Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there are a couple of issues that I will speak on, but I was asked earlier this morning about what President Trump has tweeted, basically charging former President Obama with having spied on him in a way that would be plainly illegal. Of course, President Obama's advisers have denied any such thing happened. If it did happen, of course, it would be a grave constitutional issue, and if such a thing did happen, it would be criminal conduct. Now, many people are saying: Well, is it true or not? Was Mr. Trump telling the truth in the tweet or not? There is a very simple response on this. There is one person who knows whether it is true or not, and he has been totally silent on this.

They asked Attorney General Sessions. Attorney General Sessions made it very clear in his confirmation hearing--well, he said a number of things in his confirmation hearing, but one was, of course, that he would be independent. President Trump has leveled very serious charges against former President Obama. I happen to feel the charges are false, but let's have a definitive voice. The Attorney General should have the courage and independence to simply say whether Mr. Trump is telling the truth or not. It is a very simple matter. I would hope that the press and everybody else would keep asking because eventually somebody has to answer that question, and the Attorney General can.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon consider the nomination of David Friedman to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Unlike several of President Trump's other nominees, we know a great deal about Mr. Friedman's views on the challenges he would confront if he were confirmed. Unfortunately, this is because he has made a career of disparaging and inflammatory statements about U.S. policy in the Middle East, about former U.S. officials, about the Palestinians, even about American Jews who have views that differ from his own.

We have all had the opportunity to read articles Mr. Friedman has written. We have heard the outrageous, unfounded verbal attacks he has launched against those who disagree with him. He has written falsely that President Obama and Secretary Kerry engaged in ``blatant anti- Semitism,'' that the liberal American Jews are ``far worse than kapos,'' and that they ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in identifying good and evil,'' that the State Department has a ``hundred-year history of anti-Semitism,'' because diplomats appointed by both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents have not always seen eye-to-eye on every issue with Israel's leaders. He has said that Israel's policy of ``criticizing disloyal Arab citizens while simultaneously bestowing upon them the benefits of citizenship simply isn't working.''

Well, those comments alone should disqualify him for this sensitive position, and it is no surprise that tens of thousands of Americans have signed petitions circulated by pro-Israel groups opposing his nomination.

Mr. Friedman has also raised millions of dollars for Israeli settlers, and he has bragged about the effort to remove the two-state solution from the Republican Party's platform, even though Democratic and Republican Presidents have supported it. Regarding the two-state solution, he wrote: ``It is more of an illusion that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the Palestinian Arabs,'' in one of the many articles he has written for a rightwing Israeli media outlet. That unequivocal renunciation of longstanding U.S. policy should also by itself disqualify him from the job of Ambassador to Israel.

These statements and actions not only indicate his rejection of decades of Republican and Democratic policy. They are the words of someone who makes a mockery of the term ``diplomat'' and who has demonstrated no ability to be objective and constructive on sensitive issues of immense importance to U.S. security.

Our diplomats are supposed to be representing the American people and the policies of the United States first and foremost. They are not sent to a foreign country to represent the government or people of that country in a

manner that is inconsistent with U.S. policies and U.S. interests. They are there to represent us.

Mr. Friedman is certainly entitled to his own views as a private citizen, even if they are offensive and counter to U.S. interests and values. But can anyone honestly say that this nominee is qualified or suited to represent the American people in Israel?

Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel who served under Republican and Democratic Presidents--from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama--are among the thousands of Americans who say that the answer to that questions is no.

We are being asked to reconcile Mr. Friedman's record, his personal views, and his deep ties to extreme factions in Israel with his responsibility to objectively advance and defend U.S. interests. Unless one believes, as he has repeatedly made clear he does, that the interests of the United States are always identical to Israel's, there is no way Mr. Friedman should be confirmed.

For as long as I have been in the Senate--and I note that is longer than anybody who is serving here now--I cannot recall a time when we were not at a critical point in our relations with Israel, not because of doubts about the enduring value of the relationship but as a reflection of the importance of the deep partnership between our governments and our people--a deep partnership that we have all supported and that Republican and Democratic Presidents have supported. Most importantly, it is a result of our conviction that security, stability, and prosperity in Israel and the wider region are important to our own national security.

That is why President Obama signed a memorandum of understanding with Israel that included the single largest pledge of U.S. military aid to any country--to any country anywhere in the world, ever--and why both Democratic and Republican administrations have put so much effort into pursuing peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

An alliance as longstanding as ours with Israel, which has far- reaching consequences for the entire Middle East and beyond, requires effective daily management by an experienced diplomat who has not only knowledge of the region but the necessary temperament and appreciation of our country's short- and long-term interests.

I was here when President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin negotiated what was a very difficult peace agreement between the two of them, with both of them putting the interests of the region first. That agreement has lasted. I also remember when Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan--who had fought against each other--personally negotiated a peace agreement, and the United States strongly supported that. In fact, I was privileged to be there when they signed the agreement at Aqaba, as I was present when Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat signed their agreement.

I do not see how anyone could conclude that Mr. Friedman possesses the requisite temperament, nor am I convinced that he appreciates the critical distinction between the interests of our country, the United States, and the parochial interests of an extreme constituency in Israel who he has fiercely advocated for over the course of his long career.

Indeed, it is telling that the spokesman for Beit El, the Israeli settlement that Mr. Friedman has supported financially for years, said its inhabitants would regard him as their representative in the United States. These are Israelis. Their representative in the United States is the Israeli Ambassador. It is not the role of a U.S. Ambassador to represent another country, but that is how Mr. Friedman is perceived in Israel because that is the way he has behaved.

Every U.S. President has understood the importance and the heightened sensitivity of this post, and they chose their nominees accordingly-- both Republican and Democratic Presidents--until now. That is why every previous nominee to be Ambassador to Israel has been confirmed by a voice vote or by unanimous consent, while Mr. Friedman was voted out by a narrow 12 to 9--largely party line vote--in the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. Friedman's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to assuage concerns about his divisiveness, including the many disparaging remarks he has made and his close identification with and support for the Israeli settler movement.

During the hearing he renounced his undiplomatic language, suggesting it was delivered in the heat of the election cycle and in his capacity as a private citizen. In fact, he recanted so much of what he had said--which far predates the election cycle--that Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Corker asked why he was willing to disavow so much of his past record in order to earn the committee's support.

In response, Mr. Friedman described the role of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel as ``the fulfillment of a life's dream, of a life's work, of a life of study of the people, the culture, the politics of Israeli society.''

