Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are in a day--in fact, yet another day--of fast-developing, dramatic events. The news today that LTG Michael Flynn, who served until recently as National Security Advisor, may be culpable of lying to the FBI and therefore prosecutable for a Federal criminal violation adds urgency to the need for a special independent counsel to investigate all of the events surrounding his conversation with the Russian Ambassador and who knew what about it when and what was done.

The severity of this potential constitutional crisis--and we are careening toward a constitutional crisis--makes it all the more necessary that we have an objective and independent investigation, that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself, and the White House guarantee that documents are preserved--as we have requested in a letter sent by Members of the Judiciary Committee, including myself-- today.

The severity of this potential constitutional crisis cannot be exaggerated. Still we are in the early days of a new administration but already the turmoil and turbulence throw into question almost all of the proceedings here on other issues, urgent and important issues-- whether infrastructure, trade policy, job creation, economic growth, all of the pressing issues of our day. They also raise potential conflicts of interest on the part of other officials before us now, including the nomination of Scott Pruitt. News that we have also learned very recently, in this day of fast-developing events, increases the importance of deliberate and thoughtful consideration of this nomination.

Just within the last hour, a judge in Oklahoma has ordered the release of thousands of emails sent by this nominee, Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, relevant to his dealings with oil and gas interests in his State and elsewhere on relevant legislative and litigation issues. This development really requires a delay in this vote so we can review those emails and know what those conflicts of interest were, what they may continue to be, and whether his answers to our colleagues in his testimony at his confirmation hearing were completely accurate and truthful. We need to delve into those emails, know their contents, examine the contents, in fairness to him and in fairness to an administration that may be appointing for confirmation yet another official like General Flynn, who was forced to resign just days after his appointment.

The interests of the Trump administration, as well as this body, would be well served by delaying this vote so we can review those emails. I call upon the Republican leadership to delay this vote, give us a chance to review the emails, and give the American public a chance to understand how those emails reflect on the qualifications of Scott Pruitt and the potential conflicts of interest that may disqualify him from serving in this all-important role.

I am here to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt, but whether we oppose or approve of this nomination, we owe it to ourselves--I say to my colleagues--we owe it to the United States Senate to delay this vote so the potentially explosive material and contents of these emails can be fully considered. If we fail to delay, we are, in effect, potentially confirming a nominee who may be compelled to resign after his disqualifying conflicts of interest are exposed to public view. We have an obligation in advising and consenting to be as fully informed as possible. If there were no such emails, if there were no such court order, there might be an excuse for rushing to judgment as we are on track to do now. There is no excuse for a rush to confirmation. Our obligation to advise and consent implies also an obligation to review these emails as comprehensively and fully and fairly as possible before we make this decision.

The President has nominated Scott Pruitt as the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to serve a mission, which is to protect human health and safeguard the environment. Even before disclosure of these emails, which involve his contacts with oil and gas interests, he came before us as perhaps one of the least-qualified people in the United States of America to serve in this position. I don't make this statement lightly. It may sound like hyperbole or exaggeration, but the fact is, anyone who studies Scott Pruitt's record as attorney general of his State--and I served as attorney general of mine so I know his position pretty well--can see that his record is antithetical and hostile to the mission and purpose of this Agency.

He is a potential Administrator who will take office at a critical juncture for our planet. Sea levels continue to rise, long-established weather patterns

have begun shifting, and the average global temperature is rapidly approaching 2 centigrades Celsius above preindustrial levels. That is an increase which many climate scientists believe may be a point of no return--no return for the planet, no return for us, no return for generations to come. We are at a historic moment.

The question will be whether Scott Pruitt will be dedicated to doing something about climate change, about the pollution of our air, streams, rivers, and oceans, whether he will be committed to enforcing the rules and laws that protect us against those dangers of degradation of our environment--degradation of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the open spaces we enjoy.

That is the same Scott Pruitt who was pressed by our colleagues during his confirmation hearing and could not name a single regulation designed to protect clean air or water that he supports--the very same Scott Pruitt, who was asked by our colleague Jeff Merkley whether he agreed with the statement, ``Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,'' and he dodged and equivocated. When he was questioned about hundreds of thousands of dollars he has received in campaign contributions from energy companies, he basically refused to answer. He dodged the question. That is the Scott Pruitt who would become Administrator of the EPA, and it is the same Scott Pruitt who, as attorney general of Oklahoma, fought the tremendous progress made by the Obama administration at every turn, taking legal action against the EPA no fewer than 14 times.

While he was in office, he worked hand in hand with Oklahoma's largest energy companies to roll back regulations that are vital to the health and well-being of the American people, not just the people of Oklahoma, as bad as that would be, but of all Americans, all of our plant.

When he worked hand in hand with the Oklahoma energy industry, those common bonds of purpose and work would be well illuminated by these emails that today will be disclosed. In fact, maybe some of those conflicts of interest will be revealed and dramatized by those emails. That is why we must wait to have this confirmation vote.

He sued to try and block efforts to reduce nationwide emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 30 times more effective at trapping even carbon dioxide. He block the Clean Power Plan. He took three separate actions against the EPA's mercury and air toxic rule, targeting standards that the EPA estimates will save 45,000 lives. Those are three more actions, it should be noted, than he took to proactively promote clean air and clean water on behalf of the people of Oklahoma in his entire time in office. Why did he take those actions? Who helped him do it? How and why? The emails will help tell that story and answer those questions.

Taken alone, even without the emails, these actions hardly show a record of someone dedicated to promoting and protecting the environment. Not once during his confirmation process did Mr. Pruitt demonstrate to me a convincing willingness, let alone eagerness, to uphold the mission of the Agency he now hopes to run, nor has he shown an intent to be open and responsive with Members of this body. Most troubling of all, he has, in no uncertain terms, failed to give any indication that he will be a champion for our environment and that he will advance scientifically sound policies to protect the public's health.

The only thing Attorney General Pruitt has made abundantly clear is that he holds a derisively dismissive attitude toward the Agency he now seeks confirmation to lead. His nomination is an affront to the EPA, but even more, it is a threat to our health, a threat to our environment, a threat to the quality of our air and water, and a risky gamble on the world we will leave to our children and our grandchildren.

There is a very real concern about whose side Scott Pruitt will be on. The question is, Whose side will he be on when and if he is Administrator of the EPA? He has already shown a willingness to use the power of whatever office he holds to advance an extreme agenda and to malign opponents. Polluters do not need another champion in this administration, and our environment does not need another foe. We have enough foxes guarding henhouses as it is in this administration.

Mr. Pruitt's coziness with the firms that he will be required to regulate--again the emails will tell the story about his relationships with special interests. That is critically important, and, in fact, even on the record we have now, it should disqualify him from this position.

He doubts the effects of climate change and the extent to which our rapidly warming climate is as a result of human activity, calling this debate ``far from settled'' and placing himself well outside mainstream opinion. His denials are rooted in the promise of funds from corporations and interest groups that think it is far better for their bottom line to pretend that incontrovertible climate change simply doesn't exist.

He is a beneficiary of the denying corporations and special interests, and those contentions are not only regressive and fallacious but dangerous. If he is a prisoner of those special interests, as these emails may show him to be, my colleagues will regret voting for him-- another reason that delaying his confirmation vote is appropriate and necessary now.

The scientific evidence of climate change and human involvement is overwhelming. You don't have to look hard to see it. Most of us in this Chamber would need to speak only with a handful of our constituents-- the men and women who sent us here--to see the real impact this crisis is having.

My home State of Connecticut has experienced a major rise in storms that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damage as well as several lives. It seems that as soon as our State begins to rebuild from one storm, another wreaks havoc on many of the same devastated communities. These monster storms have become the new normal.

In Connecticut and around the country, weather disasters are rapidly becoming part of a way of life, tragically, for innocent people caught in their wake. In just 6 years, Connecticut has weathered the damage and destruction of a freak October snowstorm, Superstorm Sandy, and the force of numerous nor'easters. Severe storms like these, as well as other disasters--floods, tornadoes, droughts--are happening at a rate four times greater than just 30 years ago.

I am not here to argue climate change. I am here to argue that Scott Pruitt is unqualified to fight climate change because he denies it is a problem, and he denies the mission and purpose of the EPA as a vital purpose and mission of our Federal Government.

The people of Connecticut understand climate change, and they get it. They understand that it is happening and that it is happening in their everyday lives. They see its effects. They know its causes, and they know the truth. It will get worse. We need to take action.

This body is on the verge of action that should be postponed so that we can consider vitally important information in those emails that reflects on conflicts of interest, ties to special interests, influence on Scott Pruitt, benefits to him in the past, and debts that he may owe, literally and figuratively, to those special interests that may impact his performance as Administrator of the EPA.

As attorney general of my State, environmental protection was a priority to me. I will be honest; I sued the Federal Government, just as Scott Pruitt did. I sued the Federal Government so that environmental protection would be made more rigorous and stringent and people would be protected, not to slow down the EPA but to speed it up to provide impetus for its action and, in fact, to compel it to carry out its mission and purpose.

Scott Pruitt has acted in exactly the opposite way, and the reasons for his antipathy and hostility to the EPA may well be illustrated even more dramatically and directly by these emails that we should consider.

I urge the Republican leadership to postpone and delay this vote so that we may, in fact, consider those emails.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to recognize and celebrate the 25th anniversary of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, a company that has brought life-transforming therapies to patients around the world from its headquarters in New Haven, CT. Since its establishment by Leonard Bell in 1992, Alexion has become a global leader in discovering, developing, and delivering therapies for people with devastating and rare disorders. I have always been honored to call Alexion a Connecticut company, and I applaud the life-changing gains in medicine that it has made from the city of New Haven since 1992.

Even while maintaining a commitment to developing new therapies that impact the lives of patients with rare disorders throughout the world, Alexion has always remained committed to its community in Connecticut. Whether it is helping connect individuals who are homeless with temporary work assignments in New Haven, partnering with scientists at the University of Connecticut, or subsidizing public transportation to help students get to their classes at Gateway Community College, Alexion has proven time and time again that its commitment to the people of Connecticut and to its over 1,000 employees in the State is as strong as ever.

On its 25th anniversary, I applaud Alexion and the people who work so tirelessly for Alexion's values and commitment each and every day. Alexion continues changing lives through its medical breakthroughs, and I am so pleased to know that they call Connecticut home. Thank you.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island who has been such a champion for working people and economic progress in manufacturing and economic fairness so that our country as a whole can advance together.

I am proud to be a Senator who fights to preserve, protect, and strengthen the safety net for all Americans, as my colleague from Rhode Island does, and many of us here do. So I come to the floor to speak on Congressman Mick Mulvaney, with reluctance and sadness, because he is out of the mainstream and, really, an adversary of programs that assure that safety net and basic fairness that is at the core of our great democracy and our economic system.

I oppose his nomination to serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, hardly the best known of agencies and not necessarily the most glamorous or glitzy but among the most important. His position is among the most consequential because he serves as an economic adviser, as well as an allocator of funding throughout the Federal Government and a leader on important social programs.

He has proved strongly antithetical to those programs that have made America great: Medicare, Social Security, and other efforts, including the Affordable Care Act, which are essential to our future.

He has broad responsibilities for our Nation's budget. He also has important oversight responsibilities about Federal rulemaking--those unglamorous, sometimes invisible regulations and rules that affect real lives and livelihoods throughout this country. They establish rules of the road in industry. They establish access for people to Federal programs. They provide an essential means of achieving fairness in our democracy--that important process that agencies use to enact safeguards, for example, that keep our air and water clean and our workplaces safe.

Congressman Mulvaney's positions on these vital issues are out of step with American values, out of the mainstream of American popular opinion, and out of the area of acceptability in terms of basic public interest.

Our economic reality is characterized by one simple stark economic fact: Burdens are falling hardest on the people who can least afford them. I am not talking about people at the lowest rungs of income or wealth but middle-class Americans who work hard and who have seen their incomes stagnant over 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. Stagnating incomes and stagnating futures destroy the American dream.

So the Federal Reserve, for example, has reported in 2014 that average incomes have remained flat or fallen for all but the most affluent 10 percent of American families. That is a staggering fact about our economic system and its ability to deliver for Americans generally. That is the context for this nomination. I consistently hear from my constituents in Connecticut that income has failed to keep pace with overall economic recovery. Even as Wall Street has risen, Americans see nothing but stagnant income, sometimes falling economic prospects. Things have gotten better, but good jobs are still out of reach for far too many.

Retirement for increasing numbers of baby boomers makes it all the more vital that we protect and strengthen our safety net. The safety net is not the sole answer to larger challenges that must be solved by robust economic growth. That has to be our priority--economic growth in Connecticut and around the country. But increased opportunity depends on growth for ourselves and for our children--my wife and my four children and our way of life.

In fact, President Trump himself seemed to recognize this economic fact, one of the few areas where we agree, because he pledged during the campaign to keep our Nation's safety net firmly, irrevocably intact--not to make any cuts to Social Security or Medicare. He pledged and promised.

