Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the sesquicentennial anniversary of the founding of the University of Illinois, a nationally recognized institution of higher education with a long record of innovation and discovery and the home of the Fighting Illini.

In 1867, 150 years ago, my home State of Illinois established the University of Illinois with the purpose of fostering access to higher education for the working people. It would become one of 37 public, land-grant institutions established as a result of the Morrill Land- Grant Colleges Act signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln.

Over the past 150 years, the University of Illinois and those associated with it have been responsible for pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, scientific discovery, social justice, and equality.

In 1941, David Blackwell, the son of a railroad worker from southern Illinois, received his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Illinois. In 1965, Dr. Blackwell became the first African American elected to the National Academy of Sciences, whose members advise the President and Congress on matters related to science and technology. Dr. Blackwell is regarded as the most famous African-American mathematician in history.

In 1948, the University of Illinois became, and remains to this day, the most accessible campus in the world for individuals with disabilities. Timothy Nugent founded the first comprehensive program of higher education for individuals with disabilities at the University and helped create a campus that allowed individuals with disabilities to move about freely and independently. While the availability of buses with wheelchair lifts, accessible street curbs, and comprehensive collegiate programs for those with disabilities all have become the national standard, they started at the University of Illinois.

The University of Illinois has long been a leader in groundbreaking research and innovation in science. In the early 1970s, Paul Lauterbur discovered magnetic resonance imaging--better known by its initials: MRI. For his pioneering work, he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2003.

Today the university is one of the premier public research universities in the world. It ranks in the top 50 universities in America for research and development dollars spent in science and engineering. It is also home to one of the world's most powerful supercomputers, known as Blue Waters. Blue Waters is the fastest supercomputer located on a college campus in the world.

What began 150 years ago as a small building on the Illinois prairie between

the Illinois Central train station in Champaign and the courthouse in Urbana is today a 785-acre campus with a reputation admired around the world. It is home to more than 44,000 students from all 50 States and more than 100 different countries each year. The University of Illinois has enhanced the lives of over 450,000 living alumni and produced 23 Nobel Laureates and 22 Pulitzer Prize winners in the process. In addition, the university has grown to include campuses in Chicago and Springfield and regional campuses in Rockford, Peoria, and the Quad Cities.

It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the sesquicentennial anniversary of the founding of the University of Illinois. I offer my best wishes and congratulations to President Timothy Killeen and all the University faculty, staff, students, and alumni on this important milestone.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address the nomination of Congressman Ryan Zinke to lead the Department of Interior.

As Secretary of Interior, Representative Zinke will be the steward of our Nation's precious public lands, national parks, tribal lands, and historical and cultural resources. These lands not only play an important role in preserving habitat, landscapes, and history, they also create jobs and invigorate nearby communities.

During his confirmation hearing, I was excited to hear Congressman Zinke refer to himself as a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist.

We all know the important role Teddy Roosevelt played in protecting our natural resources. During his Presidency, Roosevelt established 230 million acres of public lands. In 1901, he created the U.S. Forest Service and established 150 national forests. In 1906, he signed into law the Antiquities Act, legislation that allowed either the President or Congress to set aside ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest'' in order to stop their destruction. With this act, he designated 18 national monuments, including several iconic areas.

A modern version of Teddy Roosevelt would be a wonderful selection to head the Department of Interior. But, after closely examining Representative Zinke's record, he doesn't appear to be a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist.

Last Congress, Representative Zinke voted in favor of an amendment to the House Interior appropriations bill that would have rolled back the authority of the President to use the Antiquities Act in seven Western States. He also supported a bill that would have effectively eliminated public review of hardrock mining activities on Federal lands. And he supported the Keystone XL pipeline.

Conservationist groups seem to have similar concerns about Congressman Zinke's record.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a 3 percent rating for 2015 and a 5 percent rating for 2016--hardly what you would expect from a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. This troubles me, as Representative Zinke, if confirmed, would be responsible for managing new monuments of great importance--namely, the Pullman National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument.

The Pullman National Monument was designated by President Obama in 2015 in a Chicago neighborhood that has played a significant role in our country's African-American and labor history.

It represents the culmination of a collaborative effort by businesses, residents, and other organizations seeking to restore and preserve this unique community.

The Pullman neighborhood was originally developed a century ago by rail car magnate George Pullman as a factory town that would help shape our country as we know it today.

It was the birthplace of the Nation's first Black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, which is credited with helping to create the African-American middle class and making crucial civil rights advancements in this county.

Pullman workers also fought for fair labor conditions in the late 19th century. During the economic depression of the 1890s, the Pullman community was the catalyst for the first industry-wide strike in the United States, which eventually led to the creation of Labor Day as a national holiday.

The Pullman National Monument not only highlights stories from communities that are rarely represented in other national parks, but its location on Chicago's South Side--easily accessible to millions of people by public transportation--also makes it particularly unique. Following its designation, the Pullman neighborhood joined the National Mall and the Statue of Liberty as one of the few DOI-managed lands in an urban area.

But Pullman now needs an Interior Secretary who is committed to dedicating resources that will ensure the monument is a driver of tourism and job creation in the community.

Public lands have certainly been a great economic driver in Utah, and the Bear Ears National Monument will no doubt build on this success.

The 1.35 million acre swath of land, declared a national monument by President Obama, covers forested mesas to redrock canyons and will protect the region's abundant cultural resources, which include well- preserved cliff dwellings, rock and art panels, artifacts, and Native American burials.

Bears Ears is special, as it is the first monument of its kind to be proposed and advocated for by a united coalition of five tribes, who sought its protection because of its important place in all of their respective cultures.

Congressman Zinke is well aware of the monument and has said his first priority as Secretary would be to go to Utah and make a recommendation regarding the status of the Bears Ears National Monument.

While this monument designation has been met with opposition from Utah politicians, the attacks on the Bears Ears Monument do not reflect the views of all Utahans.

Recently, Utah's paper of record, the Salt Lake Tribune, called the political fervor a ``blindness.''

``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.'' It continues, ``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.''

Sadly, attacks on monument designations are nothing new.

One of our greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, faced a great deal of opposition to his designation of a national monument you may be familiar with, the Grand Canyon. Most Americans can't imagine an America without the iconic Grand Canyon, a true national treasure.

But, at the time of its 1908 designation, groups were opposed to protecting this area. For years after its designation, oil and gas miners fought against additional protections for the Grand Canyon. In the end, conservationists won out, and by 1919, the Grand Canyon was made into a national park to be protected for future generations.

Roosevelt 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 awakening''

Since Roosevelt's time, we have made a lot of progress in protecting our lands and waters, but still have a long way to go. That is why the next Interior Secretary needs to take a step forward in protecting more of our public lands, not backwards.

Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose Congressman Zinke.

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

Mr. President, it has now been almost 5 months since our intelligence community first detailed how Russia launched a cyber act of war on America and our last Presidential election--5 months. In those 5 months, how many times have my Republican colleagues come to the floor of the Senate to discuss this national security threat, this cyber attack by Russia? How many times has the party of Ronald Reagan-- who so clearly understood the threat of the Soviet Union--spoken on the Senate floor about this Russian cyber attack on America? Zero. That is right--zero. They have found more than 35 occasions to talk about stripping health care from millions of Americans, and they made time to urgently rush votes dismantling environmental and anticorruption regulation, but to talk about how a former KGB official launched a cyber act of war against America aimed at eroding trust in our historic democracy and electing the candidate seen as more sympathetic to Russia--zero. Not once.

Why would Russian dictator Vladimir Putin favor President Trump in the last election? Well, I just returned from a week visiting our allies in Eastern Europe. I can tell you, they are puzzled by this, too, and they are worried. They are worried that Donald Trump, the new President, is already advancing and will further advance policies sympathetic to Vladimir Putin's dangerous agenda, specifically weakening the Western transatlantic democratic alliance.

Regardless of the partisan leanings of who was in government in the nations

I just visited--populist, social democrat, conservative, liberal--the concerns in each of these nations of Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine were the same. Is the United States' history of championing democracy and collective security in Europe ending? Are we backing away from those values and commitments just as Russia is more aggressively challenging them? Is the American President really using phrases like ``enemy of the people'' to describe the free press in America?

You see, the countries that I visited were once in the Eastern bloc, Warsaw Pact, or Soviet Union. They are familiar with that term, ``enemy of the people.'' That was a term used by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin that was so ominous that the Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, later demanded that the Communist Party stop using it because it eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight.

Think of that. Here was Khrushchev saying: Stop using the Stalin term ``enemy of the people''; it is too divisive. Now it is being used to describe the media, a description that has been offered by the new President of the United States. Are the Trump administration's bizarre blinders to Vladimir Putin's aggression and true nature--and the silence of too many of his colleagues on this danger--a harbinger of some kind of Western retreat when it comes to Russian aggression?

It is hard to believe this is happening in 2017. President Trump has called NATO obsolete. That is a stark and completely wrong statement, so bad that it required the Vice President of the United States to travel to Munich, Germany, last week and reassure our allies who have been part of our alliance since World War II that NATO was not obsolete.

When has it happened in history that the President of the United States would make such a sweeping, erroneous, dangerous statement about the most important alliance in the world and then send his Vice President out on a repair job? The President has surrounded himself with people like Steve Bannon, who reportedly once called himself a Leninist and seems bizarrely sympathetic to Putin's dictatorial model and weakening the European alliance.

It turns out that the just-resigned National Security Advisor, LTG Michael Flynn, the one who was fired by the previous administration, the one who led chants unworthy of a great democracy about locking up Hillary Clinton, was, in fact, speaking to Russian officials before he or Donald Trump had taken office and, suspiciously, just after President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its attack on our election.

President Trump still refuses to release his tax returns to clarify what his son said in 2008 regarding Trump's businesses seeing ``a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' President Trump even said yesterday: ``I haven't called Russia in 10 years.'' That is hard to verify. He spoke to Vladimir Putin on the telephone just a month ago, which was followed, incidentally, a day later by renewed fighting by the Russian- backed separatists in Ukraine.

President Trump visited Russia in 2013. He tweeted at the time: ``I just got back from Russia--learned lots & lots.''

Clearly, he did not learn enough about Vladimir Putin. As if that were not enough, this President still refuses to acknowledge Russia's attack or to criticize Vladimir Putin. You see, the President of the United States has trouble, a real habit of lashing out at everyone and anyone involved in a perceived slight, a dangerous and unbecoming behavior when granted the privilege to be President of this great Nation.

In fact, the vast number and range of those attacked or insulted via Twitter is so significant that I need considerably more time here on the floor of the Senate to list all of the targets of President Trump's attacks on Twitter. So if you make any criticism or joke about President Trump, make any perceived slight, run a department store, lead a labor union, do just about anything, you may be a victim of one of his Twitter attacks, except, of course, if you happen to be a former Communist KGB official who now leads Russia, a nation that recently attacked our election.

How is it possible? How is it sensible? How is this not an abdication of the President's responsibilities? Russian President Putin launched a cyber attack and war on the United States and its democracy. November 8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy because of this Russian attack on the United States of America.

President Putin interfered in our election and tried to influence the selection of the American people in choosing their leader. The evidence is overwhelming. It has been available in increasing amounts for almost 5 months. The White House is silent, in denial.

Republican Senators are largely silent, and not one of them has come to the Senate floor to even address this issue. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin continues his aggressive military cyber disinformation campaign throughout Europe.

Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the White House led an effort to discredit news stories that described contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian Government officials. The House Intelligence Committee chairman, Congressman Nunes of California, a Republican, went so far as to dismiss these claims of Russian interference in the campaign for the President of the United States and to condemn the leaks that have brought this information to the attention of the American people. Rather than doing their part to ensure an impartial, independent investigation of these chilling facts, the White House has tried to spin it out of existence. In fact, yesterday, it was reported that the White House Press Secretary asked CIA Director Michael Pompeo and the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to help discredit news articles about the Trump campaign aides' contacts with Russian officials.

