction for two decades. During his service in the House, he rose to become the first Asian-Pacific American to serve as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He brought his unique perspective as a Pacific Islander to this post and constructively worked to raise the concerns of the region in Congress.

Eni was also a veteran of the Vietnam war and a selfless advocate for his fellow veterans in American Samoa and across the Nation. Thanks to Eni's efforts, American Samoa veterans can now receive their healthcare from a Department of Veterans Affairs clinic built in Pago Pago with funds he helped secure. It is therefore most appropriate that the House and Senate

recently passed H.R. 1362, a bill to name this clinic after him.

I join my colleagues in extending my deepest sympathies to his wife, Hinanui Hunkin, their 10 children, and their 15 grandchildren. Eni will be dearly missed by his extended ohana in Hawaii and all whose lives were touched by his leadership and service.

Mr. President, it seems appropriate that we are debating the nomination of Seema Verma to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services the same week Republicans in Congress introduce a plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

Over the past 8 years, President Obama and the Democratic Party have been fighting to make sure that everyone in this country has access to affordable, quality health insurance. President Trump and his allies in Congress do not share this commitment. Instead of debating how best to expand access, they are fighting with each other to see just how many people they can kick off insurance rolls--all in a crusade, apparently, to save some people money.

This is not a crusade to improve the lives of as many Americans as possible. It is a crusade to serve their radical antigovernment ideology. In fact, ``ideology over people'' is a useful shorthand to describe the first 2 months of the Trump administration.

The problem with their ideological debates is that people are left out of the debate. Do we really know what it is like to be without health insurance? Under the plan to repeal the ACA, 20 million people in our country will be without health insurance, without healthcare. What if you were one of those people?

This question is not an academic one for me. I know what it is like to live without health insurance. When my mom brought my brothers and me to this country--I am an immigrant--her job did not provide health benefits. My greatest fear growing up as a little girl in this country was that my mom would not be able to go to work if she got sick. If she wasn't able to go to work, where would money for food and rent come from?

That is not the kind of fear we want to impose on millions of children in our country, but we will be doing just that to the 20 million people and their families who gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act--many, for the first time in their lives. They did not have to be worried every single day that their child or their parents would be sick and would not be able to afford the care that they needed. This is not an academic exercise for any of them. They will be hurt by what we are being asked to do. It is not an academic exercise for the millions more who will lose their insurance coverage under TrumpCare.

But no one should be surprised. This administration and their allies in Congress continue to demonstrate a commitment to alternative facts. If you believe their alternative facts, TrumpCare would improve healthcare access for working families, seniors and women, and Americans would have, as the President said, ``much better healthcare for much less money.''

But in reality, TrumpCare will do the opposite. TrumpCare would end by 2020 the ACA's Medicaid expansion that millions of people in our country depend on every day. The expansion not

only provided health coverage to millions of people for the first time, but it also helped to keep hospitals in rural and underserved communities from closing down. These rural hospitals exist all across the country. In its place, TrumpCare would change how States receive Medicaid funding, and it would do so in a way that ensures that these programs cannot keep pace with the rising cost of health insurance in their counties and in our country.

Under this new system, States would have less money to spend on Medicaid recipients and face the prospect of tightening eligibility and slashing benefits. This would be particularly devastating in Hawaii, where we saw the number of people enrolled in Medicaid grow by nearly 20 percent under the ACA. Medicaid has had a transformative impact on tens of thousands of lives in Hawaii and millions of others across the country.

Anne from Oahu walked into the Kokua Kalihi Valley Clinic 3 years ago. She had no health insurance, and she was pregnant at the age of 15. The doctors at the clinic helped Anne apply for Medicaid, which helped her afford prenatal care, gave her support to stay healthy and, very importantly, to stay in school.

Medicaid helped Anne and her husband Dan, age 17, welcome a healthy baby boy named Joseph. Today, Anne is a graduate of Farrington High School, works part time, and has plans to become a pediatric nurse practitioner. Anne, Dan, and Joseph now have insurance through Dan's employer.

Reducing access to this critical program is wrong. Trying to convince the American people they would be better off with the results of these kinds of drastic negative changes to Medicare and Medicaid is yet another alternative fact.

I am encouraged that four of my Republican colleagues spoke out forcefully against any bill that would eliminate the ACA's Medicaid expansion. We need more Republicans of conscience to make their voices heard on this important issue.

TrumpCare would also be devastating for seniors in Hawaii and across the country. Under TrumpCare, insurance companies would be able to charge older Americans up to five times more for an equivalent health plan than they would be able to charge a younger person. For a President and a party that professes to hate taxes so much, they don't seem to have a problem with what amounts to an age tax.

TrumpCare's changes to Medicaid would also have devastating consequences for States like Hawaii, where our rapidly aging population depends on Medicaid to pay for nursing home and other care. The President made the American people a promise--that his healthcare plan would not touch Medicare. But the cumulative effect of TrumpCare's assault on our seniors--our kupuna--would force the Medicare trust fund to go broke 4 years sooner than expected. For reference, the ACA extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by 10 years.

This would have a devastating impact for seniors like Anne and Lanny Bruder from Kauai. Lanny is 80 years old and working three jobs to make ends meet. He has had two knee replacements and a heart attack. Anne has glaucoma and pays a lot of money out of pocket for her prescription eye drops. They can't afford to pay more for their health insurance, which is exactly what is going to happen under TrumpCare.

TrumpCare would also have a profoundly negative impact on women across the country. The President's plan would completely zero out funding for Planned Parenthood. This lifegiving, lifesaving organization would no longer be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements or Federal family planning, which would leave a $500 million hole in their budget.

Republicans continue to claim falsely that community health centers would fill the gap in service left by the demise of support for Planned Parenthood--not true. Most of these community centers, whose resources are already stretched thin, do not provide women's healthcare or family planning services. In other words, they would not be able to replicate the services that Planned Parenthood provides all across the country to millions of women and families.

Planned Parenthood operates two clinics in Hawaii, one on Oahu and one on Maui. They are the forefront of innovation in increasing access to family planning services across the State. They launched an innovative new mobile application that would allow doctors to provide digital consultations to women on neighbor islands for the purpose of prescribing birth control. Recently, Planned Parenthood made their first delivery to the island of Molokai, a largely rural island with little permanent medical infrastructure. This is the kind of innovation we should be encouraging, and it is precisely the type of program that could get cut if Planned Parenthood loses its Federal funding.

I often say that there are people in this country getting screwed every second, minute, and hour of the day. Instead of reducing that number, which should be our goal, TrumpCare would increase the number of people who get hurt in our country. The wealthiest of the wealthy in our country would benefit because--not only would all these things happen under TrumpCare that would be devastating to families, to women, to our seniors--TrumpCare would also give a big tax break, a big tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country. They don't need that kind of tax cut. Do people making over $2 million a year really deserve another $150,000 a year in tax cuts? I don't think so.

TrumpCare would be a disaster for the middle class, I am going to do everything in my power to stop it from being the law of the land. We have come too far in the past 8 years to go backward. The first way we can fight back against this plan is by rejecting the nomination of Seema Verma, who would be in charge of implementing TrumpCare as the head of CMS.

Ms. Verma is unqualified for the job she has been nominated to do. She has absolutely no experience running a major Federal department and has virtually no budgeting experience. This is deeply disconcerting because as the Administrator of CMS, she would oversee a $1 trillion budget, which is twice as large as that of the Pentagon.