Now, who is his nominee to be head of the OMB, that crucial agency with responsibility for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Mick Mulvaney has an affinity for draconian budget cuts and far-right positions that are completely out of step with this promise and pledge.

The President must have reversed himself or revoked his promise, because Congressman Mulvaney has spent his entire political career crusading against exactly these programs that keep millions of Americans out of poverty. Social Security is one of the great achievements of our American democracy. In fact, it is one of the greatest achievements the world has known because it has allowed this Nation to promise its people that they can avoid crushing poverty if they simply work hard and if they contribute to this program that is a form of insurance.

It is not a gift. It is not really an entitlement. It is an insurance program. It makes us a humane and decent nation. We care for people who have worked hard all of their lives and need to be protected so they need not depend on their children or their grandchildren.

Congressman Mulvaney has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme.'' Tell that to the Social Security recipients

in Connecticut. Tell that to the working people of Connecticut. He is out of step with working people and middle-class people who know that Social Security does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit, and it is not the Ponzi scheme that Congressman Mulvaney mischaracterizes it as being.

It is fashionable on the far right to use that characterization, suggesting it will run out of money unless severe restrictions are put in place. He has championed those kinds of restrictions--means testing, for example, and raising the retirement age. Those proposals are a disservice to hard-working Americans who reach that retirement age having been promised that they would receive Social Security when they did or work hard to make Social Security work for them, without a means test, without anybody asking them to fill out forms or disclose their incomes and establish standards or tests that make them ineligible.

It is true that there are changes to these programs that may be necessary. In fact, I proposed a plan for enhancing Social Security, making it a stronger insurance program by raising the cap on the payment of taxes that are due and other kinds of reforms that will more properly allocate the burdens but not means-testing, not raising the retirement age, which are radical and draconian favorites of the far right. Lifting the payroll tax cap so the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share, as I have proposed, will keep this program solvent for decades into the future.

The only reason to reject the commonsense changes I have proposed is a political aversion to raising taxes on anyone at any time, even the wealthiest individuals or the most powerful and profitable companies, which is the mantra of people who have climbed the ladder and want to raise it so that no one else has access to those top rungs. It makes no sense to me that we would ask great sacrifices of our senior citizens but do nothing about eliminating the loopholes that privilege some of the most affluent people and the largest and most profitable companies in the world.

We should not and must not use the Social Security trust fund as a means to pay down the debt or reduce the deficit or gamble with the hard-earned benefits 61 million Americans rely on during their retirement. Those 61 million Americans, who come from all of the States and all over the Nation, are represented in this Chamber, and they deserve better than Mick Mulvaney's far-right radical ideas that would restrict their Social Security. He fails to recognize this reality and would prevent Social Security from continuing to flourish and provide the stability so essential to this great Nation--already the greatest Nation in the history of the world because of programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Speaking of Medicare, Congressman Mulvaney's proposal for Medicare also betrays the President's promise to leave Medicare intact. He has been vocal, absolutely frank about his support for tearing down Medicare, going as far as to say: ``We have to end Medicare as we know it.'' Do we really have to end Medicare as we know it, tear it down, destroy it? That is what Mick Mulvaney says. That betrays President Trump's promise to keep Medicare intact.

Mick Mulvaney has also supported proposals to privatize this lifesaving healthcare program by turning it into a voucher system, which would effectively gut its promise of guaranteed health benefits. A ``voucherized'' Medicare would be devastating for our Nation's seniors. Many of them are already on fixed incomes. This plan would allot them a fixed amount of funds--fixed funds to purchase all of their health insurance, which would result in higher premiums and increased out-of-pocket costs. Connecticut seniors deserve better than Mick Mulvaney's efforts to restrict Medicare in such a disruptive and destructive way.

Congressman Mulvaney's actions and statements on Medicare point to a future budget director who has no intention of keeping the President's promise to protect this crucial health program. This country counts on its next budget director to prioritize facts and responsibilities and the public interest above political games; to rely on real facts, not alternate facts.

Our budget, our deficit, our national debt are, in fact, fact-bound and fact-based. The world relies on real facts when it looks at the American economy, and the people who work in that economy, whether they are young or old, veterans or civilians, depend on real economic growth. Yet Congressman Mulvaney's reckless approach to fiscal issues has jeopardized this country's stability, causing real danger for the sake of ideology. That approach in the Congress has led to uncertainty and unpredictability, which are the bane of small- and medium-size businesses, which are, in turn, the major job creators in our society and economy.

Congressman Mulvaney's extreme views already have negatively impacted the American economy. While in the House of Representatives, he led efforts to leverage the threat of a government shutdown as a tactic to push for specific demands, which included radical anti-choice policies, measures antithetical to women's healthcare and the right of privacy, including defunding Planned Parenthood.

As one of the most senior economic advisers to the President and the head of OMB, he would have immense responsibility to influence this administration and the President. His outright disregard for the harm caused by a government shutdown--a tactic that jolts and jeopardizes our economy and disrupts the lives of millions of Americans--should itself alone disqualify him from this critical role within the Federal Government.

He also sought government shutdowns as well to block the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which has helped so many people in Connecticut receive the coverage and care they need. I could spend a lot of time talking about the benefits people in Connecticut have received from the Affordable Care Act. Its future is key to the financial future of this country, but Mick Mulvaney has consistently advanced misconceptions and mistruths about the nature and functioning of this law.

Again, we can agree to disagree on policy, but misrepresenting the truth and relying on alternate facts is exactly what the budget director should not be doing. He is the one whom we rely on for real facts about our economy and our budget.

Even more worrying was Congressman Mulvaney's archaic approach to addressing the debt ceiling. In the face of all evidence, he flatly stated that he did not believe this country would default on its debt as a result of the failure to raise the debt ceiling. Economics 101: The debt ceiling, if it is not extended--that means a default.

Experts across the political spectrum agree that a breach of the debt ceiling, and consequently our Nation's full faith and credit, would be catastrophic. I am absolutely unable to vote for someone who fails to recognize that basic economic truth and takes this threat so lightly.

Finally, Congressman Mulvaney has demonstrated a near reflexive hostility to Federal agencies and the important work they do. As with so many of the President's nominees, unfortunately, he seems to be hostile to the very mission and purpose of the agency he is going to lead--whether it is the EPA or the Department of Labor or other agencies where nominees have taken stands that, in effect, say: Let's dismantle and destroy this agency. Yet they are the ones who are supposed to be leading and inspiring its efforts.

I believe that government could be more efficient and responsive. Waste ought to be eliminated. Fraud ought to be prosecuted. I am eager to work with my colleagues on good-faith proposals to achieve these goals.

Federal agencies remain vital to important public purposes that people cannot achieve on their own. They cannot clean our air and water on their own. They cannot ensure public safety through policing on their own. They cannot make sure our national defense is strong on their own. A whole myriad of functions depend on a functional Federal Government. Commonsense rules that prohibit excessive pollution or unsafe working conditions protect all of us.

As the head of OMB, which includes offices that oversee Federal funding, he has a responsibility to make sure that rules are enforced and that people are protected. Yet he has opposed the existence of the Export-Import Bank, an

institution that is critically important to so many of our job creators, big and small businesses in Connecticut and around the country.

He opposed emergency funding for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, despite the devastation caused by this terrible storm, which was unleashed in Connecticut and nearby States.

He has questioned the need for government-funded research, despite the myriad advances in science and medicine that have come from government laboratories and research institutions.

His record shows that he would be the wrong person for this job, harming our safety net and our fiscal stability. I oppose his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here principally to speak about the NICS Social Security Act, Congressional Review Act resolution that is before our Chamber, but events of the last 24 hours really raise before us the urgent and unavoidable issue of needing an investigation into the recent activities of Michael Flynn. He resigned as the National Security Advisor last night after revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other top White House officials. He may have misled the President and others in the White House, but there are also very serious questions about who knew what when. These classic what did they know and when did they know it questions must be answered by an independent counsel or commission, and the reason it must be independent is the same very profoundly important reason that I gave to then-Nominee Jeff Sessions, now Attorney General.

The Attorney General must appoint a special counsel in cases where there is reason to question his complete impartiality and objectivity; the reality as well as the appearance mandate here that there be an independent investigation by a special counsel.

Only a special counsel, independent of the Attorney General and of the White House, can ask with penetrating, aggressive, unflinching analysis whether the President knew before Michael Flynn made those phone calls to the Russian Ambassador and other phone calls to other foreign powers what the subjects of the conversations were, even whether they were going to be made, and only an independent counsel can know, with complete credibility and being regarded that way by the public, as to what happened and who knew what happened and when they knew.

This issue is about more than just a phone call to the Russian Ambassador. It is about the integrity and honesty of public officials, about the protections we give to our intelligence, and about the independence of our justice system.

I certainly have respect for the Office of Attorney General, but Jeff Sessions was deeply involved in President Trump's campaign and in the Presidential transition. I expressed to him in the hearing on his nomination that he would have to distance himself from an investigation of exactly these issues to maintain impartiality and objectivity in that investigation. So I will write to him today, and the letter will be made public shortly, asking for an independent counsel, a special investigator who can produce the information that is necessary for the public to be assured that there has been an inquiry that is impartial, objective, comprehensive, and thorough. It has to be unflinching and unstinting, and it should be done as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I want to address the issue that is before us on the floor relating to the Congressional Review Act resolution that we will vote on shortly and in my view that will undermine existing law if it is passed. Too many times in recent years we have had the terrible responsibility of bearing witness to the trauma and grief that follow gun violence. We see it in our streets every day, not just in Sandy Hook, which every day weighs on our minds and thoughts and hearts in Connecticut but the more than 30,000 deaths every year and countless injures all across the country in big and small towns, the streets of Hartford as well as rural and suburban communities.

I am far from the only one in this Chamber who has borne witness to that trauma and grief. Gun violence has claimed too many lives in too many places, through mass shootings in movie theaters as well as the constant drumbeat of shootings that never make the headlines. Our constituents count on us to make them safe. That is one of the fundamental responsibilities of our government. And by overwhelming majorities, including majorities of Republicans and of gun owners, they support commonsense steps to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In failing to move forward with legislation that would advance those goals, Congress has been complicit in this ongoing epidemic. It is truly a public health crisis. If more than 30,000 people died every year from disease or other kinds of communicable illnesses, there would be a call for drastic action.

This kind of public health crisis must be met with strong steps. When many of us in this body who believe that Congress must now take action to stem the scourge of gun violence hear one refrain from our colleagues--``enforce the law; enforce the law that already exists''-- we must heed that cry.

Enforcing the law that already exists is exactly what this regulation entails. So we must be ready to move forward. Yet, as my friend and colleague Senator Murphy noted earlier, the Congressional Review Act resolution we are about to vote on will not only fail to enforce existing law, it will undermine existing law. Federal law prohibits those who have severe mental health issues--that is to say, issues that would prevent them from safely handling a gun, from possessing a gun.

Federal law also requires agencies that have information indicating that people are disqualified from gun possession to share that information with the NICS background check system. Under this regulation, the Social Security Administration has proposed to do

exactly that. Pursuant to the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act--a law passed in the wake of the horrific Virginia Tech shooting to address significant loopholes in the background check system--the Social Security Administration will submit records to NICS for Social Security recipients who meet a specific set of carefully defined criteria. The regulation will apply only to a subset of Social Security disability recipients. It does not apply to those who are receiving Social Security retirement benefits. It applies only to those disability recipients who have been found, based on the Social Security Administration's established criteria, to be severely impaired due to a mental disability and who are therefore unable to perform substantial work or manage their own disability benefits.

Repealing this regulation could lead to great harm, exacerbating loopholes and failings in the background check system that erode public safety.

I have a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors, which represents city leaders from across our country. It says that ``due to loopholes in current law, too many mass murderers are still able to too easily obtain guns. This includes the individual responsible for killing 32 people and injuring 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 that led to the enactment of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. These killings must stop and this rule, as implemented last year, will help to do that.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors, as well as a letter from the National League of Cities.

It is critical to note that neither I nor any proponents of the Social Security Administration's rule believe that all or most or even a significant percentage of those suffering from mental health issues are dangerous--far from it. The overwhelming majority of people who confront mental health issues are peaceful and law-abiding citizens who seek only the treatment that should be everybody's right. In fact, I have been a strong advocate over many years of mental health parity, beginning when I was attorney general in the State of Connecticut. The very first Federal law on this issue that was passed was modeled in many ways after the State law that I championed. I was proud to support the passage of a bill last year to provide more resources to those seeking treatment, and I hope that it moves this country toward providing everyone with the care they need.

Mental health issues should be no cause for fear, no reason for stigma, no excuse for shame. Those who have come forward and been open about the treatment they have sought, in fact, have done themselves and their communities and country a great service. If I thought SSA regulations unfairly targeted people with mental illness or that it advanced the perception that they are inherently dangerous, I would oppose it with every fiber of my being, but that is not the regulation we have here.

