Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois for his comments. Certainly we hear those same things in town meetings in Vermont.

Russia Investigation

Mr. President, on another matter, this afternoon, Attorney General Sessions will return to the Senate for the first time since his confirmation hearing. It has been more than 3 months since the press revealed that the Attorney General gave false testimony in response to questions from both myself and from Senator Franken about his contact with Russian officials; yet the Attorney General has made no effort to come back before the Judiciary Committee to explain these actions-- actions that some could construe as perjury.

There are now countless new and troubling questions swirling around the Attorney General. In fact, he was scheduled to appear before the Appropriations Committee this morning--a committee that would have to vote on his request for a budget--but, for the second time in as many months, he abruptly canceled. Neither I nor Senator Franken sit on the Intelligence Committee, so we are not going to have the opportunity to follow up with the Attorney General in person. I am not going to be able to ask him why he hid his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, including a reported third meeting at the Mayflower Hotel, nor will I be able to ask about the timing of his recusal or his involvement with the Russia investigation both before his recusal and after. I will not be able to ask whether the President ever suggested he intervene in the Russia investigation in any way. And especially I will not be able to ask how the Attorney General can justify violating his recusal from the Russia investigation by working to fire its lead investigator.

The American people deserve answers to each of these questions--not only answers, they deserve truthful answers. That is why I shared my questions for Attorney General Sessions on these topics. But I also shared them with members of the Intelligence Committee.

So, at least, on the plus side, Attorney General Sessions will finally face some serious questions, but I am still concerned he is not going to be the most forthcoming witness. We saw last week that Trump administration officials have invented a brand new claim of privilege to insulate themselves from congressional oversight--and to protect themselves from giving answers that would be embarrassing or damaging to the President.

I asked the Congressional Research Service to provide me with a list of valid reasons to refuse to answer a question from a Senator. There is executive privilege, of course, but it has to be invoked by the President, and it is not absolute. Of course, there are also constitutional privileges, such as the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate oneself. Even in my days as prosecutor, I strongly protected the rights of people, no matter what crime they were charged with, to take the Fifth Amendment if they wanted to, but there is no ``I would rather not answer'' privilege. That is not in the Fifth Amendment. That is not an executive privilege. Unless it necessarily involves disclosing classified information, the answer ``I would rather discuss this behind closed doors'' is not a valid response either. That is really not a valid response. That is just trying to get out of answering questions.

The Attorney General's spokesperson said yesterday that Attorney General Sessions ``believes it is important for the American people to hear the truth directly from him and [he] looks forward to answering the committee's questions.'' Yet it was also reported yesterday he plans to invoke executive privilege in response to some inquiries. If true, the Attorney General is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I hope the Attorney General is not going to allow President Trump to follow the precedent of Richard Nixon and go down the path of invoking executive privilege to stop an inquiry into illegal or unethical conduct. These questions need to be answered. The American people deserve the truth. They deserve an Attorney General who is held accountable for his leadership of the Justice Department, not one who is embroiled in controversy and hides from the congressional committee of oversight jurisdiction of his Department.

We must not lose sight of the fact that our democracy was attacked. It was attacked by a country that has no respect for us. If we do not take this seriously, we will be attacked again. We must know exactly how that happened so we can protect our democratic institutions and protect our country. This goes way beyond the Republican or the Democratic parties. That includes knowing whether members of the Trump campaign enabled Russian interference.

Russia is not a friend. Just as they have tried to interfere with elections in some of the NATO countries in other parts of the world, we know they have tried to interfere with ours. The American people also deserve to know whether the President or his administration have attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, knowing it was improper. Any such attempt would amount to obstruction of justice.

Attorney General Sessions needs to answer critical questions today. He needs to answer for his leadership of the Justice Department in both the Senate Appropriations and the Judiciary Committees. He can keep ducking the questions, but sooner or later, the Attorney General must answer for his actions.

We deserve to know whether he is acting in the public interest--which is what an Attorney General should do--or in Donald Trump's personal interest. If he cannot decide between those interests, if he cannot distinguish between the public's interests and Donald Trump's interests, well, he is not fit to serve as Attorney General.

I pointed out, when Deputy Rosenstein came before the Appropriations Committee this morning, all the things the administration were cutting out of the budget--money for victims of crime, money to go after the opioid epidemic in this country, large cuts in the FBI. I could go on and on. However, there is one place they did put in money for more lawyers. They put in money for lawyers to work taking private property of people in Texas and Arizona and elsewhere to build this wall of the President's. So we will take out money for victims of crime or for fighting the opioid epidemic, but we will sure learn how to get money to hire private lawyers to go after people's private property along the Rio Grande to build a wall which will not really accomplish anything, other than to fulfill part of a campaign promise--a campaign promise to build a $40 billion wall. The other part, of course, was to have Mexico pay for it. The check is in the mail--very, very, very slow mail.

I see--speaking of Attorneys General and people from Texas--my friend, the former attorney general of Texas, the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the floor so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, founded more than two centuries ago, Vermont boasts a trove of historically preserved buildings, structures, and towns. These are part of our heritage, and our State's character. Making a priority of managing and preserving our cultural heritage makes Vermont a National leader in this field.

Of course, many of these historic structures do not meet modern fire prevention codes and lack basic features such as sprinklers, which can drastically reduce the potential for irreparable damage from a fire. Today I am reintroducing the Historic Downtown Preservation and Access Act, a bill that would create a refundable tax credit for the installation of fire suppression systems and elevators in older, multi- use buildings in historic downtowns. Every year, fires destroy numerous historic buildings that often serve as the center of towns and villages across the nation. In 2011, the Brooks House in Brattleboro, Vermont, burned down after almost 150 years in use as a hotel and later, as a multi-use building for residential housing and commercial space. After six years of rebuilding and restoring, those who were displaced by this fire are finally getting back on their feet.

