Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, but first I would like to offer my strongest condemnation of the terrorist attack allegedly carried out by ISIS this morning in Tehran, which claimed the lives of 12 people. Attacks on civilians in any corner of the world must be strongly condemned by the United States, and I offer my condolences to the people of Iran and the families who lost loved ones in this latest act of terror.

If anything, these events remind us that the entire Middle East is increasingly under siege, and the United States and the entire international community must unite to confront terrorism and extremism in all of its forms. That means holding governments that continue to foment, fund, and encourage terrorism accountable.

While the people of Iran suffered a heinous attack today, the unfortunate reality is that the violence, volatility, and profound human suffering that imperils the Middle East are all too often linked back to the Government of Iran. Across the region, this regime continues to pursue policies that threaten the national security interests of the United States. It continues to support terrorism and exert influence through the growing power of proxy actors throughout the Levant and Yemen. Even as it continues to supply terrorists across the region with money, weapons, and resources, the people of Iran continue to suffer under an oppressive regime with absolutely no respect for basic human rights.

We all know the United States faces a multitude of threats at home and abroad, from Russia's cyber attack on our elections, to North Korea's continued belligerence, to new questions about America's leadership in the world. But even as Congress rightly remains focused on these challenges, we must not lose sight of Iran's ongoing, ever- growing efforts to exert more control, more power, and more influence throughout the Middle East. Whether we are talking about an adversary like Russia or Iran or an international challenge like climate change or the refugee crisis, we cannot let issues of such importance to our future be obscured by partisan politics, derailed by divisive tweets, or lost amid the revelations of our relentless 24-hour news cycle.

I have always believed politics must stop at the water's edge, and I know many of my colleagues share that principle. That is why there is such broad bipartisan support for the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act. I am pleased to have worked with Senators Corker, Cardin, and a number of other colleagues on legislation that has earned the support of nearly 60 cosponsors. We crafted this legislation by listening to an array of different voices with experience addressing Iran's destabilizing influence.

But let me be clear. This bill is not--is not--about Iran's nuclear program. This bill is not about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. With the regime's tentacles reaching across the region--from its support of a Shia proxy network in Iraq, to its growing influence in Afghanistan, to its continued sponsorship of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas--we need a strategic approach, one that energizes our partners in the region and recognizes their capacity to counter Iran's behavior. That is exactly what the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act does.

Our legislation calls on the President of the United States to develop a regional strategy to counter Iran's asymmetric and conventional threats across the Middle East. We know that Iran, for example, continues to develop sophisticated ballistic missile technologies. They aren't exactly hiding it. Just a few weeks ago, a semi-official news service for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced it had built a third underground facility dedicated to ballistic missiles. Iran continues to test launch missiles, some of which may be capable of reaching Europe or Israel--both critical allies of the United States. In fact, some of the missiles launched earlier this year had the words ``Israel must be wiped off the Earth'' etched on their sides. That is why S. 722 requires the President to impose sanctions on any person who knowingly engages and materially contributes in support of Iran's ballistic missiles program.

Some argue that imposing new sanctions on Iran violates the spirit of the JCPOA, but I would argue that actively building underground ballistic missile facilities does little to promote good will or the spirit of the JCPOA in the region.

Beyond its missile program, Iran remains actively engaged in importing and exporting small and conventional arms to terrorist proxies around the world and bad actors like North Korea. In January of this year, the outgoing United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, expressed concern that Iran might have violated an arms embargo by supplying weapons and missiles to Hezbollah. Yet, not all of Iran's violations make high-profile news. We know Iran has ramped up its supply of weapons to the Houthi rebels in Yemen and other proxies throughout the region. That is why this legislation imposes sanctions on any individual who knowingly engages in activity that materially contributes to the supply, sale, or transfer of arms as defined and established by U.N. standards.

Finally, when it comes to human rights, some try to paint a pretty picture of reform in Iran, but a closer look reveals chilling and deplorable human rights abuses. According to Human Rights Watch, by October of last year, Iran had executed more than 250 people--that is 1 person sent to death every day--and many were executed for nonviolent drug offenses. That is why our legislation expands the scope of violations eligible for sanctions, including those behind the extrajudicial killings of journalists and activists who seek to expose the oppression of the Iranian people.

Finally, this bill calls for a comprehensive report on Americans who suffer at the hands of the Iranian regime, including those who have been unjustly detained and those who have remained missing in Iran for more than a decade.

In short, this bill is a carefully crafted response to Iran's ongoing aggression in the Middle East.

Let me turn to a provision that continues to be misrepresented, and that

involves the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is officially responsible for Iran's internal security, with a ground force of about 100,000, but like many other quasi-military-political entities in undemocratic countries throughout the world, the IRGC holds enormous influence in Iran's economy and public affairs. On paper, the IRGC Quds Force is the lead supporter of Iran's terrorist networks around the world, and the United States has designated it as such, but the reality is, the IRGC exercises tremendous economic and political power throughout Iran. It pulls the regime's levers to fund and support terrorists in the Middle East and beyond. That is why our bill specifically calls for terrorism-related sanctions on the IRGC, but it does not--let me repeat--it does not, as some have claimed, label the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization. We heard the concerns of our military and intelligence community. Let me repeat. This bill does not label the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. What it does do is require the President to acknowledge the role the IRGC plays in supporting terrorism globally.

I know some of my colleagues have expressed concerns as well about whether this bill gives a green light to the administration's decidedly confrontational approach to Iran, but that is precisely why Congress must step up and define our strategy in the Middle East. We need to look at the big picture here. As the United States and our partners work to build democratic governance structures--promote tolerance across the region and protect civilians and refugees living under siege--Iran remains aligned with Russia and Syria, actively working to undermine U.S. security interests. Indeed, Putin, Assad, and the Ayatollah continue to take advantage of the strife that imperils the region. Meanwhile, the world continues to struggle with extremism, with mass migration, and with the largest humanitarian crisis since World War II.

With this administration unable to articulate a clear vision for American leadership in the world, the time is ripe for Congress to assert its influence in our foreign policy, to provide guidance and expertise, and to develop a framework for securing our interests in the Middle East.

Now is not the time for Congress to turn a blind eye to Iran's hostile behavior. Now is the time for all of us to demand nothing less than vigorous oversight, constant vigilance, and strict enforcement of our entire arsenal of diplomatic tools, including sanctions on Iran. That is our effort--outside of the nuclear proposal--to make it very clear that you cannot get a green light to do all of these things just because you signed on to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I think it is important for us to send this message, and when the appropriate time comes for this vote, I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 138 on adoption of S. Res. 176. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

As a cosponsor of S. Res. 176, I would have joined many of my colleagues in voting for its adoption. Noting this week marks the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War and the reunification of the city of Jerusalem, this resolution recognizes that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the city of Jerusalem for 3,000 years and that the holy city is home to people of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths. This resolution reaffirms longstanding U.S. positions, including that the permanent status of Jerusalem must be negotiated between the parties through final status negotiations for a two-state solution. This resolution further reaffirms the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and our shared value of promoting religious freedom.

Mr. President, as we end Police Week, I wish to pay tribute to the police officers across the country who serve their communities with steadfast dedication. In particular, I rise to honor three brave New Jersey law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty last year.

In 1962, President Kennedy first proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and he proclaimed the calendar week in which May 15 falls as National Police Week. These designations pay special recognition to those law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty and includes a number of events that brings together thousands of law enforcement professionals and families to our nations' capital.

On this Police Week, I reflected on the nearly 400 new names inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC. Of these names, at least 139 were killed last year, and roughly 250 were earlier deaths that had slipped through the cracks of history. The total number of names on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial will increase to more than 21,000, dating back to the first known officer fatality in 1791.

It is a deeply upsetting fact that, on average, one law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty somewhere in the United States every 58 hours. We can and should do better than this, and we owe it to these brave men and women to give them the necessary tools and training to protect themselves. Those who protect us deserve to be protected as well.

In honor of National Police Week and in recognition of the supreme sacrifice made by these officers, I will now read the names of the three law enforcement officers from New Jersey who were killed in the line of duty in 2016: Sean Cullen, trooper, New Jersey State police; Nikeelan Semmon, senior corrections officer, New Jersey Department of Corrections; and Frankie Williams, trooper, New Jersey State police.

Today my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these brave officers. I sincerely hope that we rededicate ourselves to doing everything we can to support all law enforcement officers across the country. We owe them,

along with all those who serve our country, the deepest debt of gratitude.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the confirmation of Jay Clayton as Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Just 100 days into the Trump administration, the truth is becoming crystal clear to the American people: There is no ``America first'' policy, and there certainly is no ``middle class first'' policy. There is just one policy, and that is a ``Wall Street first'' policy. It is a policy designed to steer even more wealth and more power to those who are plenty wealthy and plenty powerful, a policy built on the misguided view that our economy does better when banks do as they please, when CEOs receive runaway pay, and when bigger profits never translate into bigger paychecks for workers. That is why we have seen no Executive orders designed to hold big banks accountable, no Executive orders designed to protect borrowers from abusive student loan companies, no Executive orders helping more workers save for retirement. Instead, we see the administration rolling back protections for consumers and students and seniors, actively exploring how to put taxpayers back on the hook for Wall Street's recklessness, and ordering oversight agencies to, quite simply, conduct less oversight.

There is no greater example of the Trump administration's ``Wall Street first'' policy than its decision to nominate Jay Clayton as the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC is our Federal Government's cop on the Wall Street beat. And let's remember why we have a Securities and Exchange Commission and why it needs to be the cop on the beat. In 1929, the stock market crashed, and our Nation was sent into a deep and devastating depression. That is why President Franklin Roosevelt signed financial reforms into law aimed at curbing rampant speculation and risky behavior on Wall Street, and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission was one of those reforms.

The SEC was designed to enact safeguards and promote fairness in our markets, to protect investors and prosecute fraud, and to ensure that our businesses have access to capital so they can grow and create jobs. When we have a watchdog ensuring that everyone plays by the rules, risk is more distributed, markets are more stable, and capital is more available.

The American people know all too well what happens when we take our eyes off of Wall Street. Not even a decade has passed since the worst financial collapse in 80 years put taxpayers on the line for billions of dollars--billions of dollars--in bailouts.

In the years leading up to the crash, our regulators, including the SEC, turned a blind eye to excessive risk-taking and corporate misconduct. We needed a cop on the beat, but instead we had a regulator asleep at the switch. As a result, we suffered a crisis that cost 8.5 million Americans their jobs and 10 million Americans their homes--8.5 million Americans their jobs and 10 million Americans their homes--a crisis that destroyed $19 trillion in household wealth and left small businesses devastated nationwide, a crisis that sank local and State governments into a sea of red ink. And, of course, it left us with the great recession. It took us years to dig this economy out of that ditch. Now, after all we have been through, is it really time to go easier on Wall Street?

Since the financial crisis, the SEC has been instrumental in reshaping the rules of the road and holding corporation wrongdoers accountable. Now, less than a decade since that devastating crisis, this administration wants to give the keys to the castle to one of Wall Street's most loyal guardians.