As Senator Durbin said this morning and my colleague Senator Murphy reiterated, this rule is not one loosely applied to anyone who has some trouble balancing a checkbook; it applies only to those disability recipients with a serious and debilitating mental health issue. That is estimated to be about 75,000 people nationwide out of approximately 10 million Americans who suffer from a serious mental illness. Everyone who suffers from mental illness should have a right to treatment, but not all should have a gun. It is very unlikely that people who meet these criteria will be able to safely handle a gun or to safely store it in their home and prevent its misuse by themselves or by others.

It is possible that SSA's initial determination will be wrong. That is why crucially--please understand--crucially the regulation also provides due process. In fact, these due process protections are necessary when a constitutional right is at stake. This right, the Second Amendment right, must be respected as the law of the land. The regulation entitles those who are affected

by it to advanced notice. When going through the process to appoint someone else to handle their benefits, they are told that they will forfeit their firearms right. They are given that notice, and they are given due process. If they believe this is inappropriate or unnecessary, the regulation gives them that process to appeal. It is one that allows SSA to grant relief upon a determination that the beneficiary will not be ``dangerous to public safety,'' a term that has meaning.

SSA is also required to notify the NICS background check system if the name should be removed, whether it was submitted in error or because a beneficiary has recovered from the condition or because they were granted relief through the appeals process. Those are rights with real remedies, with due process, with fairness.

If I thought this regulation failed to provide adequate process that every individual is due, regardless of how much I support its goal, I would oppose it with, again, every fiber of my being because it should be and it is the law of the land.

Of course there may be ways that this regulation, like any regulation, could be improved if the criteria could be better targeted or if the due process protections could be made stronger or if the administration could be made more efficient. We should not hesitate to make those improvements. I would welcome suggestions for enhancements, but the methods chosen by my colleagues to attack this regulation--the Congressional Review Act--prevent any and all of those improvements.

Severely limiting the time for debate denies us adequate consideration. Much worse, it is a blunt-force instrument that will prevent the Social Security Administration from issuing any ``substantially similar'' regulation in the future. So the passage of this resolution will prevent the SSA from complying with the legal requirement for submitting legal records for a background check in the future. It will hamstring this agency and prevent it from fulfilling its obligation to public safety--that is regardless of whether new information comes to light or whether it would be possible to devise a better method of submitting these records.

In the words of the well-known and respected group Americans for Responsible Solutions, using the CRA to undo this rule would ``not only allow guns to be placed into the hands of individuals determined to be legally incapable of using them safely, but it also creates an irresponsible, irreversible precedent.''

As I have always said, I will work with my colleagues on any good- faith steps to stem the tide of gun violence in this country, and I would be more than happy--in fact, I am eager--to work with them to fix flaws they see in this regulation. We need to come together to improve the integrity and efficiency of the national background check system and keep guns out of the hands of people who cannot safely handle them. People who are dangerous to themselves or others--it may be a very small number, but they can do great tragic damage. The resolution we will vote on shortly accomplishes neither of these goals. It does nothing to answer my constituents who ask me time and time again why Congress does nothing to confront the epidemic of gun violence in this country. It would create an irresponsible, irreversible precedent. More important than the precedent is the consequence in real lives of the death and injury that could result. Those deaths and injuries are truly irreversible and irresponsible, and we can help to stop them by taking the right stand on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am very honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Vermont on issues that he has worked so long and so hard and so well, and that is health care for our Nation and focusing on the fight for women's health, for access to affordable care for all Americans, and for a Cabinet truly free of conflict and corruption--a cause that we share in opposing Tom Price as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

What is so painfully apparent to him and me and many of our colleagues is that Representative Price's nomination is a doubling down of the ongoing blatant attack on women's health by his administration. His radical anti-choice policies, antiquated views on reproductive health, and demands to repeal the women's health provisions of the Affordable Care Act disqualify him from serving as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Before the ACA was signed into law, being a woman meant higher health care costs for simply being a woman. It is estimated that this discrimination cost them about $1 billion more every year. They had to pay higher costs simply because they were women.

Representative Price has been clarion clear about where he stands on this issue, with his policy effectively eliminating important protections against discrimination that were guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act. Under Representative Price's reckless proposal, all women, including healthy women, could see their insurance costs rise--and rise astronomically. His plan also means guaranteed coverage of maternity care services could be lost. It means well-woman visits, birth control, domestic violence screening, and breastfeeding support-- all provided now without any out-of-pocket costs--would be lost. The simple truth is, with Representative Price's policies, many women will go without necessary care.

More than a quarter of all women and 44 percent of low-income women already rely on publicly funded health clinics like Planned Parenthood for contraception. Without guaranteed access to birth control, without cost-sharing, this number will certainly climb.

It isn't hard to see why, despite the lonely opposition of Representative Price and the Republican Party, 70 percent of Americans support a birth control benefit. Representative Price callously asked to see one woman who couldn't afford birth control, one woman who was left behind. If he is confirmed and if the policies he vigorously supports are enacted, he will see millions without necessary health care and particularly birth control.

As many know, Representative Price's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood means more than just losing access to birth control; it means cutting off preventive care, cancer screenings, and STD testing for millions of low-income women. The women who get their care from Planned Parenthood seek what all of us want, what all of us should have a right to receive--trusted, compassionate, and medically sound health care. Representative Price's politically motivated tax on Planned Parenthood put this care, and their lives, at risk.

Clearly, Representative Price is one of the most extreme Members of his party on issues of women's health, and that includes his views on women's reproductive rights--a woman's right to choose. He has supported radical legislation that would ban virtually all safe abortions and even some forms of birth control, which, in essence, would send our country back to a time when women died because the care they needed was outlawed. It was made unlawful; it was banned. That time has gone. We do not want it to come again.

Simply put, Representative Price's anti-choice views are not only ill-informed and unconstitutional, but they are downright dangerous.

Representative Price has also shown remarkable indifference to the concerns of the millions who will see their health insurance disappear--vanish--following repeal of the Affordable Care Act, if that disgrace should occur. For millions, the Affordable Care Act has been the difference between seeing a doctor at the first signs of disease and waiting until treatment is no longer an option. It has been the difference between financial security and bankruptcy. Much of the bankruptcy in the United States of America has to do with medical costs.

For many, it has been the difference--no exaggeration--between life and death.

The numbers support this point, whether or not Representative Price wants to believe them. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of uninsured Americans is the lowest it has been in 50 years or more. The positive impact of this law is felt every single day in the State of Connecticut. It has reduced our uninsured rate by a massive 34 percent, resulting in 110,000 Connecticut residents gaining coverage. Many of my constituents have felt emphatic about--and have told me so--exactly how the Affordable Care Act has changed their lives and their family's lives for the better.

Representative Price refuses to guarantee that these families will be covered following repeal. So I hope he hears their stories and understands what the Affordable Care Act means to them and the millions of other Americans whom he chooses not to see, not to hear, not to know exist.

Representative Price refuses to guarantee that these families will be covered. For example, I point to a woman in Connecticut named Colleen who told me that before the ACA was passed, her medications alone cost $250,000 each year. That is a quarter of a million dollars. Thanks to this law, she has affordable care, no lifetime limits, and knows she will not be a victim of discrimination or denied coverage of her preexisting condition. Colleen said the Affordable Care Act has been the difference for her between life and death.

I have also heard from a father whose daughter has a chronic illness. He asked that I emphasize to all of you, my colleagues, that health insurance is ``not a luxury, but a necessity'' for his family. His daughter represents one of the 1.5 million people in Connecticut who are now protected from discrimination based on preexisting conditions, thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

I have heard from a retired pastor who counts on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, a farmer who fears for his family's health after repeal, a young woman who was able to start her own business because of the assurances promised by health reform, and a veteran who is scared for his wife.

Representative Price cannot promise that these people will keep their coverage, and he has said that outlawing discrimination because of preexisting conditions is ``a terrible idea.'' He thinks it is a terrible idea to outlaw preexisting conditions. I saw the effects of preexisting conditions year after year when I was attorney general, and I went to bat and fought for people who were denied health care because their insurance companies told them that health care isn't to take care of a preexisting condition not covered by their policy. His proposals do not expand access to affordable care, and they do not protect patients.

Representative Price's nomination is wrong for the people of Connecticut and for the people of this Nation.

Representative Price's plans would also do away with the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, disrupting the lives and health of nearly 15 million Americans. This would leave so many people without access to preventive care, lifesaving medications, and necessary medical interventions. This is simply unacceptable and cannot be the policies of the

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In fact, instead of expansion, Representative Price wants to block- grant Medicaid and cap the program, resulting in higher costs, less coverage, and devastation for millions of Americans, half of them children who rely on this program.

In Connecticut, we have been hit hard by the opioid addiction epidemic. It is a national scourge, a public health crisis, and we have relied heavily on Medicaid to fill the gaps. At a time when this epidemic needs more resources, not less, Representative Price would work to strip that away, leaving people who rely on Medicaid without treatment.

His plan for our Nation's seniors is just as dismal. He champions privatizing Medicare by turning it into a voucher system and ending the promise of guaranteed health benefits.

Giving seniors a fixed amount of funds to buy health insurance would result in high premiums, increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors, many of them already on a fixed income. And for many Americans, Representative Price may mean the difference between being able to purchase lifesaving medications and putting food on the table or heating their homes.

Finally, like many of my colleagues--and Senator Sanders made this point so well--I have serious concerns over Representative Price's potential conflicts of interest. Having repeatedly purchased stock in health care and pharmaceutical companies that would directly benefit from his legislative efforts and advocacy on the company's behalf, he nonetheless made those investments and kept them.

In the face of these allegations, Representative Price has simply refused to provide information that could disprove violations, which has led many Americans to question whether Representative Price will truly put their best interests before crony capitalism.

The American people know better. These potential conflicts of interest and views on the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and Medicare are out of touch and out of line with what Americans want and our Nation needs. We should be building on the success of these programs, not tearing them down, and we should be working with one another to improve the health of all Americans, not fostering divisions. Sadly, Representative Price's views and policies make this very attainable goal really impossible. Simply put, his proposals are dangerous, they are disgraceful, and they are disqualifying.

I cannot vote for Representative Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. I will oppose his nomination and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my great colleague and a champion of education and consumer rights, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and to address this body and, most particularly, the Presiding Officer, who has contributed so much himself to the cause of education. We know, better than anyone, how important the Federal commitment to quality education is--not just a C or D education but excellence in education.

The American people deserve a Secretary of Education who embodies and exemplifies that commitment to excellence. Unfortunately, the nominee before us, Betsy DeVos, fails on every

count to meet that standard. So I am here today to voice my continuing concern about this nomination, which is antithetical to the very mission of the Department she has been selected to lead.

She is unquestionably unqualified, unknowledgeable, unprepared for this job. She is unfit to run the Department of Education. As hard and as unkind as that verdict sounds, we have an obligation to speak truth here and speak that truth to power, even when it is the President of the United States, even when it is a job as critically important as Secretary of Education--especially when it is as important as this job.

She is wealthy. She is a billionaire. She has committed her career to pushing for private school vouchers and unregulated charter schools. Having reviewed her full record, including her confirmation hearing and her responses and lack of responses to followup questions that my colleagues sent to her, I respectfully say to my colleagues: We should not approve this person.

She has committed her career to pushing for private school vouchers and unregulated charter schools, not to the public education our students deserve. The incoming Secretary of Education will face a myriad of challenging and constantly evolving problems that will demand a high level of leadership and guidance, from soaring student debt to faltering school and student achievement scores across the country, to the pervasive school violence and bullying that threatens so many of our students, to unscrupulous for-profit schools, profiteering off students and veterans.

Clearly, the problems, these problems and others, require a Secretary who will not just rubberstamp or approve the policies of special interests or delegate systematic problems to private schools.

The Secretary of Education is responsible for overseeing a budget of Federal spending over $36 billion--that is K-12 education funding--and $150 billion in higher education funding each year. In addition, there is a portfolio of more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding Federal loans. That is the largest consumer debt in this country other than mortgage loans.

The leader of this Department is responsible for determining policies that affect our neighborhood public schools. She is responsible, if she is confirmed, for enforcing key protections under a number of civil rights laws designed to ensure every child access to education. This job requires a singular level of intellect and energy, preparation, devotion to the welfare of students, parents, and, yes, educators and teachers. Our educators and teachers are the real heroes of our educational system. Our public schoolteachers are second to none in the world for their commitment to opening businesses, creating dreams, and enabling students to achieve those dreams, and those dreams will be in peril if Betsy DeVos is our Secretary of Education because she has demonstrated her disrespect for the enterprise of public education.

From implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act, improving education quality, protecting Pell Grant Programs, and reducing pervasive student debt in higher education, to policing the epidemic of campus sexual assault and protecting students' civil rights at schools across the country, clearly our Nation's chief education executive needs to be immensely qualified--not just questionably qualified--but unchallengeably prepared and well versed in these complicated issues.

The fact is, Mrs. DeVos has no relevant experience as a teacher or as a leader of a public school. She has said that neither she nor her children have ever received a student loan or a Pell grant. She has no direct experience with our public education system that would enable her to lead it.