Ms. Verma would also continue the President's assault on women's healthcare. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Verma said she opposed the ACA's requirement that all health plans cover pregnancy care. It is because of this attitude that millions of women across the country are participating in a Day Without Women today. In solidarity with them, I will fight tooth and nail against TrumpCare and encourage my colleagues to oppose Seema Verma's nomination to serve as the Administrator of the very agency that is supposed to be protecting healthcare for all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as recently as 2006, Hawaii relied on imported fuel for 92 percent of our energy needs. This was bad for our economy and bad for our environment, and it needed to change. Today, Hawaii has the most ambitious renewable energy goals in the country, and we are working toward becoming 100 percent energy self-sufficient for electricity by 2045. In order to meet this ambitious goal, we are investing in a renewable energy future. It means cleaner air and water to enjoy, and it is driving a lot of local innovation. Let me give you a few examples.

Last Friday, I attended a blessing for a new biofuel project in Maui's central valley. Pacific Biodiesel, run by Bob and Kelly King, is repurposing 115 acres of land previously used for commercial sugar cultivation in order to test the energy potential of different sunflower varieties for biofuels. If they are successful, this project could grow to provide hundreds of jobs on the island and help Hawaii on its path to energy self-sufficiency.

Bob and Kelly got their start in repurposing used cooking oil. They have grown their company to run the Nation's first commercially viable biodiesel distillery on Hawaii Island, and they employ 80 people. Along the way, they have received support and funding through the Hawaii Military Biofuels Crop Program, which has allowed them to experiment, learn from their mistakes, and, ultimately, succeed.

Yesterday, I met with Naveen Sikka, the founder and CEO of TerViva, which is a startup that grows pongamia trees that produce an oil seed that can be used for biofuels. In working with Hawaii's Energy Excelerator, TerViva is already growing pongamia trees on 200 acres on Oahu and is looking to expand its operations across the State.

TerViva and Pacific Biodiesel are working together to explore how to help Hawaii achieve its renewable energy goals.

In 2015, I met with Global Algae Innovations, a company that is pioneering the production of algae for use in biofuels on Kauai. Funding from the Department of Energy, or DOE, has been instrumental in its research. Support from the Department is vital in helping them and other algae biofuel companies finish scaling up commercial production at competitive prices.

These stories provide a compelling counternarrative to the President's belief that we should prioritize fossil fuel extraction over renewable energy development. These stories also demonstrate the role government can play in encouraging energy innovation.

During the Obama administration, our country made significant progress in confronting the challenge of climate change, investing in clean energy research and development, and growing our renewable energy economy. Unfortunately, by nominating Rick Perry to serve as Secretary of Energy, the President is sending a clear signal. Instead of continuing the progress we have made, he wants to take us backward.

During his confirmation hearing, Governor Perry insisted that he believed in an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. So far, it does not seem that the President shares his commitment.

During the transition, a disturbing report leaked in the media that outlined the President's plans to make dramatic funding cuts at the Department of Energy. This extreme plan included eliminating the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, which focuses on the transition to American energy generation that is clean, affordable, and secure, not to mention sustainable. The plan would eliminate the DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, which ensures the Nation's energy delivery system is secure, resilient, and reliable. This office works to strengthen the resiliency of the electric grid. The plan would also eliminate the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

It is hard to see how it would be possible to pursue an ``all of the above'' energy strategy if so much of the Department's ``all of the above'' capabilities are eliminated.

I asked Governor Perry, during his confirmation hearing, whether he supported those proposed cuts and program eliminations within the Department that he was nominated to head. His response was telling. Governor Perry said: ``Well, Senator, maybe they'll [meaning the Trump administration] have the same experience I had and forget that they said that.''

Remember, Governor Perry had originally said that the Department of Energy should be eliminated. Governor Perry's ``oops'' answer got a laugh at the hearing, but it failed to convince me that he has the willingness and fortitude to stand up to the Trump White House on its energy policies.

I also asked Governor Perry if Hawaii could count on his support in our efforts to become energy independent and a leader in the clean energy economy. Again, Governor Perry said yes, but in the same transition memo, the Trump White House proposed eliminating the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy entirely, as I mentioned before. It is unclear how Governor Perry could keep his commitment to the State of Hawaii and to me if the entire office that is responsible for renewable energy is eliminated.

Many of my constituents share my concerns about Governor Perry. Charlotte from Wailuku wrote to me:

Please do not confirm Rick Perry for US Secretary of

Energy. He is not a visionary leader. In Hawaii, we have

committed to being 100% carbon emission free by 2045.

Rick Perry is not the person who can help provide

innovation, funding or the tools needed to make this happen.

I share Charlotte's concerns. We have made so much progress over the past 8 years in embracing a clean and renewable energy future, and Governor Perry and the Trump administration will work to reverse this progress and take us backward.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last November, I was in Maui celebrating the 100th anniversary of Haleakala National Park. The weather at the summit of the volcano was terrible. It was raining in sheets, with 40- mile-per-hour wind driving the rain sideways, but I was there with over 40 schoolchildren to plant Haleakala silverswords--a special, threatened plant that only grows in the harsh climate at the summit of Haleakala volcano. The silversword can live for almost 100 years before it flowers, spreads its seeds into the wind, and dies.

Silverswords have dotted the landscape of Haleakala's summit for millennia, but invasive species, human activity, and climate change have pushed the plant to near extinction. In the early 1900s, scientists estimated that as few as 50 plants remained on the volcano, but this changed after Haleakala became a national park in 1916. In the 100 years since, park rangers and visitors have made a concerted effort to protect the silverswords from feral goats and sheep and to make sure hikers don't go off the trail and trample their shallow root systems.

After the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the silversword became listed as a threatened species. Through the law, conservationists have provided resources to help restore the silversword population on Haleakala for the hundreds of thousands of people who visit the park every year. Groups of students, including those whom I joined on that cold November day, have planted over 1,000 silverswords to supplement the population of silverswords. They were there to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Haleakala National Park.

I share this story because it demonstrates many of the reasons the Department of Interior is so important in the role it plays in preserving our public lands.

Business is booming at our national parks. In 2015, our national parks hosted 305 million visitors--a new record--and these visitors generated $17 billion in economic activity in nearby communities.

Our national parks are suffering from an overwhelming deferred maintenance backlog of $12 billion. Our national parks are also understaffed. Because of sequestration and a variety of other factors, 10 percent fewer people work in our national parks today than 5 years ago. This is at a time when visitors to our parks are ever growing. This means fewer rangers and support staff dedicated to maintaining parks like Haleakala and protecting species like the silversword. To add to this, the administration has put a 90-day hiring freeze in place that threatens nearly 2,000 permanent vacancies that are critical to helping our national parks function.

We need an Interior Secretary capable of standing up to the President to make preserving our public lands a priority. But during my meeting with Nominee Zinke and his confirmation hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on which I sit--and his record as a Member of Congress--I did not receive the assurances and commitments I needed to support his confirmation as Interior Secretary. Although he expressed some support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or the LWCF--an important program that funds land purchases to add to protective areas like our national parks--he said the program could benefit from some ``changes.'' The only change I wish to see is to permanently reauthorize and fully fund the LWCF, which has suffered from chronic underfunding throughout its history, and I will continue to work with my colleagues, like Senator Maria Cantwell, who is ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate, to accomplish this goal.

We also need an Interior Secretary committed to preserving our public lands, not exploiting them for fossil fuel production. Congressman Zinke and the Trump administration are too wedded to the fossil fuel industry and fail this test as well.

Supporting alternative and renewable energy development is an issue people in Hawaii and, I would say, a lot of people in the rest of our country care about.