John Brennan, who was head of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Obama, was asked in an interview last night if he could imagine being contacted by the White House and asked to spin a story one way or the other. He said it was unthinkable. It just wasn't done under previous administrations. Here we are, not even 6 weeks into this Presidency, and it is already happening.

Can anyone here--anyone--imagine what would happen if the situation had been reversed? I can just imagine the howls of ``treason'' and ``impeachment.'' Not a single nominee would be confirmed until there were answers and accountability if this had happened and there was an effort by the Russians to influence an election in favor of the Democrats.

What has happened to my friends on the other side of the aisle? When will they put the country that they are sworn to represent and to uphold above any partisan consideration? A Polish expert who I ran into during my journey summed all this up wisely when he said: If the United States does not respond to the Russian attack on its own election, Putin will feel he has a free hand to keep taking destabilizing actions in the West.

There was a time in Washington when national security issues were bipartisan. Politics used to stop at the water's edge. The security of the Nation meant putting aside partisan agendas to face a common threat. It is time to return to that tradition. We need an independent, transparent investigation of this Russian involvement in our Presidential election.

We know the voters list in my home State of Illinois was hacked. We know that some 17 different intelligence agencies have told us unequivocally that Russia did everything in its power to try to change the outcome of this last election. We are told that there could have been up to 1,000 Russian trolls sitting in headquarters in Moscow, trying to hack into the computers of people in the United States to influence the outcome of this election.

We know that, coincidentally, some 2 hours after a very controversial, negative story came out against Donald Trump, the Russians released information that they had hacked from the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Two hours. A coincidence? Not likely. There is a lot of information that needs to be followed up on. No conclusions can be reached until there is a thorough, independent, credible investigation. I worry about using the Intelligence Committees for this purpose.

These committees and their activities are important, critical, but they are largely invisible and their deliberations are interminable. We are waiting, hoping that they will come up with information to help us spare the United States from a future attack by Russia or any other country on the sovereignty of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize my constituents, Brian and Joanne Leber, of Leber Jeweler Inc. in Chicago, IL. A third-generation, family-owned business first established in 1921, Brian and his wife, Joanne, are dedicated to socially conscious and eco-friendly fine jewelry. Leber Jeweler Inc. has been instrumental in not only serving as a model for responsible and ethical sourcing in the jewelry industry, but Brian and Joanne also have a deep history of activism and philanthropy, advocating for important policies that support human rights.

In 1999, Brian and Joanne developed and launched Earthwise Jewelry. Leber Jeweler Inc. was the first company in the United States to use conflict-free Canadian diamonds, and the landmark collection also utilizes fairly traded gemstones and recycled precious metals, all sourced, mined, designed, and produced with concerns for both the environment and fair-labor standards.

Brian and Joanne also have been notable advocates for laws related to the responsible sourcing of precious stones and metals, including of rubies and jadeite from Burma and gold and tungsten from the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2007, Brian testified before Congress in support of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, and in 2009, he advocated for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Kimberley Process for its human rights abuses in the Marange diamond fields. Then, in 2010, Brian supported efforts to pass bipartisan legislation that would create a mechanism to enhance transparency in the sourcing of conflict minerals and help American consumers and investors make informed decisions.

I have had the privilege of traveling to the Democratic Republic of Congo twice, in 2005 and 2010. It is a nation of breathtaking natural beauty, but like too many others, it has suffered from the paradox of the resource curse. Despite being rich in natural resources that should seemingly promote growth and development, the Democratic Republic of Congo has faced decades of weak governance, poverty, and incomprehensible violence. And fueling much of the violence, at least in part, has been the contest for control of these resources and their trading routes. Sadly, this violence had coined a dubious distinction for eastern Congo, known as the Rape Capital of the World.

I have seen firsthand the efforts of people like Dr. Jo Lusi and Dr. Denis Mukwege, who founded the HEAL Africa Hospital and the Panzi Hospital, respectively, restoring health and dignity to the survivors of sexual violence. When I chaired the first-ever hearing in the U.S. Senate about the uses of rape as a weapon of war in 2008, Dr. Mukwege stressed the importance of not just treating the consequences of sexual violence in the Congo, but addressing the root causes.

Most people probably don't realize that the products we use and wear every day, from automobiles to our cell phones and even our wedding rings, may use one of these minerals and that there is a very real possibility it was mined using forced labor from an area of great violence. In 2009, I joined with then-Senators Brownback and Feingold-- a Republican and a Democrat--along with then-Congressman Jim McDermott, to pass bipartisan legislation that would help stem the flow of proceeds from illegally mined minerals to those perpetuating such violence. For the first time, companies registered in the United States were required to report in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures any usage in their products of a small list of key minerals from the Congo or neighboring countries. Companies also had to include information showing steps taken, if any, to ensure the minerals are legitimately mined and sourced and that, by responsibly sourcing these minerals, they are not contributing to the region's violence. It wasn't a ban, but a transparency measure aimed at giving consumers choice and fostering a cleaner supply chain.

It took time for the SEC to thoughtfully craft the rule for this simple and reasonable law, and disappointingly, as is increasingly too often the case with the rulemaking process, some tried to gut the law in court, but its core provisions have been repeatedly upheld.

A look since then at the filings submitted to the SEC indicates that some companies had already been leaders on this for years--Apple Inc., Intel Corporation, Motorola, Inc., KEMET Corporation, just to name a few. Leber Jeweler Inc. has been a trailblazer in its own right from the start as well.

It has been 7 years since passage, and we are seeing this law make a difference. According to the nongovernmental organization the Enough Project, an expert on the issue, more than 70 percent of the world's smelters and refiners for tin, tungsten, tantalum, or gold have now passed third-party conflict-free audits. In addition, the International Peace Information Service found that, as of 2016, more than three- quarters of tin, tantalum, and tungsten miners in eastern Congo are working in mines where no armed group involvement has been reported.

There is new concern today that the President may sign an Executive order suspending this simple reporting requirement; and yet many companies have come out in support of its continuation, including Brain and Joanne of Leber Jeweler Inc.

I am grateful to Brian and Joanne, for their support and advocacy on this important cause. They and others like them in the industry have been stalwart advocates for the responsible sourcing of minerals, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on ways to stem the horrific violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank my colleague from the State of Vermont and, for many years, my fellow colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee for his statement. I couldn't agree with him more that we need an independent, transparent investigation of this Russian invasion into the body politic of America in an effort to subvert our sovereignty. It was made by a country that is not our friend and was made at a time when they were trying to influence the outcome of an election.

I just want to note to my colleague and friend from Vermont that during the break I visited Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine. It was interesting. In Poland, they put up with the notion of Putin's interference on a daily basis. The most frightening prospect, of course, is the movement of military forces, which we hope never occurs, but they look at it as a very real threat. They have what they call the hybrid war. They said it isn't just the military; it is also his cyber attacks on our country, and it is also his propaganda on our country.

One of the Polish leaders asked me a question: We have been wondering, Senator, if the United States is not willing to confront Russia with its invasion of your sovereignty in your Presidential election, would you be willing to stand up for your NATO allies if there is an effort of aggression by Putin? Would you be willing to stand up against Russia in those times?

I think that is a legitimate issue. If we don't take what the Senator has raised very seriously about putting independence in the investigation of this matter, and we don't do it with dispatch, shame on us. But it is also going to say to the world that we did not respond in a positive and forceful way when it came to this aggression against the United States.

Mr. President, let me start by commending my colleague from Kansas. It is an honor to join him in this Senate Hunger Caucus effort. He does it in the tradition of Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. Along with George McGovern, they were two of the most unlikely political allies. They really dedicated a large part of their public lives to fighting hunger.

I am happy to join him in the memory of Paul Simon, who did the same for the State of Illinois. So I am looking forward to joining the Senator in this effort. I hope the Senator doesn't have to suffer another midlife crisis in the future. Let's continue this in a good bipartisan spirit.

I thank the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor repeatedly in recent months to raise concerns about the Russian cyber act of war against our Nation, about Russia's aggression elsewhere against the West, this President's disturbing alliance with Russia, and the majority party's incredible silence on the Senate floor on these matters.

Well, I just spent several days visiting our allies in Eastern Europe--notably Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine--and return even more concerned.

You see, regardless of the partisan leanings of who is in government in these nations, the concern is the same.

Is the United States, history's champion of democracy and collective security in Europe, backing away from these values and commitments just as Russia is more aggressively challenging them?

Is the American President really using phrases like ``enemy of the people'' to describe a free press--a term used by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, that was so ominous that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev later demanded the Communist Party halt its use because it ``eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight''?

Are the Trump administration's bizarre blinders to Vladimir Putin's aggression and true nature--and the silence of too many of my Republican colleagues on this danger--a harbinger of some kind of Western retreat to the Russians?

Well, I met with many of our dedicated diplomatic and military personnel in the region who, as part of ramped up reassurance efforts by the previous administration, are working to keep Putin in check.

These included more than 100 U.S. military personnel working with their Lithuanian counterparts about an hour outside of the capital in Rukla. These U.S. troops and their colleagues rotate out of Poland and throughout the Baltics to augment their NATO partners in deterring a Russian attack.

Mr. President, the concerns about Russian aggression are legitimate and warrant serious attention. Let's take a look at just recent Russian actions in Europe. One day after President Trump spoke to Putin on the phone in late January, Russian-backed separatists increased their fighting in Ukraine--1eading to the highest death toll in months.

After Vice President Pence tried to reassure allies at the Munich Security Conference the other week, Russia agreed to start accepting identification documents issued by the separatists in eastern Ukraine-- one step closer to annexing the illegally seized territory.

Putin is strong-arming Belarussian President Lukashenko to allow Russian troops to remain based in Belarus following an upcoming significant military exercise. Russia is putting more and more sophisticated weapons into Kaliningrad, which when combined with permanent troops in Belarus, will significantly increase security threats to the region. Russia just announced a referendum to rename land it illegally seized by force in Georgia.

Putin is trying to stir unrest in Kosovo where NATO is trying to maintain stability after the horrific violence of the Balkan war. He attempted a coup in Montenegro. And Russia continues its aggressive disinformation campaign and cyber attacks throughout Europe, trying to manipulate elections and sow instability and lack of trust in democratic institutions. One Polish expert summed all this up wisely, saying ``if the United States does not respond to the Russian attack on its election, Putin will feel he has a free hand to keep taking such destabilizing actions in the West.'' I worry that is what is already happening.

So, what is the response to these actions by this White House and the majority party--the party of Ronald Reagan who understood the Russians so well?

So far, with the exception of a few important voices, largely silence.

In fact, as I have mentioned here before, since October when the first intelligence reports came out about the Russian attack on our election, not a single Republican has come to the floor to discuss this act of cyber war by a former KGB official on our country.

And our President, who has attacked hundreds by Twitter for even the most benign perceived slight, has refused to say anything negative about Putin.

Obviously, we need to get to the bottom of the Russia attacks on our election and if anyone in the Trump campaign had inappropriate contact with the Russians. An independent commission led by respected individuals such as Sandra Day O'Connor or Colin Powell could lead such an effort. And we need to see the President's tax returns to clarify what his son said in 2008 regarding Trump's businesses seeing ``a lot of money pouring in from Russia.''

We need to pass the bipartisan Russian sanctions bills pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--one that tightens sanctions on Russia for its actions here and abroad and one that requires congressional approval before any sanctions on Russia are lifted.

And we need to make sure we include continued support to Ukraine and for the European Reassurance Initiative in our next appropriations bills.