In addition to her lack of knowledge of higher education public schools, she has demonstrated a profound animosity, an antipathy to them. She has spent her career systematically privatizing and dismantling public schools instead of working to build them and improve them.

For decades, Mrs. DeVos spent millions of her fortune advocating for the diversion of public money to unacceptable private schools and unaccountable private schools, especially in her home State of Michigan. Mrs. DeVos helped to design an ineffective charter school system with little accountability for results in Detroit. However, the systems that she helped to design and promote actually siphoned money from Michigan's already underfunded public school system and caused achievement rates there to drastically plummet.

Despite her rhetoric, school privatization schemes are plagued with severe problems. They often strip students with disabilities and their families of their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This point underscores a fundamental theme for Mrs. DeVos's record, indicating how she would pose a threat--in fact, an unprecedented danger to students' civil rights across the board.

When asked during her confirmation hearing about the IDEA, Mrs. DeVos admitted that she was ``confused'' and thought that States were best positioned to enforce the Federal law. That answer exposed not only her lack of knowledge but her lack of caring. Someone who cares about students with disabilities would have known that this landmark education law depends on Federal enforcement for its effect, and she, as Education Secretary, would be the one to do that enforcement.

Before the passage of the 1975 law that later became the IDEA, when decisions about students with disabilities were left to the States, only one in five students with disabilities received an education. Does she believe that we ought to go back to a time when States were able to openly discriminate against students with disabilities, that States should be again delegated that responsibility, which they failed to enforce effectively?

Whatever her answer, clearly her blatant disregard for the IDEA threatens students with disabilities and already underfunded disability programs.

Mrs. DeVos also threatens students' rights and campus safety under title IX, including rights that are designed to protect students against campus sexual assault and other violence. This issue has concerned me. I have held roundtables around the State of Connecticut and have submitted a measured bill that would help address this problem at the college level. But Mrs. DeVos has advocated for legislation that would actually increase the difficulty for victims of sexual assault to receive support.

During her hearing, Mrs. DeVos told Senator Casey, my colleague, that she could not commit to continuing the Obama administration's title IX guidance that requires schools to have procedures in place to investigate and address instances of campus sexual assault or risk losing Federal funding. That title IX commitment is at the core of the Federal responsibility to protect students against sexual assault. We can agree or disagree on the detail, but this blatant disregard for title IX responsibilities goes to the essence of her commitment to education in this Nation and to protecting students against the scourge of sexual assault, which we know is all too pervasive still on many of our campuses.

Even worse, according to tax records, Mrs. DeVos has spent millions of dollars funding ultraconservative organizations that promote anti- choice, anti-Muslim, and anti-LGBT policies like conversion therapy. I never would have thought that I would be on the floor of the Senate considering a candidate who supported anti-LGBT policies or anti-choice or anti-Muslim policies. They don't belong in our schools. They certainly should not be supported by our Nation's Secretary of Education.

On the issue of for-profit education, again, it is a source of great concern because it has given rise to so many abusive tactics directed often against our veterans. During her Senate hearing, Mrs. DeVos did little to allay my concerns about her record as a school choice advocate and political donor, averse to protection against the abuses of for-profit.

We know there are for-profit schools and colleges that do great work. They contribute vitally, but unfortunately, for-profits also have been plagued by abuses that need to be fought and overcome.

Mrs. DeVos successfully lobbied to expand even failing schools in Michigan and to protect those for-profits from scrutiny and oversight. This record of enabling for-profits and her own self-dealing in a for- profit preschool herself does not bode well--that

is an understatement--for the hundreds of thousands of students who have been neglected, deceived, and scammed in recent years by predatory for-profit college institutions like Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech. They left in their wake, when they collapsed and failed those students, a myriad of tragic stories, tragedies not just for the loss of money but for the loss of future opportunities, and that is far from the kind of record that we want replicated under our next Secretary of Education.

In fact, during her hearing, Senator Murray asked Mrs. DeVos about 17 specific bad actor for-profit higher education institutions, including Corinthian and ITT. They have been accused of using exotic dancers to recruit students, falsifying job placement rates, or stealing Federal financial aid. Mrs. DeVos would not confirm whether she believes that those practices and misuse of taxpayer funds at any of those 17 schools are, in fact, unacceptable. She simply would not respond definitively to that question.

The Secretary of Education is responsible for policies that could either lift or exacerbate the crushing burden of student debt at those for-profit schools. She is the one who could alleviate that burden, yet she refused to commit to protecting any current student loan repayment options or benefits or even helping severely disabled borrowers receive loan discharges that they qualify for.

She refused to commit to protecting the Pell grant, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, or maintaining the existing transparency information on the college scorecard or Federal student aid data center.

Mrs. DeVos refused to commit to keep private banks out of the student loan system or ensure that taxpayers do not subsidize career education programs that consistently leave students with unaffordable mounds of debt, without meaningful prospects in the job market.

Her record and her responses to Senate questioning reveal that putting her in charge of the Department of Education would be akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. I realize that analogy is overused, particularly in this town, where there are so many instances of it. But her lack of appropriate, definitive responses are as telling and compelling as her answers about her commitment to protecting, rather than endangering, the individuals and institutions that will be her mission if this body confirms her.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have a special interest in protecting our Nation's servicemembers and veterans from insidious and pernicious predatory for-profit colleges. It is a paramount concern. It ought to be a paramount concern for our Nation because all too often, veterans are victims of these predatory for- profit colleges who lure them even while they are still in the military. They lure them with promises and images that create expectations never to be fulfilled, and so many veterans emerge from these colleges with mounds of debt but no degree.

Yet Mrs. DeVos refused to say whether she understands that Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense student loan and assistance programs are even federally funded or whether she would commit to closing the 90-10 loophole that has enabled colleges to aggressively market and mislead many vets.

We have all spoken on the floor about the need to close that loophole. It is the plain vanilla solution that should be a matter of consensus, yet Mrs. DeVos refused to commit on that issue.

She has earned a failing grade for lack of study, complete lack of diligence in preparing for her testimony and to lead in higher education programs. Her commitment to protect students and veterans from massive debt, low-quality education standards and accountability, or pernicious for-profit companies and leaders deserves a failing grade as well.

I will not support a nominee who fails to agree that predatory practices, exploitation of taxpayers, and deception of students have no place in our education system.

While Mrs. DeVos evaded questions about bringing accountability to schools, she also refused to commit to keeping guns out of schools. When asked by my colleague Chris Murphy whether guns have any place in or around schools, Mrs. DeVos gave the following reply: ``I would imagine that there is probably a gun in the schools to protect from potential grizzlies.''

That statement has given a lot of amusement to a lot of people around the country, but it deals with such an intensely serious subject, that it is really no laughing matter. All of us who went through the tragedy and grief experienced by those families and loved ones who lost children in Sandy Hook, CT, and saw the strength and courage of the Newtown community cannot regard with anything but contempt that answer.

When she was further pressured whether she would support a plan from President Trump to ban gun-free school zones, Mrs. DeVos revealed that she would support ``whatever the President does.''

In some ways, that answer is as repugnant as the remark about grizzlies, saying she would follow whatever the President does, without leading and providing vision and intellectual tools that are necessary for the President to act, is an abdication of responsibility.

These answers are woefully unacceptable.

We recently observed the fourth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. We still remember the 20 beautiful children and 6 exceptional educators who were brutally murdered in Newtown.

The day of the Sandy Hook shooting was the most heartbreaking day of all my years in public service. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, there have been at least 210 school shootings since Sandy Hook. Words cannot capture the sense of grief and outrage we must feel in the face of continued gun violence around the country--in our schools, malls, clubs, churches, public venues, and private homes. This scourge of gun violence must be combated, and yet Mrs. DeVos has indicated she is impervious to the emotional force of the tragedies arising from gun violence.

I want to share a passage from a column written by my friend Erica Lafferty, the daughter of Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung. Dawn was the heroic principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School murdered at the massacre that day as she desperately attempted to save her students and staff.

My mom spent her life preparing to take care of students.

She earned a degree in education. She spent years in a

classroom, teaching special education for kindergartners and

middle-schoolers. By the time she became a principal of Sandy

Hook, she knew exactly what elementary schools should be--a

happy place for kids where they could learn and grow in a

safe environment.

To claim that she should have done more to take care of her

kids is an insult to all that she did, and to the lengths to

which so many teachers go to ensure a good and safe learning

environment.

That Mrs. DeVos thinks ``bears'' when asked about guns in

schools proves just how little she has considered the

important role of the Education Secretary in keeping students

and faculty safe.

It is insulting to tell teachers that they should add

``sharpshooter'' to their job descriptions. It is absurd to

teach students to duck and cover in active shooter drills

rather than demanding our legislators do the responsible

thing and make it more difficult for dangerous people to get

their hands on firearms.

That is what Betsy DeVos should have said in her hearing when she was asked about gun violence in our schools. That is the sense of outrage that should have come from her spontaneously, and it should be the leadership that she should provide.

There is nothing more important than keeping our children safe from anyone who would do them harm, particularly in a school, which should be the safest place in the world, and that means that our Secretary of Education must provide leadership, courage, and strength to stand up to an administration that fails in its responsibility on the issue of gun violence.

The families of Sandy Hook asked us to honor their children and family members with action, to make America safer and to make our schools safer. I cannot support a nominee who fails to prioritize the basic safety of students in our schools or take the scourge of gun violence seriously. I cannot support Betsy DeVos because she fails to demonstrate basic caring--put aside her lack of knowledge--but a basic caring about the fate of students who may be in danger of gun violence and equally in danger of failing to achieve the American dream.

Her responsibility is beyond being a bureaucrat or a placeholder in a Federal organization chart. She has a public trust, even as a nominee, to show America the importance of public education. Her career is about demeaning and detracting from public schools. Her testimony at the Senate hearing betrayed a lack of preparing that would disqualify students in schools from a passing grade.

I have received numerous correspondence, letters, and emails about this nomination. In fact, 14,000 letters from teachers, concerned parents, and citizens expressing outrage at the threat that Mrs. DeVos poses to public education, disability rights, and student success. For a small State like Connecticut, 14,000 emails and letters is unprecedented. It is an outpouring, an uproar that is certainly unprecedented in my time in the U.S. Senate and in the memory of staff who work here. These letters come from teachers, students, parents, really everyone affected by public education.

I want to close by saluting them and most especially the teachers and parents who are so committed to their students.

Erin, a third grade teacher from Connecticut captured this fear in her letter to my office:

I write this to you as a teacher in despair. After a decade

and a half of public service as a teacher, I fear that our

basic precepts of our obligation to educate ALL children has

come into question.

I am fearful of what lies ahead for my students if someone

like Mrs. DeVos is in charge of our Department of Education.

Her lack of experience in public education, her desire to

separate and sort our children by their income, academic

ability and socioeconomic status, her blatant disregard for

students with special needs and our obligations to these

students under IDEA--strike panic in the education community.

One of the best things about being a public school teacher

is the challenge and privilege to work with all kinds of

students with all kinds of abilities and needs. I have the

honor to work in a school that is rooted in the inclusion of

all students.

More than 15% of the students in my school have special

needs. We are so proud to provide this group with the

services that are specialized just for them to meet their

academic, social and emotional needs.

You see, our work here is not merely about proficiency, it

is indeed about growth. We are tasked to help our children

grow to their own individual potential--not just meet a

mandated standard.

When I think of some of the beautiful and important

achievements that my students make, they are often not about

a score on a proficiency test. I think of the autistic

student in my class that is working to be able to communicate

his wants and need to others.

When he can play a board game with a peer, that is growth.

My classroom reflects the tapestry of our American society.

I have students of all abilities and needs and we have built

a caring classroom community that allows for us all to grow

each day.

I have been highly trained to work with ALL students. I

assure that my student's Individualized Education Program

goals under the law are being provided for. I seek out and

provide resources. I advocate. I accommodate educational

programs to meet each child's unique learning needs. I

encourage.

I celebrate the milestones and yes, the growth.

The public education system as we know it ensures a free

and equitable education for all students--regardless of their

academic needs, their socioeconomic status, their race,

religion or parental involvement.

Please continue your efforts to convince your fellow

Senators that Mrs. DeVos will be a reprehensible choice for

our Department of Education.

Jen, another teacher in Connecticut shared a similar message with me in her letter to my office:

I am a teacher in esteemed Fairfield County, Connecticut--

but don't let the package fool you. My section of Fairfield

County, my very public middle School in Danbury, Connecticut

has hosted over 37 nationalities at one time under one roof.

You see, our public schools are a mirror. Our schools

reflect the world as it exists outside our doors. We open

them and the world pours in. This is how it works. We offer

influence. We set expectations. We administer tests and

benchmarks and are tied to terms like ``proficiency'' and

``growth''. Within this academic framework, cultures clash.

It's inevitable. Differences abound. And yet, in this sphere

of gaps and spaces, we bridge to one another.

We reach because we have to; there is no option. We see

differences and we've learned the inherent power in them. We

develop minds of course--but we also develop tolerant

citizens who can thrive in a multi-cultural and diverse

society.