I would say two things about that. One, I recall a nominee for another position who, when asked questions about extreme positions he had taken for years, started disavowing them all, and I finally asked him: Are you having a confirmation conversion? That nominee--the nominee of a Republican President--when he came before the Senate, was defeated because of Republican votes, as well as Democratic votes.

I always worry about a confirmation conversion. When a nominee rejects years and years of deeply held beliefs during those 2 or 3 days of the confirmation hearing, I wonder how long it will last.

There is an important distinction between knowing and respecting a country's history and people and believing that one's own personal ambition and that country's interests are inextricably linked. Mr. Friedman's remarkable confirmation conversion falls far short of convincing evidence that changing his title to ``Ambassador'' will cause him to divorce his life's work and objectively serve the national interests of the United States.

If Mr. Friedman is confirmed, he should immediately untangle his business and personal interests in Israel and commit to being the representative of all Americans--conservative and liberal Jews, conservative and liberal non-Jews--and being a genuine partner in efforts to promote security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians alike, not just because it is in their interests, but because it is in the interest of the United States.

We all want what is best for the American people. We also share a desire to find a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that protects the rights and security of both peoples. Neither goal can be achieved by pursuing policies that further inflame tensions in the region and erode the role of the United States as an honest broker for peace. There are a large number of qualified Americans from both parties who could capably support that role. Mr. Friedman is not among them.

Madam President, as the Senate continues to consider nominees to lead Federal agencies, I am concerned that once again there is a nominee before us with a stunning lack of expertise to run an agency that affects so many American lives. Seema Verma is another such nominee.

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has an incredible responsibility to ensure some of America's most important programs run smoothly. For decades, Medicare and Medicaid have offered coverage to some of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. Medicare and Medicaid currently cover more than 100 million Americans--nearly one in three patients. The Administrator is responsible for overseeing more than $1 trillion in annual spending and a staff of about 4,000 people. This is a position of vital importance where a new Administrator should hit the ground running, instead of learning on the fly.

And learning on the fly is what she will have to do, as evidenced by her testimony before the Finance Committee. When asked to name a specific program she would commit to improving as Administrator, she could not identify even one. She also demonstrated a lack of commitment to protect healthcare for women, saying that coverage for prenatal and maternity care should be optional and paid for separately. Does Ms. Verma really want to return us to a time when women are discriminated against in healthcare solely because of their gender? It appears so. When asked about provider payment systems, she stumbled to answer, showing little knowledge about a system that directly impacts millions of providers across the Nation. Furthermore, the only fact she could name about Medicare Part D, a benefit that supports more than 40 million seniors, was about an online plan finder tool.

Supporters of her nomination point to her involvement and design of Indiana's Medicaid program as her qualification to run CMS. Directed by then-Governor Mike Pence, Indiana's plan requires even the poorest patients to pay a monthly fee in order to access health insurance. The plan also restricts those who miss a payment to be locked out of care for 6 months. Instead of working to find ways to help Indianans gain insurance coverage, she contributed to a system that bars access to vulnerable patients. Conversely, Vermont also has a Medicaid waiver that, combined with Vermont's All Payer Waiver, has a goal of insuring all Vermonters. Vermont's is the standard that we should all be trying to meet. I am not confident that Ms. Verma is up to the task.

What is more concerning is how Ms. Verma fits into a world where Republicans are engaged in an effort to not only rip apart the Affordable Care Act, but also to end the Medicaid Program as we know it. The current proposals before the House of Representatives would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, leaving States in the lurch and causing millions to go uninsured or to have substandard care. As Republicans continue these efforts, it will be critical for the Administrator of CMS to understand and care about the impacts of such efforts on the millions of Americans who rely on these health protections day to day.

Confirming someone with such a lack of experience to run a trillion- dollar

agency would be unfair to the American people. And as a core player in the effort to unravel the Affordable Care Act, she demonstrates values that are counter to the very agency which has been supported and improved by key provisions in the law. I do not believe Seema Verma is qualified or fit to serve as the Administrator of CMS, and I encourage all Members to join me in opposing her nomination.

Mr. President, Vermont is known far and wide as a tourist destination for all seasons. From our celebrated ski slopes to our stunning and world-renowned fall foliage, Vermont draws travelers from near and far, from nearby States and from Canada, our neighbor to the north. What many don't realize is that Vermont has also become home to refugees and asylum seekers from Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, Sudan, and elsewhere. These men, women and children enrich our communities and inspire us all.

One Vermont community, Rutland, last year announced that it would welcome refugees fleeing the catastrophic civil war in Syria. The town was preparing to welcome 100 refugees. Nine arrived. When President Trump issued his appalling and disastrous executive order banning admission to refugees from Syria and six other nations, the remaining 91 individuals were prevented from coming to Vermont.

I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters outraged by President Trump's Executive actions to close our borders to those seeking refuge. Also deeply concerning is the President's clear intent on targeting Muslim refugees. The freedom of religion, enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution and defended through the ages by generations of Americans, should not be squandered to promote an unfounded fear.

The voices raised in opposition to these executive orders cross the spectrum. I want to include in the Record some of those voices: students at Rutland High School, some of whom have formed the New Neighbors Club, to help welcome refugee students who will attend Rutland City Public Schools.

Emma writes: ``I am a 9th grader from Rutland High School. We should continue to support immigration in Vermont and the United States. These people deserve a good life and don't deserve what they have to go through.''

Carolyn writes: ``I'm from Rutland, Vermont, and I believe that refugee resettlement is an important issue. We have the opportunity to make a change in these people's lives and make new relationships and bonds in our lives. They need a support system so why can't that be us?''

Lea writes: ``This immigration ban is a big problem to me. I don't like that our country is stopping people from coming to our country. I know many people are afraid of what could happen to us. But we are all human and they are humans looking for safety.''

Lily writes, ``Everyone deserves the same amount of respect and understanding that we afford to anyone. The refugees obviously need our help and we are completely capable of building a community that is ready and willing to accept the refugees.''

Jessica writes: ``I can understand these fears, but they also clearly come from an inhumane and misinformed point of view. Without immigration in the past, no one would be here, and it is simply un- American to deny freedom from persecution to refugees and other immigrants.''

