Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in less than an hour, we will consider the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

We consider his nomination under highly unusual, if not unique, circumstances. Only today, there were revelations from the House Oversight Committee at a bipartisan conference indicating that General Flynn, formerly the National Security Advisor, may have broken criminal laws by his concealing payments from Russia--specifically, from Russia Today--in connection with his speaking fees and travel expenses in 2015. He concealed these payments in security clearance forms submitted in 2016, SF86 forms. False statements on such forms are a violation of our criminal laws. His potential criminal liability is a serious and important allegation that needs to be investigated further.

What we know for sure is that the investigation of this allegation and others--this very colorful violation of Federal criminal law--can be done reliably, impartially, and credibly only by a special prosecutor. That is why I have asked Mr. Rosenstein to commit that he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this allegation as well as others involving the President's staff, campaign associates, and staff in connection with Russia's interference with our election.

There is no question that the Russians sought to interfere and that they did so. That is the conclusion of the investigation that was already done by our intelligence community, and it is a conclusion that is virtually universally accepted. The only question now is this: What was the involvement and potential collusion and aiding and abetting of Americans in that Russian cyber attack on this country? In my view, it was an act of war. We can debate that question.

What is undebatable is the need for a thorough, impartial, vigorous, and aggressive investigation that will give that information to the American people. It must be an investigation that can pursue criminal wrongdoing, if it is proved, and that can prosecute it and ultimately make that investigation transparent to the American people so they know what actually happened.

I have asked Rod Rosenstein to follow the precedent that was established by Elliot Richardson under circumstances that were not unlike the ones we encountered here.

The saying is that history almost never repeats, but it rhymes. What we have here is a situation that rhymes with the one that Elliot Richardson encountered when he was Attorney General-designee. He was requested to appoint a special prosecutor as a condition of his confirmation. He agreed to do so in 1973. He appointed Archibald Cox. That, in turn, led to the Watergate investigation and, ultimately, it vindicated the judgment on the part of our Senate Judiciary Committee that an independent special prosecutor was necessary under those circumstances.

My colleague who is presiding, as a former State attorney general, knows well the importance of independence and credibility in any judicial role of this kind. This Nation now faces a looming constitutional crisis--again, not unlike Watergate, which ultimately resulted in United States v. Nixon before the U.S. Supreme Court, a subpoena that had to be enforced by that special prosecutor against the President of the United States.

Only Rod Rosenstein can vindicate that important public interest. Only the Deputy Attorney General of the United States can appoint a special prosecutor because the Attorney General rightly has recused himself. Jeff Sessions has recused himself because of his own conversations with Russian officials, which he failed to disclose during testimony to the Judiciary Committee.

Only the Deputy Attorney General can perform that vital function, and only a special prosecutor can do what is necessary to vindicate the public interest through a vigorous investigation into any criminal wrongdoing and to prosecute lawbreakers.

I have confidence that our Intelligence Committee in the Senate will impartially and objectively do whatever it can to uncover the truth. But even if it succeeds--and there are obstacles and challenges to its success--it cannot pursue a criminal investigation,

and it cannot bring criminal charges and pursue a conviction. It probably cannot make fully transparent or disclose all of the facts that it uncovers. Its custom is to issue a report and, when it does so, redacting information that can be considered classified or sensitive. It may well lead, in an abundance of caution, toward redacting rather than disclosing.

That is why I have asked Rod Rosenstein, as a condition of his becoming Deputy Attorney General, to commit that he will appoint a special independent prosecutor. Call that office whatever you wish-- special counsel, independent counsel, special prosecutor. The role is what is significant. It is someone who will uncover the wrongdoing and follow the evidence and the facts wherever they lead.

Neither Mr. Rosenstein nor Mr. Sessions can do so. Neither Rosenstein nor Sessions will ever convince the public that they are really pursuing their boss, the President of the United States, if there is evidence that leads to his culpability. They report to him. Rod Rosenstein reports to Jeff Sessions, and he, in turn, reports to the President of the United States. That is why the appearance and the reality of independence is so critically important, and that is why only a special prosecutor can pursue that interest.

If we were in normal times, Rod Rosenstein would be an eminently acceptable nominee, and I would welcome his nomination without attaching any kind of request or condition. He is certainly an honorable public servant. He is a career prosecutor. I admire his dedication and commitment to public service. As U.S. attorney for Maryland, he certainly has an admirable record. He is, in some senses, what we value in the Department of Justice--someone who is committed to the rule of law. That is why I have been surprised and disappointed that he has failed to heed my request.

Whatever happens today, I want to ensure my colleagues and, most especially, him and the loyal and dedicated members of the Department of Justice that I will support his work in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General, if he is confirmed today, because the professionalism of the Department of Justice is of preeminent interest for me personally, having served as a U.S. attorney and also as attorney general of my State, but it is also vitally important to the American people.

We must consider his nomination in the light of the looming constitutional crisis that our Nation confronts. It is a crisis partly of the administration's making by its attacks on the judiciary, calling a member of the bench a ``so-called judge,'' saying to the American people that a circuit court of appeals will be responsible for any violence that may occur as a result of its ruling on the constitutionality of Executive orders related to immigration, demeaning and disparaging a judge because of his ethnic heritage--a judge born, in fact, in Indiana.

These kinds of attacks on the judiciary undermine respect and trust in a branch of government that is the bulwark of our democracy and that, in my view, when the history of this era is written, will be regarded as having been one of its finest hours. We will be relying on it to protect our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. The independence of the judiciary is a sacred pillar of our democracy, and it must be free of political interference.

The other hero of this era, in my view, will be the press, which has uncovered many of the facts leading to my conclusion, joined by so many of my colleagues, that there must be a special prosecutor. That conclusion is not mine alone. It has been joined by many of my colleagues, 10 of them having cosigned a letter I wrote in mid-February asking for a special prosecutor.

The independence of our judiciary and of our prosecutors is so critically important for the trust and credibility of the American people that the rule of law will prevail and that no official will put himself above the rule of law. That is the threat and the constitutional crisis that we potentially face.

Two high-ranking administration officials have been caught misrepresenting their ties with Russia. One of them is, in fact, the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who did so before the Judiciary Committee, under oath.

Mr. Rosenstein has said that he wants to be approved by the Senate before he decides whether to appoint a special prosecutor, but that delay will mean that a man who was hired and can be fired by President Trump will decide whether the Trump administration will face a thorough and complete investigation. This body has a duty to insist on it before his confirmation. We must seize this opportunity to assure accountability to the American people and make sure also about their confidence in our electoral system. While Mr. Rosenstein has claimed he needs to be in office to familiarize himself with the facts of an investigation into the Trump administration before he can commit to appointing a special prosecutor, the row of facts are all a matter of public record now.

We know Russia interfered in the 2016 election. We know the FBI is investigating Trump administration lawbreaking associated with that interference. That investigation has been confirmed by the Director of the FBI himself. We know Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with officials of Russia's Government, and yet he said under oath that he did not meet with those Russians. That is more than ample information to justify appointing a special prosecutor, but there is much more, including actions by Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. These kinds of abundant facts are known now and warrant this action and also more than justify this body insisting that he commit to appointing that special prosecutor.

That public information concerning known associates of the President and their Russian contacts includes General Flynn's actions disclosed today. On December 10, 2015, General Flynn was paid to attend an event in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia Today, a propaganda arm of the Russian Government. He concealed the amount Russia Today paid him for speaking fees and travel expenses in those security clearance forms he submitted in 2016, the SF86. He dined with Vladimir Putin just 18 months after leaving his position leading the Defense Intelligence Agency. As a retired general, he is prohibited from receipt of consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honorary or any other kind of salary from a foreign government without congressional consent. That action also is a potentially prosecutable action.

After the election, General Flynn spoke repeatedly to Russian Ambassador Kislyak regarding lifting sanctions on Putin, an amazing act of disloyalty. Misleading Vice President Pence and the American public on the nature of these secret discussions, he demonstrated a lack of candor and credibility inconsistent with the role of National Security Advisor, and therefore he was compelled to resign.

The President also selected Carter Page to serve during the campaign on his foreign policy advisory committee. He is the same individual we have learned who was under investigation for his contacts with Russian agents.

The President's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked for years on a disinformation campaign to benefit the Putin government and was paid millions of dollars to do so. The President's son-in-law Jared Kushner held an undisclosed meeting with both the Russian Ambassador and also executives from a Russian bank, EDB, a bank built by Putin's cronies. The President himself has sold real estate to Russian investors seeking to profit from their corrupt activities in Russia or, as his son, Donald Trump, put it, ``We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.''

The administration's supposed attempts to investigate itself have produced mixed signals and clear conflicts of interest such as House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes's ill-fated trip to the White House to discuss his committee findings.

The robust congressional oversight hearings that we all hope will happen are certainly essential, but only the Department of Justice can analyze these facts and information which are only the tip of the iceberg--analyze it, digest it, determine its relevance to a criminal investigation and to a prosecution, pursuit of a violation of law and charges. The FBI can investigate, but it cannot bring charges. Only a lawyer from the Department of Justice can do so, and only a special prosecutor can make that judgment independently and impartially without having to

worry about what his boss thinks or what his boss's boss thinks.