We need someone at the helm willing to root out bad behavior in our financial sector, but Mr. Clayton is not that someone. He is no expert in enforcing the law. Indeed, Mr. Clayton has made a career out of fighting the SEC and other financial regulators on behalf of Wall Street's biggest institutions. His resume is built around defending Wall Street's most notorious offenders from ever being held accountable.

Let me again remind my colleagues that the SEC was not created to be Wall Street's support group in Washington. Investors and the American public at large deserve an SEC Chair who will fight to hold firms accountable, who will prosecute misconduct and wrongdoing, and who will improve investor protections. Mr. Clayton has not met that burden.

There are three reasons why I am concerned that an SEC led by Mr. Clayton would be an SEC that bends the rules for corporations and ignores the needs of hard-working Americans.

First is Mr. Clayton's singular focus on corporate bottom lines. When asked to lay out his vision for the agency, Mr. Clayton offered no path to preventing another financial crisis. He provided no commitment to strengthening the agency's enforcement abilities, and he callously overlooked investor protections. Mr. Clayton failed to give an iota of support to anything other than boosting corporate bottom lines. He spoke exclusively about reducing compliance and registration costs for companies, and that is all fine, but not at the expense of critical investor protections and of healthy, stable, and fair markets for the economy at large.

Let's remember why this is important. Without strong protections and disclosures, we will sacrifice investor confidence. And when we sacrifice investor confidence, less capital will flow through our markets. When less capital flows through markets, businesses will struggle to grow and to innovate. In other words, a stable and fair financial sector is vital to our economy as a whole.

My second concern involves Mr. Clayton's potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Clayton has spent his entire career representing big players on Wall Street before, during, and after the crisis. His work has undoubtedly produced many conflicts of interest. As a result, Mr. Clayton will be forced to sit out of numerous important decisions integral to the role of the SEC Chair. This is a problem because the SEC currently has just two Commissioners. The absence of Mr. Clayton could very well undermine the agency's ability to prosecute wrongdoing on Wall Street.

Finally, I was alarmed by Mr. Clayton's refusal to answer any questions of substance during his confirmation hearing.

When asked if he would implement congressionally mandated rules, like the provision I wrote into Dodd-Frank requiring corporations to disclose how much money CEOs make in comparison to their employees, Mr. Clayton gave no straight answer.

When asked if he would fairly consider the 1.2 million comments--the greatest number of comments ever received on any SEC rulemaking process by the SEC--urging that companies disclose their political spending, Mr. Clayton gave no straight answer.

Finally, when asked if he would restore the subpoena power of the SEC attorneys so that they can initiate investigations, Mr. Clayton showed his true colors. When it comes to enforcement at the SEC, he said we had to be ``mindful that even the commencement of an investigation can have significant adverse impacts'' on public companies. So instead of explaining his vision as SEC's Chair and the SEC's role as a cop on the beat, he said the agency should consider a company's bottom line before investigating potential wrongdoing. This, to me, is in essence what defines this nominee's approach and this administration's approach: Wall Street profits that prevail over Main Street protections, no matter the risks

posed to the American people. It is precisely this kind of thinking that made our system too vulnerable to a financial crisis of epic proportions.

Given Mr. Clayton's inability and refusal to answer basic questions about important issues--like whether he would restore the authority of the Securities and Exchange Enforcement Division or implement the CEO- to-worker pay ratio rule mandated by Congress or require disclosure of corporate political spending--1.2 million citizen comments, the greatest in the history of the SEC--or ensure that retail investors receive advice that is in their best interests--I can't help but conclude that Mr. Clayton appears best suited to continue representing Wall Street rather than to working on behalf of the American people.

The President's nomination of Mr. Clayton is a bow to Wall Street and a cold shoulder to hard-working, middle-class families. I will not be voting for his confirmation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the memory of the late Dr. Rolando Alum, Sr., of West New York, NJ. At the age of 104, Dr. Alum passed away on March 27, a month ago today, leaving behind a legacy of community service and a family full of achievements. I had the distinct pleasure of knowing Dr. Alum personally. He was my constituent from when I first served in the New Jersey State Assembly over 25 years ago to when I became U.S. Senator. I could not be more impressed with the accomplished life of Dr. Rolando Alum, Sr., and his embodiment of the American spirit.

Dr. Alum was born and raised in Havana, Cuba. He began his career as a professor and dean at a local technical college, educating his students on literature and grammar. He then went on to become a dentist, treating patients with whom who he would keep in touch throughout his life. In 1961, Dr. Alum and his family fled Cuba in pursuit of liberty and a better life after the Castro brothers turned the island-nation into a Soviet-modeled totalitarian country.

When Dr. Alum came to the United States, he decided to settle and raise his family in Hudson County, NJ. His first job was at a cardboard box factory in Essex County. Wanting more for his family, Dr. Alum worked tirelessly to become a successful research scientist for a pharmaceutical company, eventually joining a research team that included a Nobel Prize winning doctor. At his company, Dr. Alum established important quality control measures and developed influential drugs.

The light of Dr. Alum's life was his family. Rolando and his pre- deceased wife, Sara, raised a truly exceptional family by any measure. I have worked side by side with his oldest son Roland Alum, Jr., on many civic and community engagement activities to better the State of New Jersey. Dr. Alum's youngest son Luis is an accomplished attorney and a leader in New Jersey's legal community. Rolando's grandson, Alexander, is the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Puerto Rico. Janelle, Dr. Alum's granddaughter, is a school teacher in my hometown of Union City. With such a successful family, I have no doubt that Dr. Alum was proud of each and every member of his family.

One of Dr. Alum's dreams was to one day see democracy in Cuba. Fearing violence from the Castro regime, Dr. Alum, like countless other Cubans who fled from the Castro regime, never returned to his native land. As a U.S. Senator of Cuban descent, I have dedicated my entire career to fighting for the Cuban people and will continue to work towards bringing freedom to Cuba.

Dr. Rolando Alum, Sr., was a model U.S. citizen and is a testament to what Cuban Americans, Latinos, and immigrants contribute to our great country.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the following New Jersey high school seniors for their commendable decision to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces: Craig Ackerly, Bryan Adame, Aldo Aguayo Flores, Alba Agyao, Dalton Ailtmar, Janae Albright, Michael Vincent Alvarez, Michael Luis Alvarez, Jose Alvarez, Juan Alvarez, Alexander Alvarez Escobar, Andre Ascura, Daniel Ayala, Elijah Baez, Justin Baez, Joseph Barbato, David Batastini, Frederick Bauer, Sergio Bautista Benitez, Joseluis Bejarano, Alejandro Bejarano Valencia, Nathan Bell, Joseph Bell,

Fallon Bennett, Nula Bolden, Chrisopher Bonario, Joyce Bonilla Gonzalez, James Brackett, Patrick Brand, Nicolas Brett, Imani Brown Hilton, Alexander Brutosky, Tyree Bull, Logab Burns, Rory Bushby, Jose Caba, Dino Cabrales, Jorge Cabral Gonzalez, Ralph Calitre, Brian Callahan, Christopher Campos, Daniel Cano, Reinier Carlos, Jose Caro, Rafael Castellanos, Addison Chang, Eric Cho, Dhane Christensen, Anthony Ciarlo, Jack Cipas, Dashonda Clark, Amanda Clarke, Tyler Cochran, Alexander Colavito, Liam Collins, Vincent Concina, Dayana Coreas- Alvarez, Kevin Cornelio, Ethan Correa, Kevin Cosme, Jonathan Cox, Jeffrey Cox, Nasir Crank-Williams, Kevin Cubillos, Andrew Cumming, Aidan Curran, Douglas Dasilva, Joshua Dechillo, Michael Dehaas, Michael Delcher, Johanny Del-Orbe, Esvicarla Delossantos, Christopher DeRienzo, Damian Diaz, Diego Diazrazuri, Thomas Digiovanni, Brett Dolgos, Heydi Dominguez, Eric Dougherty, Sean Dougherty, Christopher Dramis, Anna Drew, Santana Duran, John Duran, Jared Durante, Miguel Duvergepena, Jesse Efymow, Linwood Mickey Evans, Matthew Eggink, Katherine Espinal, Jacob Fallon, Tyler Fanz, Joseph Fiduccia, Nicholas Fiorelli, Jack Flores, Salatiel Flores, Kimberly Fox, Jacob Franks, Richard Furmanek, Benito Gabriel, Manuel Gallego, Matthew Galloway, Eddison Garcia, Jack Garcia, Giselle Garcia Clavijo, Edgar Garcia Gonzalez, Michael Garrido, Liam Gavin, Sebastian Geary, Jake Gerber, Andrew Ghaleb, Brian Gilligan, Ryan Goldy, Edward Gomez, Adriana Gomez, Jeremy Gomez, Matthew Gonzalez, Josue Gonzalez, Christian Gonzalez, Carlos Gonzalez, Anthony Goodell, Destiny Goodridge, Jonathan Gorgonio Ramirez, Robert Gorny, Patrick Grabowski, Julian Guarderas, Christian Guevara, Grant Gunnarson, Samantha Harris, Jonathan Hart, Anthony Hernandez, Henry Hernandez, Travis Hickman, Christian Hoffman, Nicholas Hoffman, Frank Hofmann, Sean Holl, Rose Hollywood, Tyler Horner, Ryan Howard, Brendan Ingino, Kyle Irwin, Zach Irwin, Andrew Jones, Miguel Juarez Hernandez, Sabrina Jung, Madison Kasza, Brendan Kelly, Bailey Kiefer, Kaitlyn Kimble, Shayne King, Cody Kniveton, Thomas Kopec, Benjamin Kwok, Caelb Lamberson, Emma Landsaw, Bryan Laumbach, Corey Laurenzi, Justin Lebron, Kevin Lee, Sandro Lema, Derik Leon, Brandon Lima, Derek Liptak, Alexzander Lonky, Ever Lopez, Moises Luna, Marcus Macalinao, Jastin Macalino, Marc Macalino, Joshua MacMillan, Austin Madden, Liam Madden, Jaelon Magat, Christopher Major, Julio Maldonado Martinez, Joana Mallari, Mark Mangravito, Armando Marrero, Jerwin Martilus, Miguel Martinez, Jayr Martinez Reyes, Pedro Martinez Tapia, Evan Martinovitch, Anthony Mazza, Aubrey McCarrick, Matthew McGee, Caitlin McHorney, Jack McMahon, Jose Mendez Sagastume, German Mendoza, Luis Mendoza, Kiyara Middleton, Joseph Mihalko, Phillip Milder, Charles Miles, Luis Mimbs Fuentes, Jeffrey Miranda, Edward Molano, Xavier Molina, Laura Molina, David Monaco, Carlos Monterrosa, Albert Montilla, Michael Mourey, Almadelia Navarro Martinez, Shania Negron, Mylique Nelson, Daniel Newkirk-Carpenter, Victor Noa, Chelsea Nunez, Jacob Nussbaum, Collins Nwekeze, Lucas Ochoa, Peter Oliva, Tyler Oliveira, Zachary Ortega, Kiara Osbourne Willis, Wesley Osoria, Zachary Pacetti, Mariya Pakhomova, George Panchana, Nicholas Paola, Kiana Papaleo, Nathaniel Paras Clenista, Piiquline Park, Shweta Patel, Brandon Paul, Jacob Perez, Ashley Perezferrer, Charles Phan, Justin Michael Pineda, Aidan Proulx, Cross Quinlan, Nidhi Rakholia, Michelle Ramirez, Sheehan Ramirez, Adam Randazzo, Jackie Remache, Ernesto Reyes, Nicholas Ribeirocarvalho, Evan Ridgell, Alido Rivera, Brian Rivera, Isis Rivera, Jayvon Roberson, Guy Robinson, Peter Robinson, Daniel Roble, Stephan Roche, Viana Rodriguez, Guillermo Rodriguez Zavala, Christopher Rojas, Yandry Romero, Darion Rosario, David Roxas, James Russell, Kevin Saar, Lau Sage, Vicuna Saltos, Nicholas Salvucci, Anthony Sanchez, Christopher Sanford, Michael Santangelo, Eddie Santiago, John Santiago, Giovanni Santos, Nicholas Scanzano, Jacob Schettino, Lisa Schrage, Jason Schultz, Dylan Schweibinz, Paloma Seijas, Kyle Seo, Armani Serrano, Dante Shearin, Edward Simo, Gurvir Singh, Jacob Solem, Victor Souza, Terrell Stearns Bailey, Brian Stevens, Brendan Stevenson, Alaysia Stewart, Dawid Sura, Yerines Suriel-Baez, Shane Tambussi, Joseph Tamimi, Jordan Tanis, Nicholas Tejada, Michael Tesauro, Jailey Torres, Fabio Toyos, Brandon Tuberquia, Elvis Tumuxcurruchich, Paul Turnbull, Luke Turner, Jared Tymon, Zaria Underwood Madden, Michael Valdes, Steve Valencia, Mateo Valentine, Miranda Vallese, Jessica Vanderzyde, Damian Vanriper, Francis Vanteeckelenburgh, John Vargas, Michael Velthaus, Edward Villela, Romelson Virtusio, Jeffrey Walsh, Kevin Watts, Jacob Wendt, Camdyn Williams, Tenzin Woeser, Brandon Woodall, James Young, and Drew Zigo.