Earlier this year, I received a letter from Michael from Pahoa, who said that Representative Zinke ``has consistently voted for carbon heavy energy sources. His anti-environmental record shows a leaning that could well move exploration and extraction to areas formerly closed to exploitation. With interests in oil pipelines, he has a conflict of interest in moving away from fossil fuels and into alternative and renewable resources. We have destroyed enough of the country for the enrichment of the 1% with little to no benefit to the rest of our citizens. He is a destroyer, not a fixer. Not someone for the environment or the people.''

Congressman Zinke also does not share a commitment to protecting endangered and threatened species like the silversword. While in the House, Congressman Zinke voted to block funding for any listed endangered species on which the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to conduct a 5-year review. It didn't seem to matter to Congressman Zinke that the reason these reviews did not take place was because Republicans in Congress failed to appropriate the necessary funding to conduct these reviews. Cutting funding in this way would devastate conservation and recovery efforts for as many as 850 species across the Nation, 137 of which are in Hawaii and 1 of which is the Haleakala silversword.

During the confirmation process, I asked Congressman Zinke if as Secretary he would work with Congress to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service would receive sufficient funding to conduct these reviews and recover our Nation's endangered species. He responded by saying that he would ``work closely with Congress to ensure recovery programs are appropriately funded.'' I don't know what he means by ``appropriate,'' but I do have a feeling that my view of sufficient funding, which is the question I asked him, and his answer that he would support appropriate funding are probably very different. In fact, I wonder if, under Secretary Zinke, there would have been the funding necessary to help Maui students plant their 1,000 silverswords on Haleakala's summit. This is wrong.

Congressman Zinke also does not share a commitment to combating climate change or supporting research that will help in that effort.

Washington, DC--do you notice how warm it is? It is February. It is 60 degrees. Washington, DC, is on track to have experienced the warmest February on record. We have a new administration stocked full of climate deniers. As Secretary of the Interior, Congressman Zinke will be leading the U.S. Geological Survey, the USGS, an agency that lists climate change as one of its top mission areas.

During his confirmation process, I asked Congressman Zinke if he would try to limit the USGS's work on climate change in any way. Unfortunately, Congressman Zinke did not provide a definitive answer-- only saying that he would need to learn about the USGS's role in climate change research. His answer did not reassure me that he will allow USGS and other agencies in his Department to continue to make climate change research a priority or to protect the right of these scientists to pursue their research without interference. This is particularly concerning in light of the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to silence our Federal workers, including those within the National Park Service, who are speaking out about the threat of climate change.

We need a Secretary of the Interior who will protect our public lands, make investments to conserve our endangered and threatened species, and who will continue to confront climate change. His record of past statements demonstrates that Congressman Zinke is not the right person to lead the Department of Interior at this juncture, at this critical stage. I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, no one wants to live on a dirty planet. Before we created the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, nearly 50 years ago, rivers actually caught fire from pollution, smog covered our cities, and powerplants spewed arsenic

and mercury into the sky with impunity.

In the years since, the EPA has been at the vanguard of the effort to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.

This work is not easy, and the person who leads the EPA has a tough job. It requires toughness and fortitude to fight back against polluters and special interests.

In all the years the EPA has been around, we would be hard-pressed to find someone more hostile to the Agency's fundamental mission or as less suited to leading it than Scott Pruitt is.

As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt organized, led, or participated in virtually every challenge to the EPA's work during his time in office. His lawsuits have, among other things, sought to prevent the EPA from enforcing rules that keep our water safe, protect our air from harmful pollutants, like mercury and arsenic, and limit the carbon pollution that causes climate change.

These lawsuits beg the question: Does Scott Pruitt believe the EPA should even exist? In the weeks and months since he was nominated, Mr. Pruitt has gone out of his way to try and smooth over his record and say what he thinks we want to hear, but we can't fall for it.

Instead of listening to what he is saying now, let's examine more closely what he has done as Oklahoma's attorney general.

His record is troubling. Throughout his term of office, Mr. Pruitt has been very cozy with fossil fuel companies and affiliated interest groups.

A 2014 investigation by the New York Times revealed that energy lobbyists drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send on State stationary to the EPA against the Obama administration's environmental regulations.

The CEO of Continental Energy--an oil and gas company based in Oklahoma--served as the campaign chairman for his reelection bid. We just got word yesterday that a State district judge in Oklahoma ordered the attorney general's office to turn over as many as 3,000 documents related to Mr. Pruitt's communications with oil, gas, and coal groups during his time in office. Unfortunately, we will not get a chance to see what these documents reveal before voting on his confirmation.

Based on his record and associations, however, I think we can make an educated guess that these documents will reveal the extent of Mr. Pruitt's ties to fossil fuel interests, and we have no reason to believe he will renounce these connections if confirmed to serve as EPA Administrator.

He also fought relentlessly against the EPA's efforts to establish basic limits on smog, arsenic, mercury, and other dangerous air pollutants.

Mr. Pruitt, for example, sued the EPA not once but twice to overturn the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. These standards would prevent 40,000 pounds of mercury emissions every year and would help keep our food supply safe from contamination.

Mr. Pruitt has also repeatedly questioned whether climate change is real.

In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Mr. Pruitt refused to accept settled science that humans contribute to climate change. He said there are ``a wide range of viewpoints regarding the extent to which man contributes to climate change.''

In the National Review, Mr. Pruitt said ``scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.''

The fact is, 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and that human beings contribute to it. I hardly think 97 percent of scientists agreeing constitutes a wide range of viewpoints on climate change and the extent to which man contributes to it.

From his perch as Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued to prevent President Obama's Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from taking effect. He argued that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to regulate carbon emissions. This is wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled twice--first in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 and again in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA in 2014--that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions as pollution under the Clean Air Act.

If confirmed, Mr. Pruitt has promised to kill the Clean Power Plan and undo much of the positive work that President Obama did to address climate change.

Mr. Pruitt also has a track record of undermining enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Shortly after becoming Oklahoma's attorney general in 2010, Mr. Pruitt gave us a taste of what is to come at the EPA when he eliminated the Environmental Protection Unit within the Oklahoma attorney general's office.

For years, this unit investigated water contamination from refineries, lead paint waste, and illegal dumping. In its place, he created the innocuous sounding Federalism Unit. Unlike the unit he eliminated, whose mission was to protect the health and safety of Oklahomans, the Federalism Unit's job is to handle all of Mr. Pruitt's legal challenges against the EPA. Over the past 3 years, Mr. Pruitt has increased the budget of the Federalism Unit by over 700 percent, and the taxpayers of Oklahoma get to foot that bill.

Mr. Pruitt's record paints a clear picture: His priorities directly conflict with the EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment. He is much more concerned about protecting corporate interests than keeping our communities healthy and safe from pollution.

Over the past few months, I have heard from thousands of my constituents who have urged me to oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I would like to read two of the letters I have received. Georgia is a Ph.D. student at the University of Hawaii. She wrote:

I strongly oppose Scott Pruitt's confirmation as EPA

Administrator. Mr. Pruitt is a climate change denier who has

actively worked against the mission of the agency.

As a Ph.D. student in science, I know we need an EPA administrator that respects science and supports clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Pruitt is the wrong choice for our nation and must be rejected.

Keiko from Kaneohe also wrote to explain what this fight means to her.

This is not a bipartisan issue, but it is as much an

American issue as it is a Hawaiian issue, a human issue, and

an issue of all inhabitants of Papa, mother earth. I ask that

you continue to be vigilant and `onipa'a in the face of

climate change deniers . . . Mahalo for looking out for

everyone living today and going to be born tomorrow.

We have come too far over the past 8 years to let someone like Scott Pruitt destroy the progress we have made. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is probably the most powerful Federal job that most Americans have never heard of. If you were to ask five out of five regular people whether they have even heard of the Office of Management and Budget, or its importance, I would say that probably five of them would say: I have never heard of it; what do they do?