So I have reached the conclusion reluctantly--because Rod Rosenstein has a very admirable record of public service--that I must vote against his nomination in just a short time because of his failure to commit to a special prosecutor. I have no illusions about convincing my colleagues about joining me to vote on cloture with a degree of realism about the views of this body on his nomination, but I hope he will heed the example of Mr. Richardson in 1973 and also of Jim Comey, who at one point also resorted to a special prosecutor to investigate a controversial matter that arose during President George Bush's administration.

There is clear, unmistakable, bipartisan precedent for a special prosecutor under these circumstances. There is not only precedent, there is historical imperative. At the root of this constitutional crisis is a concern for the rule of law, for preserving the public's faith and trust and respect for our justice system. It is at the foundation of what we do when we vote. When we make laws, we presume they will be rigorously and fairly enforced without fear or favor, and that no official, not even the President of the United States, will be placed above the law. That is the lesson of Watergate, but it is also the lesson established throughout our history, going back to the Founders and the preeminent role played by our U.S. Supreme Court.

I will support Mr. Rosenstein in his efforts to pursue the truth and pursue justice, as I believe he must do, and I hope he will do because the credibility the of the Department of Justice and our justice system is so much at stake.

I urge my colleagues to vote against his nomination, as I will do, but I also pledge my support for him and the loyal, dedicated, hardworking members of the Department of Justice if he is confirmed.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday was Sunday, April 23.

In Connecticut, April 23 is a solemn day. It is the day when we pause to remember and reflect upon the lives lost and the lives forever altered by one of the worst workplace disasters in Connecticut history, the collapse of the L'Ambiance Plaza construction site in Bridgeport.

On almost every April 23, I have stood with laborers, families, officials, and others at the L'Ambiance memorial park to recognize the heartbreaking loss. It is a somber, sobering moment.

On that day--30 years ago yesterday--workers were constructing a 16- story apartment building using a process known as the lift-slab method. This method allows floors to be built at the base of a building and then hoisted up, one by one, using hydraulic lifting technology. This process was at work at L'Ambiance Plaza when things went horribly wrong. Due to shortsightedness and failures by the building's developers, the massive concrete slabs that formed several upper floors gave way, crushing the floors below like pancakes, all within seconds.

Twenty-eight workers lost their lives. Nearly 2 dozen others were seriously injured. Those who survived the collapse demonstrated tremendous bravery and unity in the days afterward as a massive rescue and recovery operation ensued. The techniques deployed in that operation were later put to use at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, the lift-slab method of construction used in Bridgeport ended nationwide, thankfully. Still, however, the pain and grief continues for the families who lost loved ones.

Today, in recognition of this grave anniversary and in memory of the victims, I enter into the Record their names: Michael Addona, Augustus Allman, Glenn Canning, Mario Colello, Francesco D'Addona, William Daddona, Donald Emanuel, Vincent Figliomeni, Herbert Goeldner, Jr., Terrance Gruber, John Hughes, Joseph Lowe, John Magnoli, Rocco Mancini, Richard McGill, Mario Musso, Nicholas Nardella, John Page, Guiseppe Paternostro, Angelantonio Perugini, John Puskar, Jr., Anthony Rinaldi, Albert Ritz, Michael Russillo, Reginald Siewert, William Varga, Frank Visconti, and Scott Ward.

We must honor their lives--and the lives of many other American workers killed or injured in the workplace--by ensuring that employees are able to work at facilities that are safe and secure, free from needless dangers and hazards. We can achieve that realistic goal through strong regulations, meaningful oversight, and effective enforcement.

On this day, I pledge to continue fighting for workers and workplace safety. I pledge to fight against efforts to roll back safety rules and against efforts to hamper agencies tasked with enforcing those rules.

I strongly urge and challenge my colleagues and this administration to demonstrate their concern for their constituents and all American workers by publicly adopting this same pledge.

We owe nothing less to the 28 victims of the L'Ambiance Plaza disaster.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, we will vote today and tomorrow on the Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, in the midst of a looming constitutional crisis. Only in the past few weeks, the Director of the FBI has confirmed that his agency is investigating ties between President Trump's associates and Russian meddling in our recent election.

The urgent need for an impartial investigation and the possibility of the Supreme Court's having to rule on a subpoena directed to the President of the United States is very real. The repeat of United States v. Nixon is far from idle speculation. The independence of our judicial branch has never been more important. It has never been more threatened.

When the story of this constitutional crisis is written, I believe that the heroes will be an independent judiciary and a free press. An independent judiciary is the bulwark against overreaching and autocratic tyranny, and the free press has uncovered much of the facts that have prompted the FBI investigation and, I hope, eventually-- sooner rather than later--an independent prosecutor because only a special prosecutor can bring criminal charges that will hold accountable wrongdoers who have broken our criminal laws.

In this constitutional crisis, respect for an independent judiciary is more important than ever before, but it is threatened by forces that are powerful and undeniable. It was threatened first by the denial to Merrick Garland of a hearing and a vote, relying on an invented principle found nowhere in the Constitution that the President of the United States--then Barack Obama--somehow lost his power to appoint Justices during the fourth year of his term. That act of political expediency demeaned this institution, the U.S. Senate, and it also disrespected our judiciary. It dragged the Supreme Court into the partisan mire that has caused such drastic dysfunction in this branch of government.

President Trump demonstrated his own disrespect for the judiciary through his constant, repeated, relentless attacks, calling one member of the bench a ``so-called judge'' simply because he ruled against him and struck down on constitutional grounds President Trump's illegal travel ban--really a Muslim ban. His demeaning and disparaging comments have attempted to shake the foundation of respect for judicial rulings that have held him accountable and potentially every President accountable to the American people, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives. He has attempted to convince his audience that judges who rule against him are not only wrong but illegitimate--in one case, because of a judge's ethnic heritage.

I would have thought that there would have been bipartisan shock and outrage at such suggestions, but the silence across the aisle has been deafening. Such a campaign by the Executive against the judicial branch would be extraordinarily disturbing regardless of the circumstances but particularly so now in the midst of this constitutional challenge.

President Trump's disrespect for the judiciary was emphasized, as well, by how he selected his nominee for the Court and how he established a litmus test for that nominee. He proudly proclaimed that litmus test, declaring on multiple occasions that his nominee would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and strike down gun violence prevention measures. He outsourced that selection process to extreme rightwing groups, like the Heritage Foundation, choosing from their list, from their preapproved selectees. Against this backdrop, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

I want to make clear that despite my outrage about what happened to Merrick Garland, which was far worse than a filibuster--one of my colleagues has termed it the ``filibuster of all filibusters''--and despite my deep concern over a nomination from a President who so disrespects the judicial branch, I was prepared to give Judge Gorsuch a fair hearing. I believe my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and I provided that hearing, and we will provide a vote.

I strongly believe that during this process, Judge Gorsuch had a special obligation to be forthcoming. I want to be clear that that is not opining on cases or controversies that may come before him or issues that may be before his Court if he is confirmed. Unlike prior nominees, he absolutely refused to say whether he agreed with core principles and precedents, well-established and long-accepted decisions of the Supreme Court that embody and enshrine principles that the American people have accepted and that they expect the Supreme Court to implement.

There is no tradition of a Supreme Court nominee's refusing to answer every question posed to him as Neil Gorsuch did, even questions about iconic cases. Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts answered unambiguously that they believed that Brown v. Board of Education was rightly decided. Justice Roberts also said of the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut: ``I agree with the Griswold Court's conclusion.'' On the related case of Eisenstadt v. Baird, Justice Alito said: ``I do agree with the result in Eisenstadt.'' Such statements do not prejudice any litigants or prejudge any cases; instead, they provided Senators and, more importantly, the American people with the confidence that these Justices adhere to long-settled legal principles that have formed the basis of critically important cases that came afterward. How far these principles may extend is a live issue, but their underlying legitimacy is not and should not be.

Unfortunately, at his hearing, Judge Gorsuch would tell us only that Griswold and Eisenstadt were precedents--or decisions--of the Court, and he doubled down on his evasiveness in response to written questions that were submitted just last week. There was no reason for him to diverge from the kinds of answers that were provided by Justice Roberts and Justice Alito unless he, unlike them, disagreed with the reasoning that was used in these cases.

These cases go to the core of the right to privacy and equal treatment under the rule of law. The constitutional right to privacy underlies not

just the rights of couples to use contraception, which was the issue in Griswold and Eisenstadt, but the right of women to control their own bodies, as established in Roe v. Wade, and couples of different races to marry, as established in Loving v. Virginia, or the right of same- sex couples to equal treatment, as established in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. Justice Brandeis, in one of the original privacy decisions, called this right to privacy ``the right to be left alone,'' and it is a core constitutional principle that Chief Justice Roberts endorsed as well.

If Judge Gorsuch does not believe in this fundamental right or equal protection under the rule of law, the American people deserve to know it. Unfortunately, his continued evasion of my questions and those of others tells a different story. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that Judge Gorsuch passed the Trump litmus test--an automatically anti-choice, pro-gun conservative and an acolyte of hard- right special interests who screened and selected his name. Yet I am equally and maybe more concerned by Judge Gorsuch's approach to cases dealing with worker safety and consumer rights, issues relating to clean air and water and the fundamental role of the public sector in protecting individuals and putting their rights above corporate interests.