The Historic Downtown Preservation and Access Act will establish a 50 percent refundable tax credit of up to $50,000 that incentivizes the installation of sprinkler systems in order to help prevent and minimize damage caused by fire, including potential loss of life, extensive property damage, and, in some instances, federal funding that is reinvested during the restoration process. This bill also includes a provision to encourage the installation of elevators in our historic buildings, making them accessible to all. This would ensure that upper floors for commercial or residential use are accessible to everyone, including tenants and their guests. Finally, this bill is updated to establish a tax credit for the costs incurred when removing hazardous substances from historic buildings, like lead paint, asbestos, and radon.

We should encourage the maintenance of the history and character of historic buildings and downtowns, while also ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all. This bill is a responsible step forward in those efforts. As we look ahead to comprehensive tax reform, I hope that Congress will consider commonsense legislation like this that will help preserve our towns' unique histories and legacy features for decades to come, while promoting the safety of all Americans.

Mr. President, founded more than two centuries ago, Vermont boasts a trove of historically preserved buildings, structures, and towns. These are part of our heritage, and our State's character. Making a priority of managing and preserving our cultural heritage makes Vermont a National leader in this field.

Of course, many of these historic structures do not meet modern fire prevention codes and lack basic features such as sprinklers, which can drastically reduce the potential for irreparable damage from a fire. Today I am reintroducing the Historic Downtown Preservation and Access Act, a bill that would create a refundable tax credit for the installation of fire suppression systems and elevators in older, multi- use buildings in historic downtowns. Every year, fires destroy numerous historic buildings that often serve as the center of towns and villages across the nation. In 2011, the Brooks House in Brattleboro, Vermont, burned down after almost 150 years in use as a hotel and later, as a multi-use building for residential housing and commercial space. After six years of rebuilding and restoring, those who were displaced by this fire are finally getting back on their feet.

The Historic Downtown Preservation and Access Act will establish a 50 percent refundable tax credit of up to $50,000 that incentivizes the installation of sprinkler systems in order to help prevent and minimize damage caused by fire, including potential loss of life, extensive property damage, and, in some instances, federal funding that is reinvested during the restoration process. This bill also includes a provision to encourage the installation of elevators in our historic buildings, making them accessible to all. This would ensure that upper floors for commercial or residential use are accessible to everyone, including tenants and their guests. Finally, this bill is updated to establish a tax credit for the costs incurred when removing hazardous substances from historic buildings, like lead paint, asbestos, and radon.

We should encourage the maintenance of the history and character of historic buildings and downtowns, while also ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all. This bill is a responsible step forward in those efforts. As we look ahead to comprehensive tax reform, I hope that Congress will consider commonsense legislation like this that will help preserve our towns' unique histories and legacy features for decades to come, while promoting the safety of all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, just 1 week after a party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee, the Senate is about to vote on the nomination of Judge Amul Thapar to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It has been more than 16 months since the Senate confirmed a Federal appellate judge and almost 11 months since we voted on a circuit or district nomination. That is because of Leader McConnell's unprecedented obstruction, blocking any votes on President Obama's qualified, consensus nominees, all in an effort to leave as many judicial vacancies as possible for President Trump and the far right special interest groups who are charged with selecting his nominees.

The 7 days Judge Thapar has waited for a vote is quite a contrast with the last circuit judge that Leader McConnell permitted to be confirmed. Judge Felipe Restrepo's nomination languished for 6 months on the Senate floor last Congress before he was finally given a floor vote. Of course, there was no good reason for that. Judge Restrepo had bipartisan support at every step of the process: positive blue slips from his Democratic and Republican home State Senators, a voice vote in the Judiciary Committee, and a bipartisan 82-6 confirmation vote. Likewise, there was no good reason for Leader McConnell to deny votes on other circuit nominees like Donald Schott and Jennifer Puhl. They were reported with strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and had bipartisan support from their home State Senators, but were left languishing on the Executive Calendar for months, without ever receiving floor consideration. We should not forget the 20 district nominees and the five Court of Federal Claims nominees, who were reported with bipartisan support and then fell victim to Senate Republicans' unprecedented obstruction and were denied a vote after waiting months or even years. Of course, we cannot overlook one of the most shameful inactions of the Senate--the treatment of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who did not even receive a hearing for his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So why are we now rushing to confirm Judge Thapar? It is only fair to note that the seat to which he has been nominated has been vacant for nearly 4 years. President Obama's nominee to that seat did not receive this expedited process. She did not even receive blue slips from the Kentucky Senators. Now, that is their right. Had I still been chairman, I would have honored that decision--as I did for both circuit and district nominees--however much I might have disagreed with it. We should not pretend that we are required to vote so quickly on Judge Thapar simply because the Republican leadership held this seat vacant.

This is a nomination that requires thorough consideration by the Senate. It is no secret that Judge Thapar is a favorite of the same far right groups that handpicked Justice Gorsuch--in fact, Judge Thapar was on the same shortlist that they gave to President

Trump. Given Judge Thapar's apparent views on campaign finance regulation, it is no surprise that these groups, who are some of the biggest opponents of any efforts to bring transparency to campaign financing, want to see him elevated to a circuit court. His answers during his hearing did not allay my concerns.

I was also troubled by Judge Thapar's responses to my written questions. Like Justice Gorsuch, he dodged a very simple question about whether the First Amendment permits a religious litmus test for entry into the United States, but even that nonanswer was inaccurate. Judge Thapar responded that the constitutionality of a religious litmus test is an active question in pending litigation regarding the president's Executive order targeting Muslim-majority countries, and that he could not comment on it. That is not accurate. There is no question that such a religious litmus test is unconstitutional--even the Trump administration does not argue otherwise. Instead, they are arguing that the Executive order does not impose such a litmus test. Judge Thapar failed to get the facts right, and failed to show me that he understands one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitution. It will be very difficult for me to support any judicial nominee who fails to answer this question with adherence to both the Constitution and the facts.