These outstanding individuals will also be honored at various ``Our Community Salutes'' recognition events held throughout New Jersey in May 2017.

The future of our Nation remains strong because these individuals have decided to step forward and commit themselves to the defense of our Nation and to uphold the ideals upon which it was founded. Indeed, these New Jerseyans represent the very best of America, and they should rest assured that the full support of the U.S. Senate, as well as the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead.

It is thanks to the dedication of untold numbers of patriots like these that we are able to meet here today, in the U.S. Senate, and openly debate the best solutions to the many and diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today, just as I have many times before, to stop another rightwing attack on title X funding and to defend access to healthcare for millions of women.

Not even a week has passed since the American people successfully beat back Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and give insurance companies permission to charge women higher premiums simply because of their gender. Yet apparently less than a week is not too soon for Republicans to launch yet another attack on women's access to healthcare. This morning, my Republican colleagues needed the Vice President of the United States to come to Capitol Hill and cast a vote to overturn protections for 4 million patients served by title X funded health centers every year.

For many low-income women, title X funding is the lifeline that ensures their access to birth control, testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings, and other basic health services. In fact, 85 percent of the people served by family planning centers like Planned Parenthood have incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Approximately 20 percent of these patients identify as Latina, and approximately 14 percent identify as Black.

In 2015 alone, title X funded nearly 800,000 Pap tests, breast exams to 1 million women, nearly 5 million tests for STIs, and 1 million HIV tests. Title X did not pay for a single abortion. Indeed, no Federal funding goes to abortion-related care. And indeed, for every dollar that title X funding spent, we saved about $4 and prevented nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies per year.

Family planning services at New Jersey's title X funded health centers

helped prevent 20,500 unintended pregnancies in 2014, which would have likely resulted in 10,000 unintended births and 7,400 abortions. Without publicly funded family planning, the number of unintended pregnancies in New Jersey would be 21 percent higher. Title X funded services produce significant cost savings to the Federal and State governments. Services provided at title X supported sites in New Jersey accounted for nearly $232.9 million in such savings in 2010 alone.

I hope President Trump knows that when my Republican colleagues vote to defund Planned Parenthood, they aren't voting to stop a single abortion; they are voting to defund the family planning care that helps avoid unwanted pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.

A vote to defund title X is a vote to defund breast cancer exams. A vote to defund title X is a vote to defund cervical cancer screenings. A vote to defund title X is a vote to defund testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

The American people--those who voted for President Trump--voted for more affordable healthcare, certainly not less. Not one of my Republican colleagues has come to the floor to make the case in favor of repealing title X--not one. But if my Republican colleagues prevail in this cynical vote, they will jeopardize access to affordable family planning services; they will force many health centers to stop providing care to patients; and they will leave doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers working on the frontlines to abandon those who need them the most.

I, for one, refuse to allow the GOP to pander to the extreme elements of their party and in doing so limit a woman's access to affordable, accessible healthcare. This vote is about every one of our sisters, our daughters, our grandchildren. This vote is about women across this country, and I don't understand how we can take away their access to the healthcare they so critically need.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in this important conversation on the Senate floor and, once again, to demand answers to the many questions raised about Russia's interference in our elections.

Not so long ago, I came to the floor to speak out against a belligerent act from an adversarial nation, an attempt to undermine American democracy and foment chaos and uncertainty on the world stage, an effort that we now know from our own intelligence community's assessment was ordered by President Putin himself, a campaign that senior intelligence officials have concluded ``blend[ed] covert intelligence operations--such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users, or `trolls,' '' to undermine our 2016 Presidential elections.

In recent weeks, the American people have been confronted by a daily drumbeat of headlines regarding Russian interference with our elections and possible ties to President Trump's campaign. They have learned that the President's former National Security Advisor, LTG Michael Flynn, was not truthful about the nature of the conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador shortly after President Obama sanctioned Russia for meddling in our elections.

They learned that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, did not fully disclose at least two meetings he had with the Russian Ambassador during his nomination hearings.

They have learned, through reporting in the news media, that U.S. law enforcement continues to investigation Russian agents' contacts with President Trump's inner circle.

Yet despite these revelations, the American people now face more questions than answers. Has anyone else on the President's team been in contact with the Russian Government? What were the nature of these conversations? How credible are reports of business dealings between Russian oligarchs and the Trump organization?

But here is the reason I came to the floor today, as serious as those questions are. Getting answers to these questions, whether it be through a special prosecutor, or an independent commission--on which Senator Cardin has legislation and which I strongly, strongly support and believe it is the ultimate vehicle--or the Senate Intelligence Committee's own investigation--those efforts are not about President Trump. It is about the American people. It is about protecting our free and democratic way of life and our time-tested system of self- governance. It is about showing our constituents that, when the stakes are high, when the allegations are this startling, when the implications are this alarming, we are capable of setting politics aside and getting to the truth.

Time and again, the President has dismissed the significance of Russia's interference in our elections, and he derides reports about his financial interests and campaign contacts with Russia as ``fake news.'' Well, this isn't fake news. On the contrary, these are real threats--real threats from a real foreign adversary; real threats that undermine the integrity of our elections and, therefore, the security of our country; real threats from a brutal leader who sees the erosion of Western democracy as a strategic imperative for Russia's future.

So let's be clear about why these threats matter. Vladimir Putin's rise to power in Russia has been marked by the suppression of the freedom of the press, the oppression of the Russian people, the murder of political opponents, and the transfer of wealth and assets from the Russian people to a handful of powerful oligarchs.

President Putin sees the spread of Western democratic values that we enjoy here in our country and others in the Western world--like freedom of speech, the rule of law, and human rights--as a threat to his power. So Russia has embarked on a systematic campaign to undermine the democracies that uphold the international order established after World War II and that has been the bedrock of peace and tranquility, generally speaking, since then. These threats must be taken seriously.

Russia's aggressive behavior reaches back years and extends to this day. We saw it in 2008, when Russia backed illegal separatist forces in Georgia, declaring South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent states. We saw it in March of 2014--when I was in Ukraine--when Russia authorized the use of military force to annex Crimea, blatantly violating the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people and the Budapest Memorandum, a memorandum that we--the United States, Russia, and others--signed, saying that we would observe the territorial and sovereignty rights of Ukraine if they gave up the nuclear weapons that had been left to them after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

They did just that. They did just that, and what happened to them afterwards? Their territory has been annexed and invaded. Today, Putin continues to break ceasefires, sow discord, and incite violence throughout eastern Ukraine--an effort that to date has claimed 10,000 lives and displaced 2 million people.

Unfortunately, Russia's interference in our 2016 Presidential election is not an isolated instance. According to U.S. intelligence reports, these efforts are only the most recent manifestation of

the Kremlin's ongoing campaign to undermine Western democracy.

In recent years, we have seen Russian oligarchs funnel money to fringe political movements across Europe, and Russian operatives conduct sophisticated disinformation campaigns. After the revelations that Russia interfered with our own elections, Putin has shown no signs of slowing down. On the contrary, just weeks ago, Russian's Defense Minister announced that the Kremlin will begin using troops to enhance their information operations, emphasizing that ``propaganda must be smart, competent, and efficient.''

Again, Russia's end goal here is no mystery. Putin aims to undermine European unity and fracture the transatlantic alliance--an alliance that has served as a bedrock for international security, peace and stability, and economic cooperation between the United States and Europe for the past half century.

In the Middle East, President Putin continues to disregard international norms. He aligns Russia with Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terror. He aids Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in his atrocities against innocent civilians. In Aleppo, Russian bombs fall on homes; Russian bombs fall on schools and hospitals; Russian bombs fall on aid convoys that only seek to feed starving, trapped families, and rescue children from the rubble.

Just last month, Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty when they illegally launched a cruise missile, showing no regard for an agreement that has been a hallmark for nuclear security cooperation for nearly four decades. That is not an insignificant act.

The United States cannot ignore such destabilizing behavior. That is exactly why Senator Graham and I introduced S. Res. 78 just 2 weeks ago, recognizing 3 years of Russian military aggression and calling on Russia to respect its obligations to the international community. Our resolution should serve as a reminder to this administration that the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia for violating the international order should remain in place until Russia starts respecting and returning to that international norm.

Nor can we let Russian efforts to undermine Western democracies continue unabated. That is why I joined my colleagues in the Countering Russian Hostilities Act of 2017. This bipartisan bill codifies the sanctions imposed by President Obama for Russia's annexation of Crimea and interference in the U.S. elections into law.

It is the same type of proposition we had with the Iran agreement. We want a congressional opportunity to voice ourselves and make sure that those sanctions aren't lifted arbitrarily, capriciously, without Russia paying the consequences and coming back into the international order. At the same time, the legislation authorizes $100 million for the State Department and other agencies to counter Putin's propaganda.

The time for action--and for answers--is now. We can get to work immediately by holding hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure that the United States has a strategy in place to protect the security of our democracy and promote stability abroad. From the spread of extremist propaganda across Europe and the denial of Ukrainian sovereignty, to the bombing of civilians in Aleppo and the cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee, Putin's intentions are not up for debate.