The important concerns my colleagues and I have raised have been caricatured by some Senate Republicans to a belief that judges should always rule for sympathetic plaintiffs, and that is simply not so. The TransAm Trucking case, which has been discussed at length on the floor and in committee, is of concern not because of the individual but because of the reasoning he used. He relied on a handpicked dictionary definition to rule against a worker who left his truck as he was under threat of grave physical peril and perhaps death, and he distorted the meaning of the statute, leaving aside basic common sense and feeling. He called Congress's declared statutory purpose--protecting health and safety--too ``ephemeral and generic'' to provide an interpretive guide. That is how he characterized our purpose here in protecting the safety of workers. This approach shows that Judge Gorsuch looks for guidance not in the words that Congress has chosen but in his own dictionary. And it may not even be Webster's; it may be the dictionary that is in his head or is in the heads of the rightwing groups who screened and proposed his name.

Then there is Judge Gorsuch's open hostility to the Chevron doctrine, which is a term that was likely meaningless and incomprehensible to most Americans before these proceedings and may be again after we are done. Yet it is a profoundly important principle of law that essentially stands against judicial activism--the very defect that many of our Republican colleagues believe is too characteristic of the courts today.

The structure of our government depends on the flexibility of these agencies that protect the purity of our drinking water, the safety of workers on construction sites, the integrity of our financial markets, and much, much more, so that it may do its job and enforce rules and laws that provide not only protection for ordinary people, everyday Americans, but also a level playing field for the good guys who want to do the right thing, and they are the majority of businesses in this country.

The proposed abandoning of the Chevron doctrine that Judge Gorsuch supports would eviscerate the enforcement of these basic rules that protect workers and consumers--people who drink water in their homes and breathe the air and go to work every day and expect to come home safely, as well as people who invest their money in a way that is protected against fraud.

As Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner wrote this Sunday in the New York Times:

Judge Gorsuch is skeptical that Congress can use broadly

written laws to delegate authority to agencies in the first

place. That can only mean that at least portions of such

statutes--the source of so many regulations that safeguard

Americans' welfare--must be sent back to Congress, to redo or

not.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

His philosophy represents the height of activism, because it would allow courts to substitute their policy judgments for agency expertise. Abandoning the Chevron doctrine and the principles it represents invokes a desire to destroy a broad array of rules that protect critical rights. One such rule was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the aftermath of a Connecticut tragedy at L'Ambiance Plaza decades ago when a collapse killed 28 workers in Bridgeport, CT. The rule prohibiting the use of the lift slab construction technique that led to L'Ambiance's collapse has now saved the lives of others. But would it have survived a review by Judge Gorsuch? My fear is that he would have struck it down and substituted the activist instinct of a judge instead--protecting the corporations that might use it.

Today we still know very little about Judge Gorsuch's core beliefs because he evaded so many questions. But here is what we do know. We know that the man who hired him has said he passes his rightwing litmus test. We know that conservative organizations have spent millions of dollars on the prospect that he will move American law dramatically to the right. And we know that he will not answer questions that his Republican-appointed predecessors answered about core tenets of American jurisprudence. In short, he has left us with substantial doubt.

Let me conclude on this note--that doubt. Important and critical doubt that should preclude us from confirming him today leaves women wondering how long they will have autonomy over their healthcare decisions, same-sex couples questioning whether they might be denied the right to marry the person they love, workers and consumers doubting their rights, and Americans fearing the Court will abandon protections of privacy, equality, and the rule of law.

That is why I cannot support this nomination and why I urge my colleagues to support a filibuster to block it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we finished the vote just hours ago, I could not help but notice a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle high-fiving each other. That image stays with me as I stand here now. It saddens me. There is no cause for celebration in what happened in the Senate just hours ago. No one should sleep well tonight. No one should underestimate the magnitude of what happened here. Damage was done to our democracy, in fact, to the institutions that are the pillars of our democracy--the United States Supreme Court and the Senate itself.

Today is, indeed, one of my saddest days in the Senate. Sadder than anything is the damage that has been caused to the Supreme Court by eroding and undermining trust and respect for an institution that has power only because of its credibility with the American people. It has no armies or police force; all it really has is the confidence and respect of the American people.

Today, raw political power has been exercised to break the rules and norms of this body so that a nominee could be confirmed. The only way that he could be confirmed was, in fact, to wreck the rules, a nuclear option that will have enduring fallout and rippling repercussions, perhaps for years come.

For myself, I would state unequivocally that I hope we will work together on issues where we have common ground, where we can reach common solutions on infrastructure, on tax reform, on immigration issues.

No one should make light of the potential fallout, as there is in any nuclear explosion, from this action today.

The Senate has broken with decades of bipartisan practice when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The practice and the tradition was that Presidents of either party would consult with Members of both parties in this body before making a nomination so as to ensure a mainstream nominee, and that nominee would be in the mainstream even before his or her selection so that there was some modicum of comity and so that respect for this body, as well as the courts, would be preserved.

My concern is that the contagion of partisanship will infect the court system as a whole. All of the nominations to lower courts, as well as the appellate courts, will be affected.

My hope is that we can avoid that truly cataclysmic outcome, a nuclear explosion, in some ways even more deafening and damaging than the one used today would be because our courts are the bulwark of our democracy. An attack on our courts is an attack on the only check we have against tyranny and autocratic erosion of those rights. That is why the nonpartisanship of our courts is so important.

The Supreme Court, of all our courts, should be above politics. In fact, that is why the 60-vote rule for the Supreme Court was so important. The Supreme Court is different: nine Justices appointed for life to the highest Court in

the land. In some ways, it is an anachronism in our democracy-- unaccountable, unelected, sitting for life with the power to strike down actions of elected representatives and an elected Executive by issuing words on paper without the direct means to enforce them, depending only on respect and credibility from the American people. To approve nominees by a razor-thin majority is a disservice to the Court and to our democracy.

Supreme Court Justices do more than just follow the law; they have to resolve conflicts in the law and differences among the lower courts where they disagreed and, in fact, ambiguities in the statute, where there is lack of clarity, where this body is unable to reach consensus and, in effect, decides to agree, to the extent it can, and leave some question to administrative agencies, which rightly are entitled to respect, as they implement the law.

Confidence and trust are essential, and we have undermined it today. Our Republican colleagues have gravely damaged it by the actions taken today.

I have urged my colleagues to reject Neil Gorsuch because I believe he is out of the mainstream, because he failed to answer questions about whether he agreed with established core precedents essential to rights of privacy and equality under the law, because he has a judicial philosophy that would involve substituting judgments of courts for administrative agencies and banning the Chevron doctrine, and because he favored in many of his actions, opinions, writings the interests of corporations over individual rights.

We have debated the merits of this nominee. I believe that his repeated evasion of the questions that were put to him leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that he passed the Trump test; that he is not a neutral caller of balls and strikes; that he is, in fact, an acolyte of the of the rightwing groups that screened and suggested his name; and that he would carry out not only the Trump litmus test to overrule Roe v. Wade, strike down gun violence provisions, but also other unknown decisions that would implement that far-right conservative agenda. We can debate whether that view is right or wrong.

Today is one of my saddest days in the Senate. It goes more to the institutions that have been demeaned and degraded: the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court. My hope is that maybe it will be a turning point. Maybe we can reconstruct the sense of bipartisanship and comity that existed for so many years. Many of my colleagues on the other side have expressed to me their misgivings about what was done today.

The obstruction of Merrick Garland's nomination was, as one of my colleagues put it, ``the filibuster of all filibusters.'' It was another step in a continuing progression, culminating in today's outcome that very much betrays the spirit and values of a bipartisan selection of Supreme Court nominees because the highest Court in the land is different.

I had the extraordinary honor to clerk for a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Harry Blackmun, who was appointed by a Republican, President Richard Nixon. He grew as a Justice and surprised a lot of people. He, no doubt, surprised the President who appointed him. And that is what happens to really extraordinary men and women who serve on our courts as well as in the U.S. Senate; they grow in the job.

Choosing a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is one of the most solemn and important duties that a President has, and confirming her or him is one of the most important tasks we have in this body.

Even at the most difficult and contentious times, as I served then as a law clerk and as I have litigated since then for several decades, I have never doubted that judges were working in good faith to uphold the rule of law. Whether they ruled my way or not, I believed that we were working to try to be above partisan politics and uphold the rule of law and do the right thing to follow the law.

The Supreme Court does more than follow; it leads. Today's vote is a significant challenge to that principle and perhaps the most difficult that we have seen in recent history. It threatens to exact profound damage on the confidence and trust the American people have in the Supreme Court and perhaps in the courts overall, and that is a danger for all of us.

In my view, when the history of this time is written, there will be two heroes: the free press that has uncovered abuses and wrongdoing despite opposition from many powerful forces, and our independent judiciary that has upheld their right to do it and, also, the rights of countless Americans in many areas of law.

Today's action threatens those two institutions in our society. It undermines our rules. It would not have happened without a choice made by the Republican leadership that they were willing to break the rules to achieve this result.

I am determined to try to move forward in a positive way, in legislation as well as in protecting and enhancing our courts, giving them the resources they need to do their job--and law enforcement, the resources needed to uphold the rule of law.

We cannot hold the Supreme Court hostage to any ideology, and that is a lesson from today and from the past year that we should all heed.

