Floor Statements

Mr. President, we know what open season means when it comes to these students. Gilbert Caro of Chicago can tell us. He was profiled in the Chicago Tribune article that I mentioned. Gilbert received his master of business administration degree from DeVry University. It is possibly the second largest for-profit college in the United States.

He took on nearly $100,000 in debt for his master of business administration degree. He believed that debt was worth it because it was going to unlock the door to a high-paying job and financial security.

Do you have any idea what Gilbert Caro is doing now with his DeVry master of business administration degree? He is a prison guard in Joliet, IL.

While Gilbert has a good job, he certainly didn't need $100,000 in debt to be a prison guard. It is far from what he was promised by DeVry when he signed up. Gilbert, like so many other students who go to for- profit colleges, was lured in by an amazing marketing campaign, flashy advertisements and empty promises.

In 2016, DeVry University, a for-profit school, agreed to a $100 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for misleading ``prospective students with ads that touted high employment success rates and income levels upon graduation.''

DeVry is not alone. For-profit college giants like Corinthian and ITT Tech collapsed after they were caught engaging in similar deceptive, disgusting practices. The predatory practices of these and other for- profit colleges have left tens of thousands of students across the country, just like Gilbert Caro, with worthless degrees and a mountain of debt.

In fact, during the early part of this century, when for-profit colleges acted with near impunity, just the students from the for- profit colleges and universities accounted for 47 percent of all student loan defaults. Ten percent of the students coming out of high school went to for-profit colleges, and 47 percent of the student loan defaults were those same students--10 and 47. Why? Because they were overcharged for worthless degrees. That is why.

The University of Phoenix students held almost $35 billion in cumulative debt. When I look at their flashy advertising and the commercials about how life is going to be perfect if you sign up at the University of Phoenix, it is hard for me to imagine how many of those students are burdened with debt they will never be able to repay.

We also know what open season means for the for-profit college industry and its executives and investors. Between 1998 and 2008, enrollment at for-profit colleges exploded by 225 percent--a lot of advertising, a lot of marketing, a lot of recruiting. With it came exploding profits for these schools.

By 2009, the seven largest publicly traded for-profit college companies were worth a combined $51 billion--2009, $51 billion.

In 2010, the University of Phoenix alone enrolled nearly half a million students, more than the combined enrollment of all the Big Ten universities.

When former Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin released his seminal report on the industry in 2012, for-profit colleges had grown to take in an incredible $32 billion a year in Federal taxpayer dollars, 25 percent of all Federal aid in education, despite enrolling only 10 percent of the students that went to college after high school.

For-profit colleges and universities are the most heavily subsidized private businesses in America that exist. No one rivals them. No other industry is even close, and 80, 85, 90, 95 percent of the revenue of these so-called private, for-profit universities ends up coming out of the Federal Treasury.

John Murphy, the cofounder of the University of Phoenix, talks about those days by saying that what started off as a serious venture to educate students soon became too focused on ``chasing stock prices.''

To pump up those stock prices, companies needed students and they needed Federal student aid dollars. They proved that they would do and promise nearly anything to get ``the juice,'' as Mr. Murphy, the cofounder of the University of Phoenix, called it.

Boy, is this industry itching for the Trump administration to return to those bad old days. The Chicago Tribune reports that since the November 8 election, the stock prices of DeVry University, a for-profit college, have increased 52 percent.

In a recent New York Times article by Patricia Cohen entitled ``For- Profit Schools, an Obama Target, See New Day Under Trump,'' the paid spokesman for the for-profit college industry, former Congressman Steve Gunderson, said he ``has repeatedly spoken with members of Trump's transition team . . . White House domestic policy advisers . . . and congressional Republicans.''

He is truly an insider. Mr. Gunderson promised: ``We're going to get some regulatory relief.''

Sadly, it looks like he is right. Take for example the delay of the gainful employment regulation. The Obama administration spent years writing and rewriting regulations to ensure that career training programs meet the statutory requirement to prepare students for ``gainful employment.''

Is that a radical idea--that if the Federal Government is going to provide grants and loans for a student to go to a school, the school should provide education and training that would lead to ``gainful employment''?

My colleague from Oklahoma was on the floor a little while ago talking about overregulation, too many rules, and the impacts on small business. I would say that I am prepared to stand up and defend what the Obama administration did in saying that if you were going to lure a young man like Gilbert Caro into a school and put him $100,000 in debt for a master's of business administration, he ought to at least end up with a job that is consistent with his education.

Today, Mr. Caro is a prison guard with $100,000 of debt and a business administration degree of no value to him.

The gainful employment rule cuts off title IV funding for programs where graduates' ratio of student debt to earnings is too high. Literally, the students are too deeply in debt.

Prior to leaving office, the Obama Department of Education released the first set of gainful employment data. It showed that the graduates of public undergraduate certificate programs, like community colleges, earn $9,000 more than their for-profit counterparts on average.

Think about that. You go to the virtually free community college, get a certificate, and you are going to earn $9,000 more than if you get deeply in debt at one of the for-profit schools seeking the same degree. Of the programs that saddle students with too much debt compared to the income its students receive after their program, 98 percent of the violators were for-profit colleges.

This is not just a chance occurrence. It is a pattern. The rule is meant to protect students from taking on debt to attend programs that don't lead to a good-paying job. The rule is also meant to prevent billions in taxpayers' dollars on worthless programs.

Many for-profit colleges receive more than 90 percent of the revenue straight from Federal taxpayers. My Republican colleagues are committed to the free market system. So am I. I am committed to capitalism. I believe in it. Though, I think there is need for us to have regulation when it gets out of hand. That is why we have an antitrust division, for example.