Russia's destabilizing behavior should make it absolutely clear to the President of the United States that the Russian Federation is not our friend. But when the President hesitates to acknowledge this reality or fails to address such aggressive behavior, it is up to Congress to act. There can be no hesitation when it comes to protecting the security and sanctity of our elections.

But to take action we need answers. That is why we need an independent investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections. What President Trump fails to realize time and again is that this investigation is not about whether or not Russia successfully swayed the American elections. This investigation is not about him. This investigation is about the American people. It is about ensuring that our elections are free, fair, and secure so that our government that we elect is responsive and accountable to the people. It is about understanding Russia's tactics in cyber space and preparing for future attacks. It is about standing with our allies, preserving peace and avoiding war, and preventing the need to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. It is about ensuring that, when the President of the United States faces tough decisions, the American people can trust that he puts their interests--their interests--ahead of any other interests he has abroad.

It is time to protect the integrity of our elections and to secure our democracy against the cyber threats of the 21st century--whether they come in the form of election machine tampering, or paid propaganda on social media, or targeted hacks on political and public officials.

Russia poses a real strategic threat to the United States, to our core values, and to the international order. I call on the President to treat these threats with the seriousness they deserve.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the integrity of our elections here at home, to defend democracy abroad, and to ensure that the transatlantic alliance, so vital to international security and stability, remains strong for generations to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Admininstrator of the Environmental Protection Administration.

When looking at Mr. Pruitt's record on environmental issues, it is almost hard to know where to start.

You could examine his history of climate denial, in which he has repeatedly rejected the scientific consensus on the threat of climate change.

You could look at his cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry during his tenure as attorney general of Oklahoma.

You could argue that Scott Pruitt represents the same corporate interests and crony capitalism that have long prevailed inside the Beltway.

You could discuss his refusal to answer basic questions from the Environment and Public Works Committee, even as he asks those same Senators to vote for his confirmation.

Any one of these items should be disqualifying for a candidate tasked with leading the EPA, but the list of problems with Mr. Pruitt's nomination goes even beyond those concerns.

His nomination threatens the very foundations of the department he has been tasked with leading--whether you are talking about the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Superfund Program, or any of the other cornerstone environmental protections Americans have long enjoyed.

Scott Pruitt has made a career out of characterizing these environmental protections as red-tape, as job-killers, and as government overreach.

That might be good rhetoric when you are arguing on the side of corporate polluters, as Mr. Pruitt has spent his career doing.

It might be good rhetoric when you are trying to mask the significant benefits of the laws you are fighting to unravel.

It might be good rhetoric, but it is not reality. The reality is that our Nation's environmental laws are designed to provide basic protections for human health and quality of life.

But that fact is often obscured by the rhetoric that Mr. Pruitt peddles. And since the EPA and many of its foundational laws were created decades ago, it can be easy to forget what the world looked like before we had strong environmental protections.

So before we confirm an EPA Administrator intent on dismantling every one of those protections, let's do a quick history lesson.

Democrat, Republican, or Independent, one thing that Americans agree on is the need for clean water. In fact, according to a 2016 Gallup poll, 61 percent of all Americans are ``a great deal'' worried--not a little worried, but a great deal worried--about pollution of drinking water, and 56 percent of all Americans are ``a great deal'' worried-- again, a great deal worried--about the pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Among hunters and anglers, a group that many of my friends across the aisle claim to champion, those numbers are even more dramatic. A 2015 poll found that nearly 90 percent thought that the Clean Water Act was a good thing, and 75 percent supported the application of the Clean Water Act to headwater streams and wetlands.

Now, at a time when a strong majority of Americans are so concerned about the quality of their drinking water and the cleanliness of waterways across the country and support the application and enforcement of the Clean Water Act, it seems that we should be working to strengthen the protections that keep our water clean.

But that is not what Scott Pruitt has done, and it is not what he will do if we allow him to become the Administrator of the EPA. No, instead Scott Pruitt has worked tirelessly to gut the Clean Water Act.

His lawsuits have sought to undermine the fundamental protections afforded to our waterways to the detriment of the health of our families and our environment.

He has sued to prevent the Clean Water Rule, a court-ordered clarification of the protections of the Clean Water Act, from going into effect.

He has joined lawsuits and filed briefs to make it easier for mining companies to dump waste and fill material anywhere they want, destroying mountain streams and negatively impacting water quality.

Scott Pruitt didn't feel that the EPA should even have the authority to conduct a survey about industrial farming practices that can generate toxic runoff that could find its way into our rivers and streams and drinking water resources.

He has even joined big polluters in a lawsuit against a collaborative effort by Chesapeake Bay States and the EPA to clean up the bay, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Oklahoma.

I think that Mr. Pruitt's views can best be summed up in his own words. He claims that, ``the EPA was never intended to be our Nation's frontline environmental regulator.''

Well, I have news for Scott Pruitt. When the EPA doesn't lead, cost- cutting measures undertaken by a State can lead to thousands of Americans being poisoned by lead in their water. When the EPA doesn't lead, polluters, blinded by the pursuit of profit above all else, can dump unlimited and unregulated amounts of pollution into our water.

This isn't speculation. We have seen it before. The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 in large part due to public outrage after the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. Yes, the river caught fire. This sounds outlandish and incredible to us today, but perhaps even more astounding is the fact that this was not necessarily abnormal. It wasn't the result of some single incident or accidental spill. This was the result of years of pollution and unsound practices employed by many different industries across the economic spectrum.

The Washington Post notes that the Cuyahoga burned at least 13 times, and that is just one river. River fires were recorded in Maryland, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and other States as well. So it becomes clear that this was a pervasive problem, and a national problem, and a problem that had to be addressed on the national level. And we did address it largely through the Clean Water Act, but we have to continue that progress, not roll it back. Even now, in places like China, where strong federal clean water laws don't exist, these river fires still occur.

Scott Pruitt calls himself an ``advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.''

If fighting for clean water is an activist agenda; if enforcing sound environmental practices that safeguard public health is an activist agenda; if protecting wetlands that not only provide critical wildlife habitat, but also act as vital buffers that protect our communities from flooding, is an activist agenda; well, then I guess you can call me an activist, and his record has shown that Scott Pruitt is anything but. And his attacks on the Clean Water Act aren't unique. Mr. Pruitt has sued the EPA time and again in an effort to dismantle the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, at a time that many of our Nation's cities and industrial regions were blanketed in smog. In the 47 years since the passage of the law, the Clean Air Act has proven to be one of the most effective public health measures ever taken in this country. Under the Clean Air Act, we have achieved 70 percent reductions in the levels of six of the most dangerous air pollutants.

Under the Clean Air Act, new heavy-duty trucks and buses became 99 percent cleaner than those vehicles were in the 1970s. Under the Clean Air Act, lead was banned from gasoline, ending a significant health risk--one that was particularly dangerous for children. It was the Clean Air Act that gave us the tools to drastically cut the pollutants that cause acid rain. The Clean Air Act helps to protect downwind States like New Jersey from pollution emitted by power plants in other States. The Clean Air Act has been used to phase out pollutants that destroy the ozone layer, yielding significant health benefits including a reduction in skin cancer. The Clean Air Act has been used to reduce mercury from power plants, preventing tens of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, and asthma attacks. The Clean Air Act has helped reduce pollution at our National Parks, supporting tourism and local economies across the country. And in 2007, the Supreme Court affirmed the Clean Air Act's role in the environmental crisis of our time, the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect against the threat of climate change.

It is worth noting that, since the Clean Air Act became law, the Nation's gross domestic product grew by 246 percent--so much for job- killing regulations.

But in spite of these benefits, benefits that accrue to every American and benefits that save lives and reduce disease, Scott Pruitt has a record a mile long trying to dismantle the Clean Air Act.

He sued the EPA over cross-state air pollution rules. He sued the EPA over mercury and air toxin limits. He sued the EPA when they tried to reduce smog. He sued the EPA when they limited pollution in national parks. And he sued the EPA when they proposed limiting carbon pollution from power plants.

Mr. Pruitt's record has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no interest in maintaining basic environmental standards. I have no reason to believe that he would behave any differently if confirmed as EPA Administrator. But Scott Pruitt's disdain for the EPA goes beyond even the lawsuits he filed.

In questions for the record for the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Pruitt was asked to name even one EPA regulation he supported and he couldn't name even one.

He wasn't put on the spot. These were written questions, which Mr. Pruitt had ample time to consider and answer. And yet he couldn't produce a single example of an EPA standard he supported.

An EPA standard that immediately comes to my mind is Superfund--a bipartisan program committed to ensuring that polluters pay to clean up their toxic dump sites.

New Jersey has the most Superfund sites of any State in the Nation-- 114 total. These sites threaten public health, stifle economic opportunity, and undermine quality of life.

They are a toxic legacy from a time when we had no watchdog to prevent corporations from dumping their waste into our soil or our water.

Today there are over 1,300 Superfund sites throughout the Nation--13 sites in

Alabama, 37 sites in Wisconsin, 53 sites in Florida, and even 7 sites in Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt's home State.

This is a problem that transcends geographic and partisan divides. It is a challenge we should be united in our commitment to fixing. Yet Mr. Pruitt wouldn't even cite Superfund as an example of an EPA regulation he supported. If he doesn't support the program, how can we trust him to implement it?

EPA is absolutely critical in bringing the companies responsible for pollution to the table, creating strategies for cleaning up these sites, and overseeing the clean-ups themselves.

How can we trust Mr. Pruitt to negotiate on behalf of our communities if he can't even bring himself to admit the value of the law?

The fact that a program as basic and bipartisan as Superfund didn't garner Scott Pruitt's support should be of concern to us all.

The U.S. has many environmental challenges left to confront, but we have also made a lot of progress since the days before we had strong environmental protections.

We can't turn back the clock to the days when rivers caught on fire, when smog choked our cities, and when corporations were free to dump unlimited chemicals into the soil and water. Yet, that is exactly what Scott Pruitt has spent his career doing. His tenure as Oklahoma Attorney General provides example after example of legal actions taken on behalf of moneyed corporate polluters, but he failed to provide even one real example of action he took against polluters on behalf of the people of Oklahoma.

I take my responsibility to provide advice and consent to the President on his nominees very seriously, and as I have looked into Mr. Pruitt's record, one thing has become abundantly clear. Scott Pruitt doesn't work for you. He works for the polluting industries that have bankrolled his political career. His nomination to head the EPA poses significant risk to our Nation's most basic environmental protections.

Protections like the Superfund program, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act have provided a legacy of health and wellness for millions of Americans. And time and time again, Mr. Pruitt has proven untrustworthy as a protector of that legacy.

For that reason, I oppose his nomination as Administrator of the EPA and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to President Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin.

From his days at Goldman Sachs, on the frontlines of developing the very products that brought our economy to its knees, to his reign as chairman of OneWest Bank, quantified by tens of thousands of foreclosures and qualified by years of despair, to his plan to get rich off cash-strapped seniors, to his investments in Sears that stripped pension benefits from low-wage-earners, Mr. Mnuchin made a career out of exploiting the financial turmoil of hard-working American families, never once stopping to consider the impacts of his profiteering on the people of this country.