Mr. President, I will continue to talk about this topic because I believe it is so profoundly important to our Nation, but for now, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in a near empty Chamber. Indeed, there is no Republican colleague here today. Our Republican colleagues have yielded back all their time on this resolution, and the reason they have yielded back all their time is that they apparently have no interest in appearing here and talking about a resolution of disapproval of a rule that is vital to ensuring that women have access to the family planning provider of their choice. It is really that simple.

Defending Planned Parenthood is what we have done on this side. Defunding Planned Parenthood has been the interest on the other side of the aisle.

They have also taken an inordinate interest in reinstating gender ratings in health insurance and are now damaging title X networks through this resolution. They have demonstrated an unmitigated desire to cut women's access to healthcare in order, apparently, to win political points. But their actions today show that the politics of this issue and, most importantly, the people of America are not on their side.

Title X is a critical program delivering important family planning and preventive health services in underserved areas of our great Nation. In 2015 alone, title X programs provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services. We are talking about Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, and HIV testing for more than 4 million low- income women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers across the country. For 40 percent of women, their visit to a family planning health center is the only healthcare they receive annually. Think of that number for a moment. Forty percent of those women have no access elsewhere except at these healthcare centers.

By overriding this regulation, Republicans will allow States and title X grantees to pick and choose who provides these services based on arbitrary criteria that have nothing to do with the quality of services patients will receive. It is no wonder that none of them is here to talk about it. Now, if they were here--and they have said so in public--they might argue that they support this resolution because they oppose abortion. So let me be clear. This regulation is about access to family planning services, not about access to abortion.

I know many of my colleagues disagree with me that abortion should be safe and legal. They have shown that disagreement by their repeated attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade and make it harder for women to access constitutionally protected healthcare.

While they may disagree, it is still the law of the land. In any event, this regulation is not about access to abortion. This regulation is about ensuring that States cannot discriminate against qualified providers that are an essential part of a safety net that serves women who have no place else to go. Those providers are willing to provide necessary, culturally sensitive care to individuals who otherwise would simply be without access to that care.

Title X funding does not go to abortion services. It goes to provide much needed family planning services. There is so much that the title X program does that I believe my colleagues would agree is absolutely vital to the health of women. I know we agree on wanting to reduce teen and unintended pregnancies. Without the contraceptive care provided by title X sites, the teen pregnancy rate would be 30 percent higher and the unintended pregnancy rate would have been 33 percent higher. We should agree on that point.

We should also agree on wanting to find ways to save money in the healthcare system. In 2010, health services provided at title X centers resulted in net savings of $7 billion in Federal and State funds. Those savings are indicative of the fact that every dollar invested in publicly funded family planning saves taxpayers $7. That is a great deal for the taxpayers of our Nation. That is a humane and profoundly significant deal for the women whose lives are bettered. We should all agree that preventing disease and saving health and lives is not only about dollars and cents. It is about the future of our Nation.

Title X began as a bipartisan program to support family planning services over 40 years ago, an era that was less divisive and when this Chamber was less divided. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of ensuring these services. States cannot restrict an already overburdened network of safety net providers.

Family planning services are provided through State, county, and local health departments, as well as hospitals, family planning councils, Planned Parenthood, and federally qualified health centers. Providers that focus on reproductive health comprise 72 percent of all title X-supported sites, and they are critical to delivering high- quality family planning services.

They are particularly able to offer the full range of contraceptive methods and to help women start and effectively use the methods that will work best for them individually.

There is simply no excess capacity in that safety net system now. For Republicans to allow States to remove providers from the networks based on arbitrary criteria is simply unwise and, in fact, unconscionable. The foundation of the program's success is the longstanding intent that its provider network be designed by the communities it serves to help patients have access to trusted, highly qualified, family planning providers.

Just a few weeks ago, I met with some providers and volunteers from Planned Parenthood of North Hartford. I was deeply impressed with their dedication, their skill, and their humanity. In a high-need, low-income community like North Hartford, access to primary care is limited. Young men and women who come to this clinic have chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, depression, high blood pressure, and headaches. Left untreated, they have to be addressed at emergency rooms at much higher costs.

The clinicians recognized that there was an additional need for health services and for other providers in the community to meet them, but they were currently unable to do so. So they decided to initiate full-scope primary care services in Hartford, in addition to the comprehensive women's health services, so as to fully serve the men and women who choose to come to Planned Parenthood of North Hartford for their reproductive health and family planning care needs.

Patients there are seen for acute conditions and chronic problems, physicals, preventive vaccinations, as well as services to quit smoking. If there were ever a cost-effective program anywhere in the United States, then the North Hartford project is a sterling example.

Just to give one example, recently, a young woman came to this Planned Parenthood for birth control. She was found to have high blood pressure. So her provider started her on blood pressure medication and counseled her on dietary and lifestyle changes. She started exercising regularly and improved her diet, lost 30 pounds, and no longer needed the medication to control her blood pressure. Is that kind of treatment cost effective? The facts speak for themselves--the real facts--giving patients a choice, giving them a chance, giving them the counseling and care they need to save dollars and save lives.

Community healthcare centers like that in North Hartford simply cannot accommodate all the family planning patients who would lose coverage or funding if title X funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates, like Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, are eliminated. That is a lesson of this Planned Parenthood that is undeniable.

That may well be why our Republican colleagues have yielded back all of their time.

The real facts are undeniable. The real need is irrefutable. My colleagues and I are here today not because we are asking for more money or a change in how the funding program is used. We are standing up and speaking out against shortsighted efforts that would restrict access to family planning services for some of the most vulnerable patients--many of them voiceless in these halls; faceless, otherwise-- in areas that are least able to absorb this cruel and inhumane change in the rules.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and to stand strong for women's and men's healthcare across the country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here on behalf of 55 million working Americans who lack access to retirement savings plans through their employers. These numbers underscore a very, very uncomfortable truth for many Americans--that there is a looming retirement crisis in our Nation.

Congress must do more to preserve, protect, and strengthen retirement savings for all Americans. I come to the floor to express my strong opposition to the legislation before us, which would do precisely the opposite.

H.J. Res. 67 would tear down ongoing efforts at the State and municipal levels to assist, not obstruct, hard-working Americans in preparing for financially stable and rewarding retirements.

I also want to express my very deep concern about efforts by my Republican colleagues to force a vote on H.J. Res. 66 in the very near future. I would advise my colleagues to reconsider their taking action on both of these misguided proposals right away.

While many private sector employers have the option to set up and their employees have the choice to contribute to their own retirement savings accounts, fewer than 10 percent of workers who are without access to a workplace plan contribute to retirement savings accounts outside of their employers.

To address this growing issue, in August of 2016, under the guidance of the Obama administration, the Department of Labor promulgated what has become known as the State-sponsored auto-IRA rule. This rule provides critical guidance for States on how to administer programs that are designed to improve access to retirement accounts among private sector employees. These State-facilitated retirement programs would allow State governments to provide automatic enrollment in State- sponsored IRA programs, with there being the opportunity to opt out at any time.

There are misguided and progressive proposals that seek to overturn the critical rulemaking that protects Americans in this process. If passed, these resolutions, very simply, will cripple ongoing efforts on the State level to ensure that retirement savings opportunities are more readily available for all workers.

In my home State of Connecticut, we have led efforts to find secure and innovative ways to address the growing retirement savings gap for nearly 600,000 working people in Connecticut who lack access to employer-based retirement savings. The Connecticut Retirement Security Authority has led this effort. It was created in 2016, and it is based on almost 2 years of market research, public hearings, meetings, and broad input from employers, potential participants, and representatives of the financial sector.

We are moving in the right direction in Connecticut. Programs that represent a strong step in the right direction have been fostered and built by encouraging State facilitation with private providers. These plans allow workers access to secure, low-cost retirement savings accounts in Connecticut. That effort would be set back by these proposals to undercut and reverse progress made at the Federal level. Incomprehensibly, these bills would severely undercut efforts to promote State and city auto-IRA programs. It is a blatant attack on these programs and

on working families in Connecticut and elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues who believe that Congress should spend time in expanding, not limiting, access to innovative solutions to the American savings crisis to join me in opposing these resolutions.

They have broad economic implications. They set back job creation as well as economic progress. There are 55 million individuals--many of them in Connecticut--who lack the ability to save for retirement directly from their paychecks. This gap is exacerbated by the fact that nearly 20 percent of people between the ages of 55 and 64 have, virtually, zero in retirement savings. That is true of Connecticut and every State in our country.

A lack of retirement savings leads to disastrous results and jeopardizes access to adequate meals, healthcare, and other necessities. Simply put, no American family and, certainly, no Connecticut family should be deterred or discouraged from planning for the future by saving responsibly.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 because States and municipalities should have the flexibility to implement proven strategies to support hard-working Americans who wish to prepare themselves for retirement.

Russia and Trump Campaign Investigation

Mr. President, I find in Connecticut--and, I am sure, my colleagues find around the country--that Americans are outraged and appalled by Russia's disinformation campaign that has been waged against our free and fair electoral process. There is no question now--the intelligence agencies have confirmed it--that Russia interfered in the campaign of this latest election.

Our electoral process is the bedrock of our democracy. Russian interference in our election is an attack on our democracy. Indeed, it is an attack on America. Some believe--and I join them in this concern--that it is an act of war.