Emma writes: ``With all of the recent stigma regarding the Refugee Resettlement Plan, Rutland's program has recently gone static. At Rutland High School, we have a club that helps raise money and eventually welcome the refugees. Please make all the movement possible to make these people feel welcome in our state. We don't want to be stuck on the wrong side of history.''

Victoria writes: ``I feel that it is incredibly important for us to help refugees who are in desperate need of a second chance at life. As a global superpower of a country, it seems absurd to me that we are accepting so few refugees to our communities, as we could be helping with the global refugee crisis a whole lot more by actually trying to mitigate it.''

Ian writes: ``The refugees should come to Rutland because we are devoted to helping integrate them into our community. Several of the students here are devoting every Friday to getting together and coming up with great ideas on how we can incorporate them.''

Kjersti writes: ``As a citizen in the United States, I believe the diversity is what makes this country beautiful, and the fact that someone is exempt from the freedom and is turned away because of their diversity is not what this country stands for.''

Noah writes: ``I believe we should let people immigrate to Vermont because the people in these countries are living in terrible living conditions. Everyone in this world is equal so there's no reason not to let them in. They just want a chance at a safe life.''

Ashleah writes: ``We should continue to support immigration for the Syrian refugees into our community. This is such a great opportunity for Rutland to experience more diversity and more culture. Our small city would benefit greatly from allowing refugees to come and live with us.''

Kelsey writes: ``People who are safe and living comfortably should do their best to help those that need it. I feel by turning them away and denying them help we are being inhuman and cruel.''

Caitlin writes: ``I believe immigration should be accepted in all areas of this country. I strongly support the idea of people wanting to make a better life for themselves. I choose to take a stand against anti-immigration for I believe it is essential to make America better.''

Greta writes: ``These Syrians are people who have gone through atrocities and deserve our help. They will also promote understanding and diversity in our community amidst this political climate of fear mongering. Welcoming Syrian refugees will only be beneficial for Rutland and United States, and is upholding the value of America and human rights.''

And Elizabeth writes: ``I am disappointed with how our current administration is portraying our nation to the rest of the world. I think the people of the United States are stronger, more loving, and kinder people than what is being shown, and I think we need to take individual action in order to show this.''

The voices of these young Vermonters are emblematic of what I hear from Vermonters across our State. We all want to keep our country safe; of that, there is no question. But President Trump's travel ban ignores the clear fact that refugees are the most stringently vetted travelers to the United States. His Executive order provokes and plays on fear. It does not make us safer.

Benjamin Franklin once famously said, ``Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I hope all Senators will listen to the words of these young Vermonters. President Trump's Executive order does little to enhance our security, but does great damage to the freedoms that are the cornerstone of our good and great Nation.

Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize a Vermont treasure, Dr. Robert Backus of Grace Cottage Hospital, who is retiring after nearly four decades of dedicated service to the rural community of Townshend, VT.

Dr. Backus, or ``Dr. B'' as his patients often call him, is a natural healer. He discovered his passion for medical sciences as a young hunter. After serving with the Peace Corps in Brazil, he traveled to Australia to complete a medical internship and his residency. Years later, while on a trek across country from California, Dr. Backus found himself meandering along the winding roads of Vermont's Route 30, and he discovered the place he continues to call home today. The people of Townshend are glad he never left.

After settling in Vermont, Dr. Backus went on to complete his premedical studies at the University of Massachusetts and, later, Dartmouth College. He then received his doctorate in medicine from the University of Vermont in Burlington. Soon after, Dr. Backus took a job working as deputy to Dr. Carlos Otis, the revered founder of Vermont's Grace Cottage Hospital, one of the State's leading rural providers.

Dr. Backus is perhaps most well-known for always being there for his patients, even if they are admitted to a different hospital. He is also known for his strong commitment to the community. For example, each year, Dr. Backus dedicates his time to collecting items for the Grace Cottage Fair, an event that supports the work and patients of the hospital. He also enjoys singing in the West River Valley Chorus with his wife, Carol.

Dr. Backus remains committed to staying active in his community after retirement, and as a grandfather to six, he is also looking forward to spending more time with his family.

I am proud to honor Dr. Backus's commitment to our State, and to the health and well-being of Vermonters. I know we will continue to see great things from him, and I wish him the very best as he enters a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. President, today, I have reintroduced legislation to protect Americans from being stripped of their legal rights by little known clauses that are now hidden in an alarming number of contracts. When we enter into agreements to obtain cell phone service, rent an apartment, or accept a new job, most are not made aware of the forced arbitration clauses that are tucked away in the legal fine print. But these dangerous provision force us to abandon our constitutional right to protect ourselves in court and instead send hard-working Americans to face wealthy corporations behind closed doors in private arbitration. This must change.

When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925, it was intended to help businesses resolve legal disputes with each other. But over the past two decades, private arbitration has been abused by large companies to push Americans out of court. In doing so, these companies have effectively opted out of critical labor, consumer, and civil rights laws that give Americans the ability to assert their claims before our independent judiciary.

Forced arbitration clauses now appear in nearly every contract we sign. Unfortunately, examples of the injustice caused by these clauses are equally ubiquitous and can be found all across the country. They affect consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in Vermont and every other State, and the cases are heart-wrenching.

Just last week, the Washington Post reported that hundreds of current and former employees of Sterling Jewelers--a company that earns $6 billion in annual revenue--have for years alleged that the company is engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture that condones sexual harassment. The stories now being reported are shocking and date back to the early 1990s. Yet, despite the fact that women at the company have been alleging misconduct for decades, no one knew about it. That is because their claims were hidden behind closed doors because of private arbitration. To this day, we still do not know the full details.

The press has helped to bring attention to other instances of forced arbitration in recent years. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to deny customers whose names were used to open fraudulent accounts an opportunity to seek justice in court. In fact, Wells Fargo asked a Federal court in Utah to move a number of sham account allegations to arbitration. The New York Times dedicated a three-part investigative series to highlighting the impact on consumers and workers of forced arbitration clauses. And becoming the story herself, television journalist Gretchen Carlson was barred from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment against former FOX News chairman Roger Ailes.

I have long raised concerns about the practice of forced arbitration, and as chairman led hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2013. This should not be a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. In Vermont, lawmakers enacted commonsense legislation to limit the abuse of forced arbitration clauses and raise consumer awareness, but but this law was invalidated because it conflicted with Federal law. Companies have effectively created a ``get out of jail free'' card that guts our laws and shields bad actors from any type of public accountability. This is an unconscionable situation, and Congress must act.