In this circumstance, to argue that these are just private companies that are doing what ordinary people do when they start a business is to ignore the obvious. These for-profit colleges could not exist if they weren't receiving 80, 85, 90, and 95 percent of their revenue directly from the Federal Treasury.

In recent testimony before a House subcommittee, the Department of Education inspector general agreed that the gainful employment regulation ``is a good rule in terms of protecting [students] and protecting taxpayers.''

I sent a letter--along with Senators Patty Murray, Elizabeth Warren, and nine other colleagues--expressing our concerns to Secretary DeVos about her delaying this rule. In our letter, we made clear that these delays undermine the rule and are going to be a danger to students and taxpayers.

It is also a betrayal of students not to ensure that they are treated fairly after they have been taken advantage of by for-profit schools.

Today, POLITICO reported that the Trump administration has dramatically slowed, if not stopped, processing applications from tens of thousands of students seeking to have their Federal student loans discharged after they have been defrauded by for-profit colleges.

Think about that. A student is about to sign up for a for-profit school.

Maybe he doesn't know much about higher education. His parents say: Listen, if you can get a Pell grant and a Federal student loan, this must be a really good school.

He is defrauded into signing up for a school that is too expensive and offers a worthless degree, and then they turn around and that school goes bankrupt. Now the student has the debt, no degree, and we are left holding the bag. What has happened in previous cases is the Federal Government stepped in and discharged the students from the debt if they were defrauded into signing up for the college.

Secretary Betsy DeVos has decided to slow that down--to slow down the discharge of these students' debt. Students who were misled or defrauded by their schools are eligible for discharge of their Federal student loans under the Higher Education Act--the law as it now exists. Yet during her confirmation process, Secretary DeVos would not commit to providing this relief to students--relief already specified in law-- and has now effectively stopped processing the claims.

On the day before President Trump took office, more than 3,200 Illinois students applied to the Department of Education for relief. While the Department fails to process these claims, these students are left in the lurch. It adds insult to injury that students taken advantage of by for-profit colleges, nominally supervised and regulated by the Federal Government, are now being ignored by the Federal Government's Department of Education. That is unacceptable. It is unfair, and the Trump administration should change it.

We've started to see the true colors of the administration and Secretary DeVos when it comes to these students who have been victimized. As feared, the Department has thus far put for-profit and other commercial interests ahead of students and taxpayers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, when I was elected to the U.S. Senate, a group of people came to me and asked me to sponsor a bill. It was a bill that had been sponsored many times by Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. He retired shortly before I arrived.

The bill related to the Utah wilderness. I remember saying to those who approached me: This isn't my State. It is the State of Utah.

They said: This is a bill which we are having some controversy with when it

comes to the Utah congressional delegation.

Secondly, I said: It is a wilderness bill about a part of the world that I have never seen. I don't feel right introducing it.

They said: Why don't you come out and look at it?

I did just a few weeks later. My wife and I went and took a look at the Red Rocks Wilderness area in Utah. I will tell you, initially, as a midwesterner, when I looked at the stark landscape, I looked around thinking, what are we trying to preserve here? I took a closer look, which everyone should, and found a unique part of America--a wilderness area which can't be found anywhere else and a wilderness area which boasts archeological and historic and environmental significance way beyond what many people in the rest of the lower 48 might appreciate.

Today, I am reintroducing the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. It would safeguard 9.2 million acres of Park Bureau Land Management land in Utah as wilderness--some of the last great wild places in the lower 48.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked with the committed volunteers of the Utah Wilderness Coalition to protect the stunning, fragile desert landscape. These unique lands are rich in archeological resources and provide a habitat for rare plants and species. They offer unparalleled research, educational, and recreational opportunities for scientists, teachers, outdoor enthusiasts, and families.

The Bureau of Land Management has confirmed that the vast majority of the majority of the lands meet the qualifications for a wilderness designation. However, despite their pristine condition and their historical significance, these lands are threatened by oil and gas development, as well as rampant off-road vehicle use.

Although these activities are appropriate in some places, they don't belong in such a fragile landscape. Designating these lands as wilderness would safeguard wildlife, protect ancestral lands, help mitigate climate change, and provide access to future generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, boaters, and lovers of the natural world.

Last December, President Obama took an important step in protecting some of Southern Utah's fragile lands by designating the Bears Ears National Monument, which contains some of the lands that would be protected by my Red Rocks bill.

The 1.35 million-acre swath of land covers forested mesas and red rock canyons, and the designation protected the region's abundant Native American cultural resources. The monument contains well over 100,000 cultural and archeological sites. Let me say that again. Over 100,000 cultural and archeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings, granaries, burial sites, and kivas, as well as spectacular pictographs and petroglyphs strewn upon rock walls and boulders all across the region.

Artifacts range from 700 to 12,000 years old, providing tribes with an incredible insight into the shared history of their ancestral homeland, bolstering their deep spiritual connection to the land itself.

The Bears Ears National Monument, designated by President Obama, is the first monument of its kind to be proposed and advocated by a united coalition of five Tribes who sought its protection because of its importance in their respective culture. In total, 30 Native American tribes with ancestral, historical, and contemporary ties to the Bears Ears region supported the designation.

The Tribal coalition's original Bears Ears proposal was 1.9 million acres. You see them here. It is slightly larger than the 1.35 million- acre designation by President Obama.

Many in the Utah delegation, including one of my colleagues in the Senate, have raised concerns about President Obama's decision to protect this area and even the size of the designation. One of the critics of the size of the designation is the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rob Bishop.

Last Congress, before President Obama designated the Bears Ears region a national monument, the same Chairman Bishop introduced a bill that would have protected part of the Bears Ears region while opening other areas of land for oil and gas development.