The role that far right interest groups have played in this nomination and the Gorsuch nomination is troubling. A President is free to consult with whomever he wishes on potential nominees, but the ``advice and consent'' power belongs to the Senate, not the Federalist Society. For decades, Presidents of both parties have consulted with home State Senators, a requirement formalized through the Judiciary Committee's blue slip process. This tradition protects the role of all 100 Senators in the confirmation process and helps ensure that Presidents work with Senators of both parties to find consensus nominees.

During my nearly 20 years as either chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I encouraged Republicans and Democrats to work with President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama to find qualified, consensus nominees, and I protected the rights of Senators in both parties. As Ranking Member Feinstein noted in a memo that was circulated yesterday, no judicial nomination made by the last three Presidents was confirmed without the support of both home State Senators. I cannot recall a nominee being confirmed over the objection of his or her home State Senator. The blue slip is not a partisan issue; it is about constitutional checks and balances and the Senate's role in protecting the independence of our Federal judiciary. I encourage President Trump to follow the example of his predecessors from both parties and work with us to find consensus nominees to ensure that our Federal courts remain the envy of the rest of the world.

Mr. President, while the Office of Management and Budget was putting the finishing touches on its Orwellian-themed ``A New Foundation for American Greatness,'' the President's fiscal year 2018 budget, which proposes to eliminate or drastically reduce funding for a vast array of critical programs on which the American people--including the most vulnerable among us--depend, the Trump family was being feted by one of the world's wealthiest and repressive regimes.

Not only has the Saudi family used its vast oil wealth to promote an extremist ideology, including in madrassas and mosques in South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, its grip on power is made possible through corruption and the systematic denial of fundamental rights, including the brutal oppression of women and girls, human trafficking, and the exploitation of foreign labor.

After criticizing the Saudis during the Presidential campaign, earlier this week, President Trump and his family basked in the opulent glow of Saudi family royalty. According to press reports, just prior to their arrival, the President's son-in-law finalized a $110 billion sale of American weapons to the Saudis; yet neither the President nor his advisers, who danced with Saudi sheiks in a grand palace, voiced any concern that Saudi Arabia is a police state whose citizens have no opportunity to change their government, where criticism of the Royal family is not tolerated, and where arbitrary arrest and torture are common, nor with the Saudis' repeated misuse of U.S. military equipment against innocent civilians in Yemen.

In fact, standing next to the Saudi Foreign Minister at a joint press conference, Secretary Tillerson rightly called on the Iranian Government to restore freedom of speech and assembly for its people so they can ``live the life that they deserve.'' But do the Saudi people not deserve such rights? He made no such appeal to the Saudi monarchy.

Secretary of State Tillerson has also made clear that the values and individual rights that Americans have long believed are what makes the United States the great country that it is and which are in fact universal values enshrined not only in our Bill of Rights, but also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, will take a back seat to our ``national security and economic interests.'' In that sense, the administration is modeling itself after China and Russia, which, given President Trump's admiration for ``strong'' leaders like President Putin and Secretary Tillerson's background as he head of the world's largest oil company, should surprise no one.

According to a press report, Secretary of Commerce Ross found it ``fascinating'' that there were no protests during the President's visit to Saudi Arabia. ``Not one guy with a bad placard,'' he said, apparently oblivious to the fact that protests are prohibited and any protester would have been immediately arrested.

I know I am not the only one here who finds it hard to fathom that a President who has condemned terrorism, as he should, says virtually nothing about the Saudi royal family's own support for extremism that breeds terrorism, and nothing about the Saudi regime's gross mistreatment of its own citizens. In fact, the President's daughter, who purports to speak on behalf of the White House, publicly praised the Saudi regime's progress on women's rights, ignoring the fact that every woman she met with--none of whom were women's rights activists-- required the permission of a male relative to participate.

America's values, including the defense of human rights, are a source of our strength, our durability, and our leadership in the world. I have no qualms with a President of the United States visiting Saudi Arabia. In fact, I support it. What I don't support, however, is the President agreeing to a massive sale of weapons to a regime that, with the exception of its antipathy toward Iran, shares little in common with the United States. Saudi Arabia has been a supporter of terrorism. Its armed forces have committed war crimes in Yemen. Saudi Arabia ranks among the world's worse violators of human rights--even below Iran. The message to the Saudi regime and the Saudi people from President Trump and his family is that these issues are no longer important enough to even mention.

Those of us who have been working on protecting and promoting U.S. national security interests since long before this administration took office know better. It is not possible to effectively separate our values, like the protection of individual freedoms and other human rights, and our national security and economic interests. They are inextricably linked, and we will all pay the price if we ignore that reality.

Mr. President, my wife Marcelle and I know and respect Jacqueline Mars. She joined the Washington National Opera's board of trustees in 2003. She was elected as chairman of the board of the Washington National Opera in 2011 and oversaw WNO's affiliation with the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Some of the highlights during her tenure as chair have been the acclaimed production of American Ring--The Ring of the Nibelung; M&M's Opera in the Outfield; the Holiday Family Opera; and the American Opera Initiative. Marcelle tells me that, in recognition and appreciation of all of her tireless efforts and enormous contribution and support of the Washington National Opera, the Board of Trustees of the Washington National Opera have unanimously approved that Jacqueline Mars will now be recognized as chairman of the board of trustees emeritus of the Washington National Opera.

I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be printer in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am very pleased to join my friend, the junior Senator from Arizona, in introducing the Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act of 2017.

I will have more to say about this bill, and United States policy toward Cuba, in the weeks and months ahead. My purpose in speaking today is simply to point out that 55 Democratic and Republican members of the Senate have cosponsored this bill to allow Americans to travel to Cuba in the same way that they can travel to any other country in the world. And based on my conversations with other Senators, especially Republicans, I have little doubt that if we voted on this bill today more than 60 Senators would support it.