The Restoring Statutory Rights Act that I am reintroducing today/will protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. It will ensure that our Federal laws will actually be effective by ensuring that Americans cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights before our independent court system. This bill also ensures that when States act to address forced arbitration, as my home State of Vermont has, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal arbitration laws.

This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, and consumer groups such as National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. For years, these groups and many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced arbitration and the full scope of the number of people it affects.

All Senators should care about ensuring that corporations cannot unilaterally circumvent the statutes that this body writes, debates, and enacts into law. Senators should also care about the ability of the States to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. President, today, I have reintroduced legislation to protect Americans from being stripped of their legal rights by little known clauses that are now hidden in an alarming number of contracts. When we enter into agreements to obtain cell phone service, rent an apartment, or accept a new job, most are not made aware of the forced arbitration clauses that are tucked away in the legal fine print. But these dangerous provision force us to abandon our constitutional right to protect ourselves in court and instead send hard-working Americans to face wealthy corporations behind closed doors in private arbitration. This must change.

When Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925, it was intended to help businesses resolve legal disputes with each other. But over the past two decades, private arbitration has been abused by large companies to push Americans out of court. In doing so, these companies have effectively opted out of critical labor, consumer, and civil rights laws that give Americans the ability to assert their claims before our independent judiciary.

Forced arbitration clauses now appear in nearly every contract we sign. Unfortunately, examples of the injustice caused by these clauses are equally ubiquitous and can be found all across the country. They affect consumers, workers, seniors, veterans, and families in Vermont and every other State, and the cases are heart-wrenching.

Just last week, the Washington Post reported that hundreds of current and former employees of Sterling Jewelers--a company that earns $6 billion in annual revenue--have for years alleged that the company is engaged in pervasive gender discrimination and has fostered a culture that condones sexual harassment. The stories now being reported are shocking and date back to the early 1990s. Yet, despite the fact that women at the company have been alleging misconduct for decades, no one knew about it. That is because their claims were hidden behind closed doors because of private arbitration. To this day, we still do not know the full details.

The press has helped to bring attention to other instances of forced arbitration in recent years. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to deny customers whose names were used to open fraudulent accounts an opportunity to seek justice in court. In fact, Wells Fargo asked a Federal court in Utah to move a number of sham account allegations to arbitration. The New York Times dedicated a three-part investigative series to highlighting the impact on consumers and workers of forced arbitration clauses. And becoming the story herself, television journalist Gretchen Carlson was barred from speaking publicly about her allegations of sexual harassment against former FOX News chairman Roger Ailes.

I have long raised concerns about the practice of forced arbitration, and as chairman led hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2013. This should not be a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly spoken out against the Federal Arbitration Act's intrusion on State sovereignty and a State's compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. In Vermont, lawmakers enacted commonsense legislation to limit the abuse of forced arbitration clauses and raise consumer awareness, but but this law was invalidated because it conflicted with Federal law. Companies have effectively created a ``get out of jail free'' card that guts our laws and shields bad actors from any type of public accountability. This is an unconscionable situation, and Congress must act.

The Restoring Statutory Rights Act that I am reintroducing today/will protect Americans' right to seek justice in our courts. It will ensure that our Federal laws will actually be effective by ensuring that Americans cannot be stripped of their ability to enforce their rights before our independent court system. This bill also ensures that when States act to address forced arbitration, as my home State of Vermont has, they are not preempted by an overbroad reading of our Federal arbitration laws.

This effort is supported by the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the National Employment Lawyers' Association, and consumer groups such as National Association of Consumer Advocates, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Consumer Law Center, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. For years, these groups and many others have worked tirelessly to highlight the injustice of forced arbitration and the full scope of the number of people it affects.

All Senators should care about ensuring that corporations cannot unilaterally circumvent the statutes that this body writes, debates, and enacts into law. Senators should also care about the ability of the States to protect consumers from unconscionable contracts. I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. President, today we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Established on March 6, 1867, its powers are rooted in article I, section 9 of our Constitution, which states, ``No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' The founders of our country recognized the power of the purse as one of the most important tools Congress has to ensure our system of checks and balance and to conduct oversight of the Executive and Judicial branch, but it is much more than that. The Appropriations Committee is also where we translate the priorities of a nation into the realities of the people.

Our country is not a business, where we allocate resources only according to the bottom line. We do not invest in order to make a profit, or a one-for-one dollar in return. We invest in those areas where it is uniquely right for government to take the lead. We invest in the areas that make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans and that help build the foundations of our country and our economy-- infrastructure, national security, our environment, education, health care. The Appropriations Committee is where we fund nutrition programs to ensure that children do not have to sit through class hungry and remain healthy so they can develop and grow. It is where we allocate the resources to clean our lakes and our streams and make investments in growing our communities and promoting jobs. It is where we invest in research to cure cancer. It is where we can define who we are as country.

I have been a member of this Committee for almost my entire tenure in the Senate, and just a few short months ago, I became vice chair. I am proud to serve on this committee, and I feel honored to join in the ranks of its leaders. Today I am glad to join you all in celebrating 150 years of an institution that is at the foundation of the Senate. I look forward to working with my friend Chairman Cochran in continuing the long and bipartisan history of the Appropriations Committee in the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, the Department of Housing and Urban Development plays a vital role ensuring that all Americans have access to safe affordable housing. Affordable housing should not be a political issue; it is a moral issue. Programs like Section 8 and the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, Program keep families in their homes and support and maintain affordable housing. That is not up for debate.

I am disappointed that President Trump did not look to our knowledgeable housing advocates across the country to identify a qualified, experienced nominee to serve as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and instead nominated Dr. Ben Carson to this important position. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr, Carson, like many nominees, said the right things. He made the right promises. I want to believe that he will fulfill those commitments.

Programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development keep shelter over the heads of our Nation's struggling and low-income families. They combat homelessness among adults and children alike by building and maintaining affordable housing and helping families buy their first homes. I am proud of the progress we have made in Vermont and across the Nation through programs implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Deveropment. During his confirmation hearing, Dr. Carson testified to the crucial role of rental assistance programs. He pledged to be an advocate for funding for housing assistance programs. He turned away from his previous call for a 10- percent across-the-board cut to housing programs. I hope that Dr. Carson will fulfill these commitments.