Look at the two here in comparison. Chairman Bishop's proposal protected 1.28 million acres--only 17,500 acres smaller than the area protected by President Obama.

As you can see from these maps, the areas protected by Chairman Bishop's Public Lands Initiative are not that much different than the areas protected by the Bears Ears National Monument. To argue that the designation is so much larger than anyone anticipated is to ignore what the chairman submitted in his own legislation last year. Both are much smaller than what the Tribes originally requested, which is the third map here.

Despite that, Utah's congressional delegation has called the area ``well beyond the areas in need of protection'' and they pushed President Trump to consider shrinking or overturning this wilderness monument designation. Yet Utah's Salt Lake Tribune called Utah politicians' determination to rescind these designations ``blindness.''

Let me quote the Salt Lake Tribune:

That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political

system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with

their constituents.

They then continue and say:

The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there

is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The

presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries

and shared management [Utah Rep. Rob] Bishop pursued with his

public lands initiative.

They saw the same maps and said: Why is this acceptable and this objectionable?

Today, President Trump is planning to sign an Executive order. It is going to call on the Department of Interior to review previous national monument designations under the Antiquities Act.

While the President's Executive order will target the Bears Ears National Monument first, the order is going to go well beyond Utah and consider changes to all of the national monuments that have been designated since 1996--more than 50 different sites.

These are areas designated ``national monument protected areas'' by Republican and Democratic Presidents with bipartisan support. Yet President Trump is going to insist with his new order that he can review and change every single one of them.

Let me tell you the list of places and sites of great cultural significance that could be impacted: A portion of Sequoia National Forest in California, Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historic Park in Maryland, African Burial Ground National Monument in New York, and in my home State of Illinois, the Pullman National Monument.

It is rare for any national monument designation to be changed by another President. It happened once. The last time a President used the Antiquities Act to adjust the borders of a national monument was over a century ago, in 1915. Then-President Woodrow Wilson shrunk Washington State's Mount Olympus National Monument so they could harvest more timber resources from this land.

A lot has changed since 1915, including our views on conservation. Attacks on conservation seem to have remained consistent. One of our greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt--a proud Republican, I might add--faced a great deal of opposition to his designation of a national monument that most of us are familiar with--the Grand Canyon.

Most Americans can't imagine our country without the iconic Grand Canyon because it is truly a national treasure. At the time of its 1908 designation by President Roosevelt, groups were opposed to protecting that area. For years after its designation, oil and gas miners fought additional protections for the Grand Canyon.

The attacks on the Bears Ears designation doesn't seem all that different from the attacks on the Grand Canyon, but the attacks on the Bears Ears National Monument also attack the Native people who have worked so hard to get this area protected.

Let's be very honest. When we look at how Native Americans were treated by our government and the settlers, we certainly look back with some shame and some embarrassment. What the Tribes are asking for here is a protection of areas that are of special significance to them and special significance to the environmental legacy, which we should be leaving to future generations.

The President's decision to review these national monuments puts the future of these resources in jeopardy and threatens our culture, history, and heritage. If President Donald Trump decides to use the Antiquities Act to reverse one of these monuments, he would treading in uncharted water. Never before has a President used the Antiquities Act to repeal a national monument. For what purpose? For oil and gas exploration? For off-the-road vehicle use?

These monuments themselves help promote tourism and outdoor recreation. Regions with national monuments saw increased employment and personal income growth--exactly the opposite of what the critics promised. Specifically, rural counties in the West, with protected lands, saw jobs increase by 345 percent over areas without protected lands--345 percent. Despite the opposition from Utah's elected officials, many in the State, including the Tribes, want to protect those areas, and I want to help them.

Teddy Roosevelt once said:

It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the

destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a

cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the

United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and

dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and

exterminate fishes, birds, and mammals--not to speak of

vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements.

But at last it looks as if our people were awakened.

That was said by that Republican President over a century ago. Since Teddy Roosevelt's time, we have made progress in protecting our lands and waters, but these recent attacks and this recent Executive order by President Donald Trump show that we still have a long way to go.

I urge this administration, this Republican administration, to heed the words of Teddy Roosevelt. Carefully consider the legacy they will leave to future generations. It would be foolish not to protect Bears Ears and other monuments, just as it would have been foolish to listen to the critics and refuse to protect the Grand Canyon.

These monuments are for all of us, and we must ensure that they remain in their current natural condition for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, when I was elected to the U.S. Senate, a group of people came to me and asked me to sponsor a bill. It was a bill that had been sponsored many times by Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. He retired shortly before I arrived.

The bill related to the Utah wilderness. I remember saying to those who approached me: This isn't my State. It is the State of Utah.

They said: This is a bill which we are having some controversy with when it

comes to the Utah congressional delegation.

Secondly, I said: It is a wilderness bill about a part of the world that I have never seen. I don't feel right introducing it.

They said: Why don't you come out and look at it?

I did just a few weeks later. My wife and I went and took a look at the Red Rocks Wilderness area in Utah. I will tell you, initially, as a midwesterner, when I looked at the stark landscape, I looked around thinking, what are we trying to preserve here? I took a closer look, which everyone should, and found a unique part of America--a wilderness area which can't be found anywhere else and a wilderness area which boasts archeological and historic and environmental significance way beyond what many people in the rest of the lower 48 might appreciate.

Today, I am reintroducing the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. It would safeguard 9.2 million acres of Park Bureau Land Management land in Utah as wilderness--some of the last great wild places in the lower 48.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked with the committed volunteers of the Utah Wilderness Coalition to protect the stunning, fragile desert landscape. These unique lands are rich in archeological resources and provide a habitat for rare plants and species. They offer unparalleled research, educational, and recreational opportunities for scientists, teachers, outdoor enthusiasts, and families.