Vouchers and school choice, as Mrs. DeVos champions,

present as an antithesis to these core democratic

philosophies.

What is showcased as an opportunity for growth is a thin

veil for layered discriminatory practices.

Vouchers decrease the potential of many to the potential of

few. Vouchers are a cousin to segregation, if not a sibling--

and the consideration of DeVos as secretary undermines, with

longevity, the very fabric of a United Nation.

I was asked to share personal stories and I can--I've seen

it all in fifteen years: kids who experience unprecedented

success and kids who break your heart in two with the

devastation forced upon them. We can't ever know who will

triumph, it is impossible to know--we can only keep the

playing field as fair and accessible as possible to all.

Deborah, a fourth grade teacher from Connecticut, was frustrated with the conflicts of interest surrounding Mrs. DeVos in her letter to my office:

Mrs. DeVos has a very clear conflict of interest on many

levels. Financially, she wants to maintain the $5-25 million

dollar investment she has in Neurocore, a biotech company

which deals with attention deficit disorder. Her investment

in Windquest Group, which backs Neurocare, is a company

focused on ``a science and brain-based program that targets

children is clearly a conflict. She has presented a clear

history of donating to and investing in companies or

organizations which affect students.

As a teacher in a Title I public school, it is essential

that the Secretary of Education is equipped to deal with the

issues we deal with every day. In my class I routinely deal

with issues of poverty, homelessness, underfed students who

count on free or reduced meals and extra food sent home

weekly for the weekend. Their parents normally work two or

three jobs to try to pay the bills. If a student is hungry,

they are concerned with where their next meal is coming from,

not which genre I'm teaching. This is not a business, it's

personal for every student we teach. If students are held to

standards which are not realistic, supported, funded, or

understood by the federal government then the ability to

achieve & thrive as a society will cease to exist.

Finally, Nancy, a 26 year veteran of teaching and Danbury, CT, 2016 Teacher of the Year, shared anecdotes of her experiences teaching special education students. Here is a passage from her letter:

Please do not approve a person who has no experience with

public education and has no clear understanding about student

need or how students learn. This is an extremely important

job. We should not take it lightly and just let anyone take

that title. Mrs. DeVos' plan for our children will

disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and quite honestly,

every child in America. Her inaccurate, incomplete and poor

answers to questions posed to her by Congress as well as her

track record in Michigan where she worked to destroy public

education, serve as evidence that she is not qualified for

the job. She bought her way to this appointment with huge

donations to those who would vote for her. She does not

understand that education is not a for-profit business; it is

an investment in our most important resource and the future

of this country--our children. Betsy DeVos is not the right

person to lead education in the United States of America.

I will finish by saying that I firmly believe we owe our students high standards, just as we demand of them high performance, but that requires of us a commitment that Betsy DeVos has failed to make. It is a commitment to invest more resources in public education, to give back and give more to our public schools.

After observing her testimony, I am convinced she lacks that leadership ability or requisite record to serve as the steward of public education and to hold that trust that our country desperately and urgently needs now, not at some point in the future. That commitment is necessary now because every day, every month, every year is a lifetime in a student's education. So I will vote against her confirmation today, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Vermont who has led the Judiciary Committee with such vision and courage over so many years, and whom I respect as a former prosecutor, as I am, as well as a litigator and a conscience of the Senate.

I am deeply concerned that our Nation is careening toward a constitutional crisis, a legal nightmare that will test the independence of the judiciary and require the utmost resolve and integrity from everyone involved in the justice system and from the Congress, because only the Congress may provide the kind of check on the ongoing assault against our court system.

President Trump repeatedly has tried to put himself above the law, and in just a few weeks has moved from scorning conflict-of-interest and disclosure principles to promulgating destructive, discriminatory Executive orders, and openly attacking the judiciary. His personal invectives and insults are unprecedented for the President of the United States against the judiciary. Without respect for the rule of law and the court system, democracy fails. No Cabinet member has more responsibility to ensure that the justice system is given this necessary respect and trust than the Attorney General of the United States. The sweeping authority in this position impacts the lives and livelihoods of everyday Americans, implicating everything from our immigration system to law enforcement, to civil rights, national security, capital punishment, sentencing, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

This job is one I know well. Like some of my colleagues, I served as U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice as the chief Federal prosecutor for Connecticut, for several years, reporting to the U.S. Attorney General, and, then, for several years afterward, as a private litigator, and, then, for 20 years as attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I fought alongside, and sometimes against, the U.S. Attorney General and the armies of lawyers at his disposal. In fact, the Attorney General commands thousands of lawyers who embody his power to speak on behalf of the United States. His job is to protect the public from criminal offenders and to convict the guilty, but also to protect the innocent who may be wrongly accused and to assure that justice is done.

In fact, as Justice Jackson said about the role of the U.S. Attorney General, which he filled, he is to seek justice, not just win cases. I know how powerful this position can be and how crucial the Attorney General is not as the appointee of a politician but as a servant of justice.

In discharging this sacred obligation, the Attorney General must always remain independent, not just in reality but in appearance. His decisions must supersede partisan politics. In most cases, there is, in fact, no recourse from his decision without political interference, which would be improper. He is not just another government lawyer. He is not just another Cabinet position. He is the Nation's lawyer. He is the people's lawyer. He must be the Nation's legal conscience.

This job requires a singular level of intellect and integrity, and a nonpartisan, but passionate devotion to the rule of law.

Over the past week, as our Nation's courts did their job and sorted through the implications of the President's hasty, ill-conceived, and illegal Executive orders, President Trump called into question the very integrity of our judicial system. Not only did he label U.S. District Court Judge Robart a ``so-called judge,'' but he also suggested that the American people should blame him and our ``court system'' if something should happen as a result of the court's blocking his Executive order.

In this anticipatory blame, the bluster and bullying are inappropriate and un-Presidential, and I believe they threaten harm to our democracy as well as the judicial system.

The comments were deeply disturbing to all of us who believe in the integrity of the judicial system--including the American Bar Association, which said through Linda Klein, its president, that ``personal attacks on judges are attacks on our Constitution,'' and ``the independence of the judiciary is not up for negotiation . . . independence from party politics, independence from Congress, and independence from the president of the United States himself.''

Ms. Klein called upon all lawyers to defend the rule of law in light of these attacks on the Constitution. I echo this call proudly today, the importance of which cannot be overstated. Nowhere is that job more significant than the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States as head of that Department. The agency is tasked with seeking and achieving justice, not with carrying out the President's agenda as a priority.

That does not mean lawyers at the Department of Justice who are currently defending the orders in court are acting improperly or wrongly. What it means is, the country needs an independent justice system staffed by people who are ready to stand up and speak out to a President whose orders may contravene constitutional law.

We saw this principle in action last week. We saw what it really means to serve at the Department of Justice and represent not the President but the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Former Acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates took a stand based on moral and legal principle, and I thank Ms. Yates for her courage and strength in that action. Holding herself to the highest traditions of the Department of Justice, Ms. Yates said that in her judgment these orders cannot be defended, that the rule of law and morality is more important than the politics of the moment and the impulsive edicts of a ruler who apparently fails to uphold the law. Her actions raised the question of whether the next Attorney General will have the same courage and strength.

Ms. Yates demonstrated genuine grit and grace in standing strong for the rule of law. Her actions are in the long, proud tradition of the Department. Not since Watergate has an Attorney General or Acting Attorney General been fired for acting in accordance with their conscience and the rule of law. Unfortunately, President Trump threatens to return us to that era. He has made his intentions clear: The Department of Justice will not be an independent authority acting on behalf of the American people. Instead, it will be just another enabler of the President's ongoing efforts to substitute his whims and wishes for legal and ethical responsibilities.

I believe the President's orders are misguided and illegal. The courts will rule in days. His orders are wrong, in no small part, because they threaten to take away one of the primary reasons why ours is the greatest country in the history of the world--the country that my father, a refugee from Nazi Germany, sought in 1935. He arrived here at 17 years old with not much more than the shirt on his back, speaking

little English, knowing just about no one. This country gave him the chance to succeed.

I think about how sad and ashamed he would be if he saw the actions taken by this President: orders to ban people from coming into this country because of their religion; prioritizing one religion against another and raising fears that do damage to our core constitutional principles.

Barring refugees like children who are harmed in other lands seeking to come to this country deprives us of the great talents, gifts, and energy that have helped to shape and build this country because we are truly stronger as a result of our diversity. We are a nation of immigrants. Our strength comes from the talents, energy, and vibrancy of these individuals who come to this country as children with their parents.

This order makes us less safe because it provides a recruiting tool to extremists like ISIS. We are at war with ISIS, and we must win that war. It frays trust between law enforcement and Muslim communities, but it also weakens us in a deeper moral sense. It is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is wrong for this great country, devoted and founded on the ideals welcoming people seeking that beacon of hope, opportunity, and protection.

The rule of law protects us from these moral harms, but the rule of law depends on people. Fortunately, even as we have seen the harms of these past few days play out in real time, we have also seen people who are willing to stand strong against them. People have gone to the streets in marches and rallies in the New Haven Green and in front of our State capitol in Connecticut, and all across our State, saying it is not only wrong, but they will rally against this wrong.

All of these points are simply to say that the position of Attorney General is so important because he must stand strong as well for the rule of law. He must be able to speak truth to power. He must have the courage and strength to say to the President of the United States: This order is unconstitutional, not just unwise and unwarranted but illegal.

I have, unfortunately, reached the conclusion that Senator Sessions cannot be counted on to play that role, to defend the rule of law, to be a champion of civil rights and civil liberties, not to just follow the law but to lead in this challenge that faces our country as never before because our rights and liberties are now threatened as never before. He must be a vigorous advocate, not a passive follower of the law.

Senator Sessions showed this point to me through his testimony at his hearing and his subsequent responses. While he must be ready to say no to the President, what we saw demonstrated so vividly is that Senator Sessions' record and testimony indicates he is unwilling or unready to perform his core tasks.

President Trump's vast business holdings present an unprecedented threat of conflict of interest. Yet the President has not only refused to divest himself, he has mocked the idea that he should. Should conflicts arise, the Attorney General must be willing to maintain impartiality, including appointing a special counsel or prosecutor if necessary. There are so many scenarios requiring this step. Yet when I asked Senator Sessions about enforcement of cases against illegal conflicts of interest involving the President and his family--such as violations of the emoluments clause or the STOCK Act--he equivocated. When I asked him about appointing a special counsel to investigate criminal wrongdoing at Deutsche Bank, owed more than $300 million by President Donald Trump, he equivocated. When I asked him about the investigation of Russian hacking, he equivocated. His answers to questions I submitted to him in writing were no better. Those answers give me no confidence that he will be an independent, nonpolitical enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment that the Nation needs. At a moment when the incoming administration faces ethical and legal controversies that are unprecedented in scope and scale, Senator Sessions has simply given us no confidence that he will appoint an independent counsel or demonstrate the independence that is necessary.

His record over many years and his recent testimony fail to demonstrate the core commitments and convictions necessary to be our next Attorney General. He has failed to show how he can be that legal conscience, that unmistakable, unshakable, ethical voice independent from the White House. He has failed to prove that he will be a champion of constitutional rights. Indeed, his career demonstrates an antipathy and hostility to the very rights and liberties that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer must always promote proactively, as well as defend.

Focus for a moment, shall we, on some of the rights that affect women and their privacy. Women comprise more than half the population, but unfortunately our society and our laws have too frequently prevented them from achieving the equality that every American should enjoy. Over the course of his career, Senator Sessions has opposed key legislation that protects and further enhances women's rights. As a Senator, that trend was worrying. As Attorney General of the United States, it must be disqualifying.

In 1973, the Supreme Court recognized a vital constitutional right of privacy for women. It is a right that is both basic and fundamental, now enshrined in five decades of precedent, that women have the freedom to choose what medical procedures they will undergo to make private health care decisions and personal reproductive rights decisions without interference from the government.

As we all know, declaring abortion illegal solves no problem. Laws against abortion do not stop them from happening, it simply stops them from happening in a safe, legal manner. Laws that restrict abortion force women to put their own lives at peril rather than enjoying full freedom. Yet Senator Sessions' congressional record and hearing show that he is inherently opposed to providing women with the ability to make those preeminently private health care decisions.

He has gone on record stating he believes Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound and wrongly decided. He voted against an amendment that expressed constitutional support for the underlying Supreme Court decision. Most troubling, he supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion with only a few inadequate exceptions. It is no surprise that he has been supported by extremist groups like Operation Rescue. As Attorney General of the United States, Senator Sessions would be tasked with protecting the very women whose rights he has criticized.

Far too many women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights are already faced with violence and harassment outside of health clinics. I know only too well the kind of intimidation and fear- inspired actions that can take place because as attorney general of my State, I enforce the statute to protect those clinics.

Those women look to the Department of Justice to enforce the Federal law that prohibits interference with people seeking to access these clinics, and it keeps them safe. There is a very real concern about whether these women will receive the same protection under Senator Sessions' tenure. With limited resources across the Department of Justice, decisions must be made by the Attorney General in setting priorities for enforcement.