Mr. President, I remember as a young Congressman trying to get into Lithuania more than 25 years ago when it courageously tried to hold an election breaking free from the Soviet Union.

Those brave Lithuanians had little but their idealism and a few rifles to protect themselves from the Soviet tanks.

But in the end they prevailed, and one by one, Eastern European nations freed themselves from Communist tyranny, a struggle Ukraine is still fighting against Russia.

Today one can still visit the KGB museum in the capital of Lithuania--a hall of horrors that nobody should ever forget. One Lithuanian member of parliament I met, who remembers life not only under the Soviets but also under the Nazis, recalled how his mother had survived 4 years in a Nazi concentration camp.

He emotionally said that he had always seen the United States as the champion of freedom, democracy, and a Western global order. I could tell he was deeply worried about any backsliding on that important role and any possibility of returning to the darker days in Europe.

I don't know exactly what Steve Bannon is whispering in Trump's ear regarding his dark world view and indifference to the transatlantic Western alliance, but this post World War II partnership has served American and global interests. The relationship has brought stability to Europe after decades of horrific war. It has brought democracy and common markets and served as a check against the Soviet Union and now Russia.

I am glad Vice President Pence made some references to this at the Munich Security Conference, but those words will not be enough on their own. Quite simply, any sympathies in the White House with Russian efforts to undermine the transatlantic relationship are outrageous and dangerous, and I will oppose them here in the Senate.

To reiterate, Mr. President, during the Presidents Day break, I took a trip to three capitals, which I consider to be timely and important visits: Warsaw, Poland; Vilnius, Lithuania, and Kiev, Ukraine. I have been to these cities many times, and I have a particular attachment to them. My mother was born in Lithuania, and so returning there, as I have for over 35 years, I have seen a sweep of history as that small Baltic State has moved from a republic of the Soviet Union to a free and independent nation today. I am so proud of the courage of Lithuanians that had brought them to this moment.

Going to Warsaw, Poland, is natural for a Senator from Chicago. We have more Polish Americans in that city and in our State than anyplace outside of Poland. We are very proud of our Polish heritage. They are wonderful people. They are not only hard-working, good Polish Americans, but they are also always thinking about their own homeland, which was under the control of the Warsaw Pact, a Soviet-inspired alliance, for decades, at the expense of their freedom.

I also visited Kiev, Ukraine. That capital has become well known to many of us since the invasion by Vladimir Putin, which is the point I would like to make.

The thing that ties these three countries together, despite their differences in history, is the fact that if you ask each of these countries today to identify the major external threat to their existence and to their freedom, they would identify Vladimir Putin of Russia. I found that in Warsaw, again in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, as well as in Ukraine.

It was interesting--and Senator Jeanne Shaheen joined me on my trip to visit Poland--that as we met with the leaders of that nation, we heard repeatedly their concerns about Russian aggression. It was something that was critically important to them. They were heartened by statements made by Vice President Pence at the Munich conference about the future of the NATO alliance, but let's put it in context. The reason the Vice President had to travel from Washington to Munich, Germany, to say to the Western world that was gathered there that the NATO alliance was still strong was because the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, had tweeted that NATO was obsolete, and one of his followers, Steve Bannon of Breitbart fame, had questioned whether we should be engaging in these kinds of alliances.

Well, I think those alliances are critical. The NATO alliance has been one of the most successful in history. So when Vice President Pence went to Munich to assure our NATO allies that we were still on their side, it was an important message.

I did find one other thing telling and memorable about that trip to Warsaw. One of the Polish leaders said to me: We have read that the Russians invaded your election. We are used to this. He called it the hybrid war. He

said: It isn't just aggression by Russians with military aggression, which is scary enough, but it is a war of cyber aggression and a war of propaganda, and clearly Vladimir Putin believed in your last Presidential election that he could use some of those same tactics that he uses against Poland and the Baltics in the United States. This leader in Poland then challenged me: What are you going to do about that? Now that you know that Vladimir Putin has invaded your election, now that your intelligence agencies tell you that, will you do something? Will you take this seriously? Will you investigate it? He said: Our worry in Poland is, if you will not respond to Vladimir Putin's invasion into your cyber space, what will you do if he invades Poland? Will you stand by us as you promised in article 5? If you don't take him seriously when he invades your sovereignty, will you take it seriously when he invades ours?

It is an important question and a right question. I hope we take a lesson from it--not to take Vladimir Putin for granted, not to view him as a superhero or great leader but to understand that people around the world are watching to see how we react to this Russian invasion of our election.

In Lithuania, they face propaganda on a daily basis. German troops under the flag of NATO are now in Lithuania making it clear that we are committed to the future and security of that nation. What did Vladimir Putin and the Russian propagandists do as soon as these German troops moved into Lithuania? They created an absolutely false rumor that a German soldier had raped a Lithuanian woman. It wasn't true, but it was the kind of false information that they have spread in the hopes of undermining the confidence of Lithuania and the NATO alliance.

I met with the President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, and she is a very decisive leader. I thought of Margaret Thatcher's style when I met with President Grybauskaite. She is an ``Iron Lady'' in her own right to protect Lithuania and other Baltic States from Russian aggression.

The last trip we made was to Ukraine, and Congressman Mike Quigley of Chicago joined me in that visit. In that visit, we had a chance to meet late at night, 9 o'clock at night with the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, who was kindly waiting for us to get off the plane and come join him at his Presidential offices. They are struggling even to this day. As President Trump is in conversation with President Putin about future relationships, sadly, at that very same moment, aggression by the Russians in Ukraine was growing. Over 10,000 people have been injured or died now because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is speculation, and I hope it is just that, that some backroom negotiations are underway to recognize this Russian aggression in Ukraine. I sincerely hope that never happens. We should never condone what Vladimir Putin has done to that country of Ukraine. They are struggling now to get back on their feet. They are making reforms that are unpopular but necessary. They are strengthening their economy and at the same time they are fighting a war.

I left there with two resolves. One was to make sure we provide military equipment necessary for Ukraine to be successful to ward off this Russian aggression; No. 2, to continue to work with them in terms of building their economy and reform; and, No. 3, that we have a visible physical presence with those NATO forces in the Baltic States and in Poland. We have a great alliance in these countries. In Poland the Illinois National Guard has been a longtime ally of the Polish forces, and we are very proud of that relationship.

When it came to Lithuania, we were able to see a group from Fort Carson in Colorado. It was a tank command. I never saw prouder soldiers in my life--American soldiers anxious to show this Senator the Abrams M1 and the fighting vehicles they were using preparing for the possibility of defending Lithuania and the Baltics. It was an inspiring moment.

I made my statement part of the record, and I know the Senator from South Dakota is seeking the floor, but I left there committed to the NATO alliance and committed to the effort to stop the aggression of Vladimir Putin, committed as well to come home to the United States and say to my colleagues in the Senate and House that we have to take it seriously when Vladimir Putin tries to change the outcome of an American election. It is a sad day in American history. I believe November 8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy for what Vladimir Putin tried to do in the United States. For us to ignore it, to sweep it under the table, to hide it behind some committee door, when no one knows what is going on inside, is not the appropriate answer. We need an independent, transparent investigation of what the Russians did, a special prosecutor at the executive level, and an independent commission like the 9/11 Commission, headed by notable Americans like GEN Colin Powell or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who will bring all the facts to light so we know once and for all the truth of what happened and make certain it never happens again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this may be one of the most important votes in this new session of the Senate relative to the Trump administration. It is a Cabinet position most people are not aware of, except if you work here. It is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

This individual has the authority to write the President's budget, to establish priorities, and to review Federal spending governmentwide. It is a big job. It is an awesome responsibility. The way it is executed will not only lead to an accounting of our Federal expenditures, but it will have a direct impact on America's economy.

The choice of Congressman Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina for this job is wrong. It is wrong based on his record in the House of Representatives. He was a founding member of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives. That is a group which led to the resignation of Speaker Boehner and continues to tie the House of Representatives into knots. Why? Because they have certain tactics they believe are credible tactics, which Congressman Mulvaney signed up for. Let me give one of them.

They think closing down the government is a good way to get people's attention. Well, they are right. It sure gets attention. But it does it at the expense of innocent people across America--taxpayers, those who are receiving critical programs, and Federal employees who are waiting for their paychecks. Congressman Mulvaney signed up for that.

Once every year or so we have to decide to lift what is called the debt ceiling, which is the indebtedness of the United States, the full faith and credit of our government--really, the credibility of our government when it comes to financing. Congressman Mulvaney, who wants to head the Office of Management and Budget, has said we can default on our national debt, and it really won't cause that great of a problem. That is just the beginning of some of his bizarre views.

He said he wants to end the Medicare program as we know it. He calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He has called for a 25-percent reduction in reimbursement for Medicaid; that is health insurance for children, the disabled, and the elderly in America. He also has questioned whether the United States as a government should continue to invest in medical research.

I am not making this up. This man who wants to set the priorities for the Trump administration and deliver the budget for America's future questions whether our Federal Government should invest in medical research.

When it came to paying for natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy-- and it happens to every State--he decided that instead of coming to the rescue of people in an emergency, we would have to cut entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--as well as military spending, in order to pay for disasters. That is how shortsighted he has been, and President Trump has chosen him to write the budget for America.

I just have to say that his priorities as a founding member of the Freedom Caucus disqualify him for this job, in my consideration. The fact that he would repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement and leave some 30 million insured Americans without the promise of healthcare security for their families is another indication of an extreme point of view which should not be defining our government in Washington.

I have no doubt Republicans are going to march in lockstep, with maybe one exception. Senator McCain has said he is going to vote against him. I think they will end up giving President Trump his man as head of the Office of Management and Budget. But we are in for a battle royal over the values in America. You can judge that values of a nation not by political speeches but by our budget.

Congressman Mulvaney will cut some of the most basic and fundamental programs of our government, would endanger our economy by questioning the full faith and credit of the

United States, and is prepared to shut down the government to get his way. That is not a responsible course when it comes to budgetmaking in a great nation like America.

I will be opposing the nomination of Mick Mulvaney to be head of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I rise again to speak about the epidemic of gun violence in the city of Chicago and across America.

The American Medical Association has declared gun violence as a public health crisis in America. Every day, almost 300 men, women, and children are shot in this Nation. Gun violence touches every American community, but no community has suffered more than the city of Chicago.

I am honored to represent that city. I love it, and I think it is a great city. I spend a lot of time there to get to know the people who were born there and live their lives there and call it home. It is a great honor to call it part of my State that I am honored to represent.

The stories that are coming out of the city of Chicago are heartbreaking stories--and none worse than this week. This week there was a slaughter of the innocents. In a 4-day period earlier this week, three beautiful children under the age of 12 were fatally shot.

On Saturday night, 11-year-old Takiya Holmes, sitting in her mom's car, was shot in the head and killed. A 19-year-old suspect in custody has been charged. He reported that he was shooting from across the street at rival gang members, and a stray bullet hit Takiya. She died on Tuesday morning.

On Saturday, 12-year-old Kanari Gentry-Bowers was shot while playing basketball in the West Englewood neighborhood. She passed away just yesterday.

On Tuesday at 1:30 in the afternoon, 2-year-old Lavontay White was shot and killed while sitting in the car with his pregnant aunt and uncle. Lavontay's uncle was also killed. His aunt was wounded.

These shootings are senseless, devastating, and heartbreaking. Already this year there have been over 400 shootings in Chicago--so far this year. That is after there were more than 4,300 shootings last year.