At every step of the way, Mr. Mnuchin's mantra has been to privatize profits and socialize losses.

While our President spent much of his campaign railing against Goldman Sachs and Wall Street's stranglehold on Washington, it should be lost on no one that Wall Street has the majority vote in this administration. With friends like Mr. Mnuchin and Gary Cohn in high places, the country's largest and most complex financial institutions can rest easy, knowing this administration is firmly committed to their bottom lines. As Treasury Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin will be a chief architect of the GOP's ``Wall Street First'' policy.

Despite his self-described humble beginnings at Goldman Sachs in the 1980s, Mr. Mnuchin was on the frontlines of developing the now-infamous collateralized debt obligations known as CDOs and credit default swaps.

I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by Mr. Mnuchin. He was part of the cadre of corporate raiders that brought our economy to its knees.

In its 2011 report on the great recession that wiped out nearly $13 trillion in household wealth and cost nearly 9 million Americans their jobs, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations described Goldman Sachs' role in the crisis as follows:

Goldman engaged in securitization practices that magnified

risk in the market by selling high risk, poor quality

mortgage products.

It said:

Conflicts of interest related to proprietary investments

led Goldman to conceal its adverse financial interests from

potential investors, sell investors poor quality investments,

and place its final interests before those of its clients. .

. .''

Despite the damage they caused, Mr. Mnuchin never learned his lesson, and, as recently as 2012, he praised these instruments, calling them ``an extremely positive development in terms of being able to finance different parts of the economy and different businesses efficiently.''

Now, after he left Goldman Sachs, Mr. Mnuchin started a hedge fund, Dune Capital, which started investing in an exotic financial instrument called life settlements, which are made up of life insurance policies purchased from cash-strapped seniors. The investor, Mr. Mnuchin's hedge fund, had a plan to pay the premiums on the policies until the seniors died, at which point they would cash in on the insurance claims.

So let's be clear. Under Mr. Mnuchin's plan, the sooner seniors died, the more money his hedge fund would make. While the markets for

this product collapsed before Mr. Mnuchin could cash in, we have to ask ourselves if this is the type of leader whom we want at the helm of our economy? Do we really want a Treasury Secretary who had a plan to get rich off of dying seniors?

That brings us to the end of 2008 and early 2009. Wall Street had brought our economy to the brink of collapse, and 13.2 million Americans were facing unemployment. Home values were plummeting, having fallen 12.5 percent in just one quarter. And where was Mr. Mnuchin? He was negotiating the deal of a lifetime. In the darkest days of the financial crisis, when Rome was burning, Mr. Mnuchin and his friends were looking for stores to raid.

Boy, did they find a gem in IndyMac. He purchased IndyMac's $23.5 billion of assets for a mere $1.55 billion in March of 2009. With the FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance entity backing, its too many loans went south. So he had a governmental guarantee for $23.5 billion of assets for about $1.5 billion, and he had the government's guarantee. All that Mr. Mnuchin had to do was to agree to help homeowners struggling with their mortgages, but Mr. Mnuchin didn't hold up his end of the bargain. He wanted more. Apparently, the profit margins of foreclosure were just too sweet to ignore.

After buying IndyMac and renaming it OneWest Bank, Mr. Mnuchin was installed as chairman. But instead of working to achieve sustainable loan modifications and workouts for struggling borrowers, as Mr. Mnuchin had committed to doing, OneWest's business model centered on kicking borrowers out of their homes at the first sign of default.

In April of 2011, the former Office of Thrift Supervision hit OneWest Bank with a consent order because the bank was actually putting homeowners on a fast track to foreclosure, robo-signing foreclosure documents.

In a sworn deposition in 2009, a OneWest vice president admitted to robo-signing 750 foreclosure documents a week without ever reading or reviewing them. In 2014, an independent government review of OneWest's foreclosure activities in 2009 and 2010 alone identified more than 10,000 homeowners, including dozens of active-duty servicemembers, who were owed $8.5 million in damages due to the bank's foreclosure practices.

OneWest's practices were especially egregious when it came to seniors with reverse mortgage loans. During Mr. Mnuchin's tenure at the bank, OneWest's reverse mortgage subsidiary, Financial Freedom, had approximately 17 percent of the reverse mortgage shares but was responsible for nearly 40 percent of reverse mortgage foreclosures. In other words, Mr. Mnuchin cornered the market on focusing and foreclosing on seniors in America. Whether it was foreclosing on a 90- year-old woman over a 27-cent--27-cent--missed payment or threatening to kick an 84-year-old widow out of her home of 54 years, Mr. Mnuchin was ruthless.

What did Mr. Mnuchin have to say about all of this when we asked him during his confirmation hearing in the Senate Finance Committee? He dodged responsibility at every step. First he blamed IndyMac for the quality of mortgage loans; then he blamed government regulations, which he falsely claimed forced his bank to kick people out of their homes. If that wasn't enough, Mr. Mnuchin had the audacity to tell us that his bank did not robo-sign documents despite clear evidence to the contrary.

To make matters worse, Mr. Mnuchin had the gall to call OneWest a loan modification machine. He repeatedly misled the committee that OneWest provided more than 100,000 loan modifications when, in fact, they modified less than one-quarter of that amount.

On top of misleading the committee, Mr. Mnuchin has been unwilling to provide information on the number of borrowers who lost their homes during the time that he ran the bank. We believe that number is at least 60,000 families and seniors, but those numbers could even be higher.

At the end of the day, this is about much more than numbers. It is about the seniors who are barely hanging on to their homes--their only source of wealth. It is about communities that were hit with a one-two punch of subprime loans in the years leading up to the crisis, only to face banks like OneWest with unrelenting foreclosure practices that stopped at nothing until they had kicked people out of their homes.

It is about people like Sylvia Oliver of Scotch Plains, NJ. After her employer cut her hours in 2009, like so many other hardworking Americans at the time, she ran into difficulty paying her mortgage. Despite the fact that Ms. Oliver found a full-time job and applied eight--eight--times for loan modifications, Mr. Mnuchin's bank denied each and every one of her applications. Ms. Oliver has been fighting to save her home for 7 years. She is hanging on by a thread. Her own words speak volumes about Mr. Mnuchin. She said:

It's been very painful and stressful not knowing if my kids

and my family are going to have a home to live in, or if it's

going to be foreclosed on. I would ask you to remember my

experience when you consider whether Mr. Mnuchin is qualified

to lead the Department of the Treasury. As the CEO and Chair

of OneWest Bank, Mr. Mnuchin had the opportunity to help

families like mine with responsible loan modifications, and

he didn't. I don't think this is a track record that anybody

should be proud of.

Ms. Oliver is right. Mr. Mnuchin's record is not only undeserving of pride, it is shameful. While Mr. Mnuchin's business formula proved toxic for tens of thousands of hard-working American families and seniors, it was incredibly lucrative for Mr. Mnuchin and OneWest's investors. He sold OneWest for $3.4 billion, a profit of $1.85 billion over just 6 years, making around $200 million for himself. That is a pretty nice return on investment.

While I am gravely concerned about Mr. Mnuchin's history of exploiting hard-working Americans to line his own pockets, I am equally concerned about his plan to unchain Wall Street. Mr. Mnuchin has made it his No. 1 priority to roll back Wall Street reform.

As my friend Senator Brown has often said, our colleagues seem to have contracted a case of collective amnesia about the great recession. Just 8.5 years after the worst financial collapse in 80 years, which put taxpayers on the line for billions in bailouts, the President, Republicans in Congress, and Mr. Mnuchin are champing at the bit to take down the very protections that were put in place to prevent another catastrophe. I ask them, Have we learned nothing?

We know what this administration wants. It wants what the industry wants. On the day the President signed his ``Wall Street First'' Executive order, Goldman Sachs' shares soared 4.6 percent, a $4 billion gain. At the end of the day, Mr. Mnuchin is nominated to serve in a position to ensure the financial stability of the American economy, but his only experience is betting on the financial instability of American families.

Not only did he profit off the backs of struggling homeowners, he also stands to profit off of pensions he mismanaged while on the board of the Sears company. From the time Mr. Mnuchin joined the board of Sears, the company lost billions of dollars, including more than $8 billion since 2011 alone. Rather than invest in growth and its workers, he decided to strip the company of its most valuable assets and keep them for themselves and their friends.

While Sears seemed to lose in this transaction, there were some that certainly appeared to profit. Not surprisingly, Mr. Mnuchin and his hedge fund friends were those profiteers. As a shareholder lawsuit contended, they gobbled up the most valuable and profitable assets, and they saved golden parachutes for themselves to escape if the company crashed. This might sound complicated, but it is a move that would make Gordon Gecko from the movie ``Wall Street'' proud. Just replace Bluestar Airlines with Sears, and fiction becomes reality. In the world of both men, greed is good.

But this isn't a movie. It is the real world with real-life consequences for 200,000 people who work at Sears. Stripping Sears of $12 billion worth of its most valuable assets contributed to the devaluation of the company, which further jeopardized the pensions of more than 200,000 Americans. According to the most recent filing, this pension fund is now underfunded by an alarming $2 billion after they stripped $12 billion of its most valuable assets. These retirees, who rely on pensions to live, who worked hard all of their lives and played by the rules, have already

had their benefits cut by Mr. Mnuchin and the Sears finance board. In fact, the pension situation has become so dire that the government, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or the PBGC, felt compelled to step in to protect the pension benefits for these 200 people.

As if his past mismanagement of pensions isn't bad enough, as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would oversee the decision whether to bail out the pension. Mr. Mnuchin would have to decide whether to protect his personal hedge fund investments in Sears, which he refuses to divest, or to protect the Federal Government and those 200,000 retirees.

To be fair, when I asked Mr. Mnuchin about his inherent conflict of interest during his confirmation hearing, he pledged to recuse himself from any decision by the PBGC regarding Sears. But we have heard that song before. Mr. Mnuchin can't avoid a conflict of interest by recusing himself any more than President Trump can avoid a conflict by supposedly letting his children run his businesses. The only true firewall against a potential conflict of interest is through a full divestiture, which Mr. Mnuchin refuses to do. As a private citizen and executive at Sears, Mr. Mnuchin showed a total disregard for the earned pension benefits of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans. I have no reason to think he will have a change of heart as Treasury Secretary.

Not only does Mr. Mnuchin want to let banks write their own rules and let executives profit when they cut pensions, but he also wants to cut taxes on the rich so he and his friends can keep more of their ill- gotten gains. After helping raise millions of dollars from Wall Street and big corporations for President Trump's campaign, they are now expecting a big return on their investment--and, boy, do they win big league under the Mnuchin-Trump tax plan. This ill-conceived proposal would give large corporations, which are already earning record profits, an additional $2.5 trillion. That is $2.5 trillion taken away from transportation, from schools, from the middle class, and given directly to multinational corporations. It would eliminate the estate tax and gift taxes, giving a nearly $200 billion windfall to the wealthiest 5,000 family dynasties in the country--$200 billion to the wealthiest 5,000 family dynasties in the country--and 99.99 percent of all Americans will not see a penny from this giveaway. But we know who would benefit: Mr. Mnuchin and President Trump.