It is indefensible that the Federal government currently restricts American citizens and legal resident from traveling to a country 90 miles away that poses no threat to us, unless they engage in certain activities and not others. For example, an American biologist can go to Cuba to study threatened species of migratory birds. That same American cannot take his family on a trip to visit Cuba's national parks. Why? Because one is defined as scientific research and the other is defined as tourism.

At a time when U.S. airlines and cruise ships are flying and sailing to Cuba, does anyone here honestly think that preventing Americans from traveling is an appropriate role of the Federal government? Why only Cuba? Why not Venezuela? Or Russia? Or Iran, or anywhere else? It is a vindictive, discriminatory, self-defeating vestige of a time long passed. This bill would end these Cold War restrictions on the freedom of Americans to travel. It would not do away with the embargo.

We are told that the Trump Administration is conducting a review of U.S. policy toward Cuba. That is to be expected of a new administration. We have also heard a rumor, and I hope it is only a rumor, that in return for the votes of certain Senators or representative on health care legislation, promises may have been made by the White House to impose further restrictions on the normalization of relations with Cuba. I hope that is not the case. I hope the review produces a policy based on what is in the U.S. national security interest and on what is in the interests of the American and Cuban people, an overwhelming majority of whom want closer relations. And I hope the policy reflects the bipartisan majority in Congress that supports expanding our engagement with Cuba, as evidenced by the bill we are introducing today.

I and others who have traveled to Cuba many times over the past 20 years, who have met with Cuban officials, with Cubans who have been persecuted for opposing the Castro government, and with many others, have requested meetings with top White House officials before the review is completed and any final decisions are made.

Every one of us wants to see an end to political repression in Cuba. The arrests and physical mistreatment of dissidents by the Cuban government are deplorable, just as they are by other governments including some, like Egypt's and Turkey's, whose leaders have been feted at the White House, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, have feted President Trump and his family. Americans can travel freely to Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and every other country, except Cuba.

The issue is how best to support the people of Cuba who struggle to make ends meet, and who want to live in a country where freedom of expression and association are protected, and where they can choose their own leaders in a democratic manner.

Anyone who thinks that more economic pressure, or ultimatums, will force the Cuban authorities to stop arresting political dissidents and embrace democracy have learned nothing from history. For more than half a century we have tried a policy of unilateral sanctions and isolation, and it has achieved neither of those goals. Instead, it has been used by the Cuban government as an excuse for repression to protect Cuba's sovereignty. It has hurt the Cuban people, not the Cuban government. And it has provided an opening for our adversaries and competitors, like Russia and China, in this hemisphere.

Change is coming to Cuba, and we can help support that process. There is already visible, tangible evidence that the changes in U.S. policy initiated by President Obama are having positive effects for the Cuban people and for our security and economic relations with Cuba, even though critics, particularly those who have never been to Cuba, prefer to deny it.

But most importantly, the bipartisan bill we are introducing today is about the right of Americans, not Cubans, to travel. Any member of Congress, especially those who have been to Cuba, should support the right of their constituents to do so. American citizens are our best Ambassadors to Cuba, and it is wrong for the United States government to be imposing restrictions

that have no place in the law books of a free society.

Mr. President, today I am very pleased to join my friend, the junior Senator from Arizona, in introducing the Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act of 2017.

I will have more to say about this bill, and United States policy toward Cuba, in the weeks and months ahead. My purpose in speaking today is simply to point out that 55 Democratic and Republican members of the Senate have cosponsored this bill to allow Americans to travel to Cuba in the same way that they can travel to any other country in the world. And based on my conversations with other Senators, especially Republicans, I have little doubt that if we voted on this bill today more than 60 Senators would support it.

It is indefensible that the Federal government currently restricts American citizens and legal resident from traveling to a country 90 miles away that poses no threat to us, unless they engage in certain activities and not others. For example, an American biologist can go to Cuba to study threatened species of migratory birds. That same American cannot take his family on a trip to visit Cuba's national parks. Why? Because one is defined as scientific research and the other is defined as tourism.

At a time when U.S. airlines and cruise ships are flying and sailing to Cuba, does anyone here honestly think that preventing Americans from traveling is an appropriate role of the Federal government? Why only Cuba? Why not Venezuela? Or Russia? Or Iran, or anywhere else? It is a vindictive, discriminatory, self-defeating vestige of a time long passed. This bill would end these Cold War restrictions on the freedom of Americans to travel. It would not do away with the embargo.

We are told that the Trump Administration is conducting a review of U.S. policy toward Cuba. That is to be expected of a new administration. We have also heard a rumor, and I hope it is only a rumor, that in return for the votes of certain Senators or representative on health care legislation, promises may have been made by the White House to impose further restrictions on the normalization of relations with Cuba. I hope that is not the case. I hope the review produces a policy based on what is in the U.S. national security interest and on what is in the interests of the American and Cuban people, an overwhelming majority of whom want closer relations. And I hope the policy reflects the bipartisan majority in Congress that supports expanding our engagement with Cuba, as evidenced by the bill we are introducing today.

I and others who have traveled to Cuba many times over the past 20 years, who have met with Cuban officials, with Cubans who have been persecuted for opposing the Castro government, and with many others, have requested meetings with top White House officials before the review is completed and any final decisions are made.

Every one of us wants to see an end to political repression in Cuba. The arrests and physical mistreatment of dissidents by the Cuban government are deplorable, just as they are by other governments including some, like Egypt's and Turkey's, whose leaders have been feted at the White House, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, have feted President Trump and his family. Americans can travel freely to Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and every other country, except Cuba.

The issue is how best to support the people of Cuba who struggle to make ends meet, and who want to live in a country where freedom of expression and association are protected, and where they can choose their own leaders in a democratic manner.