My thoughts and prayers, of course, go to the victims and their families. I have attended so many marches and parades, funerals, and memorial services. But thoughts and prayers are not enough. We need to do something to reduce this epidemic of gun violence. There have been too many funerals, too many families who have lost that baby they loved, too many children who suffered the physical and mental trauma of gunshot wounds and witnessing violence. Many of these shootings could have been prevented, but it is going to take changes in our laws and changes in our attitude for that to happen.

We have absurd loopholes in our gun laws that make it easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. We have obvious gaps in our gun background check system. We have inadequate Federal laws to stop gun trafficking and straw purchases of guns. These factors allow a flood of illicit guns to come into Chicago from other towns and States, from gun shows in neighboring States where there is no background check. These drug gangs drive over to these locations and fill up the trunks of their cars with guns to take them and sell them in the neighborhoods to kids who shoot and kill one another day in and day out.

We have gun dealers--federally licensed gun dealers--who look the other way when someone comes in to make a straw purchase. That is the purchase of a gun that the purchaser is not going to use but is going to give it to somebody who is prohibited from buying a gun.

In light of the epidemic of gun violence in our country, Congress should be working around the clock to fix these gaps in our Federal law. But the Republican-controlled Senate is doing nothing to address gun violence in Chicago or anywhere else. Instead, look at what we just did yesterday. Just yesterday, this Senate, on this floor, voted to weaken the gun background check system instead of strengthening it. It is hard to understand how the Republican Party can have its priorities so wrong when it comes to gun violence.

We can respect Second Amendment rights of individuals. We can respect the rights of people to own a gun for self-defense, for sporting and hunting purposes. I have gone hunting. I have used a firearm. I complied with every law in the books, all of them. The hunters who were with me did too.

Why is it so hard to ask before we sell a gun to someone whether they have a criminal record, whether they are buying it for another person who might have a criminal record, or whether they have a history of mental instability, which would disqualify them from owning a gun?

We are facing a crisis in Chicago and across the Nation because of this violence. We in Congress have a responsibility to do everything we can at the Federal level to protect our constituents, our neighbors, from getting shot. We can't ignore this responsibility, and we certainly shouldn't be weakening gun laws as the Senate did yesterday.

We also need the Federal Government to be an engaged partner with cities like Chicago to help reduce violence and expand economic options in depressed neighborhoods. You can pick out three neighborhoods in the city of Chicago that account for almost 50 percent of gun violence-- three neighborhoods. I visited some of them. They warned me: Don't get out of the car. They are right. Random gunfire is a reality of life in those neighborhoods. We know where they are. We know where the shooters live. We know where the victims are. We can do more.

President Trump sends out a lot of tweets. He likes to tweet about Chicago, and I am not quite sure why. Tweeting doesn't save lives. Saying that you are going to send in the Feds may be one of those short tweets that is catchy, but it doesn't mean a damned thing to the people who are being shot and are dying in the city of Chicago.

Last week I joined my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth, and we sent a letter to the President asking him to do more than tweet when it comes to Chicago.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.

We asked the President to put his twitter account down for a few minutes and instead direct his Department of Justice to enhance programs that improve community policing, such as COPS and the Byrne-JAG grants. We asked him to provide a surge in these programs, just like President Obama did in his first year through the Recovery Act and the appropriations process.

We also asked the President to direct the Justice Department to promote mentoring and job training programs. I want peace on the streets of Chicago and every American city, and I know that one of the keys to this is the belief that there is a chance in this economy for you and your family.

We need to have mentoring and job training programs for young people through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and for former incarcerated persons through the Federal Second Chance Act.

We asked the President to support policing reforms recommended by the Justice Department in Washington. We asked him to support our efforts to close the gaps in Federal gun laws.

There is no denying that poverty plays a role in fueling violence and in violating justice. We asked the President, also, to prioritize funding for jobs programs under the Departments of Labor and Education. These are concrete steps that would help reduce violence in Chicago.

So far, President Trump's administration has not committed any additional resources to combatting Chicago's violence. Mayor Emanuel was here a few days ago to meet with the Department of Justice and to make the same plea. The administration instead is threatening to cut funding, on top of the devastating funding cuts we have already seen in Illinois under our current Governor.

Now is not the time for the Federal Government to abandon support for the families living in this great city. I urge the President and his administration to reprioritize Federal resources to reduce gun violence in Chicago and around the Nation. It is going to save a lot more lives than tweeting.

If you will not do it for two Democratic Senators, do it for these families. Do it for the moms and the relatives who are now planning the funeral services of these babies who were gunned down in the city of Chicago this week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before I make a statement on Scott Pruitt, to my colleague and friend from Colorado, I couldn't agree with you more. What happened in Colorado was an environmental tragedy, and we saw the photos. It is horrible. I don't know who is responsible for it, but it appears to be a government agency, and they should be held accountable. I will join you in that effort. I don't think there is any Member who wouldn't join you in saying there ought to be justice done here.

We shouldn't let them off the hook because they are EPA employees or employees of the Federal government.

But I don't understand the leap in logic from that position to Scott Pruitt. Scott Pruitt is a man who, as attorney general of Oklahoma, has filed more than 14 lawsuits to restrict the authority of the EPA to clean up rivers.

I am happy to yield for the purpose of a question.

I said to the Senator from Colorado that I will join you. If the EPA is responsible for this spill, then I will stand with you. Justice should be done.

The point I am making to you is that this leap of logic then--to put Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA--is really taking away the power of this Agency to avoid that kind of environmental disaster.

I will be glad to yield for a question.

I reclaim my time and just say this. I do not know the particulars. I understand that what you said is what I read, that it was the fault of some government employee--perhaps of the EPA. I don't dispute that fact. If that is the case, then we have a responsibility to your State to make it whole again. And whoever the EPA Administrator is should face that responsibility. I will join you in that effort.

But to go from there to say Scott Pruitt is the man to head the EPA because he is going to acknowledge this one fact, is to ignore his record, to ignore his position on the environment.

The Senator from Colorado, I know has to leave the floor, but I want to continue on this vein. Yesterday, the President of the United States decided to sign a resolution. He had a big gathering. He had Senator McConnell, the Republican leader and other Members of the Senate and the House. It was a big celebration. Representatives of mining companies, coal companies, even mine workers were there celebrating the repeal of an EPA rule. What was the repeal of that rule? The repeal of that rule related to what the mining companies could dump into rivers and streams from their mining operations. What was the fear? The debris in toxic waste that they would dump in the rivers would end up killing rivers, just like the river that the Senator from Colorado has given a speech on.

I might add that he voted to repeal that rule. So now we have the President of the United States saying we are going to revitalize the mining economy by eliminating a rule that restricts mining companies from dumping debris and toxic waste into rivers and streams. Now, that doesn't follow.

If you are dedicated to keeping our rivers and streams healthy and pure and reliable sources for safe drinking water, you don't do what President Trump did yesterday. You don't do what the Republicans in the Senate did just a few days ago and remove this rule. I struggled to understand.

I see my friend from Delaware is here. The Senator and I have been in this business for a long time together. I won't say how many years.

He knows, I know, and some others know, but most people would be surprised of the following: Which President of the United States created the Environmental Protection Agency? Richard Milhous Nixon, 1970. A Republican President created this Agency which has become the bete noire for the Republicans--the most hated Federal agency, created by a Republican President.

Why? Because at that moment in time, America was awakening to Rachel Carson's ``Silent Spring'' and to so many other factors, when we finally concluded there was something we were doing to the environment that was harmful, not just to the environment but to the Earth, which we hoped to leave our children.

We joined together on a bipartisan basis--this is before I was in Congress--to create this Agency which Scott Pruitt seeks to lead. Now, what has happened? What has happened is there has been a role reversal here. The Republicans, who used to be part of environmental protection and safety, have now abandoned it.

In fact, that is the drum they beat on most often, when they talk about overregulation, the Environmental Protection Agency. Yesterday, this President--28 days into his Presidency--could not wait to sign a rule that allows mining companies to dump toxic waste and debris into rivers and streams. You know the argument: It is just too expensive not to. If we are going to make a profit, if we are going to employ people, then you have to let us dump this into the rivers and streams.

I don't buy it. The reason I don't buy it is that I can remember many years ago, the first time I went across my State of Illinois and took a look at abandoned mine lands. These were lands that were strip mined, which means they brought in bulldozers and really just found the coal deposits, not just that for below the surface of the land. They ripped out the coal and left the mess behind for future generations.

It was horrible--a horrible environmental disaster. They walked away from them after they made the money. They went out of business and left that mess behind for the next generation or the one beyond it.

I am all in favor of mining. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with it at all. But responsible mining means that you are responsible when it comes to the environment. You just don't make your money and leave, you accept the responsibility to leave behind something that is as good as or better than the way you found it. It is known as stewardship. It is Biblical.

This is kind of a moral responsibility which we accept on this Earth that we live on, to leave it better than we found it. The Environmental Protection Agency is there for that purpose.

I would say to the Senator from Delaware, they did a survey in Chicago a few years ago. They asked the people of Chicago: What is the one thing unique and defining about that city? Overwhelmingly, the response was Lake Michigan, as it should be--this magnificent great lake which borders the city of Chicago.

It is a source of so much fun and joy and aesthetic beauty. We look at it and thank the good Lord that we have the good fortune of living, as many of us do, part time, full time, right there on the banks of Lake Michigan.

It was about 5 or 6 years ago that I heard a story about a ship on Lake Michigan. It was an auto ferry. It took passengers and automobiles across that beautiful great lake. It moved them from Wisconsin to Michigan. The name of the ship was the SS Badger. It had been around for decades. It was kind of an institution.

Come the summer months when people would cross that lake to head over to Michigan or back over to Wisconsin, they would pile on and bring on their automobiles and families. It was a great excursion. But we came to learn that there was another side to the story. The SS Badger was the last coal-fired auto ferry on the Great Lakes. It burned coal to run the engine to move the ship across Lake Michigan.

That, in and of itself, raises some interesting questions about pollution coming off the smokestack of the SS Badger. It turned out that wasn't the worst part. The worst part is that for decades, as the SS Badger trekked across Lake Michigan, it not only burned coal, it dumped the coal ash overboard while it was going across the lake.

This potentially dangerous and toxic coal ash was being dumped into Lake Michigan day after day after day. The Environmental Protection Agency came in and gave us the facts. It turned out that the auto ferry, that one ship, was the dirtiest ship on the Great Lakes. It created more pollution, more damage to the Great Lakes and

its environment, than any other ship. Believe me, there are plenty of ships that traverse the Great Lakes. This was the filthiest, dirtiest ship.

The EPA said to the SS Badger: We know you employ people. We know you perform an important function. But clean up your act. So what did the SS Badger do, in light of this EPA finding? Well, they fought them all the way. They came to Congress and asked that Congress designate the SS Badger as a historical monument. A historical monument? Well, it was an old ship. There is no doubt about it. But the notion that came from the Congressmen from Michigan and Wisconsin was, by designating it a historical monument, it would be exempt from environmental protection laws.

So the dirtiest ship--the SS Badger--on the Great Lakes would somehow have historical status and continue to pollute Lake Michigan. I thought it was outrageous. A number of us joined in stopping that effort. Instead, we said to the EPA: You have given them years to clean it up. Now do something about it.

Next thing, surprisingly, the owner of the SS Badger asked to meet with me in my office. I said sure. He came in and he said: Senator, we employ 100 people. We have been doing this for years. We cannot technologically clean up the SS Badger. It just can't be done. We would lose too much money.

I said: I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. You cannot tell me that because of profitability you need to continue to create a bigger mess in the Great Lakes than any other ship on the Great Lakes.

So he went back and lawyered up and decided he would fight the EPA. I stood with the EPA, the regional office out of Chicago. We had a battle on our hands. A rule was issued by the EPA.