It doesn't stop there. On top of all of this, the Mnuchin-Trump proposal would also give the top one-tenth of 1 percent--the wealthiest of the wealthy, the corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers who make around $4 million per year or more--$1 million back each and every year. This group of elite earners already take home a whopping 184 times the average pay and has the same combined net worth as nearly 90 percent of all American workers. These 160,000 of the richest families in the country have as much wealth as 144 million families in America.

I have nothing against wealthy people. I have nothing against millionaires and billionaires. Many worked hard for their money, and they played by the rules. I applaud their success. But I don't think the wealthy, who are doing just fine right now, need an extra million dollars or more than the middle class. I don't think we should be borrowing trillions more from China just to give the top one-tenth of 1 percent another million dollars. This is fundamentally backward.

They say we can't afford to invest in infrastructure, we can't afford to help our graduates with mounting college debt, we can't afford to give a whole host of resources to things we think are critical to compel our Nation to be the continuing global economic leader, but we can afford to give $1 million away to all the millionaires and billionaires in the country. This warped order of priorities is a perfect metaphor for Mr. Mnuchin's school of economics: Give the rich more and more because they know best.

Unfortunately, this theory of trickle-down economics hasn't worked in the past and will not work now. The American people are sick and tired of getting fleeced. They are tired of working hard every day and playing by the rules only to fall further behind. They are tired of losing in a rigged system.

But a Treasury Department led by Mr. Mnuchin will only deliver more of the same: more tax breaks for the wealthiest in the country, more borrowing from China, more income inequality. These are not the principles Americans want or need.

In conclusion, you can tell a lot about a person based on how they handle a crisis. When Wall Street crashed and the country plunged into recession, where was Mr. Mnuchin? Was he warning regulators that they were asleep at the wheel and hard-working Americans were being exploited? Was he working to reform the broken system? No. He was looking for stores to raid with one goal in mind: profits.

Some would like to either ignore or whitewash this past, but if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. The American people cannot afford a repeat of that past. We cannot afford a return to the Wild West of Wall Street--when the middle class was held hostage to the earnings reports of the biggest banks, when the cure for income inequality was simply more tax cuts for the wealthy.

We need a Treasury Secretary who will stand up to Wall Street, not take orders from them. We need a Treasury Secretary who understands that the strength of our country has come and will always come from the middle class, not from the CEOs and the hedge funds. Unfortunately, Mnuchin is not that person.

I urge may colleagues to oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak on the nomination of Congressman Price to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But before I do, I must speak to the decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just decided in the case of the State of Washington and the State of Minnesota v. the President and the Department of Homeland Security.

I am pleased to see that the courts of the United States are still part of the separate coequal branch of government that the Founders dictated when they ultimately created an ingenious document, the Constitution of the United States, which served the Nation well for so long, even though it seems the President may need a review of history and an understanding of the Constitution as it relates to the separate coequal branches of government, because he seems to be willing to try to disparage the judiciary in an effort to try to either effect their decisionmaking or to call into question the legality of their decisions or the righteousness of their decisions.

I am glad to see that that has not affected our judicial system. I just want to read some elements of the court's decision, which I think are pretty extraordinary. Of course, this is far from a final decision on the merits, but it was on a motion for a stay of the order of the district court that said, basically, that the Muslim ban could not be continued to be enforced.

The court said--and I am quoting--in a unanimous opinion which speaks very powerfully to their decision:

We therefore conclude that the States--

Meaning the State that brought forth--Washington, as well as the State of Minnesota--

that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary

interests traceable to the Executive Order. The necessary

connection can be drawn in at most two very logical steps:

(1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries

from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some

of these people will not enter state universities, some of

them will not join those universities as faculty, some will

be prevented from performing research, and some will not be

permitted to return if they leave.

We therefore hold that the States have standing.

That was one of the critical legal bars.

Secondly, they opined on the reviewability of the Executive order. This is, I think, extraordinarily important. The Court went on to say-- I am paraphrasing at this point: Yes, the courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches--legislative and executive. But it went further to say:

Instead, the Government has taken the position--

This is on behalf of the executive branch--

that the President's decisions about immigration policy,

particularly when motivated by national security concerns,

are unreviewable--

Unreviewable--

even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional

rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it

violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain

a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this

one.

I did not really capture that the government had made that argument. But that is an extraordinary argument. The court went on to say:

There is no precedent to support this claimed

unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental

structure of our constitutional democracy. Within our system,

it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty

that will sometimes require the ``[r]esolution of litigation

challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three

branches.'' We are called upon to perform that duty in this

case.

Further they say: ``Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.''

That is an extraordinary set of statements that the government made, saying that the President's actions are unreviewable in this regard.

They further go on to say: ``Nonetheless, `courts are not powerless to review the political branches' actions' with respect to matters of national security.''

It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile.

Well, I fully agreed with the circuit court's determination in that regard.

It goes on to say: ``In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President's policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the Federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.''

Well, all I can say is, thank God. Thank God that the courts of the United States feel that they are not controlled by the executive branch in pursuing the decisions that are made. This is a great day for democracy in our country and for the preservation of the separation of powers. This is a great day, I think, from my own perspective, that a ban that does not help the United States but harms us and is against every fiber of our being and the nature of the history of our Nation, which was founded by those fleeing religious persecution--ultimately, today, we restore that sense of our history, and we restore who we are as a nation both at home and across the world.

But today's decisions in this regard are also important as we consider the nomination of Congressman Price, so I want to rise today, along with so many of my colleagues, to voice my strong opposition to the confirmation of Congressman Price to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I am deeply concerned about his views on what is the core mission of Health and Human Services, not only his career-long opposition to the very existence of Medicaid and Medicare but his wavering fidelity in science and his regressive views of women's health care and the social safety net.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is one of the few Cabinet positions that affect virtually every single man, woman, and child in America. It affects the health care of 56 million seniors on Medicare, of 74 million low-income individuals and children on Medicaid, and of 12 million Americans who have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act coverage. But more than that, the Department of Health and Human Services is home to the world's leading institutions of research at the National Institutes of Health, of advancing public health and epidemiology at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, known worldwide, of working to ensure that we have access to the most advanced, most effective, and safest medications at the Food and Drug Administration, and many other critical departments and agencies that we as Americans rely on.

Many of our Republican colleagues have pointed out that Congressman Price's history as an orthopedic surgeon is enough evidence that he is someone who should be in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services. I can't speak to his credentials and qualifications in the operating room, but I do have a constitutional obligation to speak about his credentials and qualifications to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. So I can say without hesitation that his career in Congress and his positions on key issues of policy have proven to me that he is not the right person for the job.

Throughout his time as a congressman--most recently as the chairman of the House Budget Committee and during his confirmation process through the Senate Finance Committee, on which I am privileged to serve--it has become abundantly clear that Congressman Price views patients, including seniors on Medicare and even those with private employer coverage, as nothing more than a source of revenue or a budget line item. The characteristics that had defined Congressman Price's career run contrary--contrary--to the fundamental mission of the Department of Health and Human Services, and it should be a cause for concern across the aisle and across the country.

Despite the alternative reality portrayed during his confirmation hearings in both the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Congressman Price's vision for our Nation's health

care system has been laid bare for the public to see for years. All one has to do is look at the legislation he has introduced and the radical budget proposals he, along with Speaker Ryan, has been pushing through the House of Representatives. Let's look at some of them.

Let's start by taking a look at his plan for Medicare, which is, by all intents and purposes, a plan to fundamentally end Medicare as we know it, end Medicare as we know it. Despite Congressman Price's seeming denial of this fact, when I asked him about it directly during his confirmation hearing, there is absolutely no other way to characterize his plan: It ends Medicare as we know it.

Currently and for more than 50 years, Medicare has provided a guarantee--a guarantee; that word is critical--to seniors that they will have coverage, access to care, and the ability to rest assured that their health care needs will be taken care of. It is a system into which they paid their entire working lives and a compact that has been made with the Federal Government that we will uphold our end of the deal and ensure that they have quality coverage to stay healthy.

The Affordable Care Act, despite the years-long gnashing of teeth and fake tears shed by some of my Republican colleagues, has improved upon this deal and made Medicare stronger. It has extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by more than a decade. It has saved seniors $27 billion on prescription drugs and last year alone provided more than 40 million seniors access to no-cost preventive services--no-cost preventive services. In my home State of New Jersey last year, seniors on Medicare saved more than $263 million on prescription drugs, and nearly 1 million seniors were able to receive free preventive services.

Additionally, thanks to the law's health care delivery system reforms, we are seeing far fewer hospital-acquired conditions and greater coordination of care that has resulted in a healthier population and a more efficient health care delivery system. That reality stands in stark contrast to Tom Price's vision of what he thinks Medicare should be and in stark contrast with the vast majority of seniors who want to protect the program for their loved ones and for themselves.

Unfortunately, President Trump, who himself spent an entire campaign promising that he is ``not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,'' nominated a leading member of this radical anti-Medicare movement to impose devastating cuts to the program, force seniors to pay higher costs, and lower the quality of care throughout the health care system.

Congressman Price's destructive legislative history on Medicare does not lie. It is there. It is in the record. It is there for anybody who wants to see it. It tells a stark truth about his desire to increase the eligibility age, about ending the guarantee--the guarantee of coverage.

You know, that is why we call it an entitlement. If you meet the criteria under the law, you are entitled to those health care services; you are guaranteed those health care services. But his whole legislative history is about ending the guarantee of coverage we currently have and replacing it with the possibility of coverage. The difference between a guarantee and a possibility is a far, far too significant gulf to be able to overcome--but only if you can afford the difference between Congressman Price's coupon and the actual cost of care under his vision. The Congressional Budget Office has shown that this will unquestionably increase costs for seniors.

His dark view of Medicare, that--to quote Congressman Price-- ``nothing has a greater negative impact on . . . health care than the Federal Government's intrusion . . . through Medicare''--that is an extraordinary statement. I am going to quote it again. ``Nothing has a greater negative impact on . . . health care than the Federal Government's intrusion''--intrusion, mind you--``through Medicare.'' That is understandably causing a lot of concern back home in New Jersey. Many people have been calling and writing me to express their thoughts.

Dr. William Thar of Summit, NJ, himself a retired physician of more than 50 years, wrote in that Price's ``willingness to privatize Medicare indicates a lack of concern for Americans who need health care coverage.''

I also heard from Cara Davis of Glen Ridge, NJ, who wrote in on behalf of her uncle, who has end-stage renal disease and requires dialysis, saying, ``If [Price] and the Trump administration successfully move Medicare to a voucher program''--again, that is different from a guarantee--``I fear that my uncle will not be able to afford the necessary coverage for his dialysis treatments.''

For me, the battle to protect Medicare is more than a political battle; it is more than a theoretical battle; it is a deeply personal battle to protect a program that allows seniors to live with dignity during the twilight of their lives.

My personal connection to the value of the Medicare Program stems not from my experience but that of my late mother, Evangelina. For 18 long, difficult years, my mother suffered from Alzheimer's disease. During those years, we watched as this strong, courageous woman drifted further and further away from us. After her diagnosis, I, like so many families across our Nation, hoped for the best, but we expected the worst. And while there were times early on when she seemed just fine, those times turned into lost moments, and those lost moments eventually lasted forever.