Senator Sessions' past positions and stances make clear that the protection of women's rights is far from a priority for him. He told me at the hearing that he would ``enforce the law.'' But when important constitutional rights are under threat, American women need more than someone who will simply follow or enforce the law. They need a champion and so do all of our civil rights and civil liberties and voting rights and other key freedoms.

I am disturbed as well by Senator Sessions' vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He has stated that he does not oppose the principle or some of the provisions of the law, and I take him at his word, but the circumstances behind his vote are no less disturbing. We must recognize that our Nation's tribal communities face epidemics of both domestic and sexual violence. Studies show that almost three out of five Native American women have been assaulted and that one-third of all Native American women are raped during their lifetime.

The VAWA Reauthorization of 2013, the Violence Against Women Act, that

he voted against included significant new language that closed a glaring loophole in the jurisdictional requirements of this basic law. The bill guaranteed and granted tribal communities power over non- Indian defendants who commit domestic violence against Native Americans in Indian Country. Before the reauthorization act, tribal courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute these horrific crimes and often the assaulter would escape prosecution entirely.

During his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions told us that he had ``a big concern'' about that jurisdictional provision in the reauthorization act. He was concerned that the law would leave non- Native Americans open to prosecution under tribal law, despite safeguards in the bill that were clear and unequivocal. The large gaps that the original law left were apparently acceptable to him.

Additionally, the VAWA reauthorization included a nondiscrimination clause. This provision protects members of the LGBT community from discrimination in housing and employment, schools, and other areas of civil rights cases.

Senator Sessions also took this issue with the nondiscrimination provisions in the reauthorization act, including the protection for LGBT individuals. He took issue with those provisions.

I am concerned, also, by several other votes that Senator Sessions took in 2004. He voted against extending Federal unemployment benefits to people who leave their jobs as a result of being victims of domestic or sexual assault.

In 2009, he voted against an amendment which would have strengthened the rights of victims of wage discrimination, contributing to the roadblocks and hurdles that women encounter while facing issues of inequality.

As recently as March of 2015, Senator Sessions voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, a vote he has taken multiple times before. These bills sought to strengthen women's rights and opportunities in the workplace.

In 2017, our world is one where women still struggle to obtain the same pay levels as men in the workplace for the same work. This kind of discrimination is un-American and really an embarrassment to our Nation.

Senator Sessions' voting record consistently shows his opposition to this kind of key legislation designed to protect women from oppression and discrimination and protect women's autonomy and choice, and I cannot support an Attorney General with this record.

Speaking on the floor some time ago, I added other details as to the reasons why I have opposed Senator Sessions. I see colleagues on the floor right now so I will end here with this point. Over the past weeks, I have received an outpouring of outrage from throughout my State of Connecticut, more than 4,500 letters from Connecticut residents opposing this nomination because they recognize the need, the desperate imperative for a true champion of civil rights and liberties, constitutional freedoms in this office facing the threat that is more real and urgent than ever before in our history.

Just hours ago, I received a million signatures on a petition from civil rights groups. They are contained magically on a thumb drive that is so easy to display, even if the signatures are not readily visible, but these million brave and steadfast individuals and the organizations that represent them. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Liberties, other groups that have proudly and actively worked on this cause are to be thanked, as are the advocates throughout the country who have galvanized public opinion, raised awareness, and shown what democracy looks like.

This is what democracy looks like. This is what America looks like. This is what Connecticut looks like--people rallying and rising up against an unconstitutional immigration ban, against a set of nominees that fail to reflect and serve America against an Attorney General nominee, in particular, who cannot be relied upon to actively and aggressively, vigorously, and vigilantly protect our constitutional rights and liberties. We need a champion of those rights and liberties.

I regretfully oppose Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General because we cannot count on him to do so, and I urge my colleagues to join in this opposition.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer well knows, the Secretary of State is one of the most important positions in the President's Cabinet. He is the Nation's chief diplomat, and he champions American values. He is the symbol in a sense, the chief voice and advocate around the world of America. The Secretary of State is in a sense our representative to the world, embodying and promoting, hopefully, the best in America to billions of people around the globe, proving to the world yet again that America is exceptional, that we are the greatest country in the history of the world, and that we have a respect for the rule of law, for human dignity and rights for all, including the right to live in a safe and free environment.

Past Secretaries of State have changed history, averted and navigated war, brokered peace, championed human rights, and fought to make the world a better place. In this time of immense uncertainty, we must demand nothing less of our next Secretary of State than that he be a great reflection and representative of the United States to the world.

The likes of Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Marshall, and Charles Evan Hughes have all held this position. To join these titans or even to aspire to their position is no small challenge. We need a candidate who will continue to embody what is right even in the face of resistance from adversaries and foes who do not admire and, in fact, seek to do harm to our way of life.

As ExxonMobil's CEO, the President's nominee, Rex Tillerson, has worked hard and successfully for his corporation. In fact, he has put that corporation's interests ahead of America's interests. That may have been his job, and I understand that was his job description, but doing that job well does not qualify him to be our Nation's chief diplomat and to assume the mantle of defending our national interests.

Having worked for four decades for this oil giant, without any government experience, I am unconvinced that Mr. Tillerson has shown he is able to reverse this oil interest mindset and put America's needs before his former employer. I do not have faith that he can rise to the paramount challenge of representing us on the world stage.

I share my colleagues' concerns. We have heard numerous of our colleagues express the same view--that his oil interests will harm the progress we have made to protect the environment and slow the impact of climate change. I say that reluctantly because I hope I am wrong. He is likely to be confirmed, but I hope my colleagues think hard and long and join me in opposing Rex Tillerson.

I am also hopeful that a number of his other stances, such as enforcing sanctions that hold our adversaries accountable--notably, Russia and Iran--will change as well. These stances have been troubling. I have little confidence that Mr. Tillerson will vigorously enforce these sanctions and even less confidence that he will guide President Trump to provide the crucial advice our demonstrably rash and ill-advised President needs.

I want to point particularly to some of the tactics ExxonMobil used in its litigation against legal challenges that were brought based on climate change information that allegedly was concealed by ExxonMobil. These tactics are deeply troubling, and I hope that maybe the toughness of ExxonMobil in those tactics will be replicated in the toughness that is brought to bear in enforcing the sanctions against Iran and Russia because he has shown a troublesome trend of opposing sanctions that have held Iran accountable--sanctions that pushed Iran to the table in negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement, which has made our world a safer place.

Across decades and administrations, the Senate reached an overwhelmingly bipartisan consensus that the Iran regime should be aggressively sanctioned for its global missile program, state sponsorship of terrorism, and gross human rights violations. ExxonMobil directly and together with other global oil companies and through the financing of third-party advocacy organizations has persistently tried to stop Congress from passing sanctions legislation.

ExxonMobil has been a board member of USA Engage since its founding in 1997 and from 2003 to 2007 held the chairmanship of that organization. For two decades it has actively lobbied Congress to oppose Iran-related sanctions bills, including last year for at least four such pieces of legislation.

ExxonMobil has worked to prevent the authorization and extension of the Iran sanctions act, which I am proud to say was renewed for another 10 years by Congress, becoming law just a few weeks ago, and I was proud to support it. Yet, during Mr. Tillerson's hearing, he denied that ExxonMobil ever lobbied against Iran's sanctions, in the face of facts to the contrary. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

Foreign policy experts and military leadership have explicitly identified Russia as a growing threat and a violator of international law. Many of us in this body--in fact, I would say the majority--have recognized that fact. Yet Mr. Tillerson does not seem to treat Russia with the same gravity.

We need a Secretary of State who is going to work with our NATO allies and stand up for us and not give Putin a pass. We are all aware of Mr. Tillerson's inappropriate stance toward relations with a country responsible for assaults on world order through cyber attacks, illegal land grabs, and war crimes. We are the victims of a cyber attack by Russia, an act of cyber war. The Secretary of State must be somebody who regards that kind of attack as intolerable and unacceptable.

Mr. Tillerson's affinity for Russia is alarming because he adds to the growing list of Putin admirers in this administration, and that list unfortunately includes the President himself and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Mr. Tillerson's opposition to sanctions imposed on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 was not the result of national security concerns but, rather, because ExxonMobil stood to make millions, even billions of dollars from the business deal that corporation had recently made with Russia to develop its oil and gas interests. What is good for ExxonMobil is not necessarily good for the United States of America. These sanctions were put in place because Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unacceptable and now has led to at least 10,000 deaths, 20,000 wounded, and 2 million people displaced.

These are hard numbers and hard facts--the result of Russian aggression that must be countered.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have fought to include and pass the NDAA's robust funding for Ukrainian assistance. I am proud to say that this initiative was successful. I also successfully urged a provision that terminated U.S. contracts with the Russian arms export agency.

Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his nomination hearing that his stance was unchanged. He could not admit that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, despite these deaths and the torture involved in this aggression and other similar acts, or to say that the sanctions against Putin's Russia are necessary and appropriate. His views are inconsistent with the interests of the United States of America.

Given his troubling trend of dodging questions during his testimony, I cannot confidently say that he will follow the clear direction of Congress concerning sanctions policy. I will say bluntly and frankly to my colleagues that my particular concern is that sanctions laws contain waivers. Those waivers are provided to the President for the rare requirement that such sanctions may be waived when it is in the national interest or for national security. This exception must be used exceedingly sparingly and judiciously. Sanctions without enforcement are worse than no sanctions at all. They are meaningless, and they raise false expectations. My fear is that under Mr. Tillerson, if he is advising President Trump, those exemptions and exceptions will swallow the rule.

Talking about rules, if confirmed, Mr. Tillerson will be responsible for executing President Trump's extremely misguided policy expanding the global gag rule, which prevents foreign aid from being provided to global health programs that discuss or provide abortion services. The result will be to obstruct programs that cover everything from HIV prevention to maternal and child care and epidemic disease responses, putting lives at risk. This is just the opposite of what we ought to be doing. It makes the world less safe, as does this weekend's Executive order that bans refugees and Muslims. We need someone willing and able to voice resistance and opposition to policies that flagrantly fly in the face of everything we value--our American values. We need a Secretary of State ready to stand up for the most vulnerable people and speak truth to power, even when that power is the President of the United States. The fact is, sadly, that Mr. Tillerson has never taken strong stances on these issues, leaving us guessing as to what he will do when and if he is in office.

I cannot support anyone to be Secretary of State who fails to condemn the suspension of our Refugee Resettlement Program directly under his purview. When we target refugees, we target people who are victims of the same oppressors and tyrants and murderers that we call enemies. Refugees are not our enemies. Many are fleeing the murderous Syrian regime and ISIL, which are our enemies. We are at war with ISIL, and we must win that war. We are disadvantaged by a policy that excludes refugees on the basis of religion, because we alienate our allies with the sources of intelligence and troops on the ground, and we lead to the misimpression--and it is a misimpression--that we are at war against Islam or our Muslim neighbors when, in fact, our enemy is violent extremists.

These refugees and immigrants see America as a beacon of hope, but they are now receiving the message that, whoever they are and however strong their claim to come here is, their religion will bar them, their religion denies them the right to come to this country, their religion will ban them.

Mr. Tillerson has never denounced this strategy when it does so much to damage our international credibility, our values at home, and our Constitution. Four judges have stayed the President's Executive orders. My respectful opinion is that the President's orders are, in fact, illegal.

The question is this: Will he defend career diplomats who have spoken out against these policies? Will he take a stand himself against them? Will he stand up for American values?

One story in particular struck me because it involves my own State of Connecticut. Last Saturday, a Syrian refugee who settled in Milford, CT, 2 years ago, Fadi Kassar, anxiously awaited the arrival of his wife and two daughters, ages 5 and 8. He has not seen them since resettling in this country. His family was turned away before they could board a flight to the United States. They were told they were not going to be allowed to enter this country following the President's refugee ban. Despite having been granted refugee status--asylum--three days before the refugee ban, they would no longer be united with Mr. Kassar in the United States.

I am working--and I hope the Secretary of Homeland Security may be listening, if not at this moment then at some point in the future, to my entreaty that he do the right thing, that he make their entry possible. They have gone through all of the necessary screenings, submitted all of the necessary forms. Yet, under the President's Executive action, they are denied refuge in the United States based only on their nationality and their religion.

Mr. Kassar's family is now back in Jordan without luggage, without clothes, and without the new home they were so close to having. My office has offered assistance to Mr. Kassar's lawyers, and we are working to help in any way we can.

The United States--Connecticut in particular--has a proud moral tradition and heritage of aiding refugees who need our help when their own homelands are in turmoil. President Trump's egregious acts contravene our values, contradict our Constitution, and should be rescinded immediately.

Mr. Tillerson, join me in urging President Trump to rip up this order. It is the only solution.

I am not confident, until I hear him say so, that he is ready to be the leader we need in the Department of State to ensure that America's values of acceptance and assistance hold strong in an administration that directly challenges these most cherished traditions and values.