I hear so many Republicans come to the floor bemoaning rules and regulations. Let me join that chorus. Are there too many rules and regs in some areas? Yes. Are there some rules and regs which I could never explain or even try to defend? Certainly.

But the rules and regulations of the EPA many times are critically important. In this case, that was exactly what we found. So the EPA issued a rule and regulation that said to the SS Badger: You have been given years to clean up, and you will not do it. So now the clock is ticking. There will come a moment when you will be subject to a substantial fine if you don't clean up your act.

Do you know what happened because of this onerous EPA regulation? Do you know what happened to the SS Badger, whose owner said that it was technologically impossible for them to clean up this mess? They came up with the most basic, simple solution. You wonder why they waited so long. They now hold the coal ash on the SS Badger as they go back and forth across Lake Michigan. They remove it once they get to shore and put it into an environmentally acceptable waste disposal.

This was an obvious answer for decades, but they would not do it. It took the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and threaten it with a rule and a fine. Now they are finally doing it.

So I say to those who loathe government rules and regulations: This was a good one. For the health of the Great lakes, for God's gift to us of that beautiful body of water, we did the right thing and the EPA was there to do it.

Yesterday, when President Trump signed this new resolution that repealed the rule, he was reversing what I just described to you. He was saying to mining companies across the United States: Be my guest. Dump toxic waste and debris in our rivers and streams.

He did it in the name of job creation. We all want to create jobs, but if we are creating jobs at the expense of the health of rivers and lakes, if we are creating jobs at the expense of safe drinking water, that is a bargain I will not be part of.

Many times I have had a conversation with my wife and friends. I guess it reflects the fact that we have been on this Earth a little longer than some. You wonder out loud. You say: Why in the world do we have more autism today than we once had? Why do we have more cancers than we once had? People have a lot of theories. Some of them are wild and unfounded. But many times people say: Could it possibly be the chemicals in our drinking water? I do not know.

I am a liberal arts lawyer. Don't get me near a laboratory; I would not know what to do with it. But it is a legitimate question, whether there is some contamination in our drinking water, which has a public health impact. Someday we may discover that.

Isn't it best for us to err on the side of keeping our drinking water as safe and clean as possible? I think so. I don't want to turn on the tap and drink the water and think that I am making myself sicker or more susceptible to a disease. I sure as heck don't want to do it for my kids and grandkids. What Agency is responsible for that? It turns out to be the Environmental Protection Agency. That is the Agency that Scott Pruitt seeks to head.

He is a terrible choice. I am sorry to say that. I shook hands with him once. I don't know him very well. But when you look at what he has done--I think of a letter I received from Dale Bryson in Illinois. I don't know him personally. He wrote to me and he said:

Having served under both Republican and Democratic

Presidents, we recognize each new administration's right to

pursue different policies or ask that Congress change the

laws that protect our environment. But EPA's administrator

must act in the public's interest and not simply advance the

agenda of any specific industry that EPA regulates.

Mr. Bryson goes on to say:

The agency is lucky to have had EPA administrators,

Republicans and Democrats, with the patience, skill and

commitment to public service that is needed to steer through

these challenges and deliver the clean and healthy

environment that Americans want at a price they are willing

to pay. We do not believe Scott Pruitt has demonstrated that

he has the qualities needed to lead the Environmental

Protection Agency.

He was not the only one who wrote to me. I have heard from constituents who believe that sensible environmental regulation is critical for us to have a clean planet to live on and leave to our kids. Tim Hoellein, a professor at Loyola University in Chicago, conducts research on water pollution in city environments. He wrote to me and said:

I note our city, State and county have made some major

advances toward better infrastructure and policy for clean

water. However, we are still not meeting our obligations to

our neighbors and future generations by rising to the best

standards of water stewardship. Those gains are at eminent

risk with the appointment of Mr. Pruitt to the EPA.

Finally, I want to read a letter from a Chicago resident, Ms. Maureen Keane. She wrote to me and she said:

I love my country. I love our beautiful environment and my

family. We need a strong advocate for our land and people to

head the EPA. That person is not Scott Pruitt. Hundreds of

former employees of the EPA agree with me. That must mean

something. Pruitt has a record of doing everything he can to

shut down and dismantle the EPA. We need a strong advocate

who has the ability to create a balance between business and

our land and people resources, one who can create strong laws

for which businesses can agree on and adhere to while

protecting our most precious assets, people, wildlife, and

our land.

She says:

As someone who grew up surrounded by dirty water in the

Little Calumet River, next to a train yard, and surrounded by

onion fields with pesticides, I have seen first hand family

and neighbors die young from cancer. Please oppose Pruitt if

you love America and your family. This is a decision that can

be costly for future generations.

These letters really are just a handful of those that I have received on the subject. Scott Pruitt has alarming conflicts of interest with the oil and gas industry.

My friend and colleague, Senator Carper of Delaware, has taken on this nomination professionally and in the right way. He has helped us reach a point now where we have to say to our friends on the Republican side of the aisle: Be careful about the vote that you cast at 1 o'clock today, because by 1 o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday, in the following week, you may regret that vote.

The reason I say it is that Senator Carper has been working with groups trying to get a disclosure of the emails that Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma, had during the course of serving as attorney general, while he was filing some 14 different lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency. He was caught red-handed taking a letter written by one of these energy companies and changing the letterhead and calling it an official statement from his own attorney general's office. So he clearly has a comfortable,

if not cozy, relationship with the energy companies. That, in and of itself, is not condemning or damning, but if it ends up that he is seeking this position to advocate their political position, rather than to protect America's environment, that is a relevant issue.

Senator Carper has been working with groups night and day to get disclosure of emails that were sent to Scott Pruitt and sent by him between oil and gas companies and other energy companies to determine whether there are any conflicts we should know about before giving him this job.

I understand that late this morning, our Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, may be coming and asking for us to postpone this vote until these emails are publicly disclosed. Is it 5, 6, 10 emails? I think it is thousands, isn't it? Some 3,000 emails.

The Republican Senators and Senator McConnell have said: We don't want to read them. We don't care what is in them. It doesn't make any difference if there is a conflict of interest. This is Scott Pruitt. He is our man. President Trump wanted him. We don't want to read the facts. We don't want to know the evidence. We just want to give a good, loyal vote to our President.

I don't think that is the way we should meet our responsibilities in the Senate. This thoughtful and sensible thing to do is to postpone this vote until we return. We are going to be gone next week because of the President's recess. Scott Pruitt can wait 10 days, and we can wait for the truth, can't we?

The Environmental Protection Agency will continue to do its business with its professionals, but before we put him in the job--which we may come to regret in just a few days--shouldn't we take the time to do this and do it thoughtfully?

As Oklahoma attorney general, he sued the EPA 14 times. He was often partnering with the very industries he is now being called on to regulate. Though some of these lawsuits are still ongoing, he will not even commit to recuse himself.

He was asked during the course of his hearing: As attorney general of Oklahoma, you sued the EPA. The EPA, as an Agency, has the first level of administrative hearing on those lawsuits. Will you, if you become Administrator and Secretary of the EPA, commit to recuse yourself from those lawsuits you filed?

He said: No.

That means he could have a very interesting position when those lawsuits come up for consideration. He will be the petitioner and the plaintiff; Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma. He will be the defendant; Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, Administrator, and Secretary. He will also be the jury; the Environmental Protection Agency, headed up by Scott Pruitt in his administrative capacity.

What a sweetheart deal. I used to be a trial lawyer. This would be the answer to a prayer. I get to be the plaintiff and the defendant and the judge?

Scott Pruitt wants to protect his right to do that so he can continue to protect the special interests he represented as attorney general of Oklahoma.

Common sense suggests to any lawyer licensed to practice in America that this is a conflict of interest which needs to be avoided, but Scott Pruitt says: No, they have to go forward, and I have to win this lawsuit.

You know what, I think he is going to win the lawsuit if he doesn't recuses himself.

We need to ensure that the EPA has strong leadership, that it is dedicated not to energy companies, not to oil companies, not to gas companies but to protecting all Americans. Literally, lives depend on it.

President Donald Trump has chosen not just a man with an extraordinary amount of conflicts of interest but a person who is a climate-denier. He said some things that are nothing short of amazing.

Look at this quote by Scott Pruitt, candidate for Administrator of the EPA:

The debate about climate change is just that, a debate.

There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that

don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether

it is even harmful at this point.

Really? So 98 percent of scientists--98 percent--have said that something is happening to this world, and human activity is the reason, 98 percent of them. Greenhouse gas emissions, carbon in our atmosphere, obvious changes, glacial melts, the rising of the oceans, extreme weather conditions that we are facing--just a casual observer would understand that is a reality, but not this man, not the man who seeks to head the Environmental Protection Agency. To him, it is still being debated.

He is in this rarified group with blinders. You see him here with his glasses. He wants to put on blinders when it comes to climate change. And this is the man President Trump has chosen to head up the Environmental Protection Agency?

The Chicago Sun Times, on December 8, had an editorial entitled ``Foe of EPA is wrong person to lead it.'' Here is what they said:

Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump has appointed

Scott Pruitt, an open foe of environmental initiatives, to

head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That

demonstrates a callous disregard for the health of our nation

and planet just as rapid technological advances hold out hope

for avoiding the worst effects of climate change.

The U.S. Senate should reject Pruitt.

They go on to say:

During his campaign, Trump said he would dismantle

President Barack Obama's environmental policies and pull the

United States out of the 195-nation Paris accord to reduce

greenhouse gases and climate change. After the election,

Trump moderated his tone, saying he has an open mind about

climate change. His appointment of Pruitt, however, suggests

that if he's open to anything, it's strictly more pollution.

They go on to say:

The EPA is all about science. Someone who doesn't believe

in science can't do the job.

His appointment would send a message to the rest of the world that the United States is not a partner in efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The damage could be incalculable.

If a house divided against itself could not stand, neither can a government agency.

When you listen to what Scott Pruitt has said about science, you realize this man has no business heading up the Environmental Protection Agency.

Listen to what he said in February 2012: The amount of human exposure to mercury from U.S. powerplants is small. ``Human exposure to methylmercury resulting from coal fired EGUs is exceedingly small.''

Here is what the scientists say:

As a result of these long-term mercury inputs [from coal-

fired electric utilities], there are hotspots and whole

regions, such as the Adirondacks of New York, the Great Lakes

region of the Midwest and large portions of the Southeast

where the fishery is contaminated with mercury. . . . There

are more fish consumption advisories in the U.S. for mercury

than all other contaminants combined.

The source of this scientific statement: Dr. Charles Driscoll from Syracuse University.

Here is what Mr. Pruitt said about mercury and air toxic emissions from power plants: ``Finally, the record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and acid gas HAPs pose public health hazards.''

Here is what the scientists say: ``There is no evidence demonstrating a `safe' level of mercury exposure.'' Source of that statement: Dr. Jerome Paulson from the Council on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, before the Senate EPW Committee.

Scott Pruitt isn't quite sure if mercury is really that dangerous. Scientists disagree.

Mr. Pruitt, when talking about the benefits from cleaning up powerplant mercury emissions: The benefits of cleaning up powerplant mercury are ``too speculative,'' said Mr. Pruitt, and ``not supported by the scientific literature.'' Concluding, ``EPA cannot properly conclude that it is `appropriate and necessary' to regulate hazardous air pollutants under section 112.''

That is a statement from Scott Pruitt's legal brief in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, November 2016.

What do the scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observations? ``U.S. efforts to reduce mercury emissions, including from power plants, are benefiting public health much faster than could have been predicted in 1990.'' Source of that

statement: Dr. Lynn Goldman, dean of Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, January of this year.

Here is what Mr. Pruitt had to say about the debate over whether climate change is real:

Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates

of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists

continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global

warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That

debate should be encouraged--in classrooms, public forums,

and the halls of Congress.