Anyone who thinks that more economic pressure, or ultimatums, will force the Cuban authorities to stop arresting political dissidents and embrace democracy have learned nothing from history. For more than half a century we have tried a policy of unilateral sanctions and isolation, and it has achieved neither of those goals. Instead, it has been used by the Cuban government as an excuse for repression to protect Cuba's sovereignty. It has hurt the Cuban people, not the Cuban government. And it has provided an opening for our adversaries and competitors, like Russia and China, in this hemisphere.

Change is coming to Cuba, and we can help support that process. There is already visible, tangible evidence that the changes in U.S. policy initiated by President Obama are having positive effects for the Cuban people and for our security and economic relations with Cuba, even though critics, particularly those who have never been to Cuba, prefer to deny it.

But most importantly, the bipartisan bill we are introducing today is about the right of Americans, not Cubans, to travel. Any member of Congress, especially those who have been to Cuba, should support the right of their constituents to do so. American citizens are our best Ambassadors to Cuba, and it is wrong for the United States government to be imposing restrictions

that have no place in the law books of a free society.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday, we received President Trump's first budget submission. He calls it ``A New Foundation for American Greatness.'' Well, that might get an award for fiction, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Instead of building a foundation for the American people, it pulls the rug out from under them. This budget has to be understood as something more than just a photo op with a slogan.

The President's budget displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of government of, by, and for the people in supporting the middle class, lifting up the most vulnerable among us and serving our values and interests as a Nation. It proposes to cut nondefense discretionary spending by over $1.5 trillion; that is, $1,500,000,000 over 10 years, including a $54 billion cut in fiscal year 2018 and a $260 billion cut by 2027. This would be a 40-percent cut to nondefense programs in 10 years.

This is not only shortsighted, it is irresponsible and unrealistic. We should be supporting opportunity, and we should be creating jobs, not eliminating them. What this country needs is jobs. We should be caring for our veterans. We should promote our health and the environment. These are important to all people. It doesn't make any difference what political party you belong to. We shouldn't be recklessly slashing vital lifelines to the American people.

Sequestration has had devastating consequences for both defense and nondefense programs. These consequences are going to last a generation. The Trump budget would only extend and deepen those problems.

We are nearing the Memorial Day break, and I ask Members of both sides of the aisle: Let's sit down, and let's have Republicans and Democrats work together, as the Senate is supposed to, and negotiate a budget deal based on parity. We did this in 2013; we did it in 2015. It worked well. Such a deal would allow the Senate to provide appropriations bills that reflect our true, enduring values as a nation.

The Trump budget proposes over $1.7 trillion in cruel and unsustainable cuts to important mandatory programs that provide a safety net of health and nutrition programs to those who are struggling most in our communities. Can you imagine, in the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth, we are going to cut out programs to help the people most in need?

Many of the cuts in the Trump budget come from the Medicaid Program, where the President doubles down on the dangerous programmatic changes and cuts included in the TrumpCare bill. Not only would enacting this budget make it harder for low-income families to receive health coverage through Medicaid, but the proposal also cuts nearly $6 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program, which would force near- poverty children off health insurance.

I know in my own State of Vermont--it is not a wealthy State; it is a small State. But when we started a program to make sure children had healthcare, it was costly at first. In the long run, it saved us all a great deal of money. We were rated every year as the first or second healthiest State in the Nation. You have to have people healthy from the time they are children. You cannot suddenly say: Oh, we are going to spend a fortune when you are adults on illnesses that could have been taken care of when you were children.

The President's budget proposes significant cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which supports food assistance for individuals and families in need. How does the President expect to make America great again if there are hungry children in our schools? Every parent knows a hungry child cannot learn. How can we be the greatest country in the world if we do not offer a helping hand to the most vulnerable among us?

It has been and continues to be my goal that we complete the appropriations process in the Senate the way it is supposed to be done. Each of the 12 appropriations bills deserves debate and an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. All Republicans and Democrats vote for the things they support and vote against the things they oppose. That is in the best interest of this country, and I know Chairman Cochran shares this goal. As vice chairman, I will work with him to do this.

This budget is an obstacle and not a pathway to this goal. The President's budget proposal is not bipartisan. In fact, I am willing to bet that, if you put the President's budget on the floor today and asked for a vote up or down, even though the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, it would not pass because it does not make a hint of a gesture toward true bipartisanship. The appropriations process works best when you have bipartisan cooperation. This budget is not in the best interest of the country or of the real priorities of the American people. That is why it would not get even enough Republican votes to pass. It is unbalanced, needlessly provocative, and appallingly shortsighted.

Rural America, including rural States like Vermont, is missing in action in the President's budget. His

budget eliminates key investments in rural communities and leaves them without Federal partnership support for everything from infrastructure development and affordable housing to programs that preserve the environment and provide food for the elderly.

It is a compilation of broken promises to working men and women and struggling families, and it frays the lifelines that help vulnerable families lift themselves into the middle class. This Vermonter does not find that acceptable, and I doubt others do.

Eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which we call LIHEAP, would leave thousands of Vermonters and thousands throughout this country out in the cold. The government should not be in the business of saying to families: OK, you have a choice. It is 10 degrees outside. You can either have heat, or you can eat. You can either have enough warmth so that you do not freeze to death, or you can have food so that you do not starve to death, but you cannot have both.

We are the most powerful, wealthy Nation on Earth. What a choice to force on people.

From LIHEAP, in my own State, Vermont received nearly $19 million to help more than 21,000 households in all 14 counties last year. This is a vital lifeline, and it is especially important in rural communities. We cannot slash investments in our rural communities.

We cannot abandon Federal support for cleaning up Lake Champlain. Eliminating the Sea Grant and Geographic programs would be foolish, as it would waste the investments we have already made. It would mean that the money we have put in to clean our lake would end up being lost, and we would have to start all over again.

The large and dynamic ecosystem in Lake Champlain is the largest body of freshwater in the United States outside of the Great Lakes. It borders Vermont, New York, and Canada and is a treasure, but we cannot stand still. We do not want it to become polluted like other bodies of water throughout our country. You either advance or you slip behind, and once you start slipping behind, it becomes an escalating matter.