I continue to have concerns regarding Dr. Carson's seeming animosity toward the affirmatively furthering fair housing, AFFH rule, which he called a ``failed socialist experiment'' in an op-ed in the Washington Times. While Dr. Carson tried to minimize those comments in his hearing, I remain concerned that Dr. Carson doesn't understand the AFFH rule. This rule asks cities and towns receiving Federal dollars to look at their housing patterns to identify racial bias and to take action to rectify any bias they find. Dr. Carson has called it social engineering. I call it social justice and support the examination of policies to promote equality and eliminate discrimination. During his confirmation hearing, he pledged to enforce our fair housing laws. I believe this includes upholding the AFFH.

I am concerned that Dr. Carson lacks the necessary experience to successfully serve as our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He will be confirmed, of that there is no doubt. I hope that Dr. Carson will work with both sides of the aisle to further the mission of the Department, strengthen the successful programs that keep families in their homes, build and support and maintain affordable housing in Vermont and across the Nation, and help first-time home buyers realize their homeownership goals.

Mr. President, I will speak briefly, as I know the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska is waiting to speak.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Every day we learn more about the troubling connections between the Russian Government and both President Trump's administration and his campaign, but last night kind of topped everything--a revelation that Attorney General Sessions met with Russian officials during the height of the Presidential campaign, which raises a new level of alarm.

One of the reasons is, we now know the Attorney General, under oath, misled the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to my direct question about his contacts with Russian officials. I asked then-Senator Sessions if he had

been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian Government about the 2016 election. His answer was unequivocal. He said no. He provided a similarly misleading response to Senator Franken, saying that he was ``not aware'' of any connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.

Especially those of us who are lawyers, and who have had a chance to serve as attorney general or as prosecutors in our States, know it is an egregious breach of public trust that Attorney General Sessions has not recused himself from this investigation. I think everybody would agree he has to recuse himself. Of course, as this goes on, the question now arises: Has he perjured himself?

In response to these reports, the Attorney General claims that he ``never met Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.'' That is a wholly inadequate response. The Attorney General was a top adviser to the Trump campaign. He took a private, undisclosed meeting with the Russian Ambassador during the height of concerns about Russian involvement in our election. Think about it. There are reports everywhere about concerns about Russian involvement in the election of the United States, and he has an undisclosed meeting with the Russian Ambassador.

He also met with the Russian Ambassador during an event at the Republican National Convention. One would think, at the Republican National Convention, it is possible that politics might be discussed. Now, if the Attorney General thinks his explanation is sufficient after he misled Congress about these contacts, of course, he is mistaken. I don't say that as a Democrat. I think everybody would agree to that. What I worry about is that the Attorney General is only the latest Trump administration official who has attempted to mask his contacts with the Kremlin.

The President's first National Security Advisor lied to the Vice President about his communications with the Russian Ambassador. He only resigned after the media reported how he had lied to Vice President Pence, and even that was weeks after the President had been informed. He had to leave only when it became public. The President's Chief of Staff attempted to use the FBI--which, of course, would be in violation of Justice Department policies--to suppress news reports about Russian contacts. I have been here through seven previous Presidents-- Republicans and Democrats. You would assume they would play by the rules. This administration seems to want to make up the rules.

My concern is not just what the administration might be doing; my concern is about Russia. We are, I believe strongly, the greatest democracy history has known. We are the longest existing democracy in history, and now we have Russia meddling and trying to undermine our democracy. Every American should worry about that. Every American should be frightened, not just concerned but frightened. It is an attack on our democracy. This is one of the most disturbing national security challenges facing our country. Russian President Putin ordered a multifaceted campaign that was aimed at helping Donald Trump win and undermining public faith in our election. That should alarm and outrage everybody no matter what party one belongs to.

We didn't hear a word about it in the President's speech on Tuesday during the joint session of Congress. In fact, the President's only reaction has been to disparage American investigators, to disparage the intelligence community, to cast journalists who report on this as ``enemies of the American people.'' Journalists are not enemies of the American people. Russia is the enemy of the American people. Putin is the enemy of the American people. Do not cast our journalists, do not cast our investigators, do not cast our intelligence people, do not cast those who dare speak out as being enemies of America. Point to the real enemies--Vladimir Putin and those he controls.

It is about time we take this seriously. I have been here 42 years. I have never seen such a perfidious threat to our democracy than what we are seeing in Vladimir Putin, and my concern is the administration does not call it out for what it is. We Americans deserve to know the facts. We deserve a full and fair investigation. We deserve one that is free from any political influence.

I have repeatedly called on Attorney General Sessions, who was one of President Trump's top advisers during the campaign, to recuse himself and appoint a special counsel to conduct the investigation. Earlier this week, he said: ``I would recuse myself on anything that I should recuse myself on.'' This morning, he said he would recuse himself ``whenever it's appropriate.'' This would be a ludicrous response from a law clerk at the Department of Justice. From the Attorney General, it is dissembling.

Recusal is not optional here. It is required by very clear Justice Department regulations. It is required to maintain at least a semblance of integrity in this investigation. The Attorney General has to recuse himself because, as stated clearly in Department rules, he is obviously ``closely identified'' with the President due to his ``service as a principal adviser.'' That is the rule, and that is the rule whether it is a Republican or a Democratic administration. It describes his relationship with the President.

The investigation has to be led by someone who, in reality and in appearance, is impartial and removed from politics. That does not describe someone who was in the trenches of a political campaign with the subjects of the investigation while they were allegedly engaged in the very activity under investigation. It does not describe somebody who misled Congress--who misled the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee--about his own activities that have been implicated in the investigation.

This is not a close call. We know Russia is doing everything to undermine our democracy. Let's stand up for America. Let's do what is best for our country. The Attorney General should start by stepping aside. Then what we need is an independent investigation, and we need answers.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska for her indulgence.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to explain my opposition to the nominations of Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior and Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy. I have closely reviewed their records, testimony, and responses to questions for the record.

confirmation of ryan zinke

Madam President, the Secretary of the Interior is one of the most important jobs in the Federal Government and has a far reach when it comes to coordinating our Federal policy in the 50 States and U.S. Territories for our public lands, parks, and cherished natural resources. The Secretary and the Department of Interior are tasked with using sound science to manage and sustain America's lands, water, wildlife, and energy resources, while honoring our Nation's vital obligations and responsibilities to tribal nations. The Secretary of Interior also coordinates Federal assistance to the Freely Associated States of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau under the Compacts of Free Association. There are few Cabinet positions with such a wide range of management and organization.