The Bureau of Land Management has confirmed that the vast majority of the majority of the lands meet the qualifications for a wilderness designation. However, despite their pristine condition and their historical significance, these lands are threatened by oil and gas development, as well as rampant off-road vehicle use.

Although these activities are appropriate in some places, they don't belong in such a fragile landscape. Designating these lands as wilderness would safeguard wildlife, protect ancestral lands, help mitigate climate change, and provide access to future generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, boaters, and lovers of the natural world.

Last December, President Obama took an important step in protecting some of Southern Utah's fragile lands by designating the Bears Ears National Monument, which contains some of the lands that would be protected by my Red Rocks bill.

The 1.35 million-acre swath of land covers forested mesas and red rock canyons, and the designation protected the region's abundant Native American cultural resources. The monument contains well over 100,000 cultural and archeological sites. Let me say that again. Over 100,000 cultural and archeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings, granaries, burial sites, and kivas, as well as spectacular pictographs and petroglyphs strewn upon rock walls and boulders all across the region.

Artifacts range from 700 to 12,000 years old, providing tribes with an incredible insight into the shared history of their ancestral homeland, bolstering their deep spiritual connection to the land itself.

The Bears Ears National Monument, designated by President Obama, is the first monument of its kind to be proposed and advocated by a united coalition of five Tribes who sought its protection because of its importance in their respective culture. In total, 30 Native American tribes with ancestral, historical, and contemporary ties to the Bears Ears region supported the designation.

The Tribal coalition's original Bears Ears proposal was 1.9 million acres. You see them here. It is slightly larger than the 1.35 million- acre designation by President Obama.

Many in the Utah delegation, including one of my colleagues in the Senate, have raised concerns about President Obama's decision to protect this area and even the size of the designation. One of the critics of the size of the designation is the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rob Bishop.

Last Congress, before President Obama designated the Bears Ears region a national monument, the same Chairman Bishop introduced a bill that would have protected part of the Bears Ears region while opening other areas of land for oil and gas development.

Look at the two here in comparison. Chairman Bishop's proposal protected 1.28 million acres--only 17,500 acres smaller than the area protected by President Obama.

As you can see from these maps, the areas protected by Chairman Bishop's Public Lands Initiative are not that much different than the areas protected by the Bears Ears National Monument. To argue that the designation is so much larger than anyone anticipated is to ignore what the chairman submitted in his own legislation last year. Both are much smaller than what the Tribes originally requested, which is the third map here.

Despite that, Utah's congressional delegation has called the area ``well beyond the areas in need of protection'' and they pushed President Trump to consider shrinking or overturning this wilderness monument designation. Yet Utah's Salt Lake Tribune called Utah politicians' determination to rescind these designations ``blindness.''

Let me quote the Salt Lake Tribune:

That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political

system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with

their constituents.

They then continue and say:

The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there

is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The

presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries

and shared management [Utah Rep. Rob] Bishop pursued with his

public lands initiative.

They saw the same maps and said: Why is this acceptable and this objectionable?

Today, President Trump is planning to sign an Executive order. It is going to call on the Department of Interior to review previous national monument designations under the Antiquities Act.

While the President's Executive order will target the Bears Ears National Monument first, the order is going to go well beyond Utah and consider changes to all of the national monuments that have been designated since 1996--more than 50 different sites.

These are areas designated ``national monument protected areas'' by Republican and Democratic Presidents with bipartisan support. Yet President Trump is going to insist with his new order that he can review and change every single one of them.

Let me tell you the list of places and sites of great cultural significance that could be impacted: A portion of Sequoia National Forest in California, Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historic Park in Maryland, African Burial Ground National Monument in New York, and in my home State of Illinois, the Pullman National Monument.

It is rare for any national monument designation to be changed by another President. It happened once. The last time a President used the Antiquities Act to adjust the borders of a national monument was over a century ago, in 1915. Then-President Woodrow Wilson shrunk Washington State's Mount Olympus National Monument so they could harvest more timber resources from this land.

A lot has changed since 1915, including our views on conservation. Attacks on conservation seem to have remained consistent. One of our greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt--a proud Republican, I might add--faced a great deal of opposition to his designation of a national monument that most of us are familiar with--the Grand Canyon.

Most Americans can't imagine our country without the iconic Grand Canyon because it is truly a national treasure. At the time of its 1908 designation by President Roosevelt, groups were opposed to protecting that area. For years after its designation, oil and gas miners fought additional protections for the Grand Canyon.

The attacks on the Bears Ears designation doesn't seem all that different from the attacks on the Grand Canyon, but the attacks on the Bears Ears National Monument also attack the Native people who have worked so hard to get this area protected.

Let's be very honest. When we look at how Native Americans were treated by our government and the settlers, we certainly look back with some shame and some embarrassment. What the Tribes are asking for here is a protection of areas that are of special significance to them and special significance to the environmental legacy, which we should be leaving to future generations.

The President's decision to review these national monuments puts the future of these resources in jeopardy and threatens our culture, history, and heritage. If President Donald Trump decides to use the Antiquities Act to reverse one of these monuments, he would treading in uncharted water. Never before has a President used the Antiquities Act to repeal a national monument. For what purpose? For oil and gas exploration? For off-the-road vehicle use?

These monuments themselves help promote tourism and outdoor recreation. Regions with national monuments saw increased employment and personal income growth--exactly the opposite of what the critics promised. Specifically, rural counties in the West, with protected lands, saw jobs increase by 345 percent over areas without protected lands--345 percent. Despite the opposition from Utah's elected officials, many in the State, including the Tribes, want to protect those areas, and I want to help them.