Our Secretary of State must be clear-eyed about threats facing our Nation, both from adversaries abroad and others who would do us harm inside our borders. I regretfully conclude that Mr. Tillerson has failed to demonstrate that ability to do so, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow that very eloquent speech by my colleague from Colorado and to be followed on the floor by our colleague from Massachusetts.

We are here today with stories. Every one of us has a story going back one

generation, maybe two or three, maybe five or ten, but we all have an immigrant story. Most of those immigrant stories are about people coming here to seek hope, opportunity, and, yes, safety; to escape violence and persecution; to come here for refuge.

I met one of those refugees over this weekend in West Hartford at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony. Abby Weiner is a Romanian Jew who survived Auschwitz and Buchenwald but lost his parents there. He was honored by Voices of Hope at this Holocaust remembrance ceremony at a synagogue in West Hartford, attended by 500, 700 people. There was a massive outpouring of support for him and for the values that are represented by people who come here as immigrants fleeing persecution and violence, as he did in Nazi Germany. He said: The words came before the bullets and gas chambers. The words of Nazi Germany came before the bullets and gas chambers. Words have consequences. Edicts and orders have consequences.

When I spoke, I told my own story--a proud story of my father, who also came here from Nazi Germany in 1935. He was 17 years old. He spoke virtually no English, he had not much more than the shirt on his back, and he knew almost no one. This great country, the greatest in the history of the world, gave him a chance to succeed. He was a proud American. How sad and ashamed he would be today to see actions by the President of the United States that ban a group coming to this country based on their religion--a ban that is antithetical to our history, our values, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

I salute Sally Yates, who has taken a stand based on moral and legal principle in the highest tradition of the Department of Justice, saying that these orders cannot be defended and that the rule of law and morality is more important than the politics of the moment and the impulsive edicts of a ruler who apparently fails to understand that law--or, at least his administration does.

It raises the question of whether the next Attorney General--she is only acting--will have the strength and courage to uphold the rule of law. Tomorrow, I will vote against our respected and admired colleague, Jeff Sessions, because I believe that the next Attorney General must be a champion--a steadfast advocate and protector of the rule of law and rights and liberties that are overridden and abridged by this order banning people from Muslim-majority nations, in effect a ban on a religious group.

We are better than this kind of discriminatory edict. We know it harms mainly children and families fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees like those children have helped to shape and build this Nation. We are stronger because of our diversity. We are a nation of immigrants. Our strength comes from the talents, energies, strengths, and vibrancy they bring to this country.

Often, when I am feeling down about our public life, I go to immigration and naturalization ceremonies. They occur every Friday in courts around the State of Connecticut. I welcome people who are becoming citizens, and I say to them: Thank you for becoming a citizen of the greatest country in the world. You are a source of strength for us, and you have taken a test that most Americans could not pass.

They laugh because they know it is true. They will never take for granted what it means to be a citizen of this country. I look at them in their diversity, and I know that is America. That is our future.

We will be less safe because of this order, which will alienate allies and deny us sources of intelligence to troops on the ground that we need to win the war against ISIS, and we must win that war. It will provide a recruiting tool to ISIS, convincing young people who may be tempted to join their ranks that, in fact, this country is engaged in a war against Islam, which is utterly and totally untrue. It will discourage people from within the United States who are part of the Muslim community from coming forth when they see threats and could provide information that would forestall an attack by violent extremists within our country.

This order makes us less safe, but it weakens us mainly in a deeper moral sense: It is wrong. It is wrong for this great country, devoted and founded on the ideals of welcoming people seeking that beacon of hope and protection and opportunity.

The Statue of Liberty is a symbol, but the ideals and the values are living. The damage that has been done to them can be repaired. We must repair it and reverse this order. That is why I have sponsored legislation that will rescind it, and why I am proud to join my colleagues today on the floor of the Senate to say: Rip up this order, Mr. President. With all respect, do the right thing. Be on the right side of history and the right side of our Constitution. Rip up this illegal order.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this past Sunday we celebrated the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that assured every woman of her constitutional right to make her own decision about whether and when to have a child. That fundamental constitutional right is the right to privacy, which all women should cherish and protect.

This weekend, in fact, many of us in Washington, DC, and around the country marched in the streets of our home States--or here, as I did-- in support of these ideals and values, including the right to privacy, other civil rights and liberties, economic opportunity, and women's access to health care, which truly make America great.

Fundamental to the principle of women's access to health care is the Roe v. Wade decision that reaffirms the constitutional right to reproductive decisions made by women individually on their own in consultation with their health care providers, their families, their clergy. I was a clerk for Justice Blackmun in the term after Roe v. Wade was decided, and I can tell you that we all believed then very strongly that that Supreme Court decision would put to rest the question of legal access to abortion in this great country.

In fact, it did not. Despite 7 in 10 Americans opposing the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade according to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, the outliers and extremists still seek to eliminate the right to legal abortion. That broad public support was embodied in the spirit and dedication shown over this past weekend by protesters across the world, and I was reminded yet again that we must continue to fight for what we believe, particularly in light of the ongoing threats to and attacks on women's health care.

Efforts to undermine these rights have redoubled in recent years, and throughout the past decade we have seen unprecedented attacks through State efforts to chip away at that vitally protected constitutional right. From 2011 to 2016, there were 334 restrictions enacted by States that would cut back on Roe v. Wade rights, accounting for 30 percent of all abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that case.

The force dedicated to enacting these restrictions, which are designed to undermine the right to reproductive health care, can be particularly disheartening as they disregard the health needs of the most vulnerable population of the women who are most often impacted, by also seeking, or at least claiming to seek, to advance women's health care. In fact, many of those restrictions are a ruse. They are enacted in the name of health care but are a disguise for restrictions on health care. They have left many women, particularly in rural and underserved locations, with little access to health care, including basic care such as cancer screening, STD testing, and preventive health care. Clearly, improving women's health care has failed to be the focus of State legislatures in these instances, as they have actively worked to restrict access to care and chip away at the constitutional protections provided in Roe v. Wade.

I joined with Senator Murray in leading a total of 163 Members of the House and Senate in filing an amicus brief in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Last summer, the Supreme Court overturned the restriction at issue in that case, reiterating and clarifying the ``undue burden'' standard in Roe and debunking the lie that anti-choice extremists have been pushing for years--that medically unnecessary, onerous restrictions on clinics and clinicians that provide women abortions do not make women safer. In fact, they simply constrain access.

I am hopeful that this decision will help stem and stop the assault on women's health care taking place in so many States and communities around the country. So I am joining with my colleague, Senator Murray, who was here just minutes ago--a wonderful champion of this cause--as well as Senator Shaheen, whom I believe will be speaking later today on Roe v. Wade's anniversary, in pushing back on this policy by introducing legislation to permanently repeal the global gag rule that the Trump administration, as one of its first acts, has announced, which will reverse much of the progress that President Obama made in relation to international family planning. This legislation will seek to move that progress forward again and forestall the effort to roll back that process and turn back the clock. I will oppose any and all efforts by the Trump administration to move our country backwards, including yesterday's reversion to the global gag rule.

This 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade should be a reminder about the importance of fighting for the right of privacy, the right to live life free of governmental interference, and, as one of our Supreme Court Justices said, the right to be let alone--in effect, let alone from government interference.

It is a right that I have fought for and that so many others have fought for throughout my career and throughout my time as a Senator and the attorney general of Connecticut. It is a right we should all continue to keep at the forefront of our work here in the Senate and for all of us in this country.

Thank you. 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 ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senate is holding hearings on each of President-Elect Trump's nominees to his Cabinet. Traditionally, Presidents are accorded a very high level of deference on assembling their own team, in part because these nominees are directly accountable to the President. But they are accountable to the American people too.

No Cabinet member is more powerful or has more impact on the day-to- day lives of Americans than the Attorney General of the United States.

The Attorney General is, indeed, a general, in command of an army of thousands of lawyers whose words carry enormous weight and power. It is the weight and power of the people of the United States. He speaks for us. He charges defendants in our name. He has sweeping authority to bring criminal charges in all Federal offenses, enormous unreviewable discretion in cases ranging from minor misdemeanors to the most serious felonies. In every sense, as capital penalties can be sought for some of these crimes, he wields the power of life and death.

The Attorney General's authority is not only sweeping, it is uniquely independent of the President's Cabinet. His decisions must supersede partisan politics. In most cases, there is no recourse to overrule his decisions unless there is political interference. He is not just another government lawyer or even just another member of the President's Cabinet. He is the Nation's lawyer, and he must be the Nation's legal counsel and conscience.

The job of U.S. Attorney General at stake here is one that I know pretty well. Like some of my colleagues in this body, I served as U.S. attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

I reported to the U.S. Attorney General. For years afterward as a private litigator and then as attorney general of the State of Connecticut for 20 years, I fought alongside and sometimes against the U.S. Attorney General and the legal forces at his disposal. I have seen his power, or hers, firsthand. The power of this Attorney General is awesome, as is that of any Attorney General.

In the best of cases, they are inspiring too. Even as he protects the public from vicious and violent criminal offenders, his role is also to protect the innocent from unfounded charges that could shatter their lives even if they are acquitted. As Justice Robert Jackson, a former Attorney General himself, once said: His job is not to convict, but to assure justice is done.

So this job requires a singular level of intellect and integrity and nonpartisan but passionate devotion to the rule of law and an extraordinary sense of conscience. That is because he is responsible for so much more than prosecuting and preventing crime and ensuring public safety. He is responsible for aggressively upholding our Nation's sacred constitutional commitment to protecting individual rights and liberties and preventing infringement on them, even by the government itself, maybe especially by the government.

This responsibility for safeguarding equal justice under the law is particularly important today, at a time when those civil rights and freedoms are so much in peril. This historic moment demands a person whose life work, professional career, and record shows that he will make the guarantee under our Constitution of equal justice under law a core mandate of his tenure.

Having reviewed the full record and recent testimony, regrettably and respectfully, I cannot support the President-elect's nominee, our colleague and friend Jeff Sessions, for this job.

At his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions simply said he would follow the law and he would obey it, but the Attorney General of the United States must be more than a follower. He must be a leader in protecting the essential constitutional rights and liberties. He must be a champion, a zealous advocate. He must actively pursue justice, not just passively follow or obey the law.

Senator Sessions' record reflects a hostility and antipathy--in fact, downright opposition--to civil rights and voting rights, women's health care and privacy rights, antidiscrimination measures, and religious freedom safeguards. He has prided himself on his vociferous opposition to immigration reform legislation, a measure that passed this body with 68 bipartisan votes, and a criminal justice reform bill that has attracted a group of 25 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. He even split with the majority of his own party to vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He opposed hate crime prohibitions. Senator Sessions' views and positions on these issues and others, which are critical to protecting and championing rights and liberties under our Constitution, are simply out of the mainstream. There is nothing in Senator Sessions' record, including his testimony before the Judiciary Committee this week, that indicates he will be the constitutional champion the Nation needs at this point in its history.

Equally important, the Attorney General must speak truth to power. He must be ready, willing, and able to say no to the President of the United States and ensure that the President is never above the law. Senator Sessions' record and testimony give me no confidence that he will fulfill this core task.

When I asked him about enforcement of cases against illegal conflicts of interest involving the President and his family, such as violations of the emoluments clause or the STOCK Act, he equivocated. When I asked him about appointing a special counsel to investigate criminal wrongdoing at Deutsche Bank, owed more than $300 million by Donald Trump, he equivocated. When I asked him about abstaining from voting on other Presidential nominees while he is in the Senate, he equivocated. Those answers give me no confidence that he will be the independent, nonpolitical law enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment that the Nation needs now more than ever--at a moment when the incoming administration faces ethical and legal controversies that are unprecedented in scope and scale.

Senator Sessions' record over many years and his recent testimony fail to demonstrate the core commitments and convictions necessary in our next Attorney General.

Back in 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Senator Sessions' nomination to a Federal judgeship due to remarks he made and actions he took in a position of public trust as U.S. attorney in Alabama. However, my position on his nomination is primarily based on his record since those hearings and less on what was considered at that time.

On voting rights, Senator Sessions has often condoned barriers to Americans exercising their franchise. He has been a leading opponent of provisions in the Voting Rights Act designed to ensure that African Americans can vote in places, such as his home State of Alabama, which have a unique history of racial segregation. He has advocated for needlessly restrictive and draconian voter ID laws, citing utterly debunked threats of rampant voter fraud as an excuse for curtailing the real and legitimate rights of entire groups of voters.

On privacy--very important--Senator Sessions has passionately opposed this longstanding American right, which is enshrined in five decades of Supreme Court precedent. It protects women's health care and personal decisions involving reproductive rights. At a time when these rights are facing an unprecedented assault, he has continued to condemn Roe v. Wade and the many court decisions upholding that case.

He is also supported by extremist groups like Operation Rescue that defend the murder of doctors and the vilification and criminalization of women. With him as Attorney General, American women would understandably feel less secure about those rights.