The Director of OMB has broad discretion to develop Federal regulations and to set spending priorities across the government-- spending priorities across the government. I think we should make sure that this person actually cares about service to the people of America.

For example, if the Defense Department needs more resources for our troops, OMB has to sign off. If the Environmental Protection Agency wants to protect our communities from air and water pollution, OMB has to sign off. If the President wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid under the guise of ``saving money,'' the OMB Director is responsible for implementing the policy.

Given the tremendous power invested in this position, the next OMB Director should, at a minimum, believe in the

central government functions he or she will be tasked to carry out. That is why I strongly oppose the nomination of Congressman Mike Mulvaney to serve as the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Congressman Mulvaney came to Washington at the very right fringe of the tea party wave in 2010. Since then, he has consistently pursued policies that would be disastrous for our economy, for the most vulnerable members of our society, and for America's seniors--our kupuna.

Congressman Mulvaney has been one of the strongest proponents for privatizing and voucherizing Medicare and dismantling Medicaid during his time in Congress. In 2011, while explaining his support for the draconian, really terrible Republican budget that would have destroyed the social safety net and gutted funding for nearly every domestic program--nearly every domestic program and you can imagine the thousands and thousands of domestic programs people across the country are relying upon--Congressman Mulvaney said:

Two nights ago, there was a group of Republicans in the

House of Representatives who voted to dramatically overhaul

Medicare and Medicaid and lightning did not strike us. If

that is not a sign that maybe things can be different around

here, I don't know what is. So I'm hoping that--I hope we

have that exact debate over the course of the next year.

Let me be clear. Congressman Mulvaney was gloating over a bill that would be devastating to millions of seniors and Americans on Medicaid and Medicare. If confirmed, Congressman Mulvaney would not just be one extremist in the House of Representatives; he would be the person--the one person--responsible for developing, rolling out, and implementing the President's budget and his priorities.

With this power, he would be in a position to fulfill his heart's desire--all of the things he worked on as a member of the tea party and a Member of the House of Representatives. He could destroy programs like Medicare and Social Security, which more than 200,000 seniors in Hawaii and tens of millions across the United States depend on every single day. There are things we can do to fight back.

Last month, I fought alongside my friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Joe Donnelly, to prevent Congressman Mulvaney and the Trump administration from using budget gimmicks to privatize Medicare and cut funding from Medicaid. While our amendment was defeated in a very close vote, I was encouraged that two of our Republican colleagues--Senator Dean Heller of Nevada and Senator Susan Collins of Maine--voted in favor of my amendment.

This vote demonstrated that there is bipartisan opposition to balancing the budget on the backs of our seniors. This is exactly what Congressman Mulvaney wants to do. He has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal, but he calls Social Security--a program that millions and millions of people throughout our country rely upon--a Ponzi scheme and supports raising the eligibility for it to 70 years old.

When he was in the South Carolina legislature, he even supported a bill that said that Social Security was unconstitutional. I would say even the most conservative person would not deem Social Security to be unconstitutional, but that is the kind of position that Congressman Mulvaney takes. His positions on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are enough to disqualify him from serving as OMB Director.

We do not need an ideological flamethrower like Congressman Mulvaney at the helm of OMB. Sadly, there is more. Congressman Mulvaney is a debt limit denier. To demonstrate the point, I wish to read his response to a question he received from the Budget Committee:

I do believe that defaulting on America's debts would have

grave worldwide economic consequences. I do not believe that

breaching the debt ceiling will automatically or inevitably

lead to that result.

Not only is this statement wrong, but it contradicts itself. I was in the House in 2011 when Congressman Mulvaney and his colleagues played political games with the debt limit. I can tell you that the stock market did not agree with his assessment that there wouldn't be an immediate negative impact.

Here is what happened over the course of a week. The stock market lost $1 trillion in value--$1 trillion in value. Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit for the first time in our country's history.

The Government Accountability Office later found that the standoff increased our borrowing costs by $1.3 billion, which Congressman Mulvaney and his Republican allies were all too happy to pass along to the American taxpayers to pay.

Congressman Mulvaney's record clearly demonstrates why he is unfit to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He wants to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and other vulnerable communities. He believes in governing from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. It isn't even clear if he supports the mission of the department he has been nominated to lead.

Congressman Mulvaney joins a list of nominees--many of them confirmed at this point, sadly--ranging from an Education Secretary who does not believe in public education to a Secretary of Health and Human Services who wants to basically dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security not far behind.

I ask my colleagues, when does this long list of nominees come to a stop? I say, at the very least, someone with the power of the Director of OMB is where we should be drawing the line, unless we want one who thinks that defaulting on our national debt is not a problem, unless we think that hurting millions and millions of seniors on Social Security and Medicare is not a problem.

I feel as though Congressman Mulvaney perhaps has not encountered enough people in his time in public service who have come to him to share their stories of the devastation that would come into their lives if these safety net programs were not there for them. I feel as though maybe if they have come to talk to him, he hasn't listened very well.

I encourage my colleagues to hold the line at this point and to oppose this nomination. Congressman Mulvaney is not the person for OMB.

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, it is observed that we are being asked to confirm a Treasury Secretary who helped bring about the 2008 financial crisis and profited off the misery that followed.

During his campaign, President Trump promised to crack down on Wall Street abuses. In one of his campaign ads, the President said that the CEO of Goldman Sachs was part of a ``global elite'' that was ``robbing our working class.'' He said that on Wall Street, ``It's the powerful protecting only the powerful.''

Given his campaign promises, it is astounding that President Trump nominated Steve Mnuchin, someone whose business record embodies the worst abuses from the financial crisis, to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.

In the fall of 2008, when I served in the U.S. House, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson came to Capitol Hill and painted a dire picture. He told us that without drastic intervention by Congress and the White House, the entire global financial system would collapse. The situation was so dire, he argued, that we could not even pause to provide additional, meaningful relief to the millions of families across the country facing home foreclosures.

In the years that followed, we learned a lot more about just how bad things were. Many banks sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, packaged those mortgages into complex financial instruments, colluded with ratings agencies, and sold those ``products'' as solid investments.

The American people stepped in with hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street. But without effective, broad laws in place before the financial crisis to prevent predatory lending, millions of people lost their homes and trillions of dollars in household wealth. Many of those victims have yet to recover.

That was bad enough as it was unfolding, but in the years that followed, we learned more and more about the numerous abuses these banks perpetrated on the American people.

After years of pushing subprime loans on minority homeowners who couldn't afford them, foreclosures devastated minority communities across the country. According to a 2010 study by the Center for Responsible Lending, minority homeowners were 70 percent more likely to lose their homes in foreclosure proceedings.

Many banks also violated judicial foreclosure proceedings when they signed hundreds of thousands of foreclosure documents without reviewing them, also known as robo-signing.

Some of my colleagues might argue that it isn't worth rehashing this devastating economic history, but I disagree because today we will be asked to vote for a Treasury nominee whose questionable business practices earned him the title of ``Foreclosure King.''

As a senior executive at Goldman Sachs for 17 years, Steve Mnuchin was an evangelist for the types of financial transactions--credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations--that crashed the economy in 2008. He said these instruments were ``an extremely positive development in terms of being able to finance different parts of the economy and different businesses effectively.'' What was essentially just business to him devastated the economy and the lives of millions of people.

As the CEO of OneWest, Mnuchin was deeply involved in subprime lending and was responsible for tens of thousands of foreclosures across the country. Under Mr. Mnuchin's leadership, OneWest was among the worst offenders in robo-signing foreclosure documents. While he denied this fact during his confirmation hearing, a vice president at OneWest admitted to signing 750 documents per week while spending less than 30 seconds on each one. In other words, he was very busy robo- signing these documents.