Any nominee for this position should be selected for their commitment to protecting our precious resources, as well as their dedication to uphold and enforce our environmental laws.

After reviewing Mr. Zinke's record, there is little doubt that he is dedicated to public service and that he has a strong connection to the outdoors. However, the Secretary of the Interior has a great responsibility as the leading steward of our majestic public lands, the champion of our great tribal nations, and the manager and defender of our diverse wildlife. I fear that Mr. Zinke may not be fully prepared to set aside some of his personal views on the management of our resources and consider the views of all Americans as we debate critical natural resources issues.

I enjoyed learning that Mr. Zinke is an admirer of President Teddy Roosevelt, a point that has been repeated countless times, and I was pleased that he agrees that, yes, President Roosevelt did get it right when he placed millions of acres of lands under Federal protection. However, I hope that Mr. Zinke will not only study the work that President Roosevelt did to instill a conservation ethic in this country, but will look more broadly at other individuals whose steadfast commitment and dedication to conservation and historic preservation have left their mark in Vermont and across the country.

For instance, Laurance Rockefeller made significant contributions to the American conservation movement that had a lasting impact on the American landscape. The Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in Woodstock, VT, honors not only Rockefeller's dedication to conservation, but is also the first national park to tell the story of conservation history and the evolving nature of land stewardship in America. Conservation of the environment and recreational development was a passion to which he dedicated his life. In addition to his work in Vermont, he was instrumental in the creation and development of the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming and the Virgin Islands National Park on the island of St. John. These three national parks could not be more different, but they are each spectacular pieces of our natural heritage. This heritage that would not exist today and be available for the public to enjoy, had it not been for the vital work of Laurance Rockefeller and the Federal investments that have been made in these important public lands.

I hope Mr. Zinke will also study and hopefully visit the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, which carves its way not only through Vermont, but 13 other States as well. This trail is an amazing footpath for the people that traverses over 2,100 miles through wild forests, towns, valleys, and mountaintops, and connects a myriad of through-hikers and day hikers to our scenic landscape. All of them are able to enjoy the important Federal investments in this trail, which is maintained by the countless hours of work done every year by devoted volunteers like the Green Mountain Club in Vermont.

Work to build and maintain the Appalachian Trail is not static, nor is it complete. There continue to be important investments needed through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to acquire land and conservation easements to safeguard the trail. There is much needed trail maintenance that should be included as part of any infrastructure bill the Senate considers. This work is shovel-ready and will have a considerable impact in supporting our outdoor economy on which Vermont is so dependent.

Mr. Zinke should also seek out expertise and guidance from the past Secretaries of the Interior who have dedicated their lives to this work. I hope he will study the exit memo that Secretary Jewell prepared on the Department's Record of Progress and the moral imperative the Department has to positively impact our American economy, our rural communities and cities, and ultimately, the well-being of our planet.

As Secretary of Interior, Mr. Zinke will oversee a number of ongoing debates concerning our fragile public lands, the protection of endangered species, and how we respond to climate change. I know that there is no single solution that can answer the different land management issues facing each region of our country. Many stakeholders are constantly engaging the Interior Department and the Senate with a wide variety of views on how we should protect, access, and use our natural resources. In Vermont, we are deeply concerned about the pressure being placed on our natural resources from rapid growth and climate change.

I heard from hundreds of Vermonters concerned about Mr. Zinke's nomination and worried that our environmental standards and laws will not be enforced for our lands, air, water, and threatened species under his leadership. His record has shown an opposition to policies that protect valuable rivers and streams from polluting coal runoff and a willingness to weaken historic laws such as President Teddy Roosevelt's Antiquities Act. He even authored a bill that sought to obstruct efforts by the Department of the Interior to review and modernize management of our Federal energy resources and ensure that taxpayers are fairly compensated for their sale. Taxpayers deserve a Secretary of the Interior who will work to support the protection of our shared Federal resources 100 percent of the time, not one who will actively work to weaken or dismantle the powers of protection invested in this Department.

Based on that record, I voted against his nomination. Nonetheless, now that Mr. Zinke is the Secretary, I want him to know that I am committed to working closely with him on a variety of issues that are important to Vermonters and all Americans. I will work with him to foster consensus not only in New England, but throughout the country. As the Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am committed to working with him to ensure that we protect our Federal lands and continue the important conservation ethic of Teddy Roosevelt to permanently protect our beautiful and fragile natural resources, while also addressing new challenges posed by climate change.

Madam President, with respect to the nomination of Rick Perry to be the Secretary of the Department of Energy, hundreds of Vermonters have written to me in opposition. They were concerned that under his leadership we will halt the forward progress we have made towards a responsible energy strategy for the future of our country. Not only did Governor Perry make headlines for famously proposing to abolish the Department of Energy, he lacks a background or any true experience on the complex scientific and technical issues in the Department of Energy's portfolio. This agency must be focused on addressing our energy and environmental challenges through transformative science and technology solutions; yet Mr. Perry expedited the permitting of coal- fired electric generating plants and filed suit challenging

the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases significantly endanger public health. How can we trust him to lead the Energy Department?

I was pleased that, during his confirmation hearing, Governor Perry apologized for suggesting that the entire Department of Energy should be abolished. However, he has yet to say that he will fight to maintain important offices within the Department, such as the Office of Electricity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I find it hard to see how we can pursue an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy called for by the administration if so much of the Department's capabilities are targeted for elimination. By supporting research around wind, solar, and efficiency, offering loan guarantees for innovative demonstration projects, and providing expertise and support to the private sector in commercializing new research we can create American jobs and grow the national economy. Conversely, if we turn our back on the future, we are ceding these important and fast growing fields of research and production of renewable energy technologies to China, the European Union, and other countries at a critical time. That would be a monumental mistake to haunt our economy for many years.

Earlier today, I had the chance to talk to a Vermont company that is closely watching the work of the Energy Dpartment to advance America's clean energy revolution. Northern Power Systems in Barre, VT, has been designing and developing wind turbines for almost 40 years and offers support services for energy generation needs around the world. Last year, they received an award for their increase in exports, but rather than selling to an international market they would rather see their sales here in the U.S. take off so that they can create more American jobs to manufacture American-made wind turbines. Turbines that should be installed here to utilize this reliable, abundant, and free resource to lower energy costs for Americans.