On religious freedom, Senator Sessions has advocated for using a religious test to determine which immigrants can enter this country. When this issue arose in committee, Senator Sessions was the only Senator--the only Senator--to argue forcefully for religious tests and against principles of religious liberty that have animated our Republic since its founding. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, a Trump administration would enjoy a permanent green light for any racially or religiously discriminatory immigration policy that might appeal to him.

On citizenship, Senator Sessions has called for abolishing a time- honored tradition that dates back to reconstruction. Birthright citizenship is the distinctly American concept that anyone born on our soil is a citizen of our country. We do not exclude people from citizenship based on the nationality of their parents or grandparents. Senator Sessions disagrees, a position that most other Republicans think is extreme.

With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, the Trump administration would be encouraged in attempting to deport American citizens--who have raised families and spent their entire lives here--from the only country they have ever known.

Senator Sessions declined my invitation at his nomination hearing to exercise moral and legal leadership and demonstrate his resolve to serve as the Nation's legal conscience. He refused to reject the possibility of using information voluntarily provided by DACA applicants to deport them and their families. As a matter of fundamental fairness and due process, when a DREAMer has provided information to our government after being invited to come out of the shadows, this information should never be used to deport that person. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, that sense of legal conscience would be lacking.

On issues of discrimination and equal protection, Senator Sessions has publicly opposed marriage equality, claiming it ``weakens marriage'' and even tried to eliminate protections for LGBT Americans contained in the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. He has repeatedly voted against steps to enhance enforcement against hate crimes--violent assaults involving bigotry or bias based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. He even defended President- Elect Trump's shocking admission on video of his pattern of engaging in sexual assault.

Senator Sessions himself has said that public officials can be fairly judged by assessing who their supporters are. Senator Sessions is backed by groups with ties to White supremacists.

He has even accepted an award and repeated campaign donations from groups whose founder openly promotes the goal of maintaining a ``European American majority'' in our society. Neither award, nor many other important parts of Senator Sessions' record, was reported on the questionnaire he prepared for the Judiciary Committee.

I gave Senator Sessions an opportunity at the hearing earlier this week to repudiate these hate groups and racist individuals who have endorsed his nomination and supported him in the past. In fact, instead he doubled down, saying that a man who has accused African Americans of excessive criminality and American Muslims of extensive ties to terrorism was ``a most brilliant individual.''

So I reach my decision to oppose this nomination with regret because Jeff Sessions is a colleague and a friend to all of us. Indeed, he and I have a rapport. I have come to like and respect

him through a number of shared experiences in this building, traveling abroad, and outside.

We have common causes. He and I both support law enforcement professionals who serve our communities and the Nation with dedication and courage. They are never given sufficient thanks and appreciation.

He and I both believe that individual corporate criminal culpability should be pursued more vigorously. Individual corporate executives should be held accountable for the wrongdoing of corporations when they are criminally involved.

This job, this decision, this responsibility is different. Here, my disagreements stem from bedrock constitutional principles. While I could envision deferring to Presidential authority and supporting him for other positions, my objections to his nomination here relate specifically to this particular, essential, all-powerful job.

At this historic moment, there must be no doubt about the ironclad commitment of the Attorney General of the United States to the bedrock principle of equal justice under law, his resolve to be an independent voice, assuring that the President is never above the law, his determination to be a champion for all people of America and our constitutional principles that protect all people, and to be a legal conscience for the Nation.

Reviewing his record, I cannot assure the people of Connecticut or the country that Jeff Sessions would be a vigorous champion of these rights and liberties. Therefore, I stand in opposition to his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Madam Clerk, on behalf of all the people mentioned here tonight--

--and all who will be mentioned, and on behalf of the people of Connecticut, I vote no.

Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators Hirono and Donnelly. I thank them for their very impressive and steadfast efforts on behalf of Medicare and Medicaid, during a time of tremendous uncertainty in our health care system, as, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle work toward repeal of the Affordable Care Act without any replacement and any clear plan on what the alternative will be.

Not only would repeal of the Affordable Care Act impact children and families but most particularly our seniors who have worked hard and have earned the benefits of Medicare. Any additional changes to the program that have been previously suggested by Republicans, whether changing the eligibility age or privatization, have no place in a reconciliation that has not been fully debated by the House and Senate and without a hearing from constituents and stakeholders about what those changes would mean.

That is why we are here in support of the very important amendment offered by my colleagues. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that full repeal of the ACA would increase Medicare spending by $802 billion from 2016 to 2025. This increase in potential

spending could lead to higher Medicare premiums, deductibles, and cost sharing for beneficiaries.

Medicare, as it stands, as we all know, benefits our Nation's seniors who have worked hard and earned this program, but they would rather privatize or gut the program. So this action really should be decided not under reconciliation but by a 60-vote margin after hearings and an opportunity to be heard for our constituents.

Similarly, any replacement plan must not include fundamental or restrictive changes to the Medicaid Program. The bottom line is, Medicaid continues to work to provide potential health care to our most vulnerable citizens. I come from a State that is truly making a commitment to make sure our Medicaid Program works. In fact, Connecticut was the first State to take advantage of the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act, allowing the State to cover 72,000 more of our people in the State of Connecticut.

In Connecticut, the State has also utilized existing flexibility in the Medicaid Program to improve outcomes through the patient-centered medical home. As a result, in 2016, Medicaid hospital admissions decreased by 5.4 percent, emergency department visits fell 4.3 percent, and people requiring intensive case management saw a reduction of hospital inpatient admissions of nearly 40 percent.

These statistics are of staggering scope and scale and profoundly significant. We cannot make mean-spirited changes to the Medicaid Program, such as block granting, that would weaken the safety net, and we cannot allow gutting Medicare, endangering millions of seniors. We will not allow it without a fight. I am determined to join my colleagues in working and fighting for this amendment and keeping the pressure on our colleagues who disagree.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to be here tonight with my very eloquent colleague Senator Franken from Minnesota and also with two colleagues who will follow me shortly, Senator Schatz and Senator Markey, all of them great champions of better, more affordable health care for all the people who live in this great country.

This is the greatest country in the history of the world because we care about each other and we care about the common good. That is what the Affordable Care Act represents. It is not perfect. No great social reform ever is the first time around, including Social Security, but it can be repaired and improved without completely repealing it.

So repeal without a replacement is the height of irresponsibility. The first order of business for the Republican leadership during this session of Congress is to tear down and rip apart the Affordable Care Act, not to deal with job creation or economic growth. In fact, the Affordable Care Act provides 3 million jobs in our country, and repealing it would eliminate those jobs. No, it is to destroy and decimate a program that has literally saved lives, opened new futures, transformed the existences of millions and millions of Americans who would lose health care coverage if this measure is just repealed.

In fact, 22 million people across the country and more than 100,000 in Connecticut would lose that critical insurance. Preexisting conditions would become, again, an excuse for the health care industry and insurance companies to deny coverage. Women would be charged more simply because they are women. And young people would be denied access to their parents' health care coverage up to the age of 26.

Those kinds of losses just begin the list, but among the most egregious of the profound defects to this approach is the effect on the Prevention and Public Health Fund. I know it isn't a household term: Prevention and Public Health Fund. It is not exactly on everyone's tongue, but it is a measure that is profoundly important to the future of this Nation if you care about lives and dollars. And if you care about dollars, the $931 million from the Prevention and Public Health Fund is allocated to provide funding for things like diabetes prevention, preventing healthcare-associated infections, chronic disease management, smoking prevention, lead poisoning, suicide prevention, and Alzheimer's disease prevention.

You may not consider these kinds of challenges--smoking prevention, lead poisoning, Alzheimer's disease, hospital-acquired infections--as the most glamorous, but treating them costs millions and millions and millions of dollars--in fact, billions of dollars.

Just to give you one example, the Tips From Former Smokers campaign, which the Prevention and Public Health Fund supports, has led to an estimated 1.6 million smokers attempting to quit smoking and has helped 100,000 Americans quit smoking. Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the United States. The country spent $133 million on tobacco-related healthcare costs between 2000 and 2012.

I just made I think an error. I said $133 million. In fact, it is $133 billion. How easy it seems to confuse billions with millions--$133 billion by investing this kind of money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. We can literally save tens of billions of dollars on smoking-related diseases and premature deaths.

Improving public health outcomes and preventing the public from getting sick and dying are important goals in and of themselves because the human suffering and the premature deaths they cause are important, humane causes to our Nation, a nation that cares about people. But the $1.3 trillion in treatment costs and lost productivity every year--let me repeat that--$1.3 trillion in treatment costs and lost productivity every year on chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can be reduced and, dare I say at some point, reduced by so much that we may look back, and we will say: That Prevention and Public Health Fund was one good investment, but not if it is decimated and destroyed by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which costs us money as well as lives.

In Connecticut, the fund has invested over $27 million in our communities since 2010, improving the lives and well-being of the people of Connecticut literally every day.

This strong investment has provided more Connecticut women with screenings for cancer, mammograms, other critical, preventive care, and it has given our State health department the ability to prevent diabetes, heart disease, and stroke and to fight obesity through improved physical activity.

It has allowed our State to address school health much more effectively, and we are talking about the Nation's children--preventing obesity, smoking, diabetes, which, as we know, more and more affects our children.

It has staved off disease outbreaks by providing Connecticut with millions of dollars to provide vaccinations for young people who otherwise would go without, children who would be denied this essential means of preventing emotionally crippling, if not physically debilitating, diseases that can transform their lives forever.

Perhaps most importantly, the Prevention Fund has relied on the communities impacted by the money for solutions. That means stronger collaboration between community organizations and the health system to prevent suicides, for example, in the Community Transformation Grants Program that encourages healthier lifestyles across our State.

The ACA, in short, has reflected a historic shift. We are trying to prevent, not just treat the disease, and that kind of investment from the Prevention and Public Health Fund in my State and many others has already produced a return on that investment which is of invaluable importance.

I have authored an amendment, which currently has 12 cosponsors, to create a budget point of order against any piece of legislation that would take away funding for preventive care. It is very simple. If we are going to work toward reducing the cost of health care in this great country, we should not be talking about getting rid of effective and efficient ways of preventing disease. We ought to be talking about reducing drug prices, stopping costly addictions, preventing disease, and improving the quality and efficiency of care.

I want to stress, again, the importance of reducing pharmaceutical drug prices, which has been a concern to me for years in this job and for many more years when I served as our State's attorney general.

But reducing health care costs and improving quality is not what our Republican colleagues are trying to do.

They are trying to make good on campaign rhetoric and political promises to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act without any replacement, without following through on their commitment to provide health insurance to our Nation's people. We are expected to just wait and see what they have in the plan. Meanwhile, millions of people will be left without health care, and the health care industry will be in confusion and chaos as insurance companies wonder what comes next.

The simple fact is that our Republican colleagues have no idea, no clue, no plan. In their view, the Earth is flat. They can abolish something and promise to replace it because they know something will come. That is unacceptable, and I will fight to ensure that the Affordable Care Act continues to mean access to affordable health care for millions of Americans. Most importantly, fairness and effectiveness in health care means prevention. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is critical to that effort.

I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of prevention, safeguarding our health, and heed the voices and faces that have been so dramatic and powerful to me, so inspiring in their courage and strength, as they were just this morning when I met with and presented to the people of Connecticut at an event we did there. Three brave women came forward to talk about what the Affordable Care Act had meant to them and what its loss would mean as well. These perhaps not immediately visible voices and faces should be a stirring reminder to our colleagues that we need to do better, improve the Affordable Care Act, make it better--but not simply trash it, decimate it, destroy it, and abandon the great hope and ideal of assuring affordable care for all.

I yield now to my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, who has been a champion of affordable care in this Nation and is a great credit to his State of Hawaii.

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Isakson for giving the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act the priority it needs and deserves. I know the Presiding Officer, as a veteran, understands and supports the vital mission of this legislation.

I also want to thank the veterans service organizations, particularly the IAVA, for the critical role they have played in heightening awareness and educating the American public about the scourge that veteran suicide reflects in our society, the unacceptable 22 veterans who commit suicide every day in the greatest, strongest Nation in the history of the world.

Our veterans all too often succumb to the invisible wounds and inner demons that come home with them. They lack the mental health care they need and deserve because the VA lacks the resources to provide that health care.

I know the VA is committed to do better. Senator Isakson and I have just returned from 3 hours at the VA, where we heard the Secretary, as well as his top-ranking staff, commit to using this act as a means of enhancing and increasing the quality and quantity of mental health care our veterans deserve. Far too many of our veterans have succumbed to suicide, including a friend of mine, Justin Eldridge, whose widow Joanna was my guest at the State of the Union.

She has struggled in the wake of his death with their children to survive this tragedy. Her courage and strength mirror those same qualities of bravery and fortitude demonstrated by Susan Selke who testified before our committee about her son Clay Hunt, for whom this bill is named. My hope is we can continue this bipartisan work together.

I thank Senator McCain, the cosponsor of this bill, and hope we keep faith with all of our veterans and make the VA the pioneer and champion of mental health care so we end the scourge of veteran suicide in this great Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.