That quote is from an article in the National Review, May of 2016.

What do scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observation? ``The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.''

That was a statement from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2005--12 years ago. Twelve years later, Scott Pruitt is still wrestling with whether this is a problem.

How about Mr. Pruitt, when it comes to the extent of the human activity on climate change? He said:

We've had ebb and flow, we've had obviously climate

conditions change throughout our history, and that is

scientific fact. It gets cooler. It gets hotter. And we do

not know the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do

we know, the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and

man's contribution to that, is making it far worse than it

is.

That was a statement he made on the ``Exploring Energy'' radio program in May of 2016.

What do the scientists say about that? ``The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.'' Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006--11 years ago.

They said this unequivocally. Scott Pruitt still doesn't buy it.

What did he say about climate change being a natural occurrence? I will quote him.

Is it truly man-made and is this simply just another period

of time when the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat, I mean

is it just typical natural type of occurrences as opposed to

what the (Obama) Administration says?

Again, this is from that radio program ``Exploring Energy.'' This was in October of 2016.

What do the scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observation?

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change

observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can

significantly lessen negative outcomes.

The source: The American Geophysical Union; the date, 2003--14 years ago.

Here is Scott Pruitt, this man who wants to head up our Environmental Protection Agency, still at war with scientific fact. What has he said about the debate over climate change? He said:

The debate about climate change is just that, a debate.

There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that

don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether

it is even harmful at this point.

Again, this is from the ``Exploring Energy'' radio program show in May of 2016.

What do the scientists have to say about that?

It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the

dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past

half century is human-induced increases in the amount of

atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide

(CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous

oxide.

The source of that statement: The American Meteorological Society, 2012--5 years ago.

What Mr. Pruitt says about how reasonable minds can disagree on climate:

How [climate change] is happening, if it is, clearly is

subject for reasonable minds to disagree. Whether man is

contributing to it or not.

Again, this is from his ``Exploring Energy'' radio program, April 2016. I am sorry I missed that one too.

Here is what the scientists say in response:

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is

occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant

disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems,

social systems, security and human health are likely to

occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning

now.

The source of that scientific statement: The American Physical Society, 2007--10 years ago.

Now we know what this man is all about. He denies science. He is an advocate for those special interest groups who make money off of pollution. He doesn't believe the Environmental Protection Agency should have the authority it has today. He has challenged it 14 times in court. He won't recuse himself from even the petitions he has personally filed as attorney general of Oklahoma, and he is anxious to be approved by the Senate before we get a chance next Tuesday or Wednesday to read 3,000 emails he received and sent as attorney general of Oklahoma, including emails between Mr. Pruitt and energy, gas, and oil companies.

I think it is pretty clear what this is all about. This is an effort by special interests in America to put their best friend on the job at the Environmental Protection Agency. They want to make sure he is there to look the other way when we should be regulating to keep this planet we live on safe and in good shape for future generations. That makes it a clear choice for all of us. I am going to vote against Scott Pruitt.

I am sorry, I say to Donald Trump. You have a right to have your point of view, but you don't have a right to put a man in this job who denies basic science that has been agreed upon for over a decade. You certainly don't have a right in this circumstance to put a man in charge of the EPA who is going to add to the climate change problem in our world, who is going to diminish the reputation in the United States on fighting this on an international basis, and who is going to kowtow to special interest groups, which has been shown over and over again when it comes to his service as the attorney general in the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to make a statement on a separate topic.

Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United States had a long and eventful press conference--77 minutes--talking about the issues before us in this country and his administration. He referred to his administration as ``a fine tuned machine.'' That was his 28th day in office.

I will observe the following: This so-called fine-tuned machine was forced to dismiss the Acting Attorney General of the United States in the first 3 weeks. This fine-tuned machine was reprimanded by three different Federal courts for an Executive order on immigration and refugees which they found to be inconsistent with the law and the Constitution of the United States. This so-called fine-tuned machine had to accept the resignation in the first 24 days of the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. Mr. Trump is making history. No President has been through those experiences. None. I wouldn't say it is a fine-tuned machine; I would say it is a history- making machine. And sadly this fine-tuned machine, as he calls it, has had some rough spots. That is not all.

This issue about the Russian connection in President Trump's campaign is not going away. Seventeen different intelligence agencies have verified the fact that Vladimir Putin and the Russians expressly tried to invade on a cyber basis the United States of America and to influence the outcome of an election. And it wasn't an equal opportunity effort--they were there to elect Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.

To make the record perfectly clear, as they say, there is no evidence that the Russians had any actual impact on the actual casting or counting of votes, but they did everything else they could dream of. They tried to invade and hack sources of files and information and to disclose and release them in a timely fashion.

There was that horrible episode involving ``Entertainment Weekly,'' or whatever the name of that operation was, where they had a recording of then-candidate Donald Trump saying some awful things. It was no coincidence that 2 hours after that recording was released, they started releasing John Podesta's emails and files--the Russians did--to try to resurrect the Trump campaign that hit some pretty

rocky shoals. So we know that happened.

We also know there was contact with General Flynn, the National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, prior to the President being sworn in. The extent of the contact, we don't know. The number of people in the Trump campaign who may or may not have had contact with the Russians, we don't know, but we do know this: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has an investigation underway into this very question because it raises some big issues.

This is the first time we know in the history of the United States that a foreign power has tried to invade our electoral process. And it isn't just a benign invasion; this is one of our major enemies when it comes to national security, and the reason is obvious. Travel to the Baltics, travel to Poland, travel to Ukraine, and talk to them about Vladimir Putin. He isn't this great hero, as President Trump has characterized him, from their point of view; he is a threat to their existence. They know what happened when the Soviet Union had the power. It controlled the Baltics. It controlled Poland. It controlled Ukraine. They don't want to see that day return. They want the United States and NATO to stand up and help make sure they have a way to continue their democracy and continue making their own sovereign decisions. Meanwhile, our President of the United States, Donald Trump, is tossing political bouquets and sweet little kisses to Vladimir Putin and his Russian regime. Is this worth looking into? You bet it is.

This week we made a leap of faith right here in the Senate. We have decided to give to the Intelligence Committee of the Senate the authority to move forward on this investigation. I reluctantly agreed to that approach. I am skeptical. I will tell you why I am skeptical. I served on the Intelligence Committee. It is a critically important committee, but the Intelligence Committee, 95 percent of the time, meets behind closed doors in a secret space without a sign on the door, and the proceedings of the Intelligence Committee necessarily are secret. This is not an issue that should be kept secret. We need to make sure the American public understands in an independent and transparent way exactly what happened when it came to the Russian involvement in America's election, who was involved in the Trump campaign, if anyone. We need names, and we need people to be held responsible.

The second thing is, the Intelligence Committee--if and when it finally issues a report, that report is going to be classified to some extent. We have seen pages, I am sure, of redacted materials, big black lines and maybe one or two words emerging from a single page. Who decides to take away the black lines and tell the American people exactly what they found? The ultimate decision on declassifying documents in the Intelligence Committee is made by the White House.

So here is the White House, President Trump and his people under investigation by the Intelligence Committee, and they have the last word about what the American people will see. Isn't it interesting-- when it came to the investigation of Benghazi with Hillary Clinton, when it came to the investigation of emails with Hillary Clinton, the Republicans couldn't wait to have week after week and month after month of public hearings. Now they want a secret hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee and no hearing in the House Intelligence Committee. It is a big ``shrug your shoulders; boys will be boys'' moment for the Republicans in control of the Congress. It shouldn't be for the American people. The American people have a right to know what the Russians did, and they have a right to know if and when members of the Trump campaign or his close associates were engaged and involved in what he has dismissed as a ruse. Seventeen intelligence agencies don't dismiss it.

We need an independent, transparent investigation of what happened. The American people have a right to know. And we ought to say to this President: You may conceal your income tax returns, unlike any other Presidential candidate in modern memory, but you cannot conceal from the American people the facts as to whether the Russians were attempting a cyber attack on the United States during the course of our last election. That is too critical a question to ignore.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, every politician alive should aspire for that moment, like Bob Michel, when the last words of tribute to his public service are: ``He was the face of decency in public service.''

This morning, Bob Michel, who served as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives for the Republican Party, passed away at age 93.

His replacement as Republican leader in the House marked the end of an era of civility--Congress has never been the same--but his life as the son of an immigrant, as a decorated veteran of World War II, and as a person who was first a staffer, then elected to Congress, and rose to leadership is a testament to his talent and his commitment to America.

I had known Bob Michel for 35 years. We had adjoining congressional districts downstate. When he was elected in 1982, in the Reagan off- year election, it was a tough year for Republicans. Bob Michel barely survived. Attorney Doug Stevens, of Peoria, had about 48 percent, and Bob had 52 percent. Lane Evans, of the Quad Cities, was elected to Congress, and I was as well.

For 14 years, we were neighboring Congressmen. Bob Michel came in and campaigned for my opponents. I went into his district to campaign for his opponents. You would think that would have created a negative relationship, but it didn't. Despite that--despite our differences on political issues--we were always friends, and we were always respectful.

You could not help but be a friend of Bob Michel's. What an amazing personality--a smile that would light up a room and a man who was determined to fight like crazy, day in and day out, for the things he believed in on the floor of the U.S. House and then, after adjournment, joined with Tip O'Neill for dinner--a dinner that usually ended up with a lot of people singing songs over a few drinks and great memories.

The codels in those days--the congressional delegation trips--were often bipartisan and had both Speaker O'Neill and the Republican leader, Bob Michel, hosting them as they went to important places in the world.

There was a time when Bob Michel was a Congressman and wanted to get home to Peoria every weekend but couldn't afford the airfare. Do you know what he did? He shared a station wagon with Congressman Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago. They would take off and drive back to Chicago and Peoria and then back to Washington on a regular basis. They were buddies and didn't think twice about the fact that they were of different political parties and had different political philosophies.

That was Bob Michel.

His passing really does mark the end of an era, but every one of us currently in public service should remember the quality he brought to his career and the quality he brought to Congress. He left a great legacy--many important issues, many great things for Peoria and Central Illinois. Possibly, his greatest legacy was his chief of staff--his protege--Ray LaHood, who, to this day, embodies the great values that Bob Michel brought to public service.

I stand in tribute to my friend and my Republican neighboring Congressman who served this Nation so well for so many years.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, ``Hidden Figures'' has been lodged at the top of the box office charts for 2 months now--and with good reason. ``Hidden Figures'' tells the fascinating, true story of three mathematicians who worked as ``human computers'' at NASA in the early years of America's manned space program.

Their job involved double-checking the accuracy of intricate calculations made by NASA's computers. And they carried the weight of awesome responsibility. Fifty-five years ago this week, their calculations helped launch Lt. Col. John Glenn into the heavens and return him safely after he had orbited the Earth three times.

Coming in the midst of cold war tensions and the real fear that the Soviet Union was winning the space race, that historic flight was a source of intense pride and relief to Americans. It made John Glenn a national hero and an international symbol of American ingenuity and ambition.

But the brains behind that flight remained largely unknown--until now. Why? It is because those formidable mathematicians--those ``human computers''--were three African-American women. They served this Nation at a time when racial segregation was the law of the land and gender- based discrimination was almost as common as air.

As America marks Black History Month, this month seems a good time to say thank you to Mary Jackson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Katherine G. Johnson.

America's history is filled with the stories of men and women whose contributions have been minimized or overlooked entirely for the same reason the ``Hidden Figures'' of NASA remained unknown for so long-- because our Nation's tortured history with race blinded us to large parts of our own national story.