The budget is full of cuts that advance the administration's antiscience, know-nothing-ism agenda. It eliminates thousands of scientists and shuts off funding for research into cures for everything from Alzheimer's to cancer. You cannot say to people who are trying to find a cure for cancer and so many other diseases: Oh, we are going to cut your money for a few years, turn everything off, send the scientists home, and maybe in a few years we might give you money again.

You cannot do that with medical research. The University of Vermont would lose millions of dollars for valuable research--research that you cannot pause and hope to resume. We are so close to finding a cure for most kinds of cancer, just as we did years ago with polio. Are we going to turn that off? Are we going to say to the American people: We want to have a sloganeering budget. Sorry. When your grandchildren come along, maybe someday, somebody will restore this science and will find a cure for cancer.

This budget not only denies the reality of climate change, but it eliminates all of the Environmental Protection Agency's climate programs, from voluntary incentives to programs that seek to prevent further damage to public health and environmental quality. Climate change is very real, and we are at a critical moment. Now is not the time to turn back the progress we have been making.

The President has promised jobs, jobs, jobs. I would love to see jobs, jobs, jobs in this country, but under his budget, an estimated 4 million people, including veterans, would lose access to employment and training services next year. Four million Americans would lose that promise of a job. He would eliminate almost $4 billion from Pell grants. You do not create jobs by denying young people access to affordable higher education or by slashing job training.

Cutting the State Department's budget by more than 30 percent shows a clear lack of understanding of the vital role of soft power in our national security. The Secretary of Defense said: If you are going to cut the State Department's budget this way, you had better give me money to buy more bullets, because I am going to need them.

The budget would eliminate lifesaving nutrition programs. It would impede our ability to promote stability in increasingly volatile regions of the world. America is not made safer by failing to feed the hungry.

As Defense Secretary Mattis has said, soft power is fundamental to our national security, which has been said by Secretaries of Defense and military leaders in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The Trump budget would have serious and harmful consequences for our economy, for working families, for those who are struggling, for our environment, for health, for the seed corn of cutting-edge scientific and technological research, and for our national security. This is foolish, and it is not acceptable. You do not turn these things on and off to make a sound bite. Sound bites do not make America strong, and sound bites do not continue the greatness of America. Tough choices keep America great and help the American people.

I would remind the White House that the power of the purse rests with Congress. As vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I intend to exercise that power, and I will work with Chairman Cochran in laying out a bipartisan path forward.

Mr. President, there are far too many illogical, arbitrary, and harmful cuts in spending and wholly unbalanced priorities in the President's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget to list at one time. I will have plenty more to say about that in the weeks and months ahead, but I do want to take a moment to highlight one, as it illustrates the foolhardy way this Administration has sought to appease right-wing ideologues rather than do what is truly in the national interest.

For fiscal year 2017, the Congress--Republicans and Democrats--agreed to appropriate $607.5 million for international family planning programs. Under our law, none of those funds can be used for abortion. They are for contraceptives and services like education and counseling to promote voluntary family planning in the world's poorest countries and, by doing so, to reduce reliance on abortion, reduce child mortality, improve maternal and child health, and increase opportunities for women and girls.

These programs have a long track record. There is abundant, indisputable data to show they are effective and they save lives, and they illustrate that, while we may have fundamental differences about whether women should have the right to abortion, there is broad agreement about the importance of family planning.

For fiscal year 2018, the Trump Administration proposes to eliminate funding for international family planning as a way to ``protect life.'' That may be an appealing sound bite, but that's all it is. For every $10 million reduction in funding for family planning and reproductive health programs, the data shows that approximately 440,000 fewer women and couples receive contraceptive services and supplies, resulting in 95,000 additional unintended pregnancies, including 44,000 more unplanned births, 38,000 more abortions, and 200 more pregnancy-related deaths.

How does that protect life? The evidence is overwhelming that the absence of family planning not only means more unsafe abortions but higher birth rates, 95 percent of which occur in the poorest countries that cannot feed or provide jobs for their people today.

I would say to the ideologues in the White House who think that the way to protect life is to cut off funding for family planning: They don't know what they are talking about. These are the same people who support vastly expanding the Mexico City Policy beyond President Ronald Reagan and both President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, to all global health funding. In fact, they will be responsible for more abortions, higher rates of child mortality, higher rates of maternal death, and greater suffering.

This is a shocking proposal. They either don't realize how much harm and suffering it would cause, or they don't care. Can you imagine if our government, in addition to trying to outlaw abortion, tried to take away the contraceptives Americans rely on to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Tens of millions of Americans depend on access

to modern family planning services every day. The outcry would be immediate, and it would be deafening.

I am confident that the Congress will reject this unwise and cruel proposal. It would be unconstitutional in this country, and it should not be imposed on millions of impoverished people in the developing countries who depend on our assistance.

I would note the importance of it. We had a man whom I admired greatly in this body, a Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mark Hatfield. He was strongly anti-abortion but was an honest and good man who said that we had to have these family planning programs because without them, the number of abortions would skyrocket, that the number of deaths at birth would skyrocket, and that we would have higher birth rates, 95 percent of which would occur in the poorest countries that could not feed or provide jobs for their people.

Let's not do that again. Let's not make policy by sound bite. Let's make policy as to what is best for our country and that best respects the values of America--values that we have tried to demonstrate throughout the world. We also try to demonstrate that to our own country no matter where you are, whether you are Republican or Democrat or Independent, whether you are poor or rich, rural or urban. Let's work on what is the best for America, not on a budget that tries to polarize America and pits one group against another.