Under Mr. Mnuchin's leadership, a OneWest subsidiary, Financial Freedom, foreclosed on more than 16,000 seniors who were living on fixed incomes and who had reverse mortgages with that company. In one case, the company foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman's home over a 27- cent debt.

Hundreds of families across Hawaii who had mortgages with OneWest felt the impact of Steve Mnuchin's business practices personally.

In 2013, I received a letter from Suzanne on the Big Island. Suzanne is a retired Navy civilian. She depends on her disability and retirement income to afford her modest home in Hilo. She had her mortgage through OneWest. When she wrote to me, her home was in court- ordered mediation pending foreclosure. Suzanne went into mediation in good faith, assuming that OneWest would assist her with a loan modification. Well, she was wrong. Suzanne and OneWest agreed that before she signed any modification, she would receive a written offer that included the full terms of the agreement. But during their second mediation meeting, in violation of the agreement, OneWest told Suzanne that she owed $30,000 more than her records showed and made a unilateral offer without disclosing any of the terms, contrary to what they had agreed to.

Suzanne wisely refused to accept the so-called offer. At the time that she wrote to me, OneWest was pushing a judge to proceed with her foreclosure. ``I can afford my home,'' she wrote. ``I want to keep my home, but the difference between $1,300 and $1,500 a month is huge.''

OneWest has billions and is considering going public this year.

She went on to say: ``They have made unreasonable offers, lost paperwork, ignored requests. All the nightmares you hear about on the news, well, consider me a poster child.''

Suzanne asked us to write to Steve Mnuchin on her behalf, even though she knew that OneWest had a record of hanging homeowners like her out to dry. She said: ``It seems to me that Mr. Mnuchin was one of the architects of our meltdown.'' She is right.

There are tens of thousands of stories from OneWest customers like Suzanne across the country, and Mr. Mnuchin is responsible for each one of them as CEO of OneWest. Now President Trump is asking us to confirm Mr. Mnuchin to serve as Treasury Secretary.

Throughout his campaign, President Trump made it clear that he wants to dismantle Dodd-Frank, eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and roll back financial regulations that would prevent another financial crisis. As Treasury Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would be charged with implementing this agenda.

Credible economists have warned that we could end up in another financial crisis. My question is, Who would a Secretary Mnuchin try to save--Wall Street or the millions of people who will be adversely impacted? His record shows which path Steve Mnuchin

would choose. That is why I call on my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address the deep anxiety in Hawaii and across the country about President Trump's choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Congressman Tom Price.

I am particularly concerned about this nominee because of the mixed messages President Trump has been sending about health care. During the campaign, President Trump promised to protect Medicare and Medicaid. Yet he has nominated Congressman Price to head HHS. Congressman Price has led the effort to privatize Medicare and dismantle Medicaid in the U.S. House. This is hardly someone who would protect Medicare and Medicaid.

Shortly before taking the oath of office, President Trump said he supported the concept of universal coverage. He said:

We are going to have insurance for everybody. They can

expect to have great health care.

Yet he nominated Congressman Price, who has spent the past 6 years trying to end universal health care coverage by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

President Trump says a lot of things. He tweets his thoughts daily, but at this point, instead of listening to what President Trump says, we should pay attention to what he does. By nominating Congressman Price, the President demonstrated he does not intend to protect access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans--not by protecting Medicare and Medicaid, not by protecting health insurance fraud. President Trump's health care agenda would have far-reaching, negative, painful consequences for tens of thousands of people in Hawaii and millions all across the country. Maybe President Trump should tweet less and listen more.

Over the past few months, I have heard from thousands of Hawaii residents concerned that they will no longer be able to afford health care if President Trump succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act and privatizing Medicare. I would like to read a few of the messages I have received.

Catherine from Honolulu wrote:

I am writing to you to express serious concern over the

repealing of ACA and other health insurance changes. As a

working (teacher) and single parent of two young children I

am very afraid for our future. I am afraid my insurance will

not cover my psoriatic arthritis if I change jobs, they

change companies, or for some reason I should lose my job or

coverage. My medicine without insurance would cost more than

my mortgage payment, and would thus be cost prohibitive.

If I don't have my medication I would be in so much pain. I

would be unable to work and would therefore lose my insurance

which would mean I would never be able to get coverage

because of a preexisting condition. I am certain there are

many other people out there with similar stories.

Please do everything you can to make sure this scenario

doesn't happen to us. If there is anything I can do, please

don't hesitate to let me know. I just don't know who else to

turn to.

Next, I would like to share a note I received from Julie from Papaaloa on the Big Island.

My husband and I are on Medicare, together with a

supplemental plan. We are totally dependent on Social

Security for our income and Medicare for our health plan.

Many millions of seniors are in the same situation as we are.

Please continue to fight for us as this abominable horror of

an administration goes forward. I shudder to think what would

happen if these programs are repealed or privatized.

Finally, I would like to share a heartbreaking story from Desi from Mililani on Oahu. Desi is an extremely hard-working, self-employed teacher and the single mother of two daughters. Her youngest daughter has Down syndrome, autism, and is hearing impaired. Desi is self- employed because she needs the flexibility to work and care for her daughter. This year, as a sole proprietor over the age of 55, Desi's premiums for her HMO plan rose to over $680 per month for 2016.

In a letter she wrote to me, Desi said:

Paying this high monthly premium was no longer possible and

was jeopardizing our family's ability to pay our mortgage,

food, and other essentials alone.

Desi successfully found a cheaper plan in the ACA marketplace for 2017. In her letter she went on to say:

If the ACA is successfully repealed, we will no longer be

able to afford medical coverage! Families like ours are the

reasons why it is so important to defend the Affordable Care

Act.

These letters and stories demonstrate what is at stake for our 200,000 seniors on Medicare in Hawaii and millions more across the country. That is why I will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent any cuts that would jeopardize our crucial social safety net progress.

The fight has already begun. Last month, Republicans in Congress pushed through a partisan budget resolution that would give them the tools they need to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This assault on the Affordable Care Act is also an assault on Medicare and Medicaid because the ACA strengthened Medicare and Medicaid through, for example, closing the prescription doughnut hole and providing free preventive checkups for seniors. This is why I joined with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Donnelly, to introduce an amendment that would block congressional Republicans from privatizing Medicare or increasing eligibility standards for Medicare. It would also prevent changes that reduce funding for Medicaid.

During the debate on our amendment, one of our Republican colleagues, in his opposition to the amendment, basically made our point for us. He said something to the effect of, a vote in favor of our amendment to protect Medicare and Medicaid is a vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act. Exactly. In the end, it was a close vote on our amendment. While the amendment lost, I was encouraged that two of our Republican colleagues, Senator Heller of Nevada and Senator Collins of Maine, voted in favor of the amendment.

In the coming weeks and months, there will be other battles to protect Medicare and Medicaid. It is going to be a daunting fight, but I am not going to shy away from it. I am going to do whatever I can, whenever I can to protect the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. In this fight, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on Tom Price's nomination to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tom Price is not the champion that millions of people in our country are counting on to protect their health and welfare.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, constituents from every State who care about our public schools and our students in public schools have broken records calling us, their Senators, in opposition to Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary.

In the past few weeks, I have heard from thousands of Hawaii residents concerned about voting for an Education Secretary who clearly does not believe in our Nation's public schools. I wish to share two of their messages today.

One constituent wrote to me:

Dear Senator Hirono,

As a proud Hawaii educator for 30 plus years, I'm deeply

troubled by the possible appointment of Betsy DeVos to the

position of US Secretary of Education.