Teddy Roosevelt once said:

It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the

destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a

cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the

United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and

dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and

exterminate fishes, birds, and mammals--not to speak of

vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements.

But at last it looks as if our people were awakened.

That was said by that Republican President over a century ago. Since Teddy Roosevelt's time, we have made progress in protecting our lands and waters, but these recent attacks and this recent Executive order by President Donald Trump show that we still have a long way to go.

I urge this administration, this Republican administration, to heed the words of Teddy Roosevelt. Carefully consider the legacy they will leave to future generations. It would be foolish not to protect Bears Ears and other monuments, just as it would have been foolish to listen to the critics and refuse to protect the Grand Canyon.

These monuments are for all of us, and we must ensure that they remain in their current natural condition for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. President, I will yield the floor if the Democratic leader arrives, but until his arrival, I would like to do two things-- first, join in the comments made by the majority leader, Senator McConnell, relative to the Holocaust remembrance.

This is the day on which we gather in the Rotunda each year to remember the atrocities of World War II, which includes remembering the Holocaust victims, so many who were Jewish people as well as Polish people--the list goes on and on--as well as those who were gay and gypsies. This was an ethnic cleansing--the worst ever seen in the history of this world. We remember it on this day, as we should.

Mr. President, on a separate issue, before us now is the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

The Deputy Attorney General oversees the day-to-day operations of the Department of Justice. In any circumstance, this is an important position that requires a nominee with experience, independence, management skills, and good judgment, which is especially true today.

Many of us questioned whether Attorney General Sessions was the right person to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America at this moment in history. Unfortunately, many of the actions of the new Attorney General, since he was confirmed, have not erased these concerns. The Attorney General has already begun making dramatic changes at the Justice Department, including on critical issues like criminal justice, civil rights, immigration, and funding for crime prevention.

Just last week, Attorney General Sessions disparaged a Federal judge from Hawaii who issued an order blocking the Trump administration's Muslim travel ban.

Attorney General Sessions said: ``I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.''

Senator Mazie Hirono, my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the junior Senator from Hawaii, pointed out that Hawaii was granted statehood in 1959 and called the Attorney General's comments ``insulting and prejudiced.''

Also, last week, Attorney General Sessions called into question the status of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, also known as DACA. When asked about DACA, Attorney General Sessions said: ``We can't promise people who are here unlawfully that they're not going to be deported.''

That is exactly what DACA is. It is a commitment to young people who were brought to the United States as children and grew up in our country that they will be protected from deportation on a temporary renewable basis. Attorney General Sessions' statement is contrary to his own administration's policy as established by President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who have primary responsibility for immigration enforcement.

The last confirmed nominee for Deputy Attorney General was Sally Yates, a veteran prosecutor and U.S. attorney from Georgia. Ms. Yates displayed sound judgment as Deputy Attorney General, and she was unafraid to speak truth to power.

Ms. Yates became the Acting Attorney General at the end of the Obama administration, and when President Trump signed his unconstitutional Muslim ban Executive order on January 27, Sally Yates told the White House she could not defend the order in court because she was not convinced it was lawful. Ms. Yates was then fired by President Trump for disagreeing with him. However, multiple Federal courts agreed with Ms. Yates' position and blocked this unconstitutional Executive order. Time and history have proven Ms. Yates correct.

We need a Deputy Attorney General like Sally Yates, who is highly competent and has the independence to say no to the President and to the Attorney General when necessary.

Rod Rosenstein has served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland since 2005 under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. I do not question his experience or his competence. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I looked closely at his nomination. I asked him many questions in the hearing. I sent some followup letters, and I appreciate that he has been forthcoming in his responses.

Mr. Rosenstein has pledged to be an independent voice and has committed that he will not recommend any changes in Justice Department policies until he evaluates them, discusses them with appropriate officials, and determines that changes are warranted.

I expect he will be confirmed. Upon confirmation, Mr. Rosenstein will immediately be tasked with responsibility over critically important issues over which he will need to display both sound judgment and independence. Four come to mind.

First is the ongoing investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election to help the Trump campaign. What Russia did in our election last year was a cyber act of war against our democracy. It is imperative that we get to the bottom of what happened and make sure it never happens again. I have called for an independent, bipartisan investigation into Russia's election interference. The Republican majority of the House and Senate have resisted this call.

Instead, Republicans in Congress have referred this matter to the Intelligence Committees of both Houses, perhaps hoping it will fade away behind closed doors. I hope the Intelligence Committees will step up and conduct an investigation that is worthy of the importance of this issue, but when it comes to potential criminal acts involving Russia's election interference, the responsibility to investigate falls solely on the Justice Department.

Attorney General Sessions has had to recuse himself from the investigation because of his work for the Trump campaign and his failure to disclose his contacts with Russian officials last year. That means the Deputy Attorney General now has the responsibility over this investigation.

It will be incumbent on Mr. Rosenstein to ensure this investigation is conducted with independence, diligence, and integrity. I believe that appointing a special counsel is the best way to ensure this. I hope he will make that appointment. If Mr. Rosenstein does not appoint a special counsel, the spotlight will be on him personally to make sure the investigation is conducted properly, no matter where it leads. I hope he exercises good judgment. This investigation is too important to get wrong.

The second issue that will require independence and good judgment from the Deputy Attorney General is the Justice Department's threat to withhold Federal funding to prevent violence across America, including in the city of Chicago.