It is troubling that Mr. Perry has taken such an aggressive stance against the Department of Energy and dismissed large parts of its mission. I hope that he will devote himself to learning everything he can about the diverse work of the Department and surround himself with some of the best public servants and technical experts he can find.

The last Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, prepared two documents that I am hopeful Mr. Perry will study closely. First, the Quadrennial Energy Review provides a broad review of federal energy policy in the context of economic, environmental, occupational, security, and health and safety priorities. The Department also prepared an extensive suite of analyses to accompany the Quadrennial Energy Review that I know would serve Mr. Perry well as he tries to understand the wide array of issues that will come before him at the Department.

I would also recommend that he review the exit memo Secretary Moniz prepared, which highlights the responsibilities and opportunities for the Department's enduring service to the Nation as our leading science, technology, and innovation agency. The Department has an extraordinary span of responsibilities from energy and the environment, to cyber security, science and national security, and it must collaborate with other agencies like the Defense Department and our intelligence community.

I remain committed to supporting and protecting the essential mission of the Department of Energy in order to move us forward with 2lst century jobs and make needed investments in our electricity grid, clean energy, and energy efficiency that will save American consumers and businesses money.

Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to the fact that it has now been 1 year since the assassination of Berta Caceres, a renowned indigenous Honduran environmental activist who devoted her life--and ultimately lost her life--defending the land, water, and other natural resources of the Lenca people.

After an initial attempt by the Honduran police and even some high- ranking officials to falsely portray the murder as a crime of passion, which is a not uncommon ploy to cover up official complicity in such cases, eight men have been arrested, including one active-duty and two retired military officers.

Although Honduran officials have denied any government involvement in Ms. Caceres's murder and downplayed the arrest of Major Mariano Diaz who was promptly discharged from the army, there are reasons to be skeptical.

Diaz, a decorated special forces veteran, was appointed chief of army intelligence in 2015, and at the time of the murder he was reportedly on track

for promotion to lieutenant colonel. Another suspect, Lieutenant Douglas Giovanny Bustillo, reportedly joined the military on the same day as Diaz. They served together and apparently remained in contact after Bustillo retired in 2008.

It is particularly noteworthy and troubling that, according to press reports, both Diaz and Bustillo may have received military training from the United States.

A third suspect, Sergeant Henry Javier Hernandez, was a former special forces sniper who had worked under the command of Diaz. He may also have worked as an informant for military intelligence after leaving the army in 2013.

According to press reports, First Sergeant Rodrigo Cruz, a former army officer who deserted after Caceres's death and remains in hiding, said the Honduran military high command gave a hit list with the names and photographs of activists to eliminate to the commander of the Xatruch multiagency taskforce, to which Cruz's unit belonged, and that Caceres's name was on the list. It sounds a lot like the death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s.

Five civilians with no known military record have also been arrested. They include Sergio Rodriguez, a manager for the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam that Berta Caceres had long opposed.

That project is being led by Desarrollos Energeticos SA, Desa, with international financing and the strong backing of the Honduran Government. According to press reports, the company's president, Roberto David Castillo Mejia, is a former military intelligence officer, and its secretary, Roberto Pacheco Reyes, is a former justice minister. Desa employed former Lieutenant Bustillo as head of security between 2013 and 2015.

Ms. Caceres had reported multiple death threats linked to her campaign against the dam, including several from Desa employees. The Honduran Government largely ignored her requests for protection, and Desa continues to deny any involvement in the murder.

It is inconceivable to anyone who knows Honduras that this outrageous crime was carried out by these individuals without orders from above. The question is whether the investigation will identify the intellectual authors, which almost never happens in Honduras. In fact, as Global Witness, the U.S. Department of State, and others have documented, there have been scores of killings of environmental activists in Honduras that have never been credibly investigated and for which no one has been punished.

I have no doubt that one of the reasons this case has progressed at all is because U.S. law enforcement experts, supported by the U.S. Embassy, have assisted in the investigation, and because of the efforts of Honduran Attorney General Oscar Fernando Chincilla.

However, as I have said before, in Honduras where impunity is the norm, a case of such domestic and international importance should also be the subject of a parallel independent investigation. The obvious entities to convene such an inquiry are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, MACCIH; yet the Honduran Government continues to reject such an inquiry.

The United States and Honduras have a troubled history; yet we and the Honduran people share many interests. We want to continue to help Honduras address the deeply rooted poverty, inequality, violence, and impunity that have caused so much suffering and hardship and contributed to the migration of tens of thousands of Hondurans, including children, to the United States.

But for this Senator, that requires solving the Berta Caceres case and undertaking credible investigations and prosecutions of the shocking number of assassinations of other social activists, journalists, and human rights defenders in recent years. It means Honduran officials publicly affirming and defending the legitimate role of such activists, who in the past have been ignored, threatened, and treated as legitimate targets. Only then will it be clear that the Honduran Government is committed to justice and that our assistance will achieve lasting results.

The Department of State needs to thoroughly and transparently investigate whether Major Diaz and Lieutenant Bustillo were in fact trained by the United States. If so, the Congress and the Honduran people deserve to know how they were selected, what training they received, and any steps taken to improve the process of screening potential trainees and to monitor the conduct of those who have received U.S. training.

Finally, as I have said before, as long as the Agua Zarca project and others like it continue over the objections of indigenous people whose livelihoods and cultures are intrinsically linked to the rivers that are impacted, the confrontations and violence will continue. The Honduran Government, like other governments in that region, needs to change its way of doing business in areas where the rights and interests of indigenous people have long been violated and ignored.

Given the shameful history of the Agua Zarca project it should be cancelled. Other hydroelectric and extractive projects in indigenous territories should be reconsidered by the Honduran Government and allowed to proceed only after a transparent process based on the free, prior, informed consent of affected communities.

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

Madam President, I have been concerned. As I read the press and talk with officials, I learn more about the troubling connections between the Russian Government and President Trump's campaign and administration.

We already knew--it is very, very factual--that Russian President Putin ordered a multifaceted campaign to undermine public faith in our election and to help President Trump win in November. That is something all of us as Americans should be concerned about. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, when you have that kind of an attack on our democracy, it is a concern to all of us.

Reports indicate that Trump officials were in repeated contact with senior Russian intelligence officials during this time. This comes on the heels of the President's National Security Advisor having to resign after providing misleading details on conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador concerning U.S. sanctions. But there is a lot we still don't know, including the extent of the contacts, who directed them, whether people who at one point or another left the Trump campaign were involved, whether there was collusion, and, of course, the obvious question: What did the President know and when he did he know it?