At this point, I had to wonder if all the moments of her life--her struggle to flee her homeland and seek freedom in the United States, of my youth and all of the time spent together--were still in there, still with her somehow, or whether those memories were lost forever.

As her illness progressed, she lost her cognitive abilities, and eventually we had to admit to ourselves that our mother was no longer with us, until, mercifully, the Good Lord took her, and the long goodbye came to an end.

Throughout this experience, throughout her struggle of fighting back against the progress of Alzheimer's, our family knew that Medicare would be there to provide her with access to the health care she needed. I learned that Medicare wasn't just there for her; it was there for the rest of us, too, providing her with access to care, while granting us the ability to focus on making the most of the limited time we had together.

Medicare was there to meet the challenges of her illness as well as the intergenerational challenges that arise when caring for a parent in the twilight of their lives while simultaneously working to put your own children through college. I lived it, I saw it, and I understand it. My mother would not have lived with the dignity that she deserved in the twilight of her life after working a lifetime and paying for Medicare, but for Medicare as a guarantee.

I know all too well that an underfunded voucher would undermine Medicare's ability to live up to the responsibility that we have to care for one another and to provide that same dignity to seniors as they and their families prepare to say good-bye for the last time.

That is why I couldn't agree with Dr. Thar or Ms. Davis more, and I share their concerns about what Congressman Price has in mind, despite the repeated pledges from President Trump to the contrary for the future of Medicare.

My concerns about Congressman Price don't stop with his desires to end Medicare, because those desires also extend to end Medicaid, as we know it, as well. His desires to end Medicaid are really a two-front war. The first is to repeal the highly successful expansion of Medicaid provided for under the Affordable Care Act, which has extended lifesaving care and coverage to over 200,000 New Jerseyans, many of whom are covered for the first time.

Nationwide, the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion is one of the most successful aspects of health reform. Currently, 32 States and the District of Columbia have taken advantage of Medicaid expansion, making coverage available to 11 million people, because they recognize the value in providing people with coverage, with access to preventive care, with the ability to manage chronic conditions--all of which lead to a healthier, more productive population.

The second is to eviscerate funding from Medicaid by taking away the current funding structure and replacing it

with a block grant or some other form of arbitrary underfunding that they mask as allowing for ``state flexibility.''

We have seen this picture before. Take away an obligation, an entitlement, move it to a block grant, underfund it, and ultimately slay that opportunity for people to have a guarantee.

We all know what is meant when Congressman Price talks about State flexibility. He means the flexibility to slash enrollment and deny people access to coverage. He means forcing States to choose between cutting payments to doctors for treating low-income Medicaid patients or cutting other vital State services like education and infrastructure. He means unraveling Medicaid benefits so that for those few still able to enroll, they won't have adequate coverage for most of the health care issues they need treated. It means simply putting his radical ideological opposition of the Federal Government being involved in health care ahead of the lives of millions of men, women, children, and seniors and the disabled across the Nation. That is truly remarkable for a man who took the oath to ``first do no harm.''

As with his views on Medicare, his desire to end Medicaid expansion has caused a lot of people from New Jersey to write me about their concerns. I would ask Congressman Price and other like-minded Republicans to consider carefully the stress and potentially devastating impacts these policies have on real people--real people like Jolie Bonnette from Brick, NJ, who wrote to me about how she was able to finally gain access to health coverage, thanks to Medicaid expansion. She wrote: ``Without this care and my Medicaid medication coverage, I would have died, because I would have no access to doctors or medications.''

Jill Stasium from Jersey City wrote in saying that thanks to Medicaid, ``[I] have been receiving top quality health care for the first time in my life.''

I ask my colleagues how the mantra of State flexibility, which is just another way of ensuring funding for Medicaid is slashed and access to life-enhancing treatment is denied, is going to impact Ms. Bonnette and Ms. Stasium. I ask how they can justify taking away their coverage--coverage that has provided, for the first time in their lives, not only the peace of mind of having health insurance, but also it is the first time they have had regular access to the doctors and medication necessary to live.

How do we justify that? We can't do it on the basis of State flexibility and surely not on the basis of a 6-year-long political vendetta against the Affordable Care Act. Yet somehow, with this nominee and this Republican Congress, this is something that we are all going to have to justify to every single one of our constituents.

Unfortunately, the list of destructive policies supported by Tom Price doesn't end with his desires to end Medicare as we know it and to dismantle Medicaid. This is also not surprising given the Republican agenda for the last 7 years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, throw millions of Americans off their health insurance, and return us to the dark ages where insurance companies have free rein to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, cancel coverage after a devastating diagnosis, limit what benefits are covered, and discriminate against women. That is what the marketplace was before the Affordable Care Act.

Now, this is not new. The Republicans have been trying to repeal health care reform and deny millions of Americans health care coverage since before the law was even passed. It has sadly become dogma for Republicans--dogma to repeal ObamaCare, which they voted to do 60-some odd times. But now, after 7 long years, the chickens have come home to roost.

They now have the ability to live up to their dream of repealing the law, but are starting to realize what the implications are--starting to realize that real people will face real life-and-death situations that result from Republicans putting partisan ideology ahead of the well- being of their constituents, starting to realize that on-the-ground implications of the Affordable Care Act mean real people receiving real treatment for real health conditions.

One of these people is David Konopacki from South River, NJ. David is a diabetic who, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, no longer has to choose between paying for college and paying for the medication he needs. David put it so succinctly: ``The Affordable Care Act is literally the difference between life and death for so many.''

The same holds true for Mrs. Lori Wilson from Morristown, NJ. Her son, like David, has diabetes and has had diabetes since birth. As she writes, her son ``is just one citizen among millions whose life, literally, depends on access'' to care, and under the Price Republican plan, that access is denied.

I mentioned that repealing the Affordable Care Act means reinstating the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. As diabetics, these folks would find it impossible-- certainly, financially impossible--to find coverage that would allow them to get their medications and see their physicians. That is what is shocking about Tom Price. Despite knowing full well that the ban on preexisting conditions is one of the most widely supported and critically important aspects of the Affordable Care Act, he considers it to be a ``terrible idea.''

Let me say that again. Tom Price's views on health care are so radical that he thinks insuring people with preexisting health conditions--like diabetes from birth--and guaranteed access to coverage is a ``terrible idea.'' That is an extremely callous way to put ideology above people's lives.

Let me close on this. I have spoken about the many reasons I am opposed to Congressman Price's nomination to run the Department of Health and Human Services, including his long-held opposition to Medicare. But above all else, one of the reasons I am opposing Congressman Price is because of the seeming lack of fidelity to the one thing that runs at the heart of health care and the heart of the Health and Human Services Department, which is science.

For years Congressman Price has been a member of a group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. This is a group of so- called doctors who push dangerous conspiracy theories and widely debunked claims that have serious implications for the public health. The prime example of this is their assertion, despite all evidence to the contrary, that vaccines aren't safe and that they cause autism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this week I received a letter signed by 350 organizations, including several from New Jersey and several representing the autism community, restating the fact that ``vaccines are the safest and most cost-effective way of preventing disease, disability, and death'' but unfortunately, because of widespread misinformation, the United States ``still witnesses outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,'' including the biggest outbreak of whooping cough since 1955, and the fact that we have upwards of 50,000 deaths a year from complications of vaccine- preventable influenza.

While Tom Price, personally and as a physician, might understand these basic facts, what worries me most is that the President of the United States does not, posting on Twitter for years that vaccines are dangerous and appointing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists to critical posts in the White House and possibly to key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services.

When I asked Congressman Price directly about his fidelity to science and his willingness to stand up to the President about adhering to science as the guiding principle at the Department of Health and Human Services, his answers were far less than satisfactory, and he left me with the impression that he is unwilling to counter the President when he touts untrue claims about health care and ensure that personnel within HHS are stewards of sound science and not ideology.

For the Department that oversees the Centers for Disease Control, which is the global beacon of health care that must be focused on science, that is simply incredible.

I rise today to give my voice in opposition to Nominee Tom Price as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I rise to be the voice of Dr. William Thar, Cara Davis, Jolie Bonnette, Jill Stasium, David Konopacki, Lori Wilson and the over 6,000 New Jerseyans who have called

and emailed me to vote in opposition to Tom Price's nomination. I will do that when it comes time for a vote.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today as a product of New Jersey public schools, the son of Cuban refugees whose parents decided to leave everything behind because they did not like the dictatorship from the right and did not like what they saw in the Sierra Maestra, as the Castros were seeking to overthrow that government from the right, and who fled their own country in order to seek a better life in the United States.

They were the lucky ones. They saw the handwriting on the wall, and they got out before the true brutality of the Castro regime took hold in Cuba. When they arrived here, they had nothing more than the promise of a brighter future and, if not for them, then for their children.

In so many ways, it is the quintessential immigrant story; indeed, the quintessential American story. My mother worked as a seamstress in the factories of New Jersey. My father was an itinerant carpenter. We didn't have a lot of money--just enough to live in a small apartment in a tenement in Union City and put food on the table. But that was plenty. It was plenty because my parents knew that living in America gave their children access to a free public education, and they always taught us that an education was the key toward a better life.

Growing up, I was a quiet kid. I was very studious. I got good grades, but I struggled with public speaking. I know some of my colleagues wouldn't believe that today, but it is true.

Unfortunately for me, one of the final requirements before I graduated high school was a public speech class. Again, I did all the work, but I refused to actually stand up in front of the class and speak. I thought I could get away with it, but my teacher, Gail Harper, had other ideas.

She kept me after class. After my classmates left, she forced me to recite short stories and poetry and speeches I had written that were part of the classwork. Eventually she told me that I was going to be the narrator in a school production, which meant that I was going to be speaking on stage in front of the entire student body. I was

petrified--petrified. And I was inclined to refuse.

I am not sure if there would have been a more terrifying thought to me in the world than having to get up in front of my entire student body, but Ms. Harper told me that she knew that I could succeed. If I refused, however, she would have no choice but to fail me. And if you knew my late mother, that was not an option.

So I swallowed my fear, and when I got out there, I found that Ms. Harper's work paid off. Not only did I realize that I could overcome all of that fear and anxiety, but it had instilled in me a hunger to keep working, to get better at speaking in front of people, a skill that I honestly owe my life's work to.

For me, Ms. Harper was so much more than a teacher; she was a mentor and one of the unsung heroes of our public education system. And I am privileged to have had an opportunity to tell her that during her lifetime.

Now, thanks to my parents' commitment and incredible public schoolteachers like Ms. Harper, this product of New Jersey public schools went on to get a law degree from Rutgers University, a State institution, and was able to rise from a tenement in Union City to 1 of 100 Senators in a country of over 300 million people.