Mr. President, on this table I have on the floor, I note that it shows how we, at the Pentagon, have money to put into a border wall at the cost of the Department of Agriculture, clean energy, climate change, the environment, education, foreign aid, infrastructure, healthcare, the middle class, civil rights, labor unions, nutrition programs, child nutrition, and community investments. If we want to spend $40 billion on a wall that will make no sense and have the taxpayers pay for it--easy--let's vote it up or down. I do not think the American people want it. They would rather see that money be spent on programs that educate people, that create jobs, that improve science and find cures for cancer and others, not for a wall that we will pay for and that nobody else will pay for.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in celebration of Museum Day on May 18, we reintroduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act.'' This legislation would enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions. At the same time, this legislation will erase an inequity in our Tax Code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. Since 2000 I have introduced this same bill in each Congress. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the 2001 tax reconciliation bill, the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act, and the Senate- passed version of the 2005 tax reconciliation bill.

This legislation would preserve cherished art works for the public by allowing artists to take a fair market deduction for works they donate to museums, libraries, colleges and other public institutions. Under current law, artists who donate their created work may only deduct the cost of supplies, while a collector of the same work who donates it to qualified charitable institutions is allowed to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the donated work.

In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.

Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work. Congress changed the law for artists in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Much has changed in the United States since 1969 when the tax law was amended. There has been an explosion of artistic and literary creativity in the country that is valued throughout the world. Yet, since the law was changed, artists now give far less frequently than before, harming the public by denying it the opportunity to see museum-quality contemporary art. The current tax law discriminates against those who choose to make their living as artists and writers. It also undermines the ability of public and cultural institutions, especially those in small and midsized cities and towns, to collect and preserve our Nation's cultural patrimony. With no or meager acquisition budgets, it is impossible for them to compete in the global art market.

A letter from the distinguished Librarian of Congress Emeritus James Billington stated that ``restoration of this tax deduction would vastly benefit their institution's manuscript and music holdings, and remove the single major impediment to developing the Library's graphic arts holdings. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act would once again allow artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions to be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayers or collectors who donate such works follow.''

This legislation is vital because it reminds us that artists have an important role in the process of engaging communities, and artists are a cultural necessity in the fabric of any community in Vermont or around the world.

The Artist-Museum Partnership Act is supported by such organizations as the Vermont Arts Council, Shelburne Museum, Association of Art Museum Directors, American Alliance of Museums, Americans for the Arts, Dance/USA, League of American Orchestras, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, National Council for the Traditional Arts, OPERA America, Theatre Communications Group, Local Learning, Artists Rights Society, National Humanities Alliance, College Art Association, and Fractured Atlas.

Mr. President, for too long, criminals have exploited loopholes in our gun laws. Congress's failure to properly address this issue has had devastating consequences for families and communities across the country. We have allowed criminals to readily obtain firearms through straw purchasers, trafficking networks, and unregulated gun markets. It is past time for this body to take action.

Today, I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to close loopholes that allow criminals to obtain firearms through straw purchases and illegal trafficking. I am proud to be joined once again by Senators Collins and Durbin. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act would make it a Federal crime to act as a straw purchaser of firearms or to illegally traffic in firearms. It sets forth tough penalties for anyone who transfers a firearm with reasonable cause to believe that the gun will be used in a drug crime, crime of violence, or act of terrorism, or for anyone who smuggles firearms out of the United States. This legislation would help keep guns out of the hands of those who seek to do us harm.

As the opioid crisis reached epidemic levels throughout the United States--and in Northeastern states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine in particular--gun traffickers stood ready to profit. Dealers who cannot pass background checks take advantage of addicts by forcing them to make straw purchases. Passing this gun trafficking bill and closing these loopholes will be a key piece of our response to the opioid crisis in so many of our communities.

This legislation will also be an important tool in preventing terrorist attacks on American soil. Terrorists have increasingly turned to guns to carry out domestic attacks, as they did in San Bernardino, Orlando, and Charleston. In the case of San Bernardino, the shooters relied on straw purchasing to acquire their deadly weapons. But because straw purchasing is not a Federal crime, prosecutors only charged the straw purchaser with making a false statement--a so called ``paperwork'' offense. I have often heard from law enforcement that current law does not do enough to deter gun traffickers. This legislation answers that call.

I also want to take note of National Police Week. This is a time when we pause to thank our Nation's law enforcement officers for their important work and many sacrifices. Earlier this week, thousands of officers gathered for a candlelight memorial. The names of 143 officers killed in the line of duty during 2016 were added to the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is not enough to merely pay tribute to these men and women. They deserve action. A year ago during Police Week, President Obama signed into law my legislation reauthorizing the life-saving Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. That law will ensure that more than 200,000 officers receive protective vests over the next five years.

The legislation that Senator Collins and I introduce today will also help keep our officers and our neighborhoods safe. We must not wait for another national tragedy to address this problem. Only Congress can close these loopholes. I recognize that one piece of legislation cannot prevent all gun violence, but this bill would provide a critical tool to investigate and deter straw purchasers and gun traffickers. That is why it has strong support from groups representing law enforcement officers and prosecutors around the nation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Tactical Officers Association, and National District Attorneys Association.

Like so many Vermonters, I am proud to be a responsible gun owner; and I know that Senator Collins shares my commitment to protecting our Second Amendment rights. But we also share a desire to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists. There is broad agreement in Congress that our existing gun laws do too little to prevent gun violence in our communities. The legislation we introduce today is an important part of the solution, and I call on all Senators to support this bill and make our communities safer.

Mr. President, in celebration of Museum Day on May 18, we reintroduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act.'' This legislation would enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions. At the same time, this legislation will erase an inequity in our Tax Code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. Since 2000 I have introduced this same bill in each Congress. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the 2001 tax reconciliation bill, the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act, and the Senate- passed version of the 2005 tax reconciliation bill.

This legislation would preserve cherished art works for the public by allowing artists to take a fair market deduction for works they donate to museums, libraries, colleges and other public institutions. Under current law, artists who donate their created work may only deduct the cost of supplies, while a collector of the same work who donates it to qualified charitable institutions is allowed to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the donated work.

In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.

Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work. Congress changed the law for artists in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Much has changed in the United States since 1969 when the tax law was amended. There has been an explosion of artistic and literary creativity in the country that is valued throughout the world. Yet, since the law was changed, artists now give far less frequently than before, harming the public by denying it the opportunity to see museum-quality contemporary art. The current tax law discriminates against those who choose to make their living as artists and writers. It also undermines the ability of public and cultural institutions, especially those in small and midsized cities and towns, to collect and preserve our Nation's cultural patrimony. With no or meager acquisition budgets, it is impossible for them to compete in the global art market.

A letter from the distinguished Librarian of Congress Emeritus James Billington stated that ``restoration of this tax deduction would vastly benefit their institution's manuscript and music holdings, and remove the single major impediment to developing the Library's graphic arts holdings. The Artist-Museum Partnership Act would once again allow artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions to be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayers or collectors who donate such works follow.''

This legislation is vital because it reminds us that artists have an important role in the process of engaging communities, and artists are a cultural necessity in the fabric of any community in Vermont or around the world.

The Artist-Museum Partnership Act is supported by such organizations as the Vermont Arts Council, Shelburne Museum, Association of Art Museum Directors, American Alliance of Museums, Americans for the Arts, Dance/USA, League of American Orchestras, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, National Council for the Traditional Arts, OPERA America, Theatre Communications Group, Local Learning, Artists Rights Society, National Humanities Alliance, College Art Association, and Fractured Atlas.

Mr. President, for too long, criminals have exploited loopholes in our gun laws. Congress's failure to properly address this issue has had devastating consequences for families and communities across the country. We have allowed criminals to readily obtain firearms through straw purchasers, trafficking networks, and unregulated gun markets. It is past time for this body to take action.

Today, I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to close loopholes that allow criminals to obtain firearms through straw purchases and illegal trafficking. I am proud to be joined once again by Senators Collins and Durbin. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act would make it a Federal crime to act as a straw purchaser of firearms or to illegally traffic in firearms. It sets forth tough penalties for anyone who transfers a firearm with reasonable cause to believe that the gun will be used in a drug crime, crime of violence, or act of terrorism, or for anyone who smuggles firearms out of the United States. This legislation would help keep guns out of the hands of those who seek to do us harm.

As the opioid crisis reached epidemic levels throughout the United States--and in Northeastern states like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine in particular--gun traffickers stood ready to profit. Dealers who cannot pass background checks take advantage of addicts by forcing them to make straw purchases. Passing this gun trafficking bill and closing these loopholes will be a key piece of our response to the opioid crisis in so many of our communities.

This legislation will also be an important tool in preventing terrorist attacks on American soil. Terrorists have increasingly turned to guns to carry out domestic attacks, as they did in San Bernardino, Orlando, and Charleston. In the case of San Bernardino, the shooters relied on straw purchasing to acquire their deadly weapons. But because straw purchasing is not a Federal crime, prosecutors only charged the straw purchaser with making a false statement--a so called ``paperwork'' offense. I have often heard from law enforcement that current law does not do enough to deter gun traffickers. This legislation answers that call.

I also want to take note of National Police Week. This is a time when we pause to thank our Nation's law enforcement officers for their important work and many sacrifices. Earlier this week, thousands of officers gathered for a candlelight memorial. The names of 143 officers killed in the line of duty during 2016 were added to the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is not enough to merely pay tribute to these men and women. They deserve action. A year ago during Police Week, President Obama signed into law my legislation reauthorizing the life-saving Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. That law will ensure that more than 200,000 officers receive protective vests over the next five years.

The legislation that Senator Collins and I introduce today will also help keep our officers and our neighborhoods safe. We must not wait for another national tragedy to address this problem. Only Congress can close these loopholes. I recognize that one piece of legislation cannot prevent all gun violence, but this bill would provide a critical tool to investigate and deter straw purchasers and gun traffickers. That is why it has strong support from groups representing law enforcement officers and prosecutors around the nation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Tactical Officers Association, and National District Attorneys Association.

Like so many Vermonters, I am proud to be a responsible gun owner; and I know that Senator Collins shares my commitment to protecting our Second Amendment rights. But we also share a desire to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, drug traffickers, and terrorists. There is broad agreement in Congress that our existing gun laws do too little to prevent gun violence in our communities. The legislation we introduce today is an important part of the solution, and I call on all Senators to support this bill and make our communities safer.

Mr. President, pending before the Senate is the nomination of Rachel Brand to be the Associate Attorney General of the United States--the United States, not of the President.

We once had an Attorney General who told us on the Judiciary Committee that as a member of the President's staff, it is not the Secretary of Justice; it is the Attorney General of the United States.

I say this because her nomination to the third most senior position at the Department of Justice comes at an unprecedented time of chaos and upheaval--not only at the Justice Department, but also at the White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and across much of this administration.

We should all agree that it is more important than ever that the Justice Department be led by public servants with independence and integrity. Unfortunately, President Trump's Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General have failed this test. I did not expect Attorney General Sessions to show independence from the President, which is why I voted against his nomination.

But I had higher hopes for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Mr. Rosenstein's role in the dismissal of FBI Director Comey and his willingness to provide pretext for President Trump's interference in the Bureau's ongoing Russia investigation has precipitated a crisis of confidence in the Department.

The Senate must take steps to restore the independence of the Department of Justice. After reviewing her record and hearing her testimony at her confirmation hearing, I am not confident that Rachel Brand is up to that task. Like so many of the President's nominees, she carries a heavily skewed, pro-corporate agenda that would do further harm to the Justice Department and its independence.

Ms. Brand has long championed deregulation and the rolling back of vital environmental, consumer, and labor regulations protecting the American people. Ms. Brand has justified indiscriminate surveillance of Americans and defended broad assertions of Executive power. She even refused to say whether she would recuse herself from matters involving the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber Litigation Center, her current employer. I cannot support a nominee who lacks an independent voice. I will therefore vote against her nomination.