As appalling as the Russians' actions have been, I am equally--if not more--concerned about the ``see no evil, hear no evil'' attitude of this administration. It was aided in its election by Russia's campaign of disinformation, malign theft, its dissemination of private data, propaganda, and cyber attack. That cyber attack was unconscionable and unprecedented in its scope and scale.

Our Nation's intelligence community has provided chilling and absolutely horrifying confirmation of this Russian interference in our democracy. Yet the White House continually dismisses these reports. This week, we are learning that they actually may be actively interfering with and trying to redirect efforts by Congress to discover the full extent of Russia's cyber intrusion.

The bottom line here is that only a special prosecutor at the Department of Justice can apply sunlight and conduct a vigorous, independent investigation. Only a special prosecutor can remove this stain on our democracy. Only a special prosecutor can provide our Nation with assurance that wrongdoing will be effectively investigated and then charged and prosecuted. Only a special prosecutor can give us the closure we need and deserve.

Every day, evidence mounts pointing to the need to investigate these Russian ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. The more we learn, the more troubled and outraged the American people become.

Just this week, revelations have surfaced that Representative Nunes, chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, met on White House grounds with a source who showed him secret American intelligence reports that he then used to defend President Trump's claims that his closest associates were under surveillance by the Obama administration. That this information actually came from a meeting at the White House has intensified questions about where the information actually originated and whether the President's team is actually meddling in the congressional investigation. Chairman Nunes's actions have fatally tainted the House Intelligence Committee investigation and infected it with the virus of partisan bias.

Just yesterday, we also learned, based on letters obtained by the Washington Post, that the Trump administration sought to block former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation, adding additional taint. We all recall she is the one who blew the whistle on the real risk of General Flynn being blackmailed by the Kremlin. Instead of thanking her, the President fired her. After firing her for doing her job, the administration is now intent on stopping her as a witness from revealing exactly what the President knew about his adviser's ties to foreign interests.

The House investigation is incontrovertibly compromised by having a Trump surrogate running and organizing it and the administration--at least in appearance and likely in reality--controlling its access to the facts.

There is a growing body of evidence that clearly and unmistakably indicates that the Trump campaign and his associates were in contact with Russia during the election, and these deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign government to influence an American election deserve exacting and aggressive investigation.

The declassified report from the intelligence community clearly identifies Russia Today as a state-sponsored propaganda source that was integral to Putin's campaign to interfere in that election, and it makes it equally clear, and deplorably so, that former National Security Advisor Flynn accepted $45,000 to praise Russia Today in Moscow and dine with Putin at the network's request.

We know as well that Attorney General Sessions and Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law and now senior adviser, had unreported meetings with Russian officials, including the head of a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions. The President's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, funneled millions of dollars into offshore accounts from a Russian oligarch through the Bank of Cyprus, which was owned at the time by Wilbur Ross, now serving as the President's Commerce Secretary.

These contacts form a network of facts and suspicion, but more than suspicion, there are real sources of information and facts. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

These disclosures are all the more reason--indeed, compelling evidence--that a special prosecutor is necessary to investigate Russia's ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. Immediate, aggressive measures to hold Russia accountable and deter further aggression must be taken. Those actions must be based on facts as well, but we must acknowledge publicly that the need for deterrence requires effective responses, appropriate and necessary measures to send a message and inflict the kind of cost that is necessary to show Russia that we will never accept these kinds of attacks. At stake is not only Russia's view of this country and deterrence to further attacks but also the credibility and trust of the American people in the Department of Justice, and that is where a special prosecutor is absolutely vital.

I support the work of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, and I trust the members of that committee to do their work responsibly. I believe as well that we should have a select committee--or, even better, an independent commission--that will make findings of fact, produce recommendations, have public proceedings, and then, in the interest of full transparency and disclosure, produce a report with recommendations that will help provide a path to avoid these kinds of attacks on our democracy in the future and potential collusion between Americans and those attacks.

I believe that an independent commission would serve a worthwhile purpose, but neither the Intelligence Committee, nor a select committee, nor an independent commission can do what is equally important, which is prosecute wrongdoers. None of these bodies, whether congressional or independent commission, can investigate criminal wrongdoing so as to assure an effective and successful prosecution. That work must be done with the FBI and supervision of an independent, special prosecutor who can investigate vigorously and independently and then take action and bring charges if they are warranted.

I support the investigation of the Intelligence Committee, which should do its work, the appointment of a select committee that can produce findings of fact and a report and recommendation,

and an independent commission that can do the same kind of public, transparent, open disclosure. A special prosecutor does not produce a report; they and the team will produce a prosecution, if it is warranted. They are the only ones who can prosecute.

We cannot stand idle while Russia interferes and threatens our political infrastructure, which now includes our electoral system. Neither can we stand idle while our Department of Justice is leaderless or, worse yet, has a prosecutor who also may be tainted by the fact that he reports to the Attorney General or to the President. The Attorney General has recused himself, with good reason, because he was implicated in allegations surrounding collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference.

The allegations of collusion are serious. They must be investigated, and the investigation and potential prosecution must be done by someone who is independent--a special prosecutor. Revelation upon revelation day after day leaves us with no choice. In fact, we had no choice well before now, but the disclosures that have surfaced just within the last hours and days confirm that justice will not be vindicated unless we have a special prosecutor. That is why I have chosen to block the nomination and confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General. I will consider doing it with other nominees as well. I feel so strongly--and I hope my colleagues do as well--that a special prosecutor is necessary to vindicate justice, to make sure that Americans have trust and confidence in our Department of Justice and in the ability of the United States to protect its democracy and the integrity of its electoral process.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the rules that the Federal Communications Commission recently promulgated--and when I say ``recently,'' it was October, only months ago--expanded the concept of privacy and consumer protection as applied to broadband. Now we are on the verge of rescinding those rules through S.J. Res. 34.

This resolution is a direct attack on consumer rights, on privacy, on rules that afford basic protection against intrusive and illegal interference with consumers' use of social media sites, websites, that often they take for granted. Many Americans simply don't stop to think about how broadband providers, as the carriers of all internet traffic, are also able to collect and use consumer data, to put together a detailed picture of who they are, what they do, where and when they buy things, where they go, what they like to do--all of it an array of data that people assume is private, all of it freely available to those internet providers.

Even when data is encrypted, our broadband providers can piece together significant amounts of information about us--including private information, medical conditions, financial problems--based on online activity. It is a mine that can be used--more valuable than a gold mine--because that information can be sold and bought and used again so that privacy becomes a completely evanescent and illusory feature of our lives.

Consumers wanting to switch broadband providers are often hit with hefty termination fees, and they have to experience a lapse in Internet service at home--something that most simply don't have the luxury to do or endure in today's connected society where internet is accessible. They have no meaningful choice about how to safeguard broadband privacy. They have one choice if they want speeds above 25 megabits per second. That is why I applauded those rules when they were promulgated by the FCC back in October, finalizing broadband privacy protections. I applauded them because signing up for the internet should not mean you sign away your rights to privacy.

Just as telephone networks must obtain consumer approval before selling customer information, broadband providers ought to be required to obtain consumers' affirmative consent before selling their sensitive browsing or app usage data to advertisers. The FCC rules that this resolution would decimate, utterly destroy, essentially seek to protect that privacy interest. The only way the FCC's broadband privacy rules protect consumers is through an affirmative opt-in consent. That is the only real protection that works.

These rules also prohibit pay-for-privacy schemes that would require consumers to waive their privacy protections as a precondition to receiving service. They establish data security and breach notification standards for broadband providers.

They also have important national security implications. Just last week, the Department of Justice indicted four individuals, including Russian spies, for hacking into Yahoo! systems in 2014 and obtaining access to at least 500 million Yahoo! accounts. According to the indictment, these Russian intelligence officers spied on U.S. Government officials and private sector employees of financial companies. One defendant also exploited the data for financial gain.

Without clear rules of the road, broadband subscribers will have no certainty or choice about how their private information can be used, no protection against abuse, and no assurance that security standards will be bolstered against that kind of attack that the Russians and their spies launched.

The FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over the security and privacy practices of broadband, cable, and wireless carriers. If the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in FTC v. AT&T is upheld, adopting a ``status-based'' instead of ``activity-based'' interpretation of the FTC's common carrier exemption, the FTC's jurisdiction and ability to impose privacy and security obligations would be even further curtailed.

Critics also say that the FCC's broadband privacy rules would unfairly create a separate regulatory regime for ``edge providers,'' websites such as Google or Facebook. If that is their real concern, why haven't they focused their efforts on ensuring that the FTC has meaningful rulemaking authority so that it can implement privacy and data security rules over such websites?

In closing, I have long supported giving the FTC authority to adopt its own rules governing the privacy and security of websites. Giving the FTC authority to adopt new rules would help ensure our privacy, keep our privacy safe no matter where we go on the internet or how we connect. However, I don't see any of our colleagues, in supporting this resolution, rushing to accomplish these goals.

We should all remember that consumers need control over their own information and how it is used. This resolution would subvert and sabotage that control.

All too often, Americans take for granted privacy until it is lost. Once it is lost, rarely can it be recovered. Once that information becomes public, privacy is irreparably damaged.