I got my start in politics fighting for public schools in my hometown. When I was in high school, I was told that because of my grades and my activities, I could be in the senior honors program but that I had to cough up $200 for the books. My parents were poor. We lived in a tenement. I didn't have $200 for the books. And I couldn't understand, for the life of me, if I had the ability and the grades but not the money, that I would be barred from being in the honors program. So I raised such a ruckus that they gave me the books, told me to be quiet, and they put me in the honors program. But I had friends who had the same circumstances; they had the ability and the grades, but they didn't have the money. Unlike me, they didn't say anything, and they didn't get in. So I didn't think that was right.

I petitioned to change the school board from being appointed by the mayor at the time to being elected by the public. Ultimately, I won the fight to change that school board and became the youngest school board member at that time in history when I was 20 years old.

So I understand the promise of public education. I understand the challenges that come with it. I understand the need for parental engagement and the extraordinary impact that good teachers can have on our children's lives.

I understand that our schools need access to adequate resources in order to allow every student to reach their full potential. And I understand that we have a long way to go to ensure that we truly do guarantee every child in America equal access to a high quality public education regardless of where they live, regardless of the happenstance of where they were born, regardless of their station in life.

Most importantly, I understand that our public education system has formed the foundation upon which the American dream has been built for generations. It is the great socializing factor of our Nation, and there is no substitute for it. At its core, it is an all-taker system. It does not care whether you are wealthy or poor, whether your family predates European settlement, came on the Mayflower, or is first- generation American. It does not care whether you are White or Black or Hispanic or Asian or Christian or Jewish or Muslim. It does not care whether you struggle with learning disabilities or autism or Down syndrome.

Our public education system welcomes you with open arms and adheres to the fundamental principles that all are welcome, all are equal, and all deserve a chance to learn and earn a better life for themselves and their families.

While we work to improve public education and renew our commitment to our children, we need a partner in the Federal Department of Education that also understands these challenges and shares our values. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Betsy DeVos is that candidate.

While I do not question her intentions, her limited experience and advocacy for policies that fundamentally undermine public education make her unqualified to be the Secretary of Education.

Mrs. DeVos has never participated in the public education system that she would be tasked with overseeing either as a student or a parent or a teacher or an administrator. I don't see that fact in and of itself alone as disqualifying but, coupled with the policies that she has advocated for in her home State of Michigan--pushing for more charter schools while simultaneously working against accountability for them, even as they profit off the backs of children while showing little improvement in student outcomes; advocating for voucher schemes that put public funding into private schools even for families that do not need the additional assistance, while depriving public schools of vital funding that they depend upon to provide a quality education to every student--it becomes clear that Mrs. DeVos does not understand that fundamental commitment to American children.

My concerns about Mrs. DeVos were compounded by the answers she gave in her confirmation hearing before the HELP Committee. Guns have no place in our schools--at least in my view--except in the hands of trained law enforcement personnel tasked with keeping our children safe, yet when asked if she would do away with gun-free school zones, if told to do so by the President, Mrs. DeVos, after trying to avoid the question with a nonanswer about grizzly bears attacking schools, said she would ``support the President.''

I do not believe that it is the role of a Cabinet Secretary to simply and blindly support the President, regardless of how misguided or dangerous an idea might be, nor do I believe that it is reasonable or responsible to make it easier to bring guns in and around schools, where they endanger our children. We must do a better job of securing universal background checks and treating mental health issues, but more guns is not the answer.

Mrs. DeVos also said in her testimony that she believed that compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should be left up to the States. IDEA, as the act is known, guarantees a ``free, appropriate public education'' that is individualized to meet the needs of every student with disabilities.

When Congress first passed IDEA in 1975--though it was called then the Education for All Handicapped Children Act--it came with a promise that the Federal Government would cover 40 percent of the cost to educate those with special needs. Unfortunately, we have not met that obligation, providing less than half of that funding in recent history.

IDEA is Federal--not State--law. It is Federal law that needs increased funding and attention from the Federal Government. And when this was pointed out to Mrs. DeVos, she said simply that she ``may have been confused.''

Our children with disabilities deserve a real Federal partner that understands the challenges they face and is committed to getting them the resources they deserve, not a Secretary of Education who is confused about the Federal role in education.

These are only a few examples of how Mrs. DeVos has shown herself to be unprepared and unqualified for the very serious position to which she has been nominated.

If confirmed, Mrs. DeVos would take over a multibillion-dollar Federal student aid and student loan program that helps American families afford the skyrocketing cost of higher education.

I, myself, was a recipient of Pell grants and other Federal student aid and would not have been able to afford the cost of a college degree without them. Yet not only does Mrs. DeVos have no experience with student loans or managing such a program, she has very little, if any, engagement with any policy issues pertaining to higher education.

At a time when trillions of dollars of student debt are acting as a barrier to obtaining a higher education, hindering a generation of graduates from entering the middle class, and acting as a drag on our economy, we deserve a nominee who understands these issues.

As we continue to struggle with the best ways to measure student progress and achievement, we deserve a Secretary of Education who understands basic concepts like the difference between proficiency and growth.

So let me just say, my own experiences have given me an incredible faith

in the power of public education systems, while Mrs. DeVos has worked only to undermine them. I believe that the Federal Government can be a strong partner in ensuring a free, quality public education for all students, especially those with disabilities, while Mrs. DeVos seems to think that the Federal Government should not be involved in these endeavors.

I believe that guns must remain out of our schools, but Mrs. DeVos seemed to indicate that they could have a place there. Most importantly, I believe that our students, parents, teachers, and educators should be able to trust the person tasked with overseeing them. And the 50,000 New Jerseyans who have reached out to me to oppose her nomination have clearly shown that she has not earned that trust.

Here is one example of a constituent who reached out to my office.

Dear Senator,

My name is Beth More and I live in your great State of New

Jersey in Fanwood in Union County. I am writing today to

express my deep opposition to the appointment of Betsy DeVos

as Secretary of Education. As a mother of two boys in our

public school system, and one with special needs, I am deeply

concerned and troubled by Mrs. DeVos's lack of public school

experience. In fact, the thought of her steering money and

funding away from public schools is not only a threat to my

children, but a threat to the 50 million other children

currently receiving a public education. She lacks

understanding in even the most basic issues that affect our

schools, and that, my Senator, is scary. I urge you to

strongly oppose this and tell your other colleagues in the

Senate the same.

So I implore my colleagues to put politics aside, to examine Mrs. DeVos's qualifications closely, and to be open to the input that you all are receiving from your own constituents, like Beth More.

I hope that if you are open in your mind in that regard, you will oppose Betsy DeVos's nomination to be Secretary of Education, as I will.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Gen. John F. Kelly to be Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a tremendously important position, especially in these dangerous and uncertain times, and it requires a highly qualified nominee who will be able to handle one of the most complex positions here in Washington, DC. After his impressive career and nomination hearing, few would question that he has the knowledge and the skill to lead the agency.

He has years of experience working with our neighbors in Latin America as former commander of U.S. Southern Command, where he saw firsthand the drivers of the unaccompanied minors crisis. In his testimony, he outlined what he saw as the root causes of migration, including people fleeing violence and seeking asylum within the United States.

Yet the position requires more than experience, it requires a true understanding of the issues and how they affect the men and women we are all sworn to serve. It is in this aspect that I have lingering concerns.

Anyone running DHS must be able to prioritize their resources in the apprehension, detention, and removal of undocumented immigrants. On November 20, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security outlined how scarce Federal resources would be allocated in enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. The memo focused resources on threats to national security, threats to national safety, and threats to border security, while deemphasizing law-abiding immigrants who have integrated themselves into society. I have been generally supportive of this prioritization, as I believe that Federal resources should be spent on enforcement actions against serious criminals.

On day one as Secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly will have to address this. I hope he will recognize the wisdom of keeping families together, protecting children and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals DACA Program and focus on deporting serious criminals and those who truly pose a threat to our national security. This focus isn't about being liberal or conservative but is a smart and humane approach to enforcement of our immigration laws.

General Kelly will have to grapple with the realities of our immigration system. As Secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly will be tasked with the critical duty of maintaining our southwest borders. We have heard

promises by the President-elect to build a wall that would cost taxpayers $25 billion; yet a wall will not secure the border or stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country. General Kelly himself noted that a wall alone is not enough. I hope that General Kelly will recognize that $25 billion is better spent trying to reduce factors that drive people to the United States.

After speaking to General Kelly and listening to his testimony, I am cautiously optimistic that this is a nominee who understands the issues that will be in front of a Homeland Security Secretary. Ultimately, to truly understand the issues, General Kelly will need an ongoing dialog with those such as myself who care deeply about fixing our immigration system. As my colleagues are aware, my record of standing up for immigrants is clear from years of work on comprehensive immigration reform. General Kelly should hear the stories about those with loved ones who have been torn from their homes and sent back to a country they no longer have a connection with. He should talk to those young immigrants who are American in every way except for a piece of paper who have come out of the shadows, registered with the government, and applied for DACA and fear being deported under this new administration. He should hear from parents who have U.S. citizen children and have lived in this country for over a decade and live with the constant threat of being separated from their children.

I will support the nomination of General Kelly to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, I plan on using every procedural and legislative tool to push back against any deportation force or policies that indiscriminately separate families, targets DREAMers, and generate fear in our immigrant communities.

Mr, JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am honored to speak today in support of Gen. John Kelly's nomination to be America's fifth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

We would be hard pressed to find an individual who is better suited to this challenge, in these perilous times.

General Kelly served this Nation for 45 years as a proud marine. He commanded the finest among us during three tours in Iraq. He rose to the rank of four-star general. And tragically, he became the most senior military officer to lose a child in combat when his son, Marine 2nd. Lt. Robert Kelly, was killed in November of 2010 in Afghanistan.

As a four star general and a Gold Star parent, General Kelly has served and sacrificed--he knows the price of freedom.

Perhaps the best way to describe the man we should confirm today is to use his own words given in testimony before our committee:

``I am humbled to once again be called to serve, this time with the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security.

As I solemnly swore before God when I entered the Marine Corps, if confirmed, I will faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic--every second of every day.

I believe in America and the principles upon which our country and way of life are guaranteed. I believe in respect, tolerance, and diversity of opinion. I have a profound respect for the rule of law and will always strive to uphold it. I have never had a problem speaking truth to power, and I firmly believe that those in power deserve full candor and my honest assessment and recommendations.

I love my country, and I will do everything within my power to preserve our liberty, enforce our laws, and protect our citizens. I recognize the many challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security--and should I be confirmed--I look forward to partnering with you all to protect the homeland.''

Colleagues, we are fortunate to have a man of such high caliber who is willing to once again answer the call of duty. I urge all of you to support his confirmation today.

Madam President, this is not an amendment to protect the elderly and disabled. It guts Medicaid's opportunity by going into a block grant or per capita cut that would sharply cut Federal funding over time and eliminate the States' flexibility to innovate.

Instead, this proposal only gives States flexibility to make draconian cuts, leaving millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities who rely on Medicaid without the access to needed health care. Instead of the State-Federal partnership that gives States broad flexibility to run their programs but do so with Federal minimum standards that are important consumer protections like mental health parity, early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and testing for children, and network adequacy protection will go to block grants.

Do you know what happens when there is no more entitlement and you go to a block grant? You cut the block grant, and before you know it, you have no Medicaid.

This is not protecting seniors, children, and the disabled. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates Section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.