Although I would personally never consider applying for a

job I am not qualified to serve in, it's baffling to me that

our new Commander in Chief thinks someone who has NO

experience as a teacher or administrator could be remotely

prepared to lead our nation in this role.

I don't have to explain to you what a selfless calling

being a teacher is, nor do I believe our Hawaii delegation

takes educating Hawaii's keiki lightly, so I implore you to

work with other leaders in DC to make sure we have a suitable

nominee for this essential position.

Mahalo,

Sandy from Honolulu

Sandy and teachers like her devote more time and effort than is mandated to ensure that our public school students have a solid foundation in education and for life. Teaching is a calling, and I have met with many teachers who are totally committed to doing the very best they can for their students, and they want nothing less from the next Secretary of Education. They deserve a better qualified, better experienced, better prepared, and more committed Secretary of Education than Betsy DeVos.

Next, I wish to share a message from Lorelei, a middle school principal on Oahu. Her letter begins:

Dear Senator Hirono,

As a strong supporter of public education, I ask that you

oppose the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the

U.S. Department of Education.

Educators and students deserve a secretary who can commit

to supporting every student in all public schools, and a

leader that will work tirelessly to promote a public

education system that provides each child with the optimum

conditions for teaching and learning.

Betsy DeVos' past work in education and her performance at

the recent confirmation hearing demonstrated neither a depth

of experience nor knowledge base in education policy and on

critical issues facing the community.

She ends her letter by saying:

As a principal, I have spoken with teachers, parents,

students, and community members across the political spectrum

and there is widespread agreement that Betsy DeVos is not the

right person for the job.

As Lorelei said, it shouldn't be asking too much to have an Education Secretary who will stand up for public schools and the millions of our children who attend our public schools. That person is certainly not Betsy DeVos.

In his opening remarks at Betsy DeVos's confirmation hearing, the chairman of the HELP Committee said that Mrs. DeVos was in the ``mainstream'' for supporting vouchers to send students to private schools, instead of investing in our public schools. This is not mainstream thinking. Being told otherwise is again dealing in ``alternative facts.''

The chairman went on to repeat a so-called argument that Betsy DeVos and other school choice advocates make--that vouchers are simply Pell grants for primary and secondary education. Now, this is a real head scratcher, and I say: What? Here we go again down the rabbit hole, where up is down and down is up.

Pell grants and vouchers are fundamentally different. Pell grants help offset the ever-rising cost of a voluntary college education. All colleges charge students tuition, and Pell grants provide opportunity to low-income students to be able to go to college.

In contrast, every American child has a right to a free primary and secondary public education. Vouchers actually take resources away from public schools and make it that much harder to provide a good education for all of our students.

Vouchers take money away from public schools; Pell grants don't. When a student uses a Pell grant at a private college or university, it has no impact on the funding a State college or university receives. But when a student uses a voucher to attend a private school, it takes away money from local public schools. How is taking money away from local public schools mainstream thinking? The Secretary of

Education should be focused on improving our public schools, not taking money away from them.

Furthermore, saying that Pell grants are similar to vouchers reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Pell grant program. Among her many duties as Secretary, Betsy DeVos would be in charge of managing $30 billion per year of Pell grants, which help more than 8 million students afford a college education in this country.

During the 2014-2015 school year, more than 21,000 students in Hawaii were able to finance their college education with nearly $81 million in Pell grants. Last Congress, I led legislation to protect and strengthen the Pell grant program. But under Republican majorities, Pell grants are under the constant threat of irresponsible cuts and dismantlement, even though college today is more expensive than ever.

Can we really trust Betsy DeVos to fight to protect Pell grants? Somebody who equates Pell grants with vouchers is not someone who understands her responsibilities under the Pell Grant Program. So can we really trust Betsy DeVos to support the Pell Grant Program? I don't think so.

I have spoken out against Betsy DeVos's nomination a number of times, but some questions need repeating. What are we telling our students if we have an Education Secretary who is not committed to improving the public education system so that our students can succeed in school and in life? Nine out of every 10 students in the United States attend public school. What are we saying to them? Is it the best we can do to give them an Education Secretary who does not believe in the public schools they attend? Who doesn't believe that their education is worth fighting for?

If this is the message you want to send to our students and their families, then vote for Betsy DeVos. On behalf of the nearly 200,000 public school students in Hawaii and their teachers and other educators in Hawaii, my answer is a strong, strong no.

I urge my colleagues to question Betsy DeVos's commitment to our public schools and to the millions of students who go to public schools and vote against her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Washington yield for a question?

As we have spent many hours debating whether Mrs. DeVos is the best person to head our Department of Education, my question is, Do you think Betsy DeVos is the best prepared, the best experienced, and the best committed person to lead as the Secretary of the Department of Education?

With your indulgence, I would like to put this into a little bit of a context because we talk about how foundational public schools are and how education is a great equalizer. I speak from experience as an immigrant coming to this country not speaking any English, and I learned from the public schools and the committed teachers in public schools how to read and write English, to develop my love of reading, to count on an education system to prepare me for success, not only in school but in life.

That is why I want to also ask my colleague from Washington State, for the nearly 200,000 young people in Hawaii who attend our public schools and obviously the millions of young people in our public schools throughout the country, Do you think Betsy DeVos is the best we can do for these people who are attending our public schools?

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

Mr. President, I have served with Jeff Sessions throughout my time in the Senate and respect him very much as a colleague. I come to the floor of the Senate today not to decide whether Jeff Sessions is doing a good job as the Senator from Alabama, for, of course, that is for his constituents to decide; I come to the floor today to vote on whether to support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of all the people of America, not just the people of Alabama. That is an awesomely different role and responsibility.

I have deep concerns about Jeff Sessions' independence from the President and how he would use his prosecutorial discretion to address a number of critical issues confronting our country.

The Attorney General is the American people's lawyer, not the President's, and the job requires the Attorney General to stand up to the President as the people's lawyer.

In his first 2 weeks in office, President Trump has demonstrated his intolerance of dissent and independent thinking. He fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates because she did what an Attorney General is supposed to do: She stood up and refused to defend President Trump's Executive order effectively restricting Muslims from coming to or returning to our country. Would Jeff Sessions have stood up to the President as Sally Yates did?

During his confirmation hearing, I asked Senator Sessions if he would honor the historical role of the Attorney General and maintain strict independence from the White House. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. This is deeply troubling in light of the ongoing litigation in Federal court challenging the President's Muslim ban as overreaching and unconstitutional.

Since the President announced the ban just over a week ago, hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets to oppose it. Lawyers have been camping out in arrivals terminals in airports across the country to help those who are trying to come back or come to our country with legal visas. State attorneys general have been speaking out and filing lawsuits to block this ban.

Last week, Hawaii attorney general Doug Chin filed a lawsuit to block the Executive order. I wish to read a section from the State's brief outlining the State's case.

Hawaii joins the many voices that have condemned the Order.

But this pleading is not about politics or rhetoric--it is

about the law. The simple fact is that the Order is unlawful.

By banning Muslims and creating a preference for Christian

refugees, the Order violates the Establishment Clause of the

United States Constitution. By those same acts, it violates

the equal protection guarantee of the fifth amendment. By

failing utterly to provide procedures or protections of any

kind for people detained or turned away at our airports, it

violates the Due Process Clause. And by enshrining rank

discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion, it

flies in the face of statutes enacted by Congress.

Attorney General Chin is standing up for the people of Hawaii. The people of the United States deserve the same from our Attorney General.

To understand how an Attorney General should discharge his or her responsibility, we need only turn to Senator Sessions' own words in an exchange between Sally Yates and Senator Sessions during her confirmation hearing in 2015.