The Trump administration's message has been confusing, to say the least, when it comes to Federal efforts to prevent violence. On the one hand, President Trump, in the middle of the night, tweets ``Chicago needs help,'' and ``Send in the Feds,'' but then the administration threatens to cut off critical funding for violence prevention under programs like Byrne JAG unless cities agree to turn their local police departments into deportation forces.

It is pretty obvious that cutting off Federal violence prevention funding will hurt the cause of violence prevention. Do not take my word for it. Ask any law enforcement leader.

Listen to what the International Association of Chiefs of Police said: ``Penalizing communities by withholding assistance funding to law enforcement

agencies and other critical programs is counterproductive to our shared mission of reducing violent crime and keeping communities safe.''

It is no secret that the Attorney General is fixated on immigration, but we need the Deputy Attorney General to ensure that this fixation does not undermine the important ways that the Justice Department and local law enforcement cooperate to reduce violent crime.

This administration cannot call itself a law-and-order administration and then do something like cut the funds for violence prevention when police chiefs across America say that is just wrong.

The third area of critical importance is criminal justice policy. Today, our Federal prisons are 30 percent over capacity, and runaway prison expenditures are undermining important public safety priorities like crime prevention, drug courts, and addiction treatment.

The largest increase in the Federal prison population has been nonviolent drug offenders who are then separated from their families for years on end as a result of inflexible mandatory minimum sentences. This has a destructive effect on communities and erodes faith in America in our criminal justice system.

Congress needs to pass legislation to reform our Federal drug sentencing laws, but the Justice Department's policies for nonviolent drug offenses also can help.

Under the Obama administration, the Smart on Crime Initiative directed Federal prosecutors to reserve stiff mandatory minimum sentences for individuals convicted of serious offenses. This initiative has been very effective in focusing the Department's limited resources on the worst offenders and ensuring that people convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses are not subjected to these same mandatory minimum penalties.

Attorney General Sessions has signaled that he wants to eliminate the Smart on Crime Initiative, and certainly those of us who listened to his opposition to criminal sentencing reform are not surprised. But, as Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein will chair the Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety that has been established by the President. This gives him an important voice. I hope he will work to ensure that the Department's charging policy reserves stiff mandatory sentences for only serious violent offenders.

Mr. Rosenstein would also be responsible for determining the fate of the Justice Department's efforts to work constructively with State and local law enforcement to protect civil rights and improve community and police relations. In particular, Mr. Rosenstein should continue negotiations to pursue police reform in Chicago, backed up by an enforceable consent decree. The former U.S. attorney in Chicago, Zach Fardon, felt strongly that a consent decree was needed to correct the systemic problems we face. Mr. Rosenstein has shown more openness to using consent decrees than Attorney General Sessions, who has an ideological personal hostility toward them. I hope Mr. Rosenstein will look carefully at this issue in Chicago and respect the judgment of Mr. Fardon and the career DOJ professionals who spent over a year investigating this matter.

Mr. Rosenstein also will be responsible for reining in the Attorney General's worst instincts on immigration. It is no surprise to any Member of this Chamber that when the issue of immigration came to the floor, the leading opponent on immigration reform was Senator Sessions of Alabama. I believe he offered 100 amendments to the immigration reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate. He has spoken out over and over again about his opposition to immigration reform.

The Attorney General has already directed Federal prosecutors across the country to make immigration cases a higher priority and look for opportunities to bring serious felony charges against those who cross the border without authorization. Federal prosecutors understand this is not the right approach. Listen to Paul Charlton, the U.S. attorney for Arizona under the Bush administration. According to him, this new directive will overburden the Federal courts already struggling to handle the volume of immigration cases. He said: ``Prosecution and incarceration do not adequately address the real need, which is a reform of the immigration laws.''

Let me conclude. I see the Democratic leader on the floor.

There are a number of critical issues that will require sound judgment and leadership from the next Deputy Attorney General. I hope Mr. Rosenstein will approach these issues with the professionalism and integrity that have earned him bipartisan praise as U.S. Attorney in Maryland. I hope he will be willing to speak truth to power and to stand up to the President and the Attorney General if necessary.

I will support Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. I hope we can work together constructively on the important matters facing the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague for her first speech. The first speech given on the floor of the Senate is a memorable occasion for not only my colleague but for the staff, friends, and family who have followed this amazing story of Tammy Duckworth, a U.S. Senator from Illinois. She didn't disappoint with this first speech.

If there was ever an inspirational speech speaking to who we are as a nation and what we can be, she encapsulated it in her comments on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It was an aspirational speech, too--a challenge to all of us to do a better job for this Nation, to make it stronger and to represent more effectively the people who have sent us here to serve them.

She brings a special quality to the service that very few have been able to bring to the U.S. Senate. I first met MAJ Tammy Duckworth 12 years ago when she was my guest at the State of the Union Address just weeks after her helicopter had been shot down over Iraq. I was amazed by her tenacity, her courage, her good humor. I thought to myself, this woman has really made history. I think she can even make more history, and she has, being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as well as the U.S. Senate, an opportunity that fewer than 2,000 Americans have had in our Nation's history.

I think back on what she brings to the Senate, and it is something that is special and extraordinary. To come to this Senate after her service in the military is to follow in the path of Senator Bob Dole, a disabled veteran from

World War II, who led the Republican side of the aisle; Senator Daniel Inouye, a personal friend to both Senator Duckworth and me, who served in World War II; Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, who served as well; Strom Thurmond, from South Carolina, a Republican; and more recently, Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran; Bob Kerrey, John Kerry--the list goes on and on, the great people who have served our Nation in the military and then came to serve in the Senate.