The American people deserve to know the facts. They deserve a full and fair investigation that is free from any political influence. The White House has already demonstrated it is not going to respect the independence of this investigation. The fact that the White House Chief of Staff attempted to use the FBI--in violation of Justice Department policies--to suppress news reports about Russian contacts reveals why we really can't trust the White House to play by the rules. And, of course, the rules are very, very clear.

For these reasons, I am calling on Attorney General Sessions to step aside on this issue and to appoint a special counsel to conduct an independent investigation. That is not an attack on Attorney General Sessions. I have known him for 30 years. I just want to make sure we do not have these continuing questions about what the President knew and when he knew it.

Even a cursory review of the Justice Department's recusal standards reveals that the Attorney General does not--indeed, cannot--have the independence necessary to assure wary Americans that this investigation will be driven by the facts, not by relationships. Certainly those who have served as prosecutors--Attorney General Sessions has; I have--know that there are times when the prosecutor has to step aside and let someone else do it just so that everybody can be confident in the investigation.

In fact, Justice Department regulations mandate that ``no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with . . . [a]ny person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.'' Of course, a ``political relationship'' is defined as ``a close identification with an elected official . . . arising from service as a principal adviser thereto.'' Prior to his confirmation, when we were holding the confirmation hearings on then- Senator Jeff Sessions, I asked him whether he met the standard. It is not really a close call. The rule perfectly describes the relationship between Attorney General Sessions and President Trump. But he brushed the question off, claiming that he was ``merely . . . a supporter of the President's during the campaign.''

Well, that is an obvious mischaracterization of the role he played as a top adviser to the Trump campaign. Attorney General--then-Senator-- Sessions was widely recognized as a central figure in the campaign. He had his fingerprints all over the President's policies. In fact, one of the President's top advisers, Steve Bannon, even called him the President's ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy.'' That is a pretty close connection. I could hardly think of anything closer. To suggest the Attorney General was just ``a supporter'' and that he did not have a ``political relationship'' with the Trump campaign, when you look at the Bannon comments, that is patently false.

If the Attorney General refuses to follow the Department's recusal standard--now as the head of the Department, well, then, I would hope he would follow his own recusal standards. Last year, just days before the election, then-Senator Sessions and other Trump campaign surrogates wrote an op-ed. He criticized then-Attorney General Lynch for not recusing herself from matters involving Secretary Clinton. The basis of his complaint was a ``39-minute conversation''--to use his words--that Attorney General Lynch had with former President Bill Clinton in Phoenix, AZ. I would hope he would set the same standard for himself that he sets for others because it is kind of hard to talk about a half-hour conversation and say that requires recusal when it comes to the Clintons, but a year's worth of vigorously campaigning with and vigorously advising does not when it comes to the Trump campaign. A year working on the Trump campaign doesn't count, but 39 minutes talking to former President Clinton does? Come on. If that is the standard for recusal in one case--I won't do the math on how many times 39 minutes goes into a year, but I would say, using Jeff Sessions' own standards, he has far, far, far more reason to recuse himself in this matter.

During the 20 years I have worked with him, Jeff Sessions has often spoken of his commitment to the rule of law. I know he feels strongly about

that, just as I do. As Senators, every one of us should. Certainly every one of us who has had the privilege to be a prosecutor should have a commitment to the rule of law. Well, Attorney General Sessions' commitment is now being tested.

Whether we apply the Justice Department's recusal standard, which is very, very clear, or use the Jeff Sessions' 39-minute recusal standard, it is clear that Attorney General Sessions must step aside. In fact, nothing less than the integrity of our democracy is at stake with this investigation. And I do not say that lightly. Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy is at stake with this investigation. What did everybody know? When did they know it?

It is essential that the investigation be led by someone who--in both appearance and in reality--is impartial and removed from politics. That does not describe someone who was in the trenches of a political campaign with the subjects of the investigation while they were allegedly engaged in the activity under investigation, or somebody who has been described by Steve Bannon as a ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy'' for President Trump.

For the good of the country, for the good of all of us--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--the Attorney General really has just one thing to do: Appoint a special counsel and let the public have the answers. What did everybody know? When did they know it? It is pretty simple. The people of Vermont, and I suspect throughout the country, would like to have those answers that go to the bedrock of our democracy.

In my 42 years here, I have never seen anything that has concerned me so much as another country that does not have the best interests of the United States at heart trying to interfere in our election, another country trying to determine what the United States does. This is a country that does not have the United States' best interests at heart but a country that wants to manipulate the United States. This U.S. Senator, for the time I have in office, will continue to speak out against it.

Yes, of course, I will yield to the distinguished Senator.

Madam President, if I might respond to my good friend and senior Senator from Illinois, he has been a friend and colleague for decades. The Judiciary Committee and the whole Senate has benefited from his knowledge.

What the leader of Poland said to the distinguished Senator is a very chilling thing, Madam President. He knows from his own family ancestors how bad an area can be if it is under the domination of something like the then-Soviet Union and now Russia. He also knows from his own experience as an American how important it is that we have the freedoms we have.

I was privileged, along with my wife Marcelle and several others-- Senator Cochran, Senator Udall, and Senator Bennet and Congressman McGovern--to visit Cuba and have long discussions with people who would like to see real democracy come, and then to go to Colombia where they have fought for over 50 years a terrible internal civil war with countless deaths and atrocities and to see how they were trying to bring back the rule of law and the rule of democracy. And we just sit there, and it is so easy for us who grew up in an era in which we believe in our democracy and we believe in our voices being heard, where sometimes we win elections and sometimes we lose them, but we believe in the fairness of it. It is so easy to sit there and think: But we do it right.

This makes me wonder. Can we continue to say that? Can we be the beacon to the rest of the world? Can we say: Do as the United States does because we are open, we are transparent, we are honest.

Well, this has not been open, transparent, or honest. Let's make it so. Let's not let it drag on. Let's go to it now so people can then start debating issues. I expect there will be areas where I will agree with the new administration and there are areas where I disagree with the new administration. But I want to know I am agreeing and disagreeing with an American administration, not with Vladimir Putin's administration.

So I am moved by what my friend from Illinois has said. I hope the rest of the country listens because we are supposed to be the example. We pride ourselves on being the example. We are the oldest existing democracy in the world. Let's not do anything that will come back to haunt us.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.