I wish to read the exchange. Senator Sessions said at her confirmation hearing:

Do you understand that in this political world, there will

be people calling, demanding, pushing, insisting on things

that they do not know what they're asking for and could

indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the

respect the Department of Justice has, could diminish the

rule of law in the United States? Are you aware of that?

You've already learned that the time you've been there.

Nominee Yates said:

Well, you're right, Senator, I'm not from here. I've only

been here for a couple of months, but I can tell you I'm

committed to the Department of Justice.

I love our department. I care deeply about our mission, and

I would do everything in my power to protect the integrity

that is the Department of Justice.''

Senator Sessions said:

You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to

do things you just need to say no about. Do you think the

Attorney General has the responsibility to say ``no'' to

the President if he asks for something that is improper? If

the views of the President are unlawful, should the Attorney

General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?

Yates' response:

Senator, I believe the AG or deputy AG has an obligation to

follow the law and the Constitution and to give their

independent legal advice to the President.

The people of the United States need an Attorney General who will stand up to the President to defend the Constitution--especially, as Senator Sessions pointed out in his questions of Nominee Yates, when the President is wrong.

Based on Nominee Sessions' long-held restrictive views on immigration, I do not think he would stand up to the President as Sally Yates did. I am also deeply concerned about how Senator Sessions would use his prosecutorial discretion to address a number of critical issues.

During his confirmation hearing, I pressed Senator Sessions for a commitment to vigorously protect every citizens' right to vote, particularly with regard to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which safeguards Americans from discriminatory voting laws.

At a time when our President is making unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud, we need an Attorney General who will vigorously protect the right to vote and not give in to these kinds of alternative facts to justify voter suppression laws.

Senator Sessions did not provide me with a satisfactory answer that he would affirmatively scrutinize voting laws for impermissible discriminatory impact. If the Attorney General does not weigh in on these kinds of situations, this means that challenging these kinds of voting laws, these kinds of impermissible discriminatory voting laws, will be left to individuals and groups with limited resources, such as the NAACP.

I also asked Senator Sessions whether he would honor the Department of Justice's consent decrees, some 20 of them, that address police misconduct and enhance accountability. Senator Sessions did not adequately assure me that as Attorney General, he would uphold these amendments. In fact, he left the door open for renegotiating these agreements. I pressed Senator Sessions for a commitment to defend Roe v. Wade in Federal court and to enforce laws that guarantee the constitutionally protected women's right to choose. Senator Sessions refused to disavow his past comments that Roe v. Wade was one of the worst Supreme Court cases ever decided and, in his view, not based on the Constitution, when, in fact, the majority decision had a constitutional basis.

Should the Supreme Court be presented with a case that provides them the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, I asked Senator Sessions, would he instruct the Solicitor General to argue for the overturning of Roe v. Wade? He said that was a hypothetical and did not respond. Senator Sessions' view on Roe v. Wade is clear. Would anyone be surprised if, as Attorney General, he would support overturning Roe v. Wade given that opportunity?

In addition, in one of his first actions, the President reinstated a ban on foreign aid to health providers abroad who discussed abortion. This vow would compromise the health care of millions of women in places where the need is greatest. Taking the President's lead, I seriously question whether his Cabinet nominees, including the Attorney General nominee, will protect a woman's right to choose.

I want to turn again to the topics of President Trump's Executive order, basically banning Muslim immigration, because our next Attorney General will likely weigh in on this, as well as other immigration cases. In fact, the Justice Department is already in Federal courts right now defending President Trump's Muslim ban. So while there is an argument being made that this really is not a Muslim ban, I say, you can call a duck a chicken, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. That is what this Executive order is, a Muslim ban.

Sadly, stoking fears in minorities and immigrants is a tragic but undeniable part of our Nation's history, and this fear has been used to justify the terrible treatment of minorities from Native peoples to slaves, to immigrants who helped build our country. In 1882, decades of incitement against Chinese immigrants resulted in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, an immoral law that banned all Chinese immigration. This law, and others that followed, created a culture of fear that culminated in the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

This was one of the darkest periods of American history, and it took decades for our country to acknowledge our error.

Last week, we commemorated what would have been civil rights icon Fred Korematsu's 98th birthday. As Japanese Americans were rounded up for incarceration, Mr. Korematsu, who was only 23 at the time, bravely resisted internment all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld Mr. Korematsu's conviction as being justified by the exigencies of war. Forty years later, documents kept from the Supreme Court showed that the Americans of Japanese ancestry were not involved in seditious actions justifying mass incarceration. Mr. Korematsu waited more than 40 years for a court in California to overturn his conviction.

During the Judiciary Committee's markup on this nomination, I read the full text of President Ronald Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing for the internment. I would like to read some of the excerpts.

I do see the majority leader here. Would you like me to yield?

I assume I will be able to resume my comments after the majority leader's statement?

Thank you.

I would like to resume my remarks.

Mr. President, I want to read some excerpts from President Ronald Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing for the internment of Japanese Americans.

More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl

Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the

United States were forcibly removed from their homes and

placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken

without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for

these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent.

Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese

Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war,

Japanese Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly

loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese

Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping

forward in the internment camps themselves.

The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of

Japanese Americans, served with immense distinction to defend

this Nation, their Nation. Yet back at home, the soldiers'

families were being denied the very freedom for which so many

of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.

The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a

restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese

Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet

no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most

important in this bill has less to do with property than with

honor. For here we admit a wrong; here, we reaffirm our

commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

President Reagan's words powerfully demonstrated the wrongness of the internment, but just after this Presidential election, a top Trump surrogate said that the Japanese internment should be used as ``precedent'' for a Muslim registry. And a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia, in 2014, warned that a civil rights atrocity similar to the internment of Japanese Americans could happen again. Justice Scalia explained his thinking with the Latin phrase that means: ``In times of war, the laws fall silent.'' Justice Scalia in 2014, went on to say:

That is what was going on--the panic about the war, and the

invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It

was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen

again--in times of war. It's no justification, but it is the

reality.

The internment of Japanese Americans is yet another example of how, when we do not stand up against unconstitutional actions like President Trump's Muslim ban, we will be complicit in what follows. Time and again, when our country targets minorities for discriminatory treatment, history proves us to have been deeply wrong. I commend my Republican colleagues, Senators Graham, McCain, Hatch, Flake, Sasse, and others, for their statements questioning President Trump's immigration Executive order.

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain issued a joint statement, which I would like to read in whole because I very much admire the position they took. In their joint statement they said:

Our government has the responsibility to defend our

borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and

upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our Nation.

It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the

nation that President Trump's Executive order was not

properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports

that this order went into effect with little to no

consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice,

and Homeland Security.

We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the

country they call home. We should not stop those who have

served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from

seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to

help.

And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have

been shown, through extensive vetting, to pose no

demonstrable threat to our Nation, and who have suffered

unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.

Ultimately, we fear this Executive order will become a

self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this

very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with

our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL.

But this Executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to

military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies.

Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the

vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology

of hatred.

This Executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that

America does not want Muslims coming into our country.

That is why we fear this Executive order may do more to

help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

That is the end of the joint statement by Senators McCain and Graham. I read the statement and I cannot but admire our two Senators for making the statements. I cannot overstate the fearful message that President Trump is sending by pursuing this ban on Muslims.

Last night, our colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, was silenced for sharing a letter from Coretta Scott King. If we cannot make a distinction between talking about a fellow Senator from a person who is a nominee that we must confirm, then the rule that shuts down debate should be called a gag rule.