One of the points she made in that speech was one of the reasons I supported her so wholeheartedly. When we face the most difficult, trying, and challenging votes in a Senate career, the vote to go to war, having the voice of Tammy Duckworth on the floor is a reminder of the real cost of war and how we should avoid it at any cost, if we can, and what we are asking our men and women in America to do if we send them off to war. She will have more credibility, will have more confidence in her judgment, than virtually any colleague on the floor of the U.S. Senate. So she is going to play a special role.

Finally, let me say, in a short period of time serving as a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, she has shown that she is not going to be taking it easy. She has covered our State from one end to the other, most recently during the Easter recess, with town meetings and meetings with all sorts of people across our State, leaving a positive impression of her commitment to public service.

When I saw her and her mom and her little daughter Abigail get on the plane just the other day, yesterday, to come out here, I realized it is a family commitment which includes all of her family and her husband Bryan. They are committed to this country, they are committed to our great State, and we are fortunate to have her service.

Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I hadn't planned to speak this morning, but when my friend from Texas decided to give his version of history, I thought: Well, I ought to give my version. It is slightly different.

Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February of last year. President Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, had a constitutional responsibility under article II, section 2 to nominate a person to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, as every other President had. And he did.

He came up with the name Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, a man who is widely respected, judged unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. President Obama submitted his name to this Congress, to the Senate, a Senate that has a Republican majority, led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Senator McConnell and the Republican Senators did something that had never happened in the history of this Chamber--not once. They denied President Obama's nominee the opportunity for a hearing and a vote. In fact, Senator McConnell went further and said: I won't even meet with the man.

It had never happened before.

You say to yourself: Well, come on. This isn't beanbag. You are in Washington. This is major league politics. This sort of thing must happen all the time. Never.

In fact, if you go back not that far in history, to 1988, in the last year of President Ronald Reagan's Presidency--his fourth year of his second term, some call it the lameduck year--there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Republican President Ronald Reagan sent the name Anthony Kennedy to a Democratically controlled Senate, which had the power to do the same thing Senator McConnell did: Deny a hearing, deny a vote.

Well, what did the Democrats do? We gave Justice Kennedy a hearing, a vote, and sent him to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Under Senator McConnell, the Republicans refused Merrick Garland the same opportunity, and they said to President Obama: You are in your fourth year. You are a lameduck. Your choice for the Supreme Court really doesn't count.

But there was more to it. Really, the strategy was based on the premise and possibility that a Republican would be elected in this last November election, and if so, that Republican President could fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Well, that is exactly what happened. The election of Donald Trump gave him the opportunity to fill the vacancy of Antonin Scalia, a vacancy that should have been filled, I believe, by Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee.

That is what led up to the vote yesterday, but there was more.

Where did the name Neil Gorsuch come from? It is true that he served on the Tenth Circuit for 10 years. He had been approved by the Senate. He certainly had a strong resume. But how did he get on the finalist list?

Well, most of the time you never know. Presidents don't always disclose how they come up with names. In this case, it was very open because, during the course of his campaign, Donald Trump, the candidate, listed 21 names of people whom he would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court. On that list of names, Neil Gorsuch of Colorado.

How did that name make the list? Well, we know because President Trump told us. He was the choice of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. If you know these two organizations, you know they are Republican advocacy groups, very conservative groups, and they were going to pick the nominees who were approved by them and submit them to Donald Trump, which he then publicized. We know that because, at the end of the day, Donald Trump thanked the Federalist Society for nominating Judge Gorsuch. That is how the name came to us.

I sat through the hearings as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I will tell you that most Supreme Court nominees don't go out of their way to volunteer information. They try to be respectful, but they don't try to say much of anything. They don't want to get in trouble either as judges or as candidates to be a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. So there were gaps in his testimony and troubling questions raised about him.

I don't want to dwell on him so much as I want to dwell on this process. What happened yesterday on the floor of the Senate was unfortunate. Since I have been in the Senate, the last four Justices on the Supreme Court--two

nominated by President Obama, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and two nominated by George W. Bush, John Roberts as well as Justice Alito--all received 60 votes during the course of their consideration. That is not, as the Senator from Texas alluded, written in the law per se, but it was written--until yesterday--in the rules of the Senate. You needed 60 votes to overcome the possibility of a filibuster and to file cloture.

Well, that rule was changed yesterday to a simple majority. That is an unfortunate occurrence. A lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land should be more than just a bare majority vote, as far as I am concerned, and, historically, with very few exceptions, that has been the case.

That is not the case here. We found yesterday that the Republicans voted for a change in rules, which was under the power of the majority to do--a change in the rules, which lowered the standard for this judge for the first time officially in at least a century to a mere majority vote. That is what he received, and that is what brings his nomination to the floor today to be considered for the Supreme Court.

At the end of yesterday's session, when the rule was changed, some Senators were engaged in high fives on the other side of the aisle. I am not sure why. I don't think it was a time for any winning celebration. I think it was an unfortunate moment.

The question is, Where will we go from here? We know what the outcome of the vote will be on Judge Gorsuch this afternoon. That is preordained by the rule struggles we went through yesterday. But where does the Senate go? Where should we go? Well, I hope we will have the good sense to restore the 60-vote margin when it comes to future Supreme Court nominees.

It may be that Justice Gorsuch has an asterisk by his name as the only one to have been officially approved with cloture set at a majority vote, but I am hoping, even if he reaches the Supreme Court, that will not hold him back from serving this Nation well. I know he has told us over and over again that is exactly what he wants to do.

But I hope the Senate will restore the standard of 60 votes necessary for the Supreme Court. I really believe serving as a Supreme Court Justice is an extraordinary opportunity for a person to serve this Nation, an extraordinary responsibility, and we should take it very seriously. It shouldn't be a majority decision; it should be a 60-vote decision. I hope we get back to that very soon.