Today's vote, if it succeeds, will deprive Americans of important baseline privacy standards that they expect and demand the government to provide. Few Americans are aware of this vote today. Many will be aware of its consequences. It will do extraordinary damage to privacy, if it is approved.

I urge my colleagues to reject it and to help preserve American privacy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am here in the midst of a Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, showing, and in a way showcasing, the wonder of American justice. This hearing will proceed through the balance of the day with him as our witness, and then into tomorrow with others who will comment on his qualifications.

The showcasing of American justice really demonstrates how the rule of law serves our democracy and how we strive to appoint the best possible people--men and women, dedicated public servants--to the courts of our land to assure that the rule of law and American justice are second to none and as infallible in protecting individual rights as they can possibly be.

In a sense, I am here to talk about a rule that also serves American justice. It is a rule put forward by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the last administration. I am here to oppose H.J. Res. 83, which would repeal that rule. The rule is known as the OSHA injury recordkeeping rule. It sounds very technical, obscure, and for most people it is, but there are nearly 3 million serious injuries reported every year at American workplaces.

For over 40 years; that is, four decades, Federal law has required employers with 11 or more employees in dangerous professions--poultry slaughtering, meat packing, steel mills, construction--which see the bulk of these injuries to keep active records of injury suffered in those workplaces and others like them that are considered dangerous.

Having accurate records is common sense for employers who want to know what is going right in their places of work and what is going wrong and how they can prevent workers from being hurt on the job because they don't want anybody hurt. Responsible employers want safe workplaces. It is really that simple. We all know injuries are bad for business and they cost time and money.

With those records, OSHA can also investigate companies and work to make them safer and ensure they comply with the law. In essence, they can look at the outliers--who are lawbreakers, who cares less about safety than profits--but also maybe employers who don't do as much as they could or would if they were better informed.

A misguided court ruling in 2012, after 40 years of the law prevailing, curtailed OSHA's ability to sanction employers concerning those records. The ruling limited OSHA's ability to sanction employers to just 6 months of the start of the investigation based on the records. Soon after that ruling, OSHA and the Obama administration discovered it could not adequately investigate employers who provided an unsafe workplace, making them effectively immune from some safety laws.

After going through all the proper rulemaking, all of the steps that are necessary to make an administrative rule, all the channels and procedures, the last administration put forward a rule that responds to the court decision and allows OSHA to review those records for 5 years. That is essentially how things worked for 40 years. It worked well for 40 years, and it was simply reinstituted because the court decision was so crippling to the rule of law and American justice. That is the rule we are discussing today--a return to longstanding policy that existed for decades under Republican and Democratic administrations, dating back to the Presidency of Richard Nixon.

Putting aside the 40 years' worth of this rule working well, it does some very important things. It requires these large employers in dangerous industries to keep accurate records of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. It has no impact on a huge swath of the economy that is not considered dangerous. It doesn't apply to restaurants, offices, and many other workplaces, regardless of the number of employees they have; the rule impacts just the most dangerous industries in our economy and companies in that industry with more than 10 employees. It essentially prevents them from covering up injuries, maintaining fraudulent records concerning injuries, and willfully violating the law.

There are things the rule does not do. It imposes no new costs on employers. It imposes no new obligations. It simply returns to a policy that worked well for decades--I repeat, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, accepted by both--and it gives certainty to businesses. That is one of the great advantages in an economy and society where certainty for our job creators is very valuable.

Repealing this rule would lead to more dangerous workplaces and give unsafe companies an upper hand in competition. It would unlevel the playing field between the good guys and the bad guys in those industries. This rule would essentially eliminate requirements that employers keep proper records, as they know OSHA can do nothing to investigate. Repeal of the rule amounts to the Federal Government siding with the companies that see injuries on the job but in effect sweep them under the rug. Repeal promotes companies to keep false records--if they keep records at all--limiting enforcement and punishment of anyone who keeps two sets of books, which few would do. Repeal of this rule undermines companies that keep safe

workplace records and are in competition with companies that are cutting corners. This has implications for taxpayers. Many procurement processes seek information about companies' safety records, giving a leg up to the safer company, as should be the case. That is in taxpayers' interests. Repeal of the rule would take away this incentive to protect employees.

Repealing this rule is bad for taxpayers, is bad for Federal policy, particularly in those areas where the Federal Government is a purchaser and a consumer, because it deserves to know--and so do we all--which ones are the safe employers.

Former Obama and Bush administration officials oppose repeal of this rule. Dozens of health and safety groups warn against the spike in injuries that repeal may encourage in work-related injuries and illnesses. Labor organizations representing millions of workers nationwide and many Fortune 500 companies oppose this resolution and support the rule. Health and safety groups, labor organizations, Fortune 500 companies, and officials from the past two administrations all support the rule and oppose this resolution. It is truly bipartisan.

I urge my colleagues to unite across the aisle and resist the false and unfortunate arguments that are made in favor of this resolution. I urge colleagues to join me in opposing it because it will endanger workers in the most hazardous places in the workplace and the country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on H.J. Res. 69, and I am here to state as strongly and emphatically as possible my opposition to this misguided and unwise measure.

As a Senator who fights to preserve and protect the vast diversity of American wildlife and honor the natural beauty of our Nation's great refuges, I urge my colleagues to reject the effort to revoke a commonsense rule of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This rule of the FWS is designed to prevent the use of cruel, unsporting, and inhumane killing methods on Federal land. It is really that simple, and repeal of it is an outrage.

Proponents of H.J. Res. 69 have attempted to frame this debate as an effort by the Federal Government to usurp State power, but that argument is simply absurd. The rule at issue is about Federal management of Federal land, Federal control over land owned by the Federal Government, pure and simple. The rule, which took effect in September, does not restrict subsistence hunting or normal hunting practices. It does not imperil public safety or impede on defense of property. It simply prevents brutal, cruel, barbaric hunting methods that target vulnerable bears, wolves, and coyote from occurring on lands that were intended to provide refuge for these animals. ``Refuge'' is the key word.

This resolution subverts the judgment of professional wildlife managers to adopt sensible wildlife management actions that are based on the best available science. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule is undermined, any State would be permitted to allow egregious killing methods on these wildlife refuges, which is the one category of Federal lands specifically set aside to benefit wildlife. That is its singular purpose.

I will oppose this legislation because I believe in preserving our Nation's natural ecosystem and the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to manage Federal lands for all citizens and prevent the inhumane treatment of our Nation's most iconic wildlife.

This rule bans the killing of wolves and their pups at their den sites in springtime when they are most vulnerable. It bans the killing of sleeping black bear mothers and their cubs while they are hibernating in winter--not exactly fair sport and certainly damaging to our environment. The rule also bans the baiting of grizzly bears, which involves the use of toxic, rotting food or grease to lure and acclimate bears to a certain area so that trophy hunters can get a point-blank shot. It prohibits the use of traps such as steel-jawed traps or snares, which cause animals to suffer injury as they fight the trap or even slow and painful death from starvation or exposure. It prohibits using airplanes and helicopters to scout, land, and shoot brown or black bears. These practices are not only cruel and inhumane, they are really unsporting and have no place in a civilized society.

This resolution would foreclose our wildlife managers from making Federal wildlife management decisions. It will undoubtedly affect the future of all American wildlife, including regulating

inhumane practices on Alaska national wildlife refuges even though those practices may be recognized as cruel and unsustainable.

All in all, voiding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule would set a dangerous precedent for the management of public lands across the country. Time and time again, our Federal courts have held that the Federal Government has the authority to regulate wildlife on Federal lands and cannot be superseded by initiatives at the State level. This Federal rule explicitly prohibits only these particularly gruesome and egregious methods of hunting or other kinds of practices on national wildlife refuges. It does not apply to hunting in State-owned wilderness or to rural Alaskan practices for residents who hunt for subsistence.

Regardless of my colleagues' claims, there is not a Tenth Amendment issue here, and the case law clearly demonstrates it, from the Supreme Court decision in 1976 that held that ``the Property Clause also gives Congress the power to protect wildlife on public lands, state law notwithstanding''; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which followed it; and just last year, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which repeated the Supreme Court's well-established jurisprudence on the supremacy clause and the property clause.

Neither the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act nor the Alaska Statehood Act grants any State official the power to overrule these Federal land managers' decisions.

Putting aside the legal issues--and there are none that really argue in favor of sabotaging this Fish and Wildlife Service rule--it is the right thing to do for us and for our future. This legislation would essentially reject our authority and our responsibility and our obligation to future generations to promote humane wildlife management practices. It is not only a matter of our law but who we are and what kind of society we believe we should have.

I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this abhorrent and appalling legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, even in its early days, this administration has embarked on a course of foreign private interest entanglements and conflicts of interest that are truly staggering.

Just this morning, the Associated Press reported that China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new trademarks. They are Trump trademarks, paving the way for the President, Donald Trump, and his family to ``potentially develop a host of branded businesses from hotels to golf clubs to bodyguard and concierge services.''

These reports are contained in public documents. All but three are in the President's own name. The AP report also quotes an official as saying that ``for all these marks to sail through so quickly and cleanly, with no similar marks . . . no issues with specification, boy, it's weird.''