Ninety years ago, an historian and scholar by the name of Carter G. Woodson suggested a way to overcome this historical myopia. Dr. Woodson and other prominent African Americans proposed that 1 week each February be designated Black History Week.

This is the first Black History Month since the opening last fall of the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture on the National Mall in Washington, DC. This remarkable new museum represents America's first official attempt to tell the African-American story. In the not quite 5 months since the museum opened, more than 900,000 people have visited. My wife and I toured the museum over the Thanksgiving holiday. We spent hours there--what a moving experience.

The history of African Americans is a story that stretches back 600 years. It is a story of brutal subjugation, racial violence, and discrimination. It is also story of a resilient people who survived those horrors and created a rich and vibrant culture and who have enriched our Nation by their contributions in every walk of life.

In a speech a few months ago, then-First Lady Michelle Obama alluded to the vast and inspiring sweep of that history when she said, ``I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves and I watch my daughters--two beautiful, intelligent, black young women--playing with their dogs on the White House lawn.'' It was a simple but powerful image that captured how far we have come on questions of race since our founding.

As America's 44th President, Barack Obama grappled honestly with complex challenges facing America and the world and delivered solutions that has improved the lives of millions. He and Michelle served our Nation with uncommon dignity, wisdom, and compassion. I am proud to call them both friends.

The Obamas' story is just one of the stories told in the new African- American History Museum. Other famous African Americans are featured as well, from Crispus Attucks, the first patriot to give his life in the American Revolution; to the great abolitionists and women's suffrage champions, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman; from Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin and singlehandedly shattered the racist myth of Aryan superiority; to the Tuskegee Airmen, who helped democracy defeat fascist tyranny in World War II.

The museum tells the stories of other prominent men and women, including Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King; Malcolm X; Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Congressman John Lewis, my friend, an icon of the civil rights movement; and Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman ever elected to Congress--in 1968. Some of the best advice I have ever heard about making a difference came from Shirley Chisholm. She said, ``If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.'' I think Shirley Chisholm would have loved to see the way the women of America are making their voices heard today and changing the debate in this country.

The new African-American History Museum and Black History Month give us a fuller, truer picture of our past. They also give us hope and guidance for today. Here are just a few quick examples of what I mean.

Ida B. Wells, born into slavery in 1862, was a journalist, activist, and feminist who led an antilynching crusade in the 1890s, speaking throughout the United States and Europe. She reminds us that brave journalists, armed with the First Amendment, can shine a light on wrongdoing and change history.

Garrett Morgan had only a sixth-grade education, but he also had a natural mechanical genius and an entrepreneurial bent. In 1914, he invented a ``safety hood'' that protected wearers from smoke, gases and other pollutants. It became the prototype in World War I for gas masks and for the breathing devices that firefighters wear today. His inventions have saved untold millions of lives.

While some argue that we should cut funding to public schools that serve low-income children, Garrett Morris reminds us that American genius and ingenuity isn't limited by race, or gender, or family income. Our future prosperity depends on our willingness to invest in the potential all of America's children.

Finally, A. Philip Randolph organized and led the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly African-American labor union. In 1941, he was part of a group that convinced President Roosevelt to ban discrimination in the defense industries during World War II. In 1948, that same group persuaded President Truman to issue an Executive order ending segregation in America's Armed Services. And in 1963, A. Philip Randolph helped led the March on Washington. If you want to know how to raise the wages of working people and mobilize ordinary Americans to create a more perfect union, study the life of A. Philip Randolph.

Black History Month actually started as Black History Week 90 years ago. The choice of the week had special significance; it included the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and the mighty abolitionist, Frederick Douglass.

President Lincoln once predicted that, if history remembered him for anything, it would be for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. With that great promissory note of freedom, President Lincoln declared that the 3 million persons living in bondage in the rebellious states ``shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.''

The Emancipation Proclamation marked a turning point in America's Civil War; it transformed the fight to preserve the Union into something even larger and nobler: a battle for human freedom.

But without Frederick Douglass, the ``Great Agitator,'' there might never have been a ``Great Emancipator.'' Frederick Douglass was one of the best-known men in America. He was a powerful and respected speaker and journalist. He criticized Lincoln frequently and publicly for what he viewed as the President's timidity in denouncing slavery. But rather than denouncing Douglass, Abraham Lincoln sought his counsel, and their respectful relationship changed history.

Without Frederick Douglass's prodding, Lincoln might not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln might not have agreed to allow free men of color to serve in the U.S. Army. Without Frederick Douglass, it might have been harder for Lincoln to see that the Civil War could not end until slavery had ended, that only ``a new birth of freedom'' could redeem the carnage of Civil War.

The relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass shows us the good that can be achieved when patriotic citizens dare to speak truth to power and leaders are secure enough to listen. That is a lesson worth pondering during this Black History Month and beyond.

Mr. President, pending before the U.S. Senate is the nomination of Mick Mulvaney, a Congressman who is seeking to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

If you were to ask the people of America about the Cabinet positions filled by the President, the one they probably would miss is the Office of Management and Budget. It turns out to be one of the more important positions, but it is not as well known historically as Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. It is an important job. It is one of the most consequential jobs because the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is responsible for preparing the President's budget, setting the priorities of the Federal budget, and overseeing the performance of Federal agencies. It is a big and challenging job.

Many other nominees for positions in the Cabinet are well known and have been debated on the floor of the Senate. Today I come to say a few words about the record of this Congressman, Mick Mulvaney, who is seeking this directorship of the Office of Management and Budget. It is a very interesting record.

It is not unusual for Members of the House and the Senate to have unusual positions on issues. I guess each one of us has something we believe intensely that other people question. When it comes to Congressman Mulvaney, there is a long litany of positions he has taken that are far out of the mainstream of either political party. Yet President Donald Trump decided this is the man, this is the person he wanted to head up his budgeting effort. This is the person he wants to set the priorities for spending in the United States of America during his Presidency.

If you look at the record of Mick Mulvaney, you will find that he has had an eagerness to dictate large and draconian cuts across the Federal Government in some of our most important and most cherished programs. Let me tell you about a few that highlight his record in Congress. Each one of these that I will speak to, if advanced by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, would have far-reaching consequences on families and individuals across the United States, not only in the operation of government but also in the effectiveness of our Federal workforce.

To start with--and this, I think, is the right place to start-- Congressman Mulvaney, who seeks the position of Director of the Office Management and Budget, has repeatedly led efforts to shut down the Federal Government. When Mr. Mulvaney and the Republicans succeeded in shutting down the government for 16 days in 2013, it cost the American economy $20 billion. Do you remember that?

Rush Limbaugh got on his radio show and said: If they shut down the government, no one will even notice.

Guess what, Mr. Limbaugh. They noticed.

All across America, working families paid the price for that foolish political act of shutting down the government. The real cost of the government shutdown is not just measured in dollars. The real cost is in hardships unnecessarily created, hardships for Federal employees who didn't receive their checks on a timely basis, hardships for people struggling to survive in America, who relied on programs like food stamps. We call them SNAP benefits now. They had their food in jeopardy and endangered because Congressman Mulvaney and his friends thought that a display of political power--shutting down the government--was the right recipe for America.

These government shutdowns delayed 2 million Federal workers from receiving their checks, real people with real families to feed. Congressman Mulvaney doesn't seem to care about these real-world consequences of a shutdown. Instead, he called the shutdown of the Federal Government ``good policy.'' Those are his words: ``good policy.''

Then, when we finally reached an agreement to reopen the government, he was one of the few Members of the House to vote against the compromise in reopening the government.

In recent years, he has repeated his calls. He is willing to shut down the government of the United States of America to defund Planned Parenthood. This man wants to craft our national budget, and he would shut down the government over one provision in that budget? That is what he said.

Time and again, he has taken extreme positions on the Federal budget. We have a standing tradition in the House and the Senate. Since not one of us can predict when the next natural disaster is going to occur, we try to help one another.

I have voted for funds during the course of my congressional career for disasters in probably every State in the union. Do you know why? Because I knew the day would come--and it did, several times during my tenure in the House and Senate--when there would be a natural disaster in my State, and we needed a helping hand, emergency disaster assistance. That is a tradition which has been around Congress--I can go back almost centuries to see it in past history.

Listen to what Congressman Mulvaney did. He tried to block emergency disaster assistance to States that desperately needed the help of the Federal Government in their recovery efforts. He offered a poison pill amendment to the Hurricane Sandy relief package that would have required across-the-board cuts in military spending--military spending--to pay for disaster relief from Hurricane Sandy. Then he went further and said: Not just military spending, I want cuts in entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid. Let's cut the healthcare assistance for Americans to pay for that disaster. That is his idea of social justice.

Despite President Trump's campaign promises to rebuild the Nation's crumbling infrastructure, Congressman Mick Mulvaney has taken an extraordinary and extreme view. He wants to eliminate Federal funding for transportation projects. He cosponsored a bill that would slash the Federal gas tax. That is how we pay for repairing Federal roads and mass transit across America. He isn't interested in fixing the highway trust fund solvency problems. His solution is to bankrupt it.

This is the man who wants to write the budget for America? His extreme ideology would threaten billions of dollars that my State receives in Federal transportation funds. We put money into the Federal highway trust fund,

too, every time we buy a gallon of gas in Illinois. He would cut back on the resources coming back to my State and others to repair the very roads we drive on.

He has consistently supported across-the-board cuts for the Department of Defense, regardless of those affected. Just a few minutes ago, Senator John McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona, came to the floor to announce that because of Congressman Mulvaney's positions on cuts in the military, he--Senator McCain--would oppose the appointment of Mulvaney as head of OMB. Senator McCain said that it is a rare day when he comes out against a Presidential nominee of his own party. But he thinks Mulvaney's record is worrisome, and I couldn't agree more. The positions that Congressman Mulvaney has taken are reckless and would jeopardize the economic security of working families and put our Nation and economy at risk.

Possibly one of the most troubling positions that Congressman Mulvaney has taken is the fact that he is opposed to the Federal Government spending funds for medical research. Last year when Congress was deliberating how to combat the Zika virus, Representative Mulvaney wrote this on his Facebook page: ``Do we really need government-funded research at all?''

Let's think about that for a moment. Do we really need government- funded medical research in the United States? Do we need the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans' Administration investing in trying to find new cures for diseases?

Government-funded research in the Department of Defense has produced fascinating insights into the biology of breast cancer that have greatly impacted the treatment of that disease and saved lives in America. Look at the revolutionary Department of Defense-funded work that led to the development of the innovative drug Herceptin. Government-funded research, which Congressman Mulvaney does not believe we should do, at the National Institutes of Health has accomplished the following. It has cut the U.S. cancer death rate by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. And Congressman Mulvaney says: Do we really need to do that? Is that important? I would guess that his family, like every family in America, has a story to tell about cancer--what it has meant, the devastation it has created, the deaths that have resulted.

But Congressman Mulvaney doesn't get it. He just doesn't understand anything as basic as investing in medical research to save lives. HIV/ AIDS is no longer a death sentence in America. I saw Magic Johnson just a few weeks ago at a farewell party for President Obama. I remembered the day in the House of Representatives when I was told that he had AIDS. We assumed he would die in just a short period of time. But that was over 25 years ago. He has survived because of research that was done at the National Institutes of Health, and he is not alone. There are thousands just like him.

When I was a kid, polio was something every mother and father were frightened of. What in the world was happening? How could your child be infected with polio and end up being crippled for life? Our Republican leader here, Mitch McConnell, went through that in his childhood and has talked about that episode in his life and how devastating it was. He has had a full life since then, but he has overcome the problems of that disease. I remember as a kid in grade school, when they announced that our government research had come up with a vaccine that would protect kids from polio. That, to me, was a breakthrough, and one that I welcomed and our family welcomed.

Congressman Mulvaney questions whether or not medical research should continue, even in the light of the achievements in eradicating polio and small pox and other diseases in our country. These advances didn't just magically happen because of the miracle of the marketplace. They occurred because of sustained taxpayer investment in Federal medical research.

I will tell you this. If he wants to make a referendum in the Senate or the House on medical research a part of his budget debate, I welcome the challenge. I believe that Members of both political parties would stand up for medical research, despite Congressman Mulvaney's extreme positions.

So when someone asks if we really need government-funded medical research, the answer on behalf of cancer patients who are beating the disease, on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients who are living longer and normal lives, on behalf of all those families hoping and praying that some Federal researcher will come up with a breakthrough for Alzheimer's, for autism, or Parkinson's or diabetes--the answer, Congressman Mulvaney, is unequivocally, yes. America needs to invest in medical research. And the fact that you would question it really raises the question of your judgment.

Let me tell you another thing that he is for, which I think is the single most irresponsible budgetary position he has taken. He has been an opponent of raising the country's debt ceiling.

What is the debt ceiling? That is America's mortgage. That is the amount of debt we incur as a nation. It is a mortgage that is incurred for things that we have already spent money on. So when we come and vote for $600 billion for the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies and we don't have enough money coming in taxes to pay for it, we have to extend America's mortgage to cover it. Congressman Mulvaney says that is the wrong thing to do--extending the debt ceiling of this country. While running for Congress, Congressman Mulvaney, who now wants to manage our Nation's budget, pledged he would never ever vote to raise the country's debt ceiling. He voted against it four different times.

In 2011, when we were just about to breach the debt limit and default on our national debt for the first time in the history of our country, Mulvaney was a leading voice in support of default. He called it a ``fabricated crisis,'' and accused both parties of ``fear mongering.''

I am not sure what is more disturbing--Mr. Mulvaney's willingness to default on our country's obligations, the full faith and credit of the United States, or his lack of appreciation for the devastating economic consequences which would follow. I can tell you what is at risk with that kind of reckless attitude toward our Nation's debt. What is at risk are the savings and investments and retirement accounts of ordinary Americans across the Nation. Mr. Mulvaney may be willing to gamble the full faith and credit of the United States; I am not. Forcing the Federal Government to default on the Nation's debt would harm the economy and affect the government's ability to make payments to Social Security and Medicare recipients, military personnel, veterans, Federal employees, defense contractors, State governments, and to the bondholders of the United States, here and overseas.

We would lose our credibility if Mr. Mulvaney had his way and allowed us to default on our national debt. We should not ever consider confirming an OMB Director who has repeatedly risked the economic security of our Nation to score political, rhetorical points.

Throughout his campaign, President Trump promised to protect Medicare and Social Security and make decisions that would ``benefit American workers and American families.'' That is a quote. However, instead of making good on the promise, President Trump has chosen a man to head the Office of Management and Budget who has led calls for devastating cuts to Federal programs that millions of Americans rely on every day.

Mr. Mulvaney has said he wants to ``end Medicare as we know it,'' and he has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme.'' He has called for raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70, from the 67 that it currently is. Well, 3 more years at work may not mean much to a Member of Congress, because we sit down a lot in these comfortable chairs and people bring us things when we need them. But 3 more years of working before you qualify for Social Security means something to a waitress, whose hips and ankles and knees have been bothering her for years, but she has no choice but to get up every morning, go to work, carry those trays, and try to bring enough money home to help a family. It means something to someone who works in a coal mine--I guarantee you that--3 more years at work, exposing yourself to the lung diseases and other things

that might come with the job. It means something to a truckdriver, spending days and nights on the road. It means something to people who have to move freight around. It is the kind of thing that means a lot to ordinary working people. It clearly doesn't mean anything to Congressman Mulvaney. Three more years working, as far as he is concerned, is an acceptable alternative.

He wants to privatize Medicare and turn Medicare back into the loving arms of private health insurance companies, and let's see what seniors end up experiencing. Almost 60 million Americans now rely on Medicare. In Congressman Mulvaney's point of view, the guarantee of Medicare would end. This is the man President Trump has chosen to head the budget for the United States of America. Mulvaney has called repeatedly for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, including a ``cut, cap, and balance'' budget, which would cut each of these programs by 25 percent. When you say the word Medicaid, people have an image in their mind: Oh, that is health insurance for poor people. And that is generally correct, although it also covers disabled Americans. But do you know who the major recipients of Medicaid are in America? The largest single group of people receiving help from Medicaid are children--children in poor, low-income families who get medical care through Medicaid. The biggest expenditure for Medicaid is not children though. The biggest expenditure is for the elderly Americans who are living largely at institutional settings, in these care homes, nursing homes. Medicaid keeps them in that place with adequate medical care. So now comes Congressman Mulvaney and says: Let's just cut those by 25 percent. There is one good way to reduce Federal spending.

Really? So that means fewer immunizations for children. What does it mean for your mother or your grandmother in the nursing home when it is announced that we don't have enough money to cover the cost to keep her here in a good, safe, positive environment? For Congressman Mulvaney, it is just numbers on paper. For real families across America, it is the reality of life.

Much like our new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Congressman Price, Representative Mulvaney wants to dramatically undermine the Medicare Program for our Nation's seniors. Let's look at what Medicare has meant to our country since it was created in 1965. Before Medicare, only 51 percent of Americans 65 and older had health care coverage. Nearly 30 percent lived in poverty. Today, 98 percent of seniors have health care, and less than 10 percent live below the poverty line. Has Medicare work? You bet it has. It has provided health insurance for seniors, and it has given people dignity and independence in their senior years--something that everyone should value. And, incidentally, the life expectancy of Americans has grown by 5 years since we created Medicare. It is working. Medicare helps seniors, helps their families, and it helps America. But Congressman Mulvaney doesn't get it.

This man has been chosen by President Trump to write the budget of America. Why is Congressman Mulvaney so hell-bent on ending a program like Medicare that 98 percent of our Nation's seniors depend on? Well, I can tell you, if his comments on Medicare scare you, on Medicaid he is even worse. This program, combined with the Children's Health Insurance Program, ensures health coverage for 70 million Americans. One out of every five nationwide depend on Medicaid. It helps low- income families, pregnant women, children, and those with disabilities. Currently, if you qualify for Medicaid, you are guaranteed to get health coverage. Congressman Mulvaney thinks he has a better idea. He wants to change that.

Congressman Mulvaney wants to significantly cut the Federal funding for Medicaid and leave States to fend for themselves when it comes to caring for these 70 million Americans. Faced with less Federal funding, States would be forced to find ways to cut spending and save money. They might start Medicaid waiting lists or impose work requirements or slash benefits. At the end of the day, the result would be catastrophic.

I just spent the last weekend in Southern Illinois. We had a roundtable down there to talk about the impact of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. These hospital administrators from smalltown hospitals came in to tell me that losing Medicaid reimbursement could force them to dramatically cut their workforce and maybe even face closure. Here is Congressman Mulvaney suggesting: Let's just do that across America. I wonder where he lives. I wonder if there are any small towns or rural areas near him. I wonder if he values those hospitals the way the people living in communities that I represent value them. These are not only lifelines for people who desperately need timely, professional medical care, but they are the source of the best jobs in the community. Congressman Mulvaney could care less: Let's just keep cutting on Medicaid and see what happens.

What will happen will be devastating.

Mr. Mulvaney isn't content with just throwing seniors off Medicare and low-income families off Medicaid. He wants to punish women by taking away their healthcare providers and inserting his own decisions into their medical decisions. Mr. Mulvaney has repeatedly attempted to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide women and men with important cancer screenings, family planning, STD testing, and other important health care services.

The laws of the United States of America provide that not one penny can be given to Planned Parenthood for abortion services--not one penny under the law. Most people, if asked what percentage of the Planned Parenthood budget is actually spent on abortion services would get it wrong. The actual number is 3 percent. Ninety-seven percent of what Planned Parenthood does, in terms of family planning, cancer screening, STD screening, has no relation directly to abortion services, and that is compensated, but abortion services are not under the law. Congressman Mulvaney could care less. He would close down the sources of family planning in small towns and communities around America.

The concerns I have laid out today are just a few that I have about this nomination. The millions of hard-working Americans who believed President Trump's campaign promises, and as a champion for the most vulnerable, deserve far better than Congressman Mulvaney.

There are real problems facing this Nation. Far too many people are struggling, and there is a lot of work to do. We cannot afford to risk our economic recovery, the retirement plans and savings of working Americans, the health of our children, the kind of care we want for our mothers and grandmothers--we cannot afford to risk them by appointing OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.

I have no choice but to oppose Mick Mulvaney's nomination for Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, Mick Mulvaney is a founder of the House Freedom Caucus, which has made repeal of the Affordable Care Act--without a replacement--one of their main causes. This is not about good policy or the real consequences for people around the country. This is about ideology.

Mr. Mulvaney wants to rip health insurance away from nearly 30 million people and deny people the important consumer protections they have come to depend upon. He would once again allow insurers to impose pre-existing condition exclusions and discriminate based on gender and cut off coverage when someone gets sick and needs it most.

His answer to fixing our health care system is ``free-market competition'' and ``crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. Those might make good talking points, but they will not stabilize our insurance market and help people in need.

The Illinois Hospital Association estimates that Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in the loss of up to 95,000 jobs in Illinois--in hospitals, doctor's offices, construction, real estate, and beyond.

Over the last month, I have been going around my State, meeting with hospitals and providers, talking to them about what repeal would mean. They are worried.

You see, Illinois hospitals and health systems generate nearly $90 billion in the State and local economies each year, and 1 in 10 jobs in Illinois is in

health care. Hospitals are vitally important to our State's economy and vitally important to patients in need.

Don't just take my word for it, Franklin Hospital CEO, Jim Johnson told me:

In our community, at the time that the hospital in West

Frankfort closed, we [Franklin Hospital in Benton] managed to

stay open . . . they're just eaten up that they don't have a

hospital anymore. It's incredible what the loss of a hospital

can do to a small community. And I'm down there talking to

those guys every day because naturally I like them to use our

hospital . . . but those conversations, it has just torn this

community apart.

In Illinois and nationwide, rural hospitals would be particularly hurt by Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans' prescription for chaos.

In Illinois, 62 of our 102 counties are rural. We have 51 Critical Access Hospitals, which are the hubs of their communities. Rural hospitals typically are more reliant on Medicaid and Medicare, and have tighter operating margins.

So what has the ACA meant for them? In States that expanded Medicaid, like Illinois, rural hospitals have seen greater financial stability thanks to the decrease in uncompensated care--or charity care--costs.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the uninsured rate in rural communities has dropped by nearly 40 percent. This is not only great for those individuals obtaining insurance, it is also great for the rural hospitals who are now getting paid for the health services they provide.

Community Health & Emergency Services CEO Fred Bernstein told me:

You can look at Cairo as the ghost of the future. Because

there is not much left that we have to lose . . . We've lost

the only grocery store, and the only drug store in Cairo. If

this Affordable Care Act thing isn't resolved and if we go to

block grant in the Medicaid program, there's not going to be

any resolution to those problems down there. We are not going

to be able to stay open. At least 72-74 percent of my

patients depend upon Medicaid . . . Without the expansions of

Medicaid that we've already seen, and without some of the

subsidies that those who can get some insurance will get to

keep that insurance, there's not going to be the ability to

afford any care for most of the people we serve.

Since 2009, the number of rural hospitals in Illinois operating in the red has decreased by 46 percent. Put another way, 16 rural hospitals in Illinois are now on much more solid financial footing thanks to the ACA.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, is likely to come to the floor soon, and I will certainly defer to him at a later time, but I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.