Secondly, I hope the Senate will not be derailed by this Supreme Court nomination having happened so early in the session. This is a great institution. I have given a big part of my life to it and look forward to serving more in the Senate--not as long as the Senator from Iowa, who I think has retired the trophy in his State for his service in the Senate--but I do believe this is a great institution.

An example is that the Senator from Iowa and I are of opposite political faiths. He and I have worked together on some important issues in the past, and we want to work together in the future. I think we can. If we can restore what you and I remember as the glory days of this body, it is in the best interest of this Nation.

So beyond this Supreme Court nomination, let's hope we can all come together to make that happen.

I see my colleagues filing in. I know they are anxious to vote. I am not going to hold the Chamber. I am just going to say that I thank the Presiding Officer and my friend, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I look forward to the vote.

I yield the floor.

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

I yield back the remainder of our time.

I withhold that request until the arrival of the leader.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of time on this side.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, there is a poem that I recall, and it goes like this:

When I was going up the stair,

I met a man who wasn't there.

He wasn't there again today.

I wish that man would go away.

I thought about that poem when I listened to the majority leader's speech about how cooperative he has been when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. The name he forgot to mention was Merrick Garland--Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Obama to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia; Merrick Garland, the only Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court in the history of the U.S. Senate to be denied a hearing and a vote; Merrick Garland, about whom Senator McConnell said: I will not only refuse to give him a hearing and a vote, I refuse to even see him; Merrick Garland, who was found unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association; Merrick Garland, the person who received bipartisan support for appointment to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land.

So when the majority leader comes to the floor to talk about how cooperative he has been with previous Presidents when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, he conveniently omits the most obvious reason for our problems this week: the unilateral decision by the majority leader to preclude any vote on Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy of Justice Scalia.

I know Judge Garland. I have met with him several times. He is a balanced, moderate, experienced jurist who should be on the U.S. Supreme Court. We should not be entertaining Neil Gorsuch this week; we ought to be celebrating the first anniversary of Merrick Garland's service on the U.S. Supreme Court. The reason we are not is that Senator McConnell and the Senate Republicans refused us that opportunity. They said: No, you cannot vote on that.

Remember their logic? The logic was: Wait a minute. This is the last year of President Obama's Presidency. Why should he be able to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court when we have an election coming soon?

That is an interesting argument. There are two things I am troubled with.

I do believe President Obama was elected for 4 years in his second term, not for 3, which meant he had authority in the fourth year, as he did in the third year.

Secondly, the Republican argument ignores history. It ignores the obvious history when we had a situation with President Ronald Reagan, in his last year in office, with regard to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. There were Democrats in charge of the Senate and Democrats in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and President Ronald Reagan, a lameduck President in his last year, nominated Anthony Kennedy to serve on the Court. He sent the name to the Democratic Senate, and there was a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vote that sent him to the Court.

You never hear that story from Senator McConnell. It is because it does not fit into his playbook as to why he would wait for a year and refuse to give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote. The reasoning is obvious: Clearly he was banking on the possibility that the electorate would choose a Republican President--and that is what happened--so that a Republican President--in this case, Donald Trump--could fill the vacancy, not Barack Obama.

So when I hear the speeches on the floor by Senator McConnell about his bipartisan cooperation, he leaves out an important chapter--the last chapter, the one that brought us to this moment in the Senate.

I look at the situation before us today, and it is a sad situation for the Senate--sad in that we have reached the point in which a Supreme Court nomination has become so political, more so than at any time in history.

Where did the name ``Neil Gorsuch'' come from for the Supreme Court? It came from a list that was prepared by two organizations: the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. These are both Republican advocacy groups who represent special interests and are funded by special interests. They came up with the names and gave them to Presidential candidate Donald Trump. It was a list of 21 names. He issued them twice--in March and in September of the last campaign year--and Neil Gorsuch's name was on the list.

The Federalist Society was created in 1982. Nominally, it is an organization that is committed to originalism.

In other words, it looks to the clear meaning of the Constitution, what the Founding Fathers meant. They say that over and over again: Just look to the Constitution and read it, and then we will know what we should do. That was in a speech that was given by Edwin Meese, the then-Attorney General in 1985, who explained the Federalist Society's credo.

On its face, it sounds at least arguably defensible that there would be an organization that is so committed to the Constitution that it wants Supreme Court nominees who will follow it as literally as possible. Yet, as Justice William Brennan on the Supreme Court said, if they think they can find in those musty volumes from back in the 18th century all of the answers to all of the questions on the issues we face today--here is what he called it--that is arrogance posing as humility.

Yet that is what they said the Federalist Society was all about. If that were all the Federalist Society were about, then I guess one could argue that they ought to have their day in court, their day in choosing someone for the Supreme Court, but it is more than that. When you look at those who finance the Federalist Society--and it is a short list because they refuse to disclose all their donors--you see the classic names of Republican support: the Koch brothers, the Mercer family, the Richard Mellon Scaife family foundation, the ones who pop up over and over again. Why would these organizations be so determined to pick the next nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court? It is because there is so much at stake.

In a Judiciary Committee hearing, my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse went through the box score when it came to the Supreme Court and how they ruled when given a choice between special interests and corporate elites versus average workers and consumers and families. As Senator Whitehouse pointed out graphically, in detail, overwhelmingly, this Court has ruled for the special interests. Sixty-nine percent of the Roberts' Court's rulings are in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's position on issues, according to one study.

Why would a special interest organization like the Federalist Society care? It wants to keep a good thing going, from its point of view. That is why this is a different Supreme Court nominee.

I yield the floor.