Now, the speculation is that these trademarks could not have been issued without approval by the ruling Communist Party, that hierarchy had to be involved, and that awareness had to involve their approval for these intellectual property interests. The benefit is to the President through his private interests. The fact is, the President of the United States should be beholden only to the American people, not to personal profit, but in fact these trademarks raise the specter that the President possibly is beholden to the approving officials in China even more than to the American people. That is an issue that merits investigation. Like so many issues arising in this young administration, the question is, Who will do that investigation?

The lawyers in China representing Donald Trump applied for these trademarks in April of 2016, even as then-Candidate Donald Trump railed against China at his campaign rallies, criticizing Chinese currency manipulation, its intellectual property theft, its attraction of jobs from this country to theirs. The question arises, What has he done about those issues? In fact, China continues to manipulate its currency, continues to attract jobs from this country, and continues its aggressive policies in the area around that country.

The question is whether an inquiry is appropriate--which certainly it seems to be--and who will supervise it. It is the same question that arises with respect to Russian interference in our electoral system and the potential ties between Trump team officials and the Russians who committed those acts. Those ties have been established by evidence that is now incontrovertible because it is admitted by the officials themselves, now Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

It is now a matter of factual record that Russia engaged in a series of deliberate cyber attacks in order to carry out an unprecedented plot to undermine the 2016 elections with the goal of assisting Donald Trump. The growing body of evidence clearly and unmistakably indicates that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russia during the election. These deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign government to influence an American election certainly deserve exacting scrutiny and investigation, and the more we learn, the more troubled we become. In fact, we are rapidly careening toward a constitutional crisis. These recent revelations about Vladimir Putin's government and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resulted in his resignation. There have also been details about contact between Attorney General Sessions, our former colleague, and the Russian Ambassador that have caused his recusal from all inquiries of that subject matter.

I believe a special prosecutor must be appointed to investigate the Russian interference and meddling in our election, the massive cyber attack misinformation, and propaganda campaign conducted to subvert that election. The potential for cooperation, condoning,

connecting between the Trump officials and Russia certainly merits investigation as well. Without reaching conclusions, the special prosecutor ought to investigate and then reach a conclusion. His conclusion should be based on fact, not surmise or speculation.

For weeks, I have called for a special prosecutor to investigate possible ties between members of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, and the Trump White House to Russian officials who sought to interfere with our election. I support the Intelligence Committee in conducting its investigation. I would favor the appointment of a special commission or a select committee of the Congress to do factfinding, make reports and recommendations in a fully transparent way, but only a special prosecutor can take action based on criminal intent. Only a special prosecutor can pursue violations of criminal law, to not only investigate but also bring charges and seek appropriate punishment and remedy. Only the Deputy Attorney General of the United States can appoint a special prosecutor because the Attorney General has recused himself--in other words, taken himself out of all of the areas of this subject matter. That is why I asked yesterday that the nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, commit to appoint a special prosecutor.

His answer to me was that he wishes to wait until he is approved by the Senate--assuming his confirmation occurs--to decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor. He claims he needs to familiarize himself with the facts and circumstances of any ongoing investigation before he can make a decision. With all due respect, the facts he needs to know are already established. They are already a matter of public record. They are already known to the American public. There is an investigation ongoing by the FBI--and with good reason--into Russian meddling in our elections, this massive campaign of misinformation and cyber attack that they purposefully conducted to influence the outcome of our election.

We know the Justice Department must investigate and pursue the ongoing investigation, wherever the evidence leads. Part of that evidence inevitably will be meetings that were conducted by his boss, the Attorney General of United States, Jeff Sessions, which is why the Attorney General has recused himself--because he could be involved in that investigation as a witness, as a subject, even possibly as a target, as could the President himself.

To close that investigation, the Deputy Attorney General, or whoever is conducting it, needs to question the Attorney General of the United States. To conduct that investigation, that questioning must occur. So the Deputy Attorney General would be expected to be investigating his boss. If he decides to conduct that investigation himself, he must appoint a special prosecutor to establish the independence of that inquiry, to assure that in reality and in appearance the American public is assured that the investigation is independent, objective, impartial, vigorous, and fair.

The facts that warrant a special prosecutor are already known and they are already a matter of public record. That is why I believe he must commit himself now, before his confirmation--in fact, as a condition of his confirmation--to take that action, which preserves the credibility and public confidence in the Department of Justice that he observed very eloquently in his confirmation hearing as one of his central objectives.

There is a lot of precedent for this step. The most prominent one perhaps is Elliot Richardson, when he was the Attorney General designee. He was requested by the Judiciary Committee, at that time, to make the same kind of commitment--and he did. He kept his promise. He appointed Archibald Cox to be special prosecutor, and the Watergate scandal was appropriately investigated and pursued. That example--when Elliot Richardson had enough facts, just as Rod Rosenstein does now-- ought to be the lodestar here. It ought to be the model for his commitment to appointing a special prosecutor.

The simple fact is, Rod Rosenstein, like Elliot Richardson, knows everything he needs to know to be sure a special prosecutor is necessary, and especially because he is a career prosecutor with a distinguished record, and because he has that intellect and integrity that would qualify him probably to be confirmed, he should know it is the right thing to do. Maybe he will do it if he is confirmed, but it would serve the interests of justice, and it would help to sustain and enhance the trust and public confidence in the Department of Justice if he were to do it now, as Elliot Richardson did many years ago.

We live in an extraordinary time. The conflicts of interest and foreign entanglements that threaten our Nation, beginning at the very top of this administration, impose a unique mandate on the Department of Justice. The recusal of the Attorney General from this investigation indicates that leadership and integrity are necessary at every level as never before. That is why, in this extraordinary time, I urge the Deputy Attorney General nominee, Rod Rosenstein, to do the right thing and make sure there is an investigation that is independent and vigorous, as well as fair and full; that we know all of the facts eventually and that action is taken appropriately to deal with the Russian interference in our election, the potential ties between the Trump administration--before and after the election--in those improper interferences by the Russians in our election, and that the danger of coverup, indicated by the potential false statements made by Jeff Sessions before the Judiciary Committee and Michael Flynn elsewhere, be stopped before it starts. Only a special prosecutor can provide the unbiased and fair answers that are so urgently needed.

The American people deserve an explanation. They deserve an explanation for the trademarks that have been issued to Donald Trump in China. They deserve an explanation by a special prosecutor on Russian meddling and Trump ties to that meddling. Whether the independent and special prosecutor broadens the scope of that investigation to include the entanglements or conflicts of interest involving China is a question that will have to be addressed by that official, but this much we know now. We are rapidly careening toward a constitutional crisis, a crisis of credibility as well as legal challenges. The historic opportunity and obligation this nominee owes the country cannot be avoided.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Apparently there is another speaker. I withdraw that suggestion.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with a number of my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37. As it has just been announced, we will vote on it later today. I am glad to be joined by so many of my colleagues to fight against efforts to limit the application of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I fought to ensure that harmful provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 seeking to limit the applicability of this Executive order to DOD were stripped from the final bill signed into law in December, and I continue to feel strongly that we must do everything possible to defend American workers. That is what this issue concerns.

In 2014, President Obama issued a critical Executive order, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. Then, last summer, after thorough analysis and due diligence by the Department of Defense and several other agencies, he implemented what is known as the fair pay and safe workplaces rule. That rule requires companies doing business with the Federal Government to disclose when they violate any of 14 laws. The list of laws include some that are very familiar to all of us, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Civil Rights Act. This list includes some other laws that may be somewhat more obscure, but those laws have been around for decades. They are well known in the workplace, and they are designed to protect

veterans, women, and people with disabilities from harmful, debilitating discrimination.

There is no requirement that companies disclose trivial allegations; rather, the rule requires disclosures of violations that rise to a determination by a court or administrative body of an actual violation or serious pending administrative proceeding by an agency. Companies would know of such violations.

Most companies play by the rules; all they need to do is check a box confirming they are in compliance. For those companies with compliance issues, the contracting agency would take information about those violations into consideration in the procurement process, and the contracting agency would then try to work with the company to make sure that it comes into compliance with the law. This Executive order is not about exclusion or about blackballing; in fact, it is about including and working with companies to bring them into compliance so they obey the law, knowing what the rules are, and wanting everybody to play by the same rules--not having an unfair advantage.

This rule is not about blackballing or blacklisting companies. It is about ensuring that, if they want to do business with the Federal Government, they follow the law and provide a safe and equitable workplace, protecting American workers--veterans, women, and people with disabilities--who may be victims of harmful, debilitating discrimination.

The rule is an effort to make Federal resources go to companies that are complying with the law or that are coming into compliance with Federal law. The reason behind it is to protect American workers, but it is also about creating a level playing field for all contractors and making sure there is a relationship of trust with contractors because we need partners who can be trusted to carry out the Federal Government's important work, especially in the area of building our defense weapons.

Companies that violate the law are creating an unlevel playing field, forcing law-abiding companies into unfair competition, potentially raising their costs. They skirt the law, saving dollars, presenting low-ball offers, based on noncompliance, cutting corners by, in effect, ducking their legal obligations. If they are hired, they are also at risk of providing poor performance because a company that violates the law and disregards its obligation is much more likely to disregard its moral as well as its legal duties in complying with the contract.

It is not just about saving dollars. It is about workers. Every year, tens of thousands of American workers are denied overtime wages, they are unlawfully victims of discrimination in hiring and pay, they have their health and safety put at risk by Federal contractors when they do cut corners, or they are denied basic workplace protections. That is another reason we need this rule, this Executive order, protecting workers and creating a level playing field.

Some have called the fair pay rule one of the most important advances for workers in years, and it is. According to one assessment, one in five Americans are employed by companies that do business with the Federal Government. Ensuring that those one in five workers are protected helps countless Americans. It helps them in those workplaces, and it also sets a model for workplaces elsewhere.

It is basic, simple transparency that enables the American people to know who executive agencies task with the work, using taxpayer dollars. So requiring companies to disclose--and this rule is about disclosure-- compliance records is something that many States, including Connecticut, already have in place through responsible bidder programs that use self-reporting to improve contractor quality by identifying companies with records of violating workplace laws, among other things.

President Trump was rightly praised by many of my colleagues in calling for a ``level playing field'' for businesses in his speech before us, in Congress, last week, and he has been lauded for saying we need to deliver ``better wages for Americans.'' Yet here we are, just weeks into the administration and this new Congress, and we are seeing what the real priorities unfortunately are. Once we put aside the rhetoric, actions are what matter, and these actions truly demoralize and destroy law-abiding companies' chances to compete fairly, and they decimate rights of workers to safe and fair workplaces.

I am troubled that rolling back this Executive order which I fought to achieve in the NDAA is so high a priority for the new administration and my colleagues here. Many organizations opposed this effort, and I am proud to join them in trying to forestall this rollback--the Easterseals organization, Paralyzed Veterans of America, VetsFirst, Vietnam Veterans of America, and many others who rightly fear that this course of action will do damaging injustice to our veterans and constituents with disabilities. It will also do potential damage to countless other workers involved in doing the people's work, such as performing contracts for the Federal Government funded with taxpayer dollars--our dollars--that can be used in discriminatory and unfair ways if this resolution is approved.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 37 later today and protect the fair pay and safe workplaces rule. For the sake of our constituents--women, veterans, workers with disabilities, and businesses of America--we must reject this assault on fairness and common sense.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in the minutes remaining before this vote, I want to briefly call attention to an impending constitutional crisis we are facing in this Chamber and in this country as a result of recent revelations coming to our attention, literally within the last 24 hours, about contacts between now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, our former colleague, and the Russian Ambassador.

Nearly 2 months ago, my Judiciary colleagues and I were told by then- Senator Sessions--and the Presiding Officer is on the Judiciary Committee. We were told in no uncertain terms that he ``did not have communications with the Russians,'' and we took him at his word.

Last night, we learned that Senator Sessions' statement was inaccurate. These inaccurate, possibly intentionally false, statements misled us. They misled me, personally, and I feel they failed to provide the whole truth about his communications with and ties to the Russians, likely on behalf of the Trump campaign. These contacts were in the midst of an unprecedented attack on our democracy, an act of cyber warfare against our democratic institution that not only violated our law but subverted our electoral process.

The potentially false statements on this topic by then-Senator Sessions were not only deeply relevant and critically important in their own right, but they leave us with the question: What else is missing or misleading in that testimony, and the consequential questions about his fitness to lead the Department of Justice must be answered.

Unless Attorney General Sessions can provide a credible explanation, his resignation will be necessary. Senator Sessions' false statements heighten my deep concern about credible allegations that the Trump campaign, the transition team, and the administration officials have colluded with the Russian Government, not only in actions prior to the election but possibly since then in what may amount to a coverup. Unless the whole truth is uncovered--and if there is a coverup, truly the adage will be fulfilled that the coverup is as bad as the crime. The only way to deter Russian aggression and continued cyber attacks on our democracy is to uncover the truth and deter this kind of aggression in the future.

At the time of his meetings with the Russian Ambassador, Senator Sessions was chairman of the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee. Ambassador Kislyak is, of course, the same individual whose repeated covert contacts with former LTG Michael Flynn, President Trump failed to disclose both to the American public and to his own Vice President. General Flynn's failure to make those disclosures led to his own termination as National Security Advisor.

Contacts between these two men would raise concerns under any circumstances, but Senator Sessions' decision to, in effect, conceal them makes them even more troubling. I use that word with regret because I sat in the committee hearing as he answered those questions, and, personally, I can reach no other conclusion than to say he must have intended to conceal them and hide them from us as committee members.

The Attorney General, who is the most important law enforcement official in our country, must be held to an even higher standard. The sudden disclosure that he met repeatedly with the Russian Ambassador after denying under oath any such contact, gives us all the more reason--indeed compelling evidence--that a special counsel is necessary, and necessary now, to investigate Russian ties and contacts with the Trump campaign.

I have called for such a special counsel or prosecutor for weeks now and led a letter with more than 10 of my colleagues asking that Attorney General Sessions designate such a special prosecutor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 2 more minutes.

I will end my remarks within a minute.

In short, over the past weeks, I have called repeatedly for a special counsel. My view is that now-Attorney General Sessions must be brought back before the Judiciary Committee and provide an explanation. The lack of a credible explanation makes his resignation necessary, and his denial of contacts raises serious and troubling questions about the process that led to his confirmation. Absent swift action by a special counsel, evidence of this troubling conduct will be at high risk of concealment by the very agency, the Department of Justice, entrusted by the American people to seek and uncover the truth. An impartial, objective, comprehensive, and thorough investigation by a special prosecutor is unquestionably necessary now, and I hope we will have bipartisan support for it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud and honored to follow my very distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Murray of Washington in this cause which invokes a line that I think the President used last night in his address to us, pledging cooperation for causes where we can make a common cause.

Surely no cause is more important than healthcare, no goal is more important than preventive services for

women so we can all avoid the costs not only in dollars and cents but the cost of human suffering and foreclosed futures that will come when women are denied these kinds of basic services.

I met this morning with a group from Planned Parenthood, patients and providers working in clinics across New England. They told me their story--some of them patients, some of them service providers and volunteers--about the kind of transformative effect that primary care, examinations and screenings, can have for women who would otherwise lack those services. The community health centers cannot substitute for them.

Family planning programs under title X are often the only Federal programs dedicated to providing comprehensive services in family planning but also in related preventive health services.

Over the past year alone, title X providers have provided cancer and HIV screenings, contraceptive services, and other primary and preventive services to over 4 million women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers in New England and across the country. This network of healthcare providers is a safety net. They compose a network, the title X network, including providers of State and local health departments, federally qualified health centers, and family planning councils. They create a network that provides a critical source of healthcare to people who otherwise would be denied it. They are trusted providers who are willing to serve the uninsured, the uninsured and low-income individuals who risk losing all access to healthcare if it was not for this network.

These clinics are often the only healthcare providers in rural areas and other parts of the country. So the political attacks on providers that provide abortion services would mean a loss of access to all family planning and preventive healthcare in these parts of the country--rural, metropolitan, suburban. Not only are these services necessary, but family planning services are really good investments, especially when it comes to the money that otherwise would be spent when illnesses or diseases become more serious.

In 2010, the $1.14 billion that was spent in this country on family planning resulted in more than $8 billion in gross savings. That is a clearly worthwhile investment.

The resolution that passed the House last month that Senator McConnell is considering bringing to the Senate floor would eliminate protections that prevent discrimination against these very providers, discrimination based on facts or sometimes nonfacts that have nothing to do with the quality of care or the worthiness of the investment in these clinics and healthcare providers.

The regulation that Republicans are seeking to eliminate ensures that no qualified providers will be excluded from eligibility for Federal funding for discriminatory reasons outside of that provider's ability to provide care. That is really the criterion that matters. The ones who want to eliminate this regulation apparently would rather risk limiting access to healthcare in order to score political points. Unfortunately, it is really that simple.

At a time when Republicans continue to try to push ahead with repealing the Affordable Care Act, which also includes essential support for preventive healthcare, they also want to disrupt the country's healthcare system for this kind of women's healthcare.

Just last night, after President Trump claimed he wanted to work with Members of both parties to invest in women's health, we are threatened with this step to eliminate an important regulation that protects women's health. I ask the President and my colleagues across the aisle to join in this common cause, which should unite us on a bipartisan basis. If they want to continue these attacks, we are ready for the fight, but we would much rather cooperate and collaborate in the cause of women's healthcare.

I urge my Senate colleagues to listen to the kind of providers and patients whom I met with this morning, the kind of provider that Senator Shaheen brought with her last night as her guest, the kind of providers and patients and volunteers who work in these clinics all across the country, whether it is Planned Parenthood or other kinds of clinics. I ask them to listen to the advocates here, supporters, like the National Coalition of STD Directors, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the ACLU, and the American Medical Student Association. They are just a few of the stakeholders who advocate strongly that this regulation be continued and who oppose the step the House passed and that the majority leader may bring to the floor.

These people have dedicated their lives and their careers to assisting the vulnerable, whether they are providing healthcare or legal services or other kinds of support, and they are saying to us: Do not eliminate this regulation. I think we ought to listen to them. I hope my colleagues will.

I am determined that we will fight tooth and nail if we need to do so, but I would much rather that we follow the President's offer and that we collaborate to stop the elimination of this regulation, which is so important to making sure that women's healthcare is based on quality, not on discriminatory reasons based on political motive.

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