Over the last 2 months, I have heard from thousands of my constituents and a number of prominent civil rights organizations, including a number who testified at Jeff Sessions' hearing questioning his nomination. So I will vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General because I am deeply concerned about how he would use his prosecutorial discretion to uphold voting rights, protect civil rights, and safeguard a woman's right to choose. I am seriously concerned about Jeff Sessions' willingness to say no to the President when he needs to.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, why are we even debating the nomination of a person who clearly does not believe in our Nation's public schools? No matter whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, no matter what part of the country you live in, whether rural or city, whether you have children or not, who would say that education is not important or valuable? Who would say that education is not foundational to success in life?

Nine of every 10 students in the United States attend a public school. Who among us would say those students should be led by a person who does not believe in public schools? Who among us would say that we should have an Education Secretary who does not commit to making public schools better for the sake of all of our children?

Then we should ask ourselves: Is Betsy DeVos the best that we can do for our children and young people? Does Betsy DeVos believe in public schools? No. Has Betsy DeVos ever been a teacher, a principal, or even attended public school? No. Does Betsy DeVos believe that we should hold charter schools--which are public schools, by the way--equally as accountable as other public schools? No. Does Betsy DeVos understand educational civil rights laws that provide all children with disabilities the opportunity to pursue a free and appropriate public education? No. Did Betsy DeVos commit to holding schools accountable for campus sexual assault? No. Again, I ask: Is Betsy DeVos the best that we can do for our children and young people? No.

Again, why are we even here to debate whether such a person should lead the Department of Education? I feel as though we are going down a rabbit hole where up is down and down is up. It should not be asking too much to have an Education Secretary who will stand up for public schools and the millions of our children and young people who attend our public schools all across our country.

Education is foundational. I think we all acknowledge that. I speak from experience. When I came to this country at almost 8 years old, I did not speak a word of English. I attended public schools where I learned how to speak English, developed my love of reading, and ultimately prepared for college. Public schools really helped prepare me for life.

I had a great sixth grade teacher. His name is Yoshinobu Oshiro. Before he was a teacher, Mr. Oshiro served in the military intelligence service during World War II, one of the segregated Japanese-American units that went on to earn the Congressional Gold Medal. He really cared about his students, and he encouraged me to study hard.

I have stayed in touch with Mr. Oshiro for decades. When I was last home in Hawaii about a month ago, I invited him to the historic meeting of President Obama and Prime Minister Abe of Japan at Pearl Harbor. I wanted to make sure that Mr. Oshiro met both Prime Minister Abe and President Obama. This happened. Today, I have a photo of Mr. Oshiro. There he is, meeting President Obama on that historic day in Hawaii.

Mr. Oshiro was a very important part of my life. In public schools across the country, there are many more Mr. Oshiros, teachers who go out of their way to support and encourage their students. They deserve a leader who will fight for them, who understands the challenges our public schools face, and who is committed to meeting those challenges. They deserve a leader who wants all of our children in public schools to succeed. If you can truly say that Betsy DeVos is that leader, that she is the best we can do for the millions of children attending public schools in our country, then vote for her. But I cannot. Thousands of my constituents agree.

I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Murray.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about efforts underway to use the Congressional Review Act to eliminate protections that have saved lives and cleaned up our environment. I certainly respect the views of my friend and colleague from North Dakota, but there are other perspectives to consider. And while today it is a stream buffer rule, tomorrow it will be some other rule intended to protect the health of our communities and our citizens.

The Congressional Review Act is a rarely used tool that can erase rules that have taken years and much public input to develop. Passing a CRA resolution, as we are being asked to do in this instance, also prevents us from implementing similar protections in the future. The reason is that by passing this kind of resolution, it prevents us from implementing any kind of other rule that is similar in nature.

Regardless of whether you voted for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, nobody wants to live in a dirty environment where we don't have clean water, clean rivers, clean streams, or clean air. Once again, we are being told to choose between a clean environment and creating jobs.

In Hawaii, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and some of the most robust protections for our environment. Today's debate over the stream buffer rule and future debates under the Congressional Review Act are not about States' rights. Today's debate is not about regulation for the sake of regulation. It is not about a war on coal; it is about preventing fossil fuel companies from creating unhealthy communities by polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe.

The Department of the Interior has been working on this rule for 7 years--7 years. It replaces an outdated regulation that was written during the Reagan administration in 1983.

Science has come a long way in 34 years. In that time, we have learned a lot about the detrimental impacts of coal mining on clean water and public health. Clean water is essential, and politically expedient decisions we make now will have lasting impacts for years to come, as families in Flint, MI, know all too well.

The stream buffer rule that we are being asked to undo requires coal companies to monitor water for contaminants. Communities have a right to know what is in their drinking water. They have a right to know that their water is clean. They have a right to know what kind of contaminants are in their water. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation. Why are we making this debate a fight between supporting jobs for coal miners and clean water?

Divide and conquer is a time-tested tactic that ends up hurting vulnerable populations and communities. Let's not fall prey to such divisive tactics. This is why I am perplexed as to why we are voting to undo the progress we have made. I will be voting against the CRA and any other CRAs that harm our environment and public health and force us to make a false choice.

Again, while I respect the views of my colleagues who have a different perspective on what we are being asked to do today, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this resolution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I will.

Mr. President, it hasn't even been 2 weeks, and President Trump has already demonstrated that he has little tolerance for independent thinking and dissent. He has his own version of reality, which is why his administration resorts to alternative facts.

When the media accurately reported how small the crowd was at his inauguration, he presented us with alternative facts. When the media pointed out he lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any President, he boldly proclaimed, without any evidence, that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally. Many consider this whopper as a cynical way to encourage more States to pass voter suppression laws justified by the bogus claim of widespread voter fraud.

Just 2 days ago, the President again showed the American people how intolerant he is of principled dissent when he fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refused to enforce or defend his totally unjustifiable, knee-jerk, and probably unconstitutional Executive order on Muslim immigration.

By firing Sally Yates, the President demonstrated once again that he values loyalty to himself above service to the American people and adherence to the Constitution. This is particularly disturbing as we begin to consider the President's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to sit on the Supreme Court.

I am only beginning to scrutinize Judge Gorsuch's record, but I am very concerned that he will be a rubberstamp for President Trump's radical agenda. You don't have to take my word for it. You only have to listen to what the President has been saying

over the past 2 years. In June 2015, then-Candidate Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper that he would apply a pro-life litmus test for his nominees to the Supreme Court. He did it again at a press conference last March, during the third Presidential debate, and shortly after his election.

This isn't the only litmus test President Trump promised to apply. In February 2016, President Trump committed to appointing a Justice who would allow businesses and individuals to deny women access to health care on the basis of so-called religious freedom. In February 2016, President Trump told Joe Scarborough he would make upholding the Heller decision on guns another litmus test for his Supreme Court nominee. Like tens of millions of Americans, I am deeply concerned that President Trump applied each of these tests before he nominated Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will carefully and extensively scrutinize Judge Gorsuch's record. I will question him on his judicial philosophy and how he interprets the Constitution. I will insist he clarify his position on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, on voting rights, and the appropriate balance between corporate interests and individual rights. I will do my job as a United States Senator. The American people deserve nothing less from each of us.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Mike Pompeo to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Representative Pompeo has been wrong on many critical intelligence issues during his 6 years in Congress.

He will not disavow his past support of torture.

He opposed the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's torture report.

He has advocated for reinstating mass surveillance of American citizens.

He recently left the door open to outsourcing surveillance of American citizens to foreign governments to circumvent existing laws.

He opposes the closure of Guantanamo.

He opposes the Iran nuclear agreement.

Congressman Pompeo is the wrong person to the lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination.