Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes and delay the vote until 5:25 p.m., until the completion of my remarks.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Presiding Officer's forbearance and also the cooperation always of the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Crapo. We had a good hearing today on reinsurance and on European Union issues on insurance regulation. I appreciated the work we were able to do there and the work we are doing on Russian sanctions, which is increasingly important, as we see, as the clear links between Russia and the American elections are becoming clearer. The links are becoming clearer and clearer to Senators in both parties.

I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jay Clayton to the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have seen this movie before, where we nominate someone to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission who starts off almost handcuffed with their hands behind their back because he has--as did his predecessor--far too many conflicts of interest, far too many demands for recusal, far too many cases he has worked on.

We hear of a President who talks about draining the swamp, who wants regulators and people in Washington who don't have conflicts of interest and who can look at this in a fairminded, clear-eyed way. Instead, we see a White House that is full of Goldman Sachs former officials. In fact, the White House on some days looks like a retreat of Goldman Sachs executives. That is a long way from clearing the swamp.

What we are seeing in the case of Mr. Clayton--and we had a good meeting with him, and I thought his testimony was pretty good--is that he is smart, he is educated, he knows these issues well, but he is going to have to recuse himself because of conflicts with UBS, Deutsche Bank, and Goldman Sachs. He has worked on so many of these cases as a Wall Street lawyer for so many years that at this Securities and Exchange Commission--where the President still hasn't appointed a Democrat, which really he is supposed to do but hasn't seemed to have gotten around to it--that we are going to see all kinds of opportunities for mischief, we are going to see all kinds of delays and tie votes, and we will see an inability for the SEC to operate when they should.

I oppose the confirmation of Jay Clayton. I think he is capable, but he will not serve this country well. He will not keep corporations and, especially, banks honest on all kinds of corporate governance issues. He will not be as supportive of the investor public because of these recusals and conflicts that he faces. I think it is a bad idea, again. I opposed the previous Democratic nominee for this job because she had far too many recusals and conflicts that she had to do. I think this is a mistake to do this again.

I ask my colleagues to vote no, to oppose the confirmation of Jay Clayton to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Congressman Steve Stivers, and congratulate him on his promotion to brigadier general in the Ohio National Guard.

Steve has served our State and our Nation in uniform for more than three decades. When his guard unit was called up in 2005, he served our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His leadership earned him the Bronze Star, and his service and sacrifice earned him the honor of a grateful nation.

But Steve hasn't been content to only serve in uniform--he is working to support his fellow soldiers in Congress. He and I have worked together to make sure that servicemembers who suffer traumatic brain injuries have their medical records given from the DOD to the VA. We are working to designate the new Ohio veterans Museum in Columbus as the National Veterans Museum.

As persuasive as Steve is, he is nothing compared to his mother. A few years ago, Steve's mother, Carol, brought to my attention the need to preserve the Parker House--a way station on the Underground Railroad located in Ripley, OH. She wanted to incorporate it into the National Park System.

I worked with Steve, who of course couldn't say no to his mother, and others in the Ohio delegation, including Joyce Beatty, to preserve this house where a freed slave worked and helped others find their way to freedom. This January, the National Park Service award $50,000 to the Ohio History Connection to help preserve the sites throughout Ohio that played critical roles in the civil rights movement, including the Parker House.

Steve is not the only member of our delegation to carry on the proud tradition of Ohioans serving our Nation in uniform. I would also like to congratulate my friend Brad Wenstrup on his promotion to colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Brad also served a tour in Iraq as a combat surgeon. He was awarded a Bronze Star and a Combat Action Badge and earned the honor and gratitude of all Ohioans. It is not just overseas where Brad serves our troops. He fulfills his Reserve duties, treating our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, and fights to ensure our servicemembers and veterans have the support they deserve on the House Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Whether it is supporting our State's civil rights heritage or supporting our troops, Brad and Steve have always been dedicated public servants for Ohio. They are both so deserving of these promotions. We thank them and their entire families--Steve's wife, Karen, and children Sarah and Sam, and Brad's wife, Monica, and son Brad, Jr.--for their sacrifice for our country.

Mr. President, nearly 70 years ago today, the United States and 11 other nations--in the face of Soviet aggression--joined together in mutual defense to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Since its inception, NATO has expanded to 28 member nations. The breadth of its mission is impressive--from ensuring regional stability and combating terrorism to training partner countries and supporting humanitarian aid. While NATO was founded to ensure Western peace and stability in the face of the Cold War, its work has come to encompass all corners and peoples of the globe.

NATO is more important than ever today in deterring regional conflict The U.S. must stand by its ironclad commitment to NATO's security and solidarity as Russian President Vladimir Putin flouts international law and exerts Russian aggression around the world, from meddling in our own election to the illegal annexation of Crimea.

Our NATO allies need our support. I applaud Operation Atlantic Resolve, which coordinates the deployment of additional NATO troops to our allies in Eastern Europe. I also commend other U.S. efforts that support our NATO allies, like the European Reassurance Initiative. These play an essential role in bolstering our force readiness in the region to deter Russian aggression and demonstrate our commitment to the common cause and democratic principles that NATO embodies.

American support for NATO is and must remain steadfast. The nearly unanimous vote in the Senate ratifying Montenegro's accession to be a member state is evidence of this well-established, deeply founded support.

Ukraine's stated intention to achieve the criteria for joining NATO, too, is testament to the organization's renewed importance in our deterrence policy in the region.

While the sentiment of NATO's article 5--``an attack on one is an attack on all''--helped guide the U.S. stably through the Cold War, NATO has remained a relevant source of stength for the international community, beyond regional deterrence. Since 1999, when NATO identified the risk international terrorism posed for member nations, the organization has remained a steadfast resource in the fight against terrorism. In fact, the only instance in which article 5 was invoked was in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then, NATO has helped ensure freedom of navigation in waters plagued by piracy, helped train Iraqi security forces counter improvised explosive devices, commanded counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan for more than a decade, provided support for Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, and innumerable other contributions. As threats to member nations evolved in the 21st century, NATO demonstrated its ability to adapt.

NATO showed the power of strength through solidarity, not only for its member nations, but also for its dozens of partner nations around the globe. The power of NATO's partnerships lends strength to the global community as a whole, better equipping regions of the world to respond when disaster strikes. Programs like NATO's Centres of Excellence help partner countries fight corruption, piracy, and terrorism and collaborate to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction and other arms. By serving as a resource for nonmember countries, NATO not only strengthens the resolve of the international community to strife and instability, but also serves as a beacon for democratic values like gender equality and rule of law.

Finally, NATO has long served as a force for human rights. It was central to ending the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, and it helped bring an end to violence in Kosovo in 1999. NATO has served as a vital resource assisting with the waves of refugees escaping from violence and atrocity in Syria, and the organization has been at the frontlines to combat international human trafficking.

NATO plays a critical role in combatting increased Russian aggression, but its mission is much broader than that. The world is a safer place thanks to NATO, from stemming regional conflicts, to assisting partners around the world. It serves as an indispensable, indisputable resource for the international community. As we celebrate the anniversary of this pivotal organization today, we must remain committed to its successful future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes--1 for Senator Donnelly, 1 for Senator Casey, and 1 for me. I thank Senator Boozman for the time to talk for 3 minutes on the mine workers healthcare law.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise today on the seventh anniversary of the tragedy of the Big Branch Mine, where 29 mine workers were killed. There is no better way to ask this Senate to do the right thing on extending healthcare for mine workers permanently.

We have seen far too many times where mine workers in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and all over this country, the retired mine workers or their widows get a letter in the mail saying their healthcare is about to be canceled. We kick the can down the road for 3 or 4 months at a time. That is not acceptable.

It is up to this Senate this month to make sure that we fix this once and for all so that mine workers who did so much for their communities and their families and their country can be assured that they will have healthcare for the rest of their lives as President Truman promised.

Mr. President, I always appreciate the remarks--the well- thought-through remarks of my colleague, and the history lesson putting it into context is always so important and something we should do more of in this body.

I thank Senator Bennet for his words.

The Supreme Court, as we know, has tremendous influence over the lives of our country, the lives of Ohioans, my State, and the lives of so many. Nominees must defend the rights of all Americans to make their own healthcare decisions, to collectively bargain for safe workplaces and fair pay, and to be protected from discrimination and Wall Street greed.

Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch is simply not that nominee. His record is clear. He has ruled that corporations are people. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that it is a relatively recent concept in American jurisprudence to equate corporations with people. When you do that, you simply give corporations more rights than individuals have. When you come from that position, it means that judges repeatedly rule to choose corporations over workers; they choose polluters over communities; they choose Wall Street over consumer protections; they choose special interest money over our citizens. We have seen too much of that in this country.

We have seen a decline of the middle class, in part because the Federal judiciary is choosing corporations over

workers. If chosen, polluters over communities; if chosen, Wall Street over consumer protections; if chosen, special interest money over citizens--that is the Court we have seen in far too many 5-to-4 decisions, as Senator Whitehouse has pointed out so effectively on this floor.

The misguided idea that corporations are people is far outside the mainstream of what most Ohioans believe. It may work for graduates of Harvard and Yale Law School. Interestingly, if Judge Gorsuch is approved, all nine of the Supreme Court Justices will have attended Harvard or Yale Law School. I don't know what is wrong with Ohio State or the University of Toledo or Akron University or University of Cincinnati or Case Western or Michigan or Chicago or anywhere else. That is whom Presidents have chosen; those are the people we seem to confirm.

But this view that corporations are people simply doesn't wash with the American people. It is how we got rules that allow Wall Street banks and hedge funds to wreak havoc on ordinary working people and ordinary working families, with no consequences.

Judge Gorsuch himself has argued against the rights of working Americans to band together to hold Wall Street and corporations accountable. He ruled against children with autism. He ruled against students with disabilities. We have a President in the White House who makes fun of disabled people. Now, we are going to put a Justice on the Court who rules against students with disabilities. We have a Secretary of Education who barely knew what IDEA was--the provision of the law that guarantees disabled students an education.

Why we are moving in this direction, I think, amazes most people in this country, whether you have a disabled person in your family or not. His views of protecting students with disabilities are so outside the mainstream that last month, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his reasoning.

A boy with autism, Luke, wasn't making progress in school, and it was recommended that he be placed in a residential program. An impartial hearing officer and two different judges agreed. But Judge Gorsuch disagreed. He said that, as long as a student with a learning disability is making ``merely . . . more than de minimus'' progress in his or her education, the school district didn't have to do anything else. Think of that. That student, he counts a little bit, but he really doesn't count that much. He doesn't count as a full human being with full rights and full citizenship in this country.

If your disabled child is getting more than nothing, I guess that is good enough, according to Judge Gorsuch. Luckily, this Supreme Court, as conservative as it usually is, overturned Judge Gorsuch's precedent that denied a real education to students like Luke. Again, they overturned him unanimously. Chief Justice Roberts noted that a student offered an educational program providing merely more than de minimus progress from year to year--this is Justice Roberts, a very conservative Chief Justice--can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.

In other words, what Judge Gorsuch thinks and thought about this case was that doing only a little bit for this student was meeting the obligation of this civilized society that we are proud of. Fortunately, the eight members of the Supreme Court--four Republican conservative nominees, four more moderate to liberal nominees from the Democrats-- unanimously came together and disagreed with Judge Gorsuch.

But think about what can happen the next time. If an Ohio family has a child with a learning disability and struggles with that school system, they won't find sympathy from Justice Gorsuch. In fact, forget sympathy. They can't count on him to protect their child under the law.

Take a look at the case of Alphonse Maddin, the truckdriver from Michigan. He was hauling meat through Illinois when he stopped to refuel. His brakes froze. He was stranded. He called for help, for a company repair unit. He waited for hours for help. He nearly froze to death. He couldn't feel his legs. It was 14-degrees below zero in the truck. He needed to get to shelter or risk losing his limbs or worse.

But his company fired him. They claimed he abandoned his cargo. Mr. Maddin later returned to get the cargo and completed his job. But it just did not matter to the company. To the company, the cargo was more important than Mr. Maddin's life. To Judge Gorsuch, that company's interests were more important than Mr. Maddin, more important than his health, more important than his life.

Imagine that. That is what we mean when we say he puts corporations ahead of workers. At the beginning, you remember I said there is this relatively new idea in American jurisprudence that corporations are individuals and people are corporations. When you say that, it means that you side with corporations over workers. You side with polluters over communities. You side with Wall Street over consumer protections. You side with big, dark money from billionaires in Citizens United over citizens.

Take a look at the case of a mother who had leukemia and had to take time off for treatment. After the treatment was over, her doctors advised her not to return to work quite yet. There was a flu epidemic. Her immune system was compromised from chemotherapy. But her employer told her she needed to show up within a week or they would fire her despite 15 years of dedicated service. Guess who Judge Gorsuch sided with? It was not the worker suffering from cancer, who had dedicated a decade and a half of her life to her employer and who wanted to return to work, but she simply was advised against it by her doctor.

This woman's daughter, Katherine, said that when Judge Gorsuch issued his ruling, ``he didn't even think about the impact that this had on our family.'' She said his ruling ``set the precedent that a company's needs come before workers like her mother.''

At a time when Americans work longer and harder than ever before, when we devalue work in this country, when workers' wages--for huge percentages of workers in this country--are stagnant, when people work longer and harder with less and less to show for it, the last thing we need to do is elevate someone who sees workers as nothing more than a cost to be minimized.

That is what is at stake here. We are talking about putting someone on the Court who wants to give corporations special rights, but he has a record of ignoring the rights of ordinary citizens, choosing corporations over people, saying that corporations are, in fact, people. That means that he is almost always, in his cases, choosing corporations over workers, choosing polluters over communities.

Judge Gorsuch's record makes clear that he would turn back the clock on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, or LBGT rights, or clean air and clean water, or safe food and medicine.

That is what is at stake here. If the Senate does not reject his nomination, the decisions Judge Gorsuch hands down will haunt our Nation for generations. My opposition to this nominee has nothing to do with what has occurred in the Senate over the past 8 years, as despicable as it has been. It has everything to do with what could happen over the next 100.

This is about our children and our grandchildren. Seven of the eight current justices have met the 60-vote benchmark. In other words, seven of the eight justices on the Court right now were fairminded enough and centrist enough and agreeable enough that far more than 60 Senators-- people in both parties--came together to confirm those nominees.

With so much at stake, it is up to Judge Gorsuch to earn the votes of 60 Members of this body. I do not believe someone who fundamentally wants to give and has given corporations more rights than individual citizens has earned that broad support. The solution is not to change the rules; it is to change the nominee.

That is what we mean by advice and consent. The American people need a Supreme Court Justice who looks out for the interests of all Americans, not just the 1 percent, not just the most powerful, not just the most privileged. That is why I oppose Judge Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the title X CRA. It is just a continued abuse of power, something we have never seen in this body--one after another, after another, along party-line votes--to overturn rules and overturn decisions that this government has made. It is disgraceful that this body is debating yet another effort that will threaten a woman's right to healthcare.

Title X ensures that women across the country have access to affordable healthcare, including family planning at clinics that are convenient and affordable. These are a vital resource for preventive care and for primary care.

Overturning this rule will allow States to discriminate against providers, allow States to pick and choose and potentially put thousands of healthcare centers out of business. We know that because we have seen this kind of activity in some State legislatures. These clinics are often the only places women and men have to turn to for basic health services.

Why do this in the same week that the House, fortunately, failed to throw 20 million people off of health insurance and throw off 200,000 Ohioans who are getting opioid addiction treatment and who have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act? The House did not do that, but now the Senate wants to do this? Again, it compromises people's healthcare, as it takes away, in some cases, their insurance and, in other cases, their clinics and health services they cannot get elsewhere.

Some 6 in 10 women who turn to title X for visits to family planning health centers say it is their regular source of healthcare. Many of them have nowhere else to turn. They either cannot afford healthcare elsewhere or they live too far away from another health center for there to be meaningful access to basic healthcare.

Let's be clear. This is not about defunding abortion, clearly. The Federal Government does not provide funding for abortions. I will say that again. The Federal Government does not provide funding for abortions, period. I support a woman's right to make a personal, private healthcare decision for herself and with her doctor. No matter your personal feelings about abortion, whether you call yourself pro- choice or pro-life or something else, surely, we can agree that cancer screenings and programs that have helped bring down Ohio's teen pregnancy and STD rates are a good thing. Cutting these services will have a real and serious impact on women and families across Ohio.

If these actions by men--and it is, overwhelmingly, by men in Washington--whose healthcare is paid for by taxpayers continue to chip away at women's healthcare access, we will see more undiagnosed cancers, more untreated illnesses, and more unintended pregnancies.

I emphasize again that these are mostly men in this body, or men down the hall in the other body, who are voting--men with insurance that is paid for by taxpayers. Their insurance is subsidized by tax dollars. Last week, down the hall, they voted to take away healthcare--in this case, mostly for women but also for men--for people who are getting opioid treatment.

In case after case, privileged Members of this body, who get insurance paid for by taxpayers, take healthcare services away from, literally, millions of Americans. It is shameful. It is morally questionable. It is something we, simply, should not do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melissa Rubenstein, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

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

Madam President, one thing has become clear in this country: Hard work just doesn't pay off like it used to. Over the last 40 years, GDP has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, and executive salaries have gone up all because of the productivity of American workers, but companies are not investing in their workers the way they did. Workers don't feel like institutions--whether it is government or big companies--work for them.

Again, GDP goes up, corporate profits go up, executive salaries go up, worker productivity goes up, but workers' wages do not. Actions like this today are the reason. Congress is voting to allow employers in our most dangerous industries to hide injuries to workers and to skirt worker protection laws.

This Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, rule simply makes clear that it is the employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious injuries that happen on the job. The rule simply makes clear that it is the employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious injuries that happen on the job.

It doesn't impose new costs. It doesn't affect small business. What it does is it holds companies accountable for maintaining their own records, as they have done for 40 years. These records are the most important tool we have to identify and root out the most dangerous workplace hazards. They are the basis for national statistics on workplace health and safety.

Two former Commissioners from the Bureau of Labor Statistics--one from the George Bush administration and one from the Barack Obama administration--have written to this body, warning us that killing this rule could undermine nearly a half century of worker safety information.

So a leading Republican and a leading Democrat have both written to this body saying: Don't do this; it will mean more workplace injuries.

I know people around here who have these kinds of jobs--where workplace injuries rarely are even a fact of life--may not think about this enough. Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. People in this body need to go out and talk to workers more. Go to union halls, go to workplaces, listen to what workers are saying, listen to what union members are saying, and listen to what nonunion members are saying about what these workplace safety rules mean.

Worse yet, this vote today will allow employers to falsify their safety records with impunity. Companies can avoid OSHA rules and inspections by underreporting--underreporting--harm to their workers, and they can avoid making a real investment to make their workplaces safer.

Over the past three decades, some of the worst offenders with dangerous workplaces hid injuries and kept fraudulent records. They hid injuries, and they kept fraudulent records. They claimed they were safe, while workers were being hurt on the job.

These requirements only apply to the most dangerous industries-- industries where proper safety precautions could mean the difference between life and death or a permanent disability for these workers. We are talking about fall hazards, dangerous machines without proper guarding, workers handling dangerous chemicals without adequate washing stations.

Look at the poultry processing industry. These workers face serious health and safety problems. In many plants, workers process 140 chickens a minute, and they are at risk for disabling injuries.

Maybe people around here don't think much about people processing chickens. It is not a job that pays well. It is a job that is difficult. Frankly, people in this body don't know people who do those jobs, by and large. They are handling 140 chickens a minute. They are at risk for disabling injuries.

We eat the chickens, but we don't see what happens when they are processed, and we are not paying attention to that. That is why it is so important we not vote for this rule change.

Too many employers fail to report these injuries. If OSHA isn't empowered to enforce recordkeeping, processing plants will be able to hide their safety violations and expose their workers to crippling injuries.

This CRA vote today is about workers' safety, period. Workers' safety is something so fundamental that it is hard to believe we are arguing about it.

In the United States of America in 2017, companies shouldn't be able to put workers' lives and safety at risk just so they can make more money. They shouldn't be able to put their workers' lives and safety at risk just to make more money, and we shouldn't be part of that effort to help those companies do that.

To my colleagues who are prepared to gut this rule, I ask: Would you be willing to work these jobs? Would my fellow Senators be willing to send their children to work in these dangerous industries while turning a blind eye to safety rules?

I think we know what the answers to those questions are. This is why Americans are losing their faith in our institutions.

Earlier this month, at the Glenn School in Columbus--which is named after my good friend, the late Senator John Glenn--I rolled out a plan to reinvest in the American worker, but instead of coming together to work on solutions, the Senate today is going in the wrong direction. We are debating a measure to give big corporations--which in many cases are more profitable than they have ever been--more ways to exploit American workers, more ways to evade the consequences, and more ways to pad their profits at the expense of everyday Americans.

American workers aren't just a cost to be minimized. Protections for workers' safety aren't a luxury you can cut. It is disgraceful that this body fails to understand this.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, the five Great Lakes are as vital to our industrial heartlands as the Rockies are to the West or the Atlantic coastline is to New England. Eighty-four percent of America's freshwater is in the Great Lakes--84 percent. Around the globe, only polar ice caps contain more freshwater than do these five Great Lakes.

Lake Erie is one of the biggest lakes in the world. From the boats and barges that moved goods along the Ohio River and the Erie Canal to the ships that leave Lake Erie and export grain and steel to the world, my State of Ohio has a rich history of cultivating this vital natural resource. In Ohio, families and businesses rely on Lake Erie. Its waters are critical to farming and to clean energy development and industry and regional economic competitiveness, to fishing and recreation and so much that people do every day in my State.

From tourism in Catawba and Put-in-Bay, to fishing at Marblehead, to vacations and family reunions at Maumee Bay State Park, Lake Erie benefits our communities and creates jobs in our State, but for more than a half century, keeping our lake healthy has been a constant struggle. Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes. In the Western Basin off the shore of Toledo, it is only 30 feet deep--much shallower in contrast with Lake Superior, which is 600 feet deep on average.

I remember how polluted Lake Erie was when I was growing up. As a child, it was obvious the water shouldn't look quite the way it looked. While improvements have been made, today's problems are different and in many ways more urgent.

Harmful algal blooms are a constant threat. Because the Western Lake Erie Basin near Toledo is the shallowest part of the lake, it is uniquely vulnerable to these blooms, the same way that much of Lake Erie, 60 or 70 or 80 feet deep, is more vulnerable to pollution.

In August 2014, a bloom left 500,000 Ohioans in Lucas County in Northwest Ohio, in the Toledo area, without safe drinking water for nearly 3 days. We know these blooms are caused by excess nutrients in our water. This comes from untreated sewage, it comes from urban runoff, and it comes from farm field runoff. Heavy rains lead to more combined sewage overflows, more nutrient runoff from our fields, and to larger and more harmful algal blooms.

Algal blooms leave our lake looking like this. This may be a beautiful painting in your living room or a striking photograph of something, but this color here is more the regular, natural color of Lake Erie, the dark here in the wake of this boat. This green is the algal blooms, and you can see what this has done to pollute one of the greatest bodies of freshwater in the world. Would you want to fish there? Likely not. Would you take your children out on water that looks like this? Of course not. Does this water look like what you want coming out of your faucet when you turn on the faucet in Toledo or in Lorain, where I lived for 10 years, or in Sandusky or Cleveland or Ashtabula or any city along the Great Lakes?

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we

know that one effect of climate change in the Great Lakes region has been a 37-percent increase in gully washers, or heavy rain events that contribute to blooms. Hotter summers will only make these blooms worse. The effects of algal blooms like that have profound effects on the entire ecosystem.

Protecting our lake is one of the biggest environmental challenges our country faces. We have made progress over the last 8 years, thanks in large part to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We have continued to clean up Lake Erie and its tributaries, we have increased access to the lake, and we have improved habitats for fish and wildlife in the region.

Because it is shallow, this Great Lake, Lake Erie, only one of five Great Lakes and the Great Lake with actually the least water--almost 50 percent of all the fish in the Great Lakes live in this Great Lake. So you can see what these algal blooms do to aquatic life, to our way of life when you have these kinds of algal blooms.

We know that the bipartisan Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is working. As we celebrate Water Week this week, we should recommit ourselves to strengthening this program and building on our success. But in President Trump's budget proposal this week, the administration proposed entirely eliminating this important program that has been so successful--entirely eliminating this program that has been so successful. It is basically a surrender to the algal blooms. It is the administration--our country, if he speaks for our country--surrendering and just saying: Give up; we are not going to make the fight.

We have cleaned up Lake Erie because of the Federal EPA, because of the State EPA, because of the cities and the counties along the lake, places like Toledo, Lorain, Sandusky, Cleveland, and my wife's hometown of Ashtabula. We have cleaned it up, but it is a constant struggle because so many people live along this very shallow, very vulnerable to pollution Great Lake. That is why we don't give up.

We are not just talking about cutting funding for a program; the administration budget completely cuts this program, completely ends it. Taking an axe to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will cost Ohio jobs, jeopardize public health, and will put our drinking water at risk and reverse the progress we have made. It is simply something you don't do in a country like ours. It is unacceptable. I will fight like hell to protect the Great Lakes, I will fight like hell to protect Lake Erie, and I will fight like hell to protect the entire lake ecosystem.

The fact is, these five Great Lakes are a natural resource like none other in the world. Here is what is at risk if the administration's budget plan becomes a reality: Forty percent of the funds used to protect the lake from Asian carp would just disappear like that; 1.8 million more pounds of phosphorus would enter the Lake, making algal blooms like this more likely, just like that; and the cleanup of toxic sediment in habitat restorations in some of our most polluted rivers would grind to a halt. Why would they do this? Why would they eliminate this program? Neither party here wants them to do this. Senator Portman stands with me on this. Most of the Republican House Members stand with Democrats like Congresswoman Fudge and Congresswoman Kaptur, who represent much of the area along the Great Lakes.

There are projects across Ohio that simply couldn't take place without this program. In Ashtabula, a cleanup project has removed sediment containing 25,000 pounds of toxic material, transforming the lower two-thirds of the Ashtabula River. A $61 million project never would have gotten off the ground without the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Look at the new Lake Erie Bluffs Park in Perry Township-- they used $1.6 million from the initiative to leverage other sources of funding to restore and protect this shoreline.

My Ohio colleagues of both parties have made it clear that zeroing out the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is not an option and that they will not stand for it.

It isn't just this initiative on the chopping block; the budget makes deep cuts in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors these algal blooms. Scientists at Ohio State's Stone Lab play a key role in protecting our lake, and the reported NOAA cuts would nearly eliminate the grant funding that supports Stone Lab's mission. I have been at Stone Lab. I see the work they do. I see the dedicated dozen or so naturalists, not well-paid--Federal employees or State employees not particularly well paid. They love nature, they love Lake Erie, they love our State, they love its natural beauty, and they love all that it does for us.

When I was young, people wrote off Lake Erie as a dying lake. It was polluted, it smelled bad, and it looked bad. It was a dying lake. Over the past century, people have had a habit of trying to write off my State. We have proved them wrong time and again. The lake is improving. It is supporting entire industries. It supports jobs. It provides drinking water. It provides recreation. It is beautiful to look at from my home in Lorain when I lived there. It is beautiful to look at anywhere along the coastline of Lake Erie. We cannot allow this President and we cannot allow Washington, DC, to write off Lake Erie and the millions of Americans who rely on it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I join literally millions of Ohioans and tens of millions of Americans in my concern about what the House of Representatives is trying to do to our healthcare laws and our healthcare system.

I leave just one statistic with my colleagues in the Senate, and that is that in my State alone, there are 200,000 people who are now under treatment for opioid addiction, and they are able to get this comprehensive treatment because they have insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

The legislation apparently coming out of the House of Representatives, even though we do not know how much it costs, is a big tax cut for the wealthy. We do not know how much it costs because they are moving so quickly. It was under wraps, and now they are moving it so quickly that the Congressional Budget Office has not even had time to look at it and understand what it costs, nor has it been able to tell us how many of the 22 million Americans who have insurance under the Affordable Care Act will lose their insurance. They want to move so fast that they are not even answering the basic questions of how much it costs--a lot; how much it is going to add to the deficit--a whole lot, but they will not be specific; and how many people will lose their insurance.

As I said, today 200,000 Ohioans are getting treatment for opioid addiction under the Affordable Care Act. Most of them--we think at least half, but tens of thousands of them will lose their treatment just like that, right in the middle of their addiction treatment. What does society gain by that, other than some Republican talking points, when people chanted for 6 years ``repeal and replace ObamaCare,'' never having any idea how they were going to replace it--still don't--to do it right and continue that effort.

Finally, there is the hypocrisy of this, where Members of Congress in the House and in the Senate enjoy taxpayer-financed health insurance. People in this body--most of the 100 Senators and most of the 435 Congressmen and Congresswomen--have health insurance provided by taxpayers, yet they want to take insurance away from millions of Americans. These are people who have jobs. They are millions of Americans who have jobs, who are making relatively low wages. Some of them may be holding two or three part-time jobs. They make low wages. They have no health insurance provided at their job. People in Congress who have taxpayer-funded health insurance are taking their insurance away, stripping them of that insurance. How morally repugnant that is. How hypocritical that is. Yet they move along their merry way.

We should defeat these efforts. We should continue to make improvements in the Affordable Care Act, but not wholesale destruction that will throw hundreds of thousands of Ohioans off of the insurance they have.

I will close with this. My Republican Governor has admonished his Republican colleagues around the country and in Congress not to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw 900,000 people in Ohio off of their insurance without a replacement to take care of it. This bill coming out of the House is far from an adequate replacement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the House's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act is dangerous and irresponsible. Just listen to Governor John Kasich, Republican Governor of my State, who says we should not be throwing 500, 600, 700,000 Medicaid beneficiaries--mostly people who have jobs and work in low-income jobs--we shouldn't throw them off their insurance. In fact, in Ohio there are 900,000 people--700,000 on Medicaid, 100,000 on their parents' healthcare plan, and another 100,000 on the exchanges--who would lose their insurance if the House succeeds and the Senate goes along in changing dramatically or repealing the Affordable Care Act.

My office is flooded with letters and calls from Ohioans begging us not to take away their care. Let me share some of those letters.

A woman from Beachwood, OH, in Northeast Ohio wrote to me on January 11 terrified of possible changes to the Medicaid system that helps fund nursing homes like the one where she lives. She writes:

I strongly believe changes would drastically diminish my

quality of life and many other residents' in the nursing home

setting. My care needs are currently well managed by

qualified and caring staff members. I am a 2-person assist

with dressing, bathing, and getting to the bathroom. I also

require two people with getting dressed every morning.

Medicaid cuts would decrease the number of staff members. .

. . Without adequate staff, I am afraid of extensive wait

periods and frequent bathing accidents. . . . It would be

very difficult to endure, cause embarrassment, while

destroying my dignity in the process.

I am not as strong as I used to be. I have children who

love and care for me and placed me in a safe environment.

Living in the nursing home has allowed me to live a little

better, smile a little longer, and enjoy my days with family

members.

``Please consider,'' she writes, ``the people who will be affected the most.''

Understand that most Medicaid dollars--dollars that unfortunately Republicans want to block-grant or capitate in some way, whatever terms they want to use here, send to the States, shrink those dollars, and people like this lady from Beachwood will be the losers as a result. Understand again that most Medicaid dollars--two-thirds of them--go to nursing home care. ``Please consider the people who will be affected the most,'' she writes.

Another woman from Mount Vernon, OH, a part of the State where I grew up in Mansfield, wrote to urge us not to rip coverage away from individuals who are currently receiving mental health and addiction services. She writes:

As a constituent concerned about preserving access to

lifesaving mental health and addiction services, I am writing

today to urge and request your support in protecting the

Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid expansion.

I work as a substance abuse counselor in Knox County and

work with adolescents and women with co-occurring disorders.

Without the Medicaid expansion, many of our clients would not

be able to get the help they need.

Without ObamaCare, without the Affordable Care Act.

Without the Medicaid expansion, many of our clients would

not be able to get the help they need.

Today in Ohio, 200,000 people are in the midst of opioid addiction treatment, and 200,000 of them have insurance so they could get that treatment delivered in the right way and have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. This House proposal would just rip it away from them.

She goes on to write:

Knowing that they can receive help and healthcare often is

one of the motivating factors for our clients to begin to

make change. Their ability to access medications such as

Vivitrol through Medicaid has been a strengthening point in

the recovery process of many. With our teens, I have seen

them be able to change substance use with the resources that

Medicaid provides.

In other words, some of them are breaking their addiction and some of them are being cured because of the Affordable Care Act, because they have Medicaid.

Medicaid allows our rural and low-income teens--

And of the 88 counties in Ohio, 70 or so are classified as small town or rural, like the county I grew up in, Richland County--

many of whom otherwise would not be able to attend treatment

due to transportation barriers--to attend treatment through

public transportation. Working with these clients, you learn

their stories. So many have been through unimaginable trauma,

losses, and emotional/physical pain. Many have never had the

support to help them begin to work through these issues

underlying the substance use.

She is worried. The lady in Mount Vernon, OH, is worried, with very good reason, that these repeal plans would ``leave millions of Americans without access to needed mental health and addictions treatment in our state and communities.''

Most recently, a woman in Butler County--the congressional district of former Speaker John Boehner and some members of my staff, past and present--writes:

I am extremely concerned about the cuts President Trump and

the Republican-led Congress propose to make in the Medicaid

program and services for the developmentally disabled.

Her son is 14 years old. He was diagnosed with a specific type of autism. He is nonverbal, with severe cognitive and physical challenges. She wrote to my office how Medicaid has been ``a godsend'' for her and her family. Before her son received a waiver under the Medicaid Program, her family was spending $100 a month in copays for psychiatric medications alone. That is in addition to all the extra medical costs in caring for a severely challenged child. They couldn't afford the physical therapy he needs, despite having insurance coverage through her husband's employer. She wrote that Medicaid ``more than anything else, improved the quality of my son's life, and by extension, the life of our whole family.''

Understand that health challenges--especially mental health challenges but health challenges overall--in one member of a family afflict the whole family. That is something we should remember as this Congress seems to rush pell-mell into trying to repeal Medicare, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

These three letters are three of hundreds of thousands that we received--hundreds of thousands of letters and calls that Members of the Senate are receiving. I don't understand how, when 20 million people will lose their insurance, so many Members of Congress, who themselves have government-financed health insurance--we have health insurance in this body paid for by taxpayers, most of us. Yet we think it is appropriate to pass legislation in part giving tax cuts to the richest Americans and at the same time stripping away Medicare benefits, taking 22 million people who now have insurance off of that insurance and proposing minor insurance for some of them but not nearly all of them. If we are people of God, if we are people who care about our constituents, how we can do that is just beyond me.

I go back to the quote from one of the people I read about today from Beachwood. She writes: ``Please consider the people who will be affected the most.''

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Mr. President, President Trump declared this week Consumer Protection Week, but his proclamation has gaping holes. It ignores the many ways large corporations cheat consumers and the biggest tool Americans have to fight back.

Not once did the proclamation mention the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned $12 billion to 29 million consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created under Dodd-Frank 8 or 9 years ago. Not once does it talk about the unscrupulous lenders who targeted Americans with predatory mortgages before blowing up the economy in 2007 and 2008. Not once does the President's Consumer Protection Week proclamation mention the millions of fake accounts opened by Wells Fargo. Not once does it mention the shady outfits that set up shop outside the gates of our military bases and the payday

lenders and other unscrupulous lenders who set up shop outside the gates of the military bases because they aren't allowed on the military bases as they try to exploit our service men and women and their families.

Not only did the President ignore some of the most pressing consumer protection issues, his administration is attacking the most important consumer advocate indeed--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Last week, President Trump's Department of Justice filed papers in Federal court signaling that it will argue that the CFPB shouldn't be independent. The President and White House want the CFPB under their control so they can weaken it, so they can help Wall Street, so they can take away some of its power. They think the President should have the power to fire the head of the agency for any reason.

The whole reason we wrote it to be independent was to protect it from a President who chose Wall Street over Main Street. It was Presidential Candidate Trump who sounded pretty good standing up to Wall Street and helping Main Street. If you look at the nominees, his appointments, and his actions so far, it has been exactly the opposite. He has been the president of Wall Street and at the same time exploiting Main Street. It means that what the President has proposed is that the President can fire his director for doing his job: stepping on the toes of special interests.

The CFPB works in part because it has an independent Director. The current Director of the CFPB, Richard Cordray from Ohio, has protected consumers, has returned billions to Americans who were cheated and who were taken advantage of by big companies.

The CFPB has an independent budget. Banks can't kill it by lobbying it and cutting off its budget. That is the point. People whom he has in many cases recovered money from because he represents consumers--those banks, those large Wall Street banks and other financial institutions, because of the way it is set up, can't lobby Congress to take money away from it and put it out of business. Special interests have relentlessly attacked the CFPB since the day we created it.

President Trump ran on the promise of protecting the little guy, but he hasn't followed through on the promise of protecting ordinary Americans from some of the wealthiest, most privileged special interests in this town.

If you are one of the 29 million Americans who received help from CFPB, you might know how important saving it is, but you might not know how important it is to especially protecting one group of people, and that is protecting our veterans and our servicemembers. The CFPB has an entire office that is dedicated to helping men and women who have served in uniform--the Office of Servicemember Affairs.

A couple of weeks ago, my Rhode Island Senator friend, Jack Reed, was in the Armed Services Committee with the senior enlisted advisers of military services--the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines. Their job is to make sure our servicemembers and their families are getting the support they need. Every one of them had great things to say about the CFPB's Office of Servicemember Affairs--of the value it provides and the support it provides to the men and women who sacrifice so much for our country.

Senator Reed brought up an alarming figure. A recent report estimated that thousands of servicemembers are forced out of service every year because of financial hardships--problems with their mortgages, with payday loans, with credit card debt. One will remember earlier in the presentation that I talked about how many of these financial groups set up right outside military bases. That causes a tragedy for these men and women who want to serve their country, and it causes tragedy for their families. It costs taxpayers $57,000 every time someone is forced out of service. Many other servicemembers lose their security clearances because of financial trouble, which directly affects the mission readiness that is brought on by shady business practices.

The CFPB is stepping in to protect these heroes who are often taken advantage of. The CFPB's Office of Servicemember Affairs is led by men and women who have served in the military and know what kind of help servicemembers need. They visit 145 military facilities across the country in order to help servicemembers get their finances straightened out and to hear about their concerns. They have handled 70,000 complaints from servicemembers and veterans about abusive practices by financial institutions. They have returned $130 million back to servicemembers and their families simply by enforcing the law and protecting those consumers.

The CFPB protects the men and women who protect our country. It protects all of us. The best way to celebrate Consumer Protection Week is not through words and proclamations, it is through actions.

We need to combat cyber crimes and identity theft, as the President mentioned, but we also need to combat all kinds of tricks and traps-- loans with outrageous interest rates, for-profit colleges that promise far more than they deliver, lenders who discriminate based on race. The list goes on and on.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that the CFPB remains a strong, active ally in the cause of consumer protection this week, next week, every week.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on this resolution.

Mr. President, Americans are working longer and Americans are working harder than ever before, with less and less to show for it.

Over the last 40 years, GDP has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, executive salaries have gone up--all because American workers are more productive. Again, GDP is up, corporate salaries are up, corporate profits are up, executive salaries are up--all because of the productivity of American workers. Unfortunately--tragically--a big problem in our society is that workers don't share in the economic growth they have created for their companies.

On Friday, at the John Glenn School in Columbus, I rolled out a plan to do something about it. Instead of working to raise wages, the Senate is debating a measure to give large corporations even more ability, more leeway, more opportunity to shortchange American workers. It is as simple as that. One in five Americans works in a company that does some business with the American Government. We are talking about a rule that affects companies employing as much as one-fifth of the workforce. These workers deserve to be paid what they earn. They deserve safe workplaces, just as all American workers do.

Before this worker protection rule was put in place, nearly one-third of the companies in the United States with the worst safety and health violations were receiving taxpayer dollars in the form of Federal contracts. Federal dollars are going to these companies. They then turn around and hire workers in contract with the government and hire workers and cheat them and shortchange them. These corporations broke the law. They didn't pay their employees what they were owed or they broke health and safety rules. Yet they continue to rake in Federal dollars. That is unfair to workers. It is unfair to the good companies that play by the rules. It is unfair to those who are undercut, competitors that willfully and constantly follow the law. The good companies often are losing out. They are playing by the rules, yet lose out to the companies that aren't.

That is why the Obama administration put in place the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. If you want the privilege of doing business with American taxpayers, if you want a contract with the Federal government paid for by taxpayers, you must follow the law. It is as simple as that. That was yesterday. Also, yesterday the rule ensured that workers have accurate information about the hours they work, the overtime pay they can earn, the wages they are being paid-- basic things that above-board companies are already doing anyway. That was yesterday.

Today this body is voting to undo that. Why would we want to roll back commonsense worker protections? Why would we reward companies that cheat their workers by giving them more taxpayer dollars? There is only one possible explanation: to make it easier for some big companies to cheat both their own workers and their competitors. When voters reject Washington, it is maneuvers like this they have in mind: Congress watering down rules that protect workers, that protect taxpayers, that let corporations that break the law off the hook.

The President came to Ohio a lot last year. He made a lot of big promises during his campaign. He is already facing a choice on issues like this one. Is he going to keep his promises to working families in Trumbull County, OH, Warren, Mansfield, Toledo, Springfield

or is he going to sell them out in favor of the same old corporate billionaire agenda?

The President has come to a fork in the road. He can go down the fork where workers will do better in this administration--make better wages, have a safer workplace--or he can take the other fork in the road that undercuts wages, that shortchanges workers, that makes the workplace less safe. Unfortunately, the President and, I am afraid, this Senate have chosen that fork in the road, the one that undercuts workers and makes the workplace less safe.

I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this attempt to undercut American workers.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Dr. Carson for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. However, I just can't resist, as I listened to my friend Senator Cornyn--and I do like and respect Senator Cornyn, and I do mean that. It is always said here, but I actually do. I am just amused by the term ``obstructionism.'' This President was 100 yards down the hall speaking last night and still hasn't put any legislative proposals forward--nothing on immigration except Executive orders; nothing on infrastructure even though Democrats have followed the four corners, if you will, of his proposal, $1 trillion over 10 years--put ink to paper and actually written a real plan that includes public transit, that includes highways and bridges and water and sewer and housing and airports and ports and all of the things we do in doing it right on infrastructure, on public works. So we are all still waiting.

The President has made a lot of speeches. Last night he was not as combative as usual. That was welcome. I think we all, as Senator Cornyn said, applauded that. But we are still looking for substance. We are looking for one bill. Repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act--what does that mean? He still hasn't given us anything specific. They have been voting on replacing and repealing the Affordable Care Act for more than a decade, but they still don't have a plan.

If we listen to the Governor from my home State, the State where the Presiding Officer grew up--they should listen to our Republican Governor, who admonishes colleagues here: Don't repeal the Affordable Care Act unless you have a way to take care of 700,000 Ohioans who have lost their insurance under Medicaid; not to mention 100,000 who will lose their insurance who are on their parents' health plan; not to mention 100,000 who are on the exchanges; not to mention 100,000 seniors who are saving $1,100 on their prescription drugs a year; not to mention 1 million Ohio seniors who get free, no copay, no deductible osteoporosis and diabetes screenings and physicals and all the things the Affordable Care Act gives them. They offer no proposals to replace any of those services. They talk about State lines, and they talk about health savings accounts, and they talk about tort reform. That is like this many people compared to this many people. They know that. Yet I still hear this talk of obstructionism. Give us stuff. Give us legislative proposals.

The assistant majority leader started off by talking about I guess a slow-walk of nominees. Now, I am the ranking Democrat, and my friend Senator Crapo is now the chairman of the committee. He was not chairman then, and he is not mostly responsible for this. But I am on the Banking Committee, and last year, with a Democratic President--I don't want to look back and do tit-for-tat. It is not about that. It is about moving the country forward. But last year--what was it--25 to 30 nominees came from the President. Some were very significant, including the Export-Import Bank. Some were Federal Reserve. Some of them were inspectors general, and most people don't quite know what they do. But all nominees, more than 25, more than two dozen nominees--1 of them was confirmed by the Senate last year, 1 of 28 or so in our committee, and he was confirmed in December, in the 24th month of the 2-year term. So don't lecture us about people slow-walking and obstructionism and all of that. There were more than 25 nominees, and 1 of them was confirmed. SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, didn't move; Federal Reserve, didn't move; the public transit administrator, didn't move--one after another after another. The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial crimes didn't move. Even though he was originally a Bush nominee and then was promoted in the Obama years, he didn't even come to a vote because of whatever reason the Banking Committee gave us. So we don't need that lecture.

But more important, on these nominees, we all know the history. When I look at criticism and hear ``Why aren't these nominees all passed?'' let's look at about 6 or 8 months ago. Every Presidential candidate, until this last election, starts to put together a transition team in August, and President Trump--Candidate Trump began to do that but not with much seriousness. Then the person he had leading his

transition team he fired in November, soon after the election, so he had to start again. So he had no people kind of ready to go on these nominations, what, in fact, he was going to do on all of these Cabinet positions.

After that, he didn't really vet, he didn't really analyze, he didn't really look at the backgrounds of these nominees. So if they didn't do it--usually the President's people look at these nominees and analyze and see how corrupt they are, if they have conflicts of interest, all of that. Well, they didn't do that in this administration because apparently they didn't have time. So they nominated these people, and we have never seen this many conflicts of interest, we have never seen this kind of wealth, and we have never seen this many billionaires appointed to the Cabinet.

Just out of the Finance Committee, the Secretary of Health and Human Services bought and sold health care stocks of companies--on the floor of the House of Representatives, he was working on bills and amendments; yet he bought and sold hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of health care stock, and then he didn't tell the committee the full story.

The Secretary of the Treasury had a $100 million investment he forgot to report. Maybe somebody out there would forget if they had a $100 million investment. They might forget they had it, but most Americans wouldn't forget that. He lied to the committee. He lied to the committee about robo-signings. Hundreds of--and this was directly related to this nomination--hundreds of Ohioans, at least, maybe thousands, lost their homes--including in the Presiding Officer's home city where he grew up--because of these robo-signings.

So that is why this has been slowed down--because many of these nominees are unqualified for the jobs, many of them have conflicts of interest, and many of them have very complex financial holdings and portfolios that take a long time to sort through. That is the reason for the delay, and to accuse us of anything else is just playing politics.

As I said, I am here today to argue for the confirmation of Dr. Carson.

I voted for a number of these nominees when I thought they could offer something to our country. I voted against some of the most corrupt and some of the most out-of-step and some of the most far- right, radical nominees, and that list is, unfortunately, much longer with this President than any President in American history.

Dr. Carson had a distinguished career as a pediatric neurosurgeon. We know that about him, and that is good. His remarkable life story is well known to millions of Americans. We know that about him, and that is good. But he is not the nominee I would have chosen to lead HUD. In fact, he is not the nominee any President in my lifetime would have chosen to lead HUD because he has no direct experience with the housing and community development fields.

He made troubling statements on public policy issues prior to his nomination. My colleagues and I on the Banking Committee asked Dr. Carson several very direct questions about his views now that he is the nominee for Secretary of HUD. I will give Carson the benefit of the doubt--that is why I will vote for him--because he made commitments to me in person, sitting in my office, across the table, and he made commitments in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee in his testimony and in his written responses.

Dr. Carson promises to address the scourge of lead hazards that threaten the health and the future of children in Ohio and nationwide.

Under oath, he pledged to uphold the Fair Housing Act and the housing rights of LGBTQ individuals. That wasn't what his past has been. He has made comments that I find offensive or worse about gay people in this country, but he made the commitment under oath to our committee that he would fight any discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation.

He has pledged to advocate for rental assistance and investment to end homelessness. He has pledged to push to include housing in the President's infrastructure plan.

Those are commitments he made. Those are commitments he made under oath. Those are commitments I will hold him to in spite of perhaps his prior philosophy of government and in spite of perhaps some of his comments he might have made in the past. My job is to hold him accountable for this. The job of everybody in this Senate, of both parties, is to hold him accountable.

Dr. Carson's responses to my questions for the record are available as part of the record of the Banking Committee's January 12, 2017, hearing on the nomination of Dr. Carson to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I have also made them available online as part of my statement on the Banking Committee's approval of Dr. Carson's nomination on January 24, 2017.

My statement and the link to the questions for the record are available on the Banking Committee's website at http:// www.banking.senate.gov/public.

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Banking Committee--and I would emphasize the committee--while the last 2 years, it might only have been called banking, maybe it could have just been called Wall Street for the way it was running, but the full name of the committee is Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. It is important to remember that. We oversee housing policy, and I see how important this Department is for people in Ohio and across our country.

HUD is in charge of enforcing fair housing laws. It has been an essential partner in our national efforts to prevent and end homelessness for veterans--something Senator Crapo talked about--for the chronically homeless, and for youth and families. The Department's primary rental assistance program helped 4.5 million low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities find a place to call home--something that should be a right in this country.

HUD has assisted cities and towns in their efforts to revitalize neighborhoods and invest in communities and promote lead-safe, healthy housing for children. There is still a great challenge in States like mine where there is deteriorating lead paint in old homes that threaten so many children. In my hometown of Cleveland and where I grew up in Mansfield and in Appalachia and in city after city and community after community in my State, there are lots of older homes. In the city of Cleveland, well over half the homes are at least 60 years old.

I asked somebody from the Cleveland health department: What percentage of those homes have toxic levels of lead? And he said 99. Understand that old homes in this country--homes that are 60, 70, 80 years old--many homes fall into that category, and they overwhelmingly have toxic levels of lead.

My support for Dr. Carson centers around the fact that he may not know much about housing policy yet--I am hopeful that in the tours he takes, including to my State and the chairman's State of Idaho--I hope and I assume he will learn more about housing, but one thing he does know as a brain surgeon is he knows what lead does to the development of children.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported 70 census tracts in Cuyahoga County where as many as one in three children are poisoned because of the age and the condition of the housing stock. One in three children has her or his physical and emotional and mental development sometimes arrested or slowed because of lead poisoning.

Through the Federal Housing Administration, HUD works with lenders to help creditworthy borrowers access stable mortgage credit so they can purchase a home. FHA played a central countercyclical role in providing mortgage credit following the financial crisis when the private sector largely withdrew from the field, as we remember. It has since receded into its typical share of the housing market. It is still essential, though, for home buyers, including many first-time and minority home buyers. HUD'S role will only become more important as housing communities' development challenges have grown. The need for affordable housing has grown dramatically since the great recession. The demand for units has increased while wages have stagnated.

The market alone is not producing sufficient housing for families and those on fixed incomes. Studies have demonstrated that many people who perform essential work--child care

teachers, school bus drivers, retail workers, people working full time, people working just as hard as the staff in front of me, people working just as hard as people who have titles like mine--simply can't afford the rent in the communities they serve. Half of the people who rent pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

One-quarter of all renters--25 percent of all renters, 11 million people in this country--pay more than half of their incomes for rent. If you are paying 51, 52, 55 percent of your income in rent, if one bad thing happens--a sick child, your plant lays you off for 2 weeks, your roof leaks, any number of things can happen. When you are living on the edge, when half of your income is for housing, what happens? You lose your home. You get evicted.

These burdens are more severe at the bottom of the income spectrum among extremely low-income renter households--those with incomes at or below 30 percent of median income, and 75 percent may pay more than half of their income in rent.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition identified a shortage of 7 million affordable and available rental units for the Nation's extremely low-income renter households. We are reaching only one out of four of those eligible families. Many end up on years' long waiting lists for lack of funding.

Government extends a hand to some of these families, but not to nearly enough. That needs to change. Despite the growing need for affordable housing, we risk losing the affordable housing resources we have due to physical deterioration or the end of long-term affordability contracts of property owners.

Families burdened by high housing costs have fewer resources available to meet other needs such as transportation for work and food and medicine. They even face eviction and homelessness; 500,000 people were homeless on any given night in January of 2016--550,000, actually.

The Department of Education data, which includes families doubled up for economic reasons, indicates that 1.4 million school children and their families were homeless at some point during the 2013-2014 school year. Think about that. Some of these kids were exposed to lead and have learning disabilities. Others don't get enough to eat, in spite of the family school breakfast and lunch program, because they don't eat so well on weekends and at night and on summer vacations or whenever. In addition, 1.4 million are homeless.

Matthew Desmond wrote a book called ``Evicted.'' He is a gentleman I have gotten to know a little bit. He lived in Milwaukee, a poor White neighborhood, a poor Black neighborhood. He wrote about people he got to meet and got to know, and he spent enough time where he got to know people. When he signed this book, he wrote: Home equals life. If you don't have a decent place to live--and I would imagine that none of us in this Chamber has that challenge. When you don't have a place to call home, your life can be upside down. With all of the challenges and all of the things that can happen, when you get evicted, your kids have to move to a new school district. You don't know where you are going to end up. You lose the few possessions you have when you're evicted. This book is recommended reading for anybody who works on housing issues. It is a book called ``Evicted'' by Matthew Desmond.

One last point: I look forward to working with colleagues in the administration on the President's proposed $1 trillion investment and infrastructure, including housing. To jump-start the conversation about the President's proposed infrastructure package, my colleagues and I announced a blueprint to rebuild America's infrastructure.

I find it interesting, again, that the assistant majority leader talked about Democrats' intransigence and Democrats' obstruction when the President has put nothing out there on infrastructure, nothing out there on housing, nothing out there about healthcare--repeal and replace--none of those kinds of legislation.

We don't even know what he is talking about, other than saying ``$1 trillion.'' Democrats acted responsibly and put out our $1 trillion 10- year plan, hoping the President's $1 trillion 10-year plan can match up and we can work together. This blueprint talks about ways we invest in American infrastructure to improve the Nation's transportation, water, housing, and community infrastructure and create thousands of good- paying union jobs in construction and manufacturing jobs with strong ``Buy American'' provisions.

Even though the President in his prior life as a businessman wore suits, sold suits, sold tableware, and sold glassware made overseas, and even though this suit I wear is made by union workers 10 miles from my house, the President, now that he is President--the issue is not his own private business or his family's own private business where they outsource jobs to do production so they make more money. I don't like that, but that is no longer our business. What is our business is that the President steps forward with ``Buy American.''

``Buy American'' means if there is steel in an infrastructure project, it should be made by steelworkers in Youngstown or Lorain, OH, or somewhere in Ohio. If there is iron in these projects, if there is aluminum in these projects, if there is concrete, if there is any kind of product, if taxpayers are paying for it, it should be made by American workers.

Our blueprint is central to HUD's mission. It includes $100 billion to rebuild Main Street and communities. It includes ideas to address affordable housing challenges, eliminate blighted properties that bring down local property values, and remediate lead hazards that threaten children. We are ready to work on real infrastructure.

As I said, I am going to vote for Ben Carson for Secretary of HUD. He is not an inspiring choice, but he is someone who is an accomplished man. I count on him to help us address this terrible lead problem. I count on him to stand with us, as he pledged, to address the scourge of lead. I count on him to uphold the Fair Housing Act and the housing rights of LGBTQ individuals. I count on him to advocate for rental assistance and investment and homelessness. I count on him to push to include housing in the President's infrastructure plan. I count on him to fight the President. If the President is going to increase defense by $50 billion and cut a whole host of housing and urban programs, I count on this nominee. He promised our committee. He said it. He said it in private meetings. He said it in public meetings. We will hold him accountable. I plan to vote yes.

To reiterate, I rise today to speak on the pending nomination of Dr. Benjamin Carson to be the new Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD.

Dr. Carson is not the nominee I would have chosen to lead HUD, due to both his lack of direct experience with the housing and community development fields, and his often troubling public statements prior to his nomination.

Despite my reservations, and my disagreements with some of his positions, I will give Dr. Carson the benefit of the doubt based on commitments he has made to me in person and to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee in his testimony and written responses.

This includes Dr. Carson's promises to:

Address the scourge of lead hazards that threaten the health and futures of children in Ohio and nationwide; Uphold the Fair Housing Act and the housing rights of LGBTQ individuals; Advocate for rental assistance and investment to end homelessness; And push to include housing in the President's infrastructure plan. Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to hold Dr. Carson accountable for making good on his promises.

Role of HUD. As the ranking member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee responsible for housing policy, I have seen how important the Department is for people in Ohio and across the country.

HUD is charged with enforcing our fair housing laws. It has been an essential partner in our national efforts to prevent and end homelessness for veterans, the chronically homeless, and youth and families.

The Department's primary rental assistance programs help over 4.5 million low-income households of families, the elderly, and people with disabilities find a place to call home.

It assists cities and towns in their efforts to revitalize neighborhoods and invest in communities; and promotes lead-safe, healthy housing for children.

Through the Federal Housing Administration, HUD works with lenders to help creditworthy borrowers access sustainable mortgage credit so they can purchase a home.

The FHA played an essential, countercyclical role in providing mortgage credit following the financial crisis, when the private sector largely withdrew from the field.

It has since receded to its typical share of the housing market, but it is still essential for many homebuyers, including first-time and minority homebuyers.

HUD's role has only become more important as our housing and community development challenges have grown.

The need for affordable housing has grown dramatically since the Great Recession, as demand for rental units has increased and wages have stagnated.

The market alone is not producing sufficient affordable housing for families and those on fixed incomes.

A person with a full-time job would need to earn an hourly wage of $20.30 in order to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental at HUD's national average fair market rent.

This ``housing wage'' is far above the minimum wage, income available to people with disabilities who rely upon Supplemental Security Income, or even the median wage earned by renters.

Studies have demonstrated that people performing essential work--like child care teachers, school bus drivers, and retail workers--are often unable to afford rent in the communities they serve.

Half of all renters--over 21 million households--paid more than 30 percent of their incomes towards housing in 2014. And a quarter of all renters--over 11 million--paid more than half their incomes for rent.

These burdens are more severe at the bottom of the income spectrum. Among extremely low income renter households--those with incomes at or below 30 percent of area median income, 75 percent pay more than half their incomes on rent.

In 2016, the National Low Income Housing Coalition identified a shortage of 7.2 million affordable and available rental units for the nation's ELI renter households.

We are reaching only one out of four eligible families. Many end up on years-long waiting lists for lack of funding.

Despite the growing need for affordable housing, we risk losing the affordable housing resources we have due to physical deterioration or the end of long-term affordability contracts with property owners.

Public housing alone needs an estimated $26 billion in major repairs. HUD estimates that we are losing 10,000 units of public housing every year due to physical obsolescence.

According to Harvard's Joint Center on Housing Studies, nearly 2.2 million units of HUD-assisted and low income housing tax credit- supported housing will reach the end of their affordability periods by 2025. Families burdened by high housing costs have fewer resources available to meet other needs like transportation to work, food, and medicine, and they may even face eviction and homelessness.

Nearly 550,000 people were homeless on a given night in January 2016. Department of Education data, which include families doubled up for economic reasons, indicate that nearly 1.4 million school-age children and their families were homeless at some point during the 2013-2014 school year.

The hardships stemming from evictions and homelessness make it harder for families to climb the economic ladder.

As Matthew Desmond, author of Evicted, points out: ``Eviction is a cause, not just a condition, of poverty.''

Trump Urban Renewal Plan. Throughout his campaign, President-elect Trump promised to rebuild America's ``inner cities,'' which he labeled ``hell holes.''

Mr. Trump spelled out his views in his, quote, ``New Deal for Black America, With a Plan for Urban Renewal.''

The plan covers issues such as school choice, investing in law enforcement, tax reform, trade, and infrastructure investment.

At a time when more than 11 million families are paying more than half their income toward rent, and half a million people have no place to call home, the President-elect's plan does not mention this housing crisis.

In addition, cities, like Black Americans, are not monolithic.

In recent years, many cities have seen a wave of population growth and investment that have led to greater economic activity, tighter rental housing markets, and rising rental housing costs.

As a result, many lower-income families and businesses who endured challenging decades in their communities are finding themselves priced out of their long-time neighborhoods just when additional economic opportunities are opening up.

Loss of housing in urban neighborhoods can push residents away from access to jobs, transit, and local support networks such as hospitals and child care.

In many of these neighborhoods, federally-assisted housing may be coming to the end of long-term affordability contracts or at risk of loss due to physical deterioration and HUD will be called on to help low-income people access the opportunity that has finally come to their neighborhoods.

HUD will need to respond to a diverse set of challenges across the country.

Dr. Ben Carson is a distinguished pediatric neurosurgeon. His remarkable life story is well known to all of us, and to millions of Americans beyond this room. He is an inspiration and a testament to the American dream.

Dr. Carson's experience, while impressive, does not automatically qualify him to lead HUD.

In reviewing Dr. Carson's nomination, I had the opportunity to question him extensively about his plans as Secretary. His answers were responsive, in contrast to many of President Trump's nominees.

Dr. Carson committed to: Address the scourge of lead paint hazards that threaten the future of too many of Ohio's children; Uphold the Fair Housing Act and housing rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) individuals; Advocate for rental assistance and investment to end homelessness; and Push to include housing in the President's infrastructure plan.

Some of Trump's appointees have taken positions antithetical to the agencies for which they would be responsible. In his testimony, Dr. Carson did not seem to be in this camp.

At that hearing, Carson stated that he plans to go on a listening tour across the country and at HUD to learn what is working and what is not. And he promised to surround himself with pragmatic, bipartisan, senior advisers.

He said: ``I will surround myself with people who have a passion for improving the agency, not breaking down its programs.''

In many cases, Dr. Carson moderated or reversed controversial positions he had taken previously.

I will discuss a few of the commitments Dr. Carson made during our committee process.

Lead Paint Poisoning. Dr. Carson promised to work to end the scourge of lead poisoning that threatens the health and futures of too many children in Ohio and across the country.

There is a growing realization that safe, affordable housing is a platform for good health.

Whether that is healthy housing that protects kids from lead and asthma-inducing mold, accessible units that help seniors safely age in place and avoid expensive institutional care, or housing that enables people with disabilities to live in the community.

As Dr. Carson said in his written statement: ``There is a strong connection between housing and health . . . Housing (and housing discrimination) is a ``social determinant'' of health . . . These problems occur across America--in cities as well as suburbs and rural areas . . . We cannot have social mobility without a strong healthy foundation in the home.''

When Dr. Carson and I met privately, we discussed the tragic effects of lead in Ohio and nationwide. He knows--from a medical perspective-- the terrible price that children and society pay for the legacy of lead in water, industrial settings, and, all-too-often, deteriorating paint in their homes.

While we have rightly focused on lead in water in Flint, MI, and Sebring, OH,

the most prevalent source of childhood lead poisoning is lead-based paint in homes built before the federal government stepped in to prohibit its use in 1978.

Approximately 23 million older homes have significant lead paint hazards, 3.6 million of which house children under six who are most susceptible to the effects of lead paint poisoning. This is a great challenge in states like mine that have a lot of older homes.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that that there are nearly 70 census tracks in Cuyahoga County, where I live, where as many as 1 in 3 children are likely poisoned because of the age and condition of the housing stock.

This is a tragedy not just for these kids and families, but for society. We all absorb the increased costs of medical care, education, criminal justice, and lost economic potential that stem from childhood lead poisoning.

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Dr. Carson to address the avoidable tragedy of childhood lead paint poisoning.

Fair Housing. Dr. Carson pledged to uphold the nation's fair housing laws, which includes the requirement that HUD's grantees affirmatively further fair housing.

At the hearing, Dr. Carson was clear about his support for the Fair Housing Act, stating:

I think the Fair Housing [Act] in 1968 was one of the best pieces of legislation we had. It was modified 1988. LBJ said no one could possibly question this, I agree with him.

I asked Dr. Carson about a 2015 Washington Times Op-Ed in which he objected to HUD's rule implementing the Fair Housing Act's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provision, likening it to a failed socialist experiment.

The rule, which implements a requirement of the Fair Housing Act, was adopted after a two-year public comment period and responds to GAO criticism of HUD's previous guidance in this area.

Carson stated that his op-ed had been ``distorted by many people.'' He went on to say that he has no problem with ``affirmative action or . . . integration'' but that he does have a problem with people dictating policy when they don't know the area when we have ``local HUD officials . . . who can assess what the problems are in their area and, working with local officials, can come up with better solutions.''

The fair housing rule is such a locally driven conversation, because it requires HUD grantees to analyze their own situations and develop locally driven plans to address their fair housing challenges.

Finally, Dr. Carson stated in writing that he would enforce the Fair Housing Act and support HUD's 2015 rule.

If Dr. Carson were to reverse the fair housing rule, it would violate his commitments at the hearing and in writing.

LGBTQ Housing Rights. During the Committee's process, I sought information on Dr. Carson's views of the housing rights of LGBTQ individuals.

In the past, Dr. Carson has made troubling comments about LGBTQ people that raised questions about whether LGBTQ people should enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Dr. Carson's views in this area are important because the HUD Secretary oversees the housing rights of all Americans, including LGBTQ people. LGBTQ people face housing discrimination, bullying, and an alarmingly high incidence of youth homelessness.

In his written statement, Dr. Carson clearly stated that he wants to improve the lives of all families and communities ``no matter their race, creed, color, or orientation.''

In light of his previous statements, my colleague and I asked further questions.

I asked Dr. Carson whether he believes that HUD has a duty to take actions that promote equal access to housing opportunities for LGBTQ people. In response, he stated that he believes that ``all Americans . . . should be protected by the law,'' but went on to say that no one gets ``extra rights.''

To clarify his meaning, I asked whether he could think of any instances where protecting equal access to housing opportunities for LGBTQ people would mean providing them ``extra rights.''

His response was ``I cannot.''

I also asked whether he believes that HUD provides ``extra rights'' to LGBTQ people that need to be withdrawn.

His response was ``I do not.''

In other statements, Dr. Carson also clearly pledged to protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination and to continue to support and enforce HUD's equal access rules.

These rules ensure that all individuals have equal access to the Department's programs ``without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status'' and in accordance with their gender identity.

If Dr. Carson is confirmed, any actions that he or the agency take to discriminate against or limit the housing rights of LGBTQ individuals and families would be contrary to his statements to me and the Committee.

Rental Assistance. Dr. Carson promised to be an advocate for HUD rental assistance.

During the hearing, Dr. Carson backed away from his previous position calling for 10 percent across-the-board cuts to Federal programs as a budget-cutting measure.

At our hearing, Dr. Carson noted that he had revised his position to 1 percent across-the board cuts as a way to achieve budget savings. While I do not subscribe to this policy, it shows moderation of Dr. Carson's previous position.

With respect to HUD programs, he recognized the value of HUD rental assistance programs in meeting the needs of the lowest income individuals, stating:

When it comes to deep affordability, though, removing all

regulatory barriers won't get you there. It comes down to

subsidy. . . . I think we can all agree that we will all make

sure housing is a key consideration in every appropriations

bill . . . If confirmed I will be a vocal advocate internally

for funding, but prioritization will continue to occur in

this Administration as it did in the last.

Dr. Carson also recognized the value of the important safety net provided by HUD programs, stating that ``the rental assistance program is essential'' and that ``safety net programs are important. I would never . . . advocate abolishing them without having an alternative route for people to follow.''

Ending Homelessness. In 2010, Opening Doors, the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, set out goals to end homelessness for veterans, the chronically homeless, families, children, and youth and all other homelessness.

Through a combination of bipartisan federal investments in appropriate housing solutions particularly permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless and HUD-VASH vouchers for veterans and improved practices at the federal and local levels, we have made real progress toward these goals. Since 2010, such investments have helped reduce chronic homelessness by 27 percent and veterans' homelessness by 47 percent.

Yet, more remains to be done.

According to HUD's ``2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report'' to Congress, approximately 549,928 people were homeless on a given night in January 2016. Nearly 195,000 of the homeless on this night were in families including at least one child.

Stating that ``No one can argue with the goal of ending homelessness,'' Dr. Carson said he intends to build on the progress we have made toward ending homelessness. He also said he will ``call for continued investment to end homelessness for veterans, the chronically homeless, and children and families.''

Dr. Carson also praised the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, which coordinates Federal efforts to efficiently and effectively combat homelessness and helps facilitate local communities' coordinated efforts.

Housing and Infrastructure. The President's promised $1 trillion investment in infrastructure is one of the pillars of the President's Plan for Urban Renewal. This is an area where I have said I would like to work with the new administration.

Our grandparents built an infrastructure for us that was the envy of the world and became the foundation of our economy for years to come. But after decades of neglect, we need to reinvest.

My colleagues in the Democratic caucus and I are taking the President up on his call for a $1 trillion investment in American infrastructure.

To jump-start the conversation about the President's promise, we announced ``A Blueprint to Rebuild America's Infrastructure.''

This blueprint talks about ways we can invest in American infrastructure to improve the Nation's transportation, water, housing, and community infrastructure while creating thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs in Ohio and across the country.

Our blueprint includes $100 billion to rebuild our main streets and communities, which is central to HUD's mission.

This includes ideas to address affordable housing challenges, eliminate the blighted properties that bring down local property values in neighborhoods, and remediate lead hazards that can set children back for life and increase public costs.

We need to invest in the infrastructure of our communities.

I've talked about the need to address lead-based paint to prevent childhood lead poisoning.

In communities across Ohio and the country, blighted properties are holding our neighborhoods back. They reduce neighbors' property values, reduce tax base necessary to support public services, and create crime and safety threats.

A 2015 report from Policy Matters Ohio estimated Ohio alone would need $750 million to address the State's residential demolition needs.

Our public housing alone needs an estimated $26 billion in repairs.

When we met, Dr. Carson said that he is supportive of investing in our public housing infrastructure.

In questions following the hearing, I asked Dr. Carson whether he would work with the President to ensure that there is a real infrastructure package to address the needs of our urban and rural communities and that it includes funding for preserving and creating affordable housing.

In response, Dr. Carson responded by saying, ``I will absolutely commit to advocating for the inclusion of housing in the President Elect's infrastructure package.''

I look forward to working with Dr. Carson to ensure that the administration supports these job-creating investments in our housing and other infrastructure.

Support Despite Reservations. As I stated at the outset, Dr. Carson is not the nominee that I would have chosen to lead HUD.

I do not agree with all of his positions.

For example, Dr. Carson wants to help people increase their incomes so that they can become self-sufficient. I also believe we should do everything we can to help families escape poverty and find good, middle-class jobs that can sustain a family.

However, Dr. Carson seems to believe that this can be done without raising the minimum wage and without the Labor Department's overtime rule that would help 100,000 workers in my state get the pay they deserve. He believes incomes will rise just by creating the right ``environment.''

I believe that the Federal Government should stand on the side of workers rather than advancing a billionaire agenda.

But despite my reservations and my disagreements with some of his positions, I am voting to confirm him, based on the commitments he made to the committee that I discussed here today.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition, or NLIHC, is a leading national organization advocating for safe, affordable housing for low- income people, including the residents of HUD-assisted housing.

NLIHC recently circulated a statement that reads:

Despite our initial concerns about Carson's lack of

experience with and knowledge of the HUD programs that he

would oversee, NLIHC does not oppose his nomination:

As demonstrated in his Senate confirmation hearing, Carson

has clearly taken the time to begin to understand and come to

appreciate the importance of HUD's programs.

Once confirmed, NLIHC is committed to working with Dr.

Carson to ensure that the lowest income people in America

have decent, affordable and accessible homes.

In the coming years, I will do everything in my power to hold him to his promises and to advocate for HUD's important work.

I Hope the Administration Helps Him Succeed. Even if Dr. Carson and I shared the exact same views, I would be concerned about what the next few years bodes for HUD and our communities.

On January 23, the Trump administration adopted a hiring freeze and called for a reduction in the Federal workforce.

HUD already experienced the greatest percentage drop in career employees across the government from 2005 through 2014, and now HUD faces the highest percentage career employees eligible to retire by 2019.

According to HUD's FY 2017 budget justifications, ``This retirement wave can cause a loss of leadership and institutional knowledge at all levels.''

Such a loss could also cause a failure to ensure that the Department is upholding its duties to taxpayers by ensuring the quality of federally-assisted housing, fair housing enforcement, and overseeing FHA lending programs, for examples.

Dr. Carson says he wants to learn from and be on the side of HUD's career staff. Let's hope the administration gives him sufficient staffing to accomplish his mission.

I am also very concerned about HUD's budget going forward.

The Senate recently confirmed Mick Mulvaney, an ideologue who threatened to default on our debt and wants to gut our retirement safety net, to lead the President's Office of Management and Budget.

There have been reports that the administration has been considering using Heritage Foundation budget blueprints as the basis for its budget proposals.

Heritage has proposed budget outlines that would literally zero out the HUD rental assistance programs and the Community Development Block Grant Program.

We are also hearing reports that the Trump administration is making plans to cut nondefense discretionary programs by $54 billion in fiscal year 2018--about a 10 percent cut--in order to fund increased defense spending.

This cut would come on top of the sequestration-related cuts to nondefense discretionary, or NDD, programs that will kick in in FY 2018 if we don't do something to stop them.

NDD programs at HUD have already absorbed cuts. Since 2010, funding for public housing has fallen 21 percent, while funding for the HOME program has fallen by more than 50 percent.

Sequestration cuts in FY 2013 reduced the number of housing vouchers by more than 80,000. In recent years, Congress and local agencies have been able to restore many of these lost vouchers, but further cutbacks will reverse this trend.

At a time when our families are facing growing affordable housing needs, the administration may be considering cuts that would devastate our housing safety net and leave families, seniors, formerly homeless veterans, and communities reeling.

All of this is coming at the same time that they are repealing the ACA and working to repeal rules that protect workers, consumers, and retirees.

At our hearing, Dr. Carson himself walked away from previous comments he had made in support of 10 percent across-the-board cuts.

At the nomination hearing, Dr. Carson stated:

I want to advocate for the HUD budget. . . . In the process

of doing a listening tour and in talking to the people who

were there already I want to put together a world-class plan

on housing in this country and then I want to come to you

with that world-class plan and I want to convince you all

that this is what we need to do.

I hope that the administration and those setting budget priorities here in Congress will give Dr. Carson and HUD the tools they need to fulfill their mission.

If not, I hope my colleagues and citizens across the country will work with me to ensure that we have a housing and community development policy that meets the needs of all Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember the life and legacy of Mr. Willard ``Will'' P. Heddles, a champion of American manufacturing who dedicated much of his life to improving his home--the community of Tiffin, OH.

A native of Colorado, Mr. Heddles moved to Tiffin in the 1970s to oversee Tiffin Art Metal Company. The company was founded at the turn of the century, originally making stamped ornamental ceiling panels. When cars became popular in the 1920s, the company seized the opportunity and began making large billboard frames.

When its parent company wanted to sell the plant, Mr. Heddles wasn't impressed by any of the potential buyers. He knew how important this plant was to his community. So Mr. Heddles organized a management buyout and eventually became the owner of the company, known today as Tiffin Metal Products.

Under Mr. Heddles' leadership, Tiffin Metal Products continued to demonstrate the kind of adaptability and creativity that enables a company to grow and thrive. Today Tiffin Metal Products remains one of the two main manufacturers of large billboards in the country, while also making custom products and a popular brand of specialty lockers for law enforcement.

Mr. Heddles took pride in his role in American manufacturing and in keeping his company true to its Ohio roots. Over the years, Tiffin Metal Products has provided good jobs to hundreds of people in Tiffin and Seneca County, and those workers have shown the world that Ohioans know how to make things and make them well.

Will Heddles also took pride in his community, giving generously to local service programs and the arts and helping establish the Seneca Industrial and Economic Development Corporation, a private nonprofit organization working to drive positive economic and community development in the area.

He will be missed by his family, church, community, and the men and women who have been a part of Tiffin Metal Products, a great Ohio manufacturing success story. I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me in celebrating the life of Mr. Willard P. Heddles and his lifelong commitment to American manufacturing.

Madam President, I speak in opposition to Scott Pruitt, and I thank Senator Carper for the good work he has done in leading the opposition to someone who is a climate change denier and will not release information that the public should see.

I want to say a few comments about the majority leader's comments. I am incredulous that he thinks this has been unfair to the Trump administration and Republicans; that we have not moved faster. We know a bunch of things. We know President Trump didn't begin his vetting process, as most Presidential candidates do, in August.

We then know right after the election he fired his person in charge of vetting and of the transition. We know then he appointed people without vetting them because he wanted to speed it up, and we also know that a number of people who President Trump nominated were billionaires and Wall Street bankers, and they had very complicated financial backgrounds and holdings, and because the Trump administration didn't do it, the Senate had to do it, and the media had to do it--to look at the backgrounds of some of these nominees.

Then, on top of that, we saw a level of corruption we had never seen in Presidential nominations. We saw a Secretary of Health and Human Services--passed by being voted for by every Republican--who bought and sold healthcare stocks while a Member of Congress, voting on and sponsoring healthcare amendments and bills.

We saw other nominees. We saw Secretary Mnuchin, and Senator Carper played a role in this, now-Secretary Mnuchin, who forgot to disclose a $100 million investment he had and then lied to the Senate committee, as pointed out by the Columbus Dispatch--the most conservative paper in my State--about robo-signing, sending hundreds of people in my State into foreclosure.

The ethics of these nominees are such, and then you have Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the EPA, and he will not disclose 2,600 emails that we know how--as Senator Carper has done such a good job on--we know how a number of these emails point to--I am not a lawyer--if not the word ``collusion,'' certainly doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry that he might occasionally want to regulate instead of the EPA. That is the story.

I want an Administrator of the EPA who wants to protect the country's great natural resources, not someone hell-bent on undermining the Agency he will lead. The environmental challenges we face in my State are too great to put the EPA in the hands of someone with a track record of putting polluters before public health, of choosing companies that pollute over communities that are victimized by that pollution, and too often he is doing the work of campaign donors instead of the public.

I know what the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have meant to my State. I know what Lake Erie looks like. When I was a kid, I lived about an hour and a half away. Lake Erie was an environmental disaster. The counties of Cuyahoga, Erie, and Lorain couldn't clean it up. The State of Ohio didn't have the resources to clean it up.

It was only that terrible fire in Cleveland where bridge trestles on the Cuyahoga River caught on fire that got the Nixon administration to move and create the EPA, and then we cleaned up Lake Erie. That was one of the great accomplishments in our country's history--environmental and otherwise, one of the great accomplishments.

It was a Republican administration with the Democratic Congress, when good environmental policy was bipartisan, when Republicans as well as Democrats believed in being stewards of the Earth in following a number of the teachings of the New Testament about being stewards of the Earth.

It was a sustained effort by citizens and by their elected officials in both parties to protect our public health. The EPA affects the water that comes into our children's drinking fountains. It affects our small businesses that rely on tourists at our lakes and beaches. It affects farmers who feed the Nation. According to Dr. Aparna Bole--a pediatric specialist at Cleveland's University Hospital in Cleveland--asthma rates in my part of Ohio are above the national average because of the region's poor air quality.

Climate change is not some distant problem. We tend to think about wildfires in the West or devastation faced by coastal communities, like those affected by Hurricane Sandy. The Midwest is affected too.

In August, 2014, a harmful algae bloom left 500,000 Ohioans in Greater Toledo, in Northwest Ohio, without safe drinking water for nearly 3 days. This is Lake Erie. This is more or less the natural color of Lake Erie. This is the algal bloom. It is a stunning, beautiful picture if you don't know what it is, but when you see a boat cutting through these algal blooms and seeing what this meant, as the algae chokes Lake Erie--Lake Erie right here is about 30 feet deep. Contrast that with Lake Superior, 600 feet, and you will see why Lake Erie is more vulnerable.

Lake Erie is 2 percent of the water in all the Great Lakes. Lake Erie has 50 percent of the fish of all the Great Lakes. The fish like shallower and warmer water, but they don't like these kinds of algal blooms and what they do to this community. Because it is the shallowest of the Great Lakes, and this is the shallowest part of this great lake, it is uniquely vulnerable to these harmful algal blooms.

We know these blooms are caused by excess nutrients in our water-- untreated sewage, urban runoff, and runoff from farm fields. This Maumee River Basin going into the lake from the south, going into the lake just north of Toledo, drains the largest 2 million acres, the largest basin of any tributary going into any of the Great Lakes.

On Wednesday, I met with David Spangler, a charter boat captain on Lake Erie. We talked about how the Great Lakes region has seen a 37- percent increase in heavy rain events. We have seen that hotter summers make the blooms worse. We talked about protecting the lake as one of the great environmental challenges, not just for Ohio or even the industrial Midwest but protecting Lake Erie and the Great Lakes, the greatest source of freshwater in the world, by most measurements--how important that is.

Dave has been fishing on this lake and its tributaries for decades. He bragged about the improvements we

have seen over the year--how water quality has improved, how walleye and yellow perch populations have rebounded, how he leads fishing expeditions on the Great Lakes, on Lake Erie. You know what, look at what these algal blooms have done. You can guess what they have done. Nobody will go fishing in these kinds of waters.

If the algal bloom is there too long, lots of fish die in addition to that. We need an EPA Administrator who understands that the contamination hurts everything from our children's health to our small businesses. He told me he doesn't think Scott Pruitt is the right person for this job. He believes that with Scott Pruitt at the helm of the EPA, we would likely lose the gains we made in the lake.

Of particular concern to both Mr. Spangler and me is that Mr. Pruitt said mercury does not cause a threat to human health. Really? Mercury doesn't cause a threat to human health? If Mr. Pruitt doesn't believe that, I would like him to explain to me why the Ohio EPA, the Ohio Department of Health--both with Republican administrators--have a statewide mercury advisory stating that women of childbearing age and children under 15 are advised to eat no more than one meal per week of fish from any Ohio water body. Think about that. You shouldn't eat more than one meal a week of fish taken out of any of the Ohio aqua system-- limit the amount of fish eaten from our State's largest body. That means even though we worked for decades to reduce mercury emissions, apparently Mr. Pruitt doesn't think mercury exposure is a threat to public health.

Mr. Pruitt has solicited thousands of dollars of campaign contributions for himself, the Republican Attorneys General Association, all the Republican attorneys general. There are three dozen or so of them. They work together to raise lots of money to keep themselves in office so they can continue to do some of the work they do. Some of the work they do is stand in the way of good environmental policy.

He has refused, for years, as Senators Merkley and Carper have pointed out consistently, to disclose some 2,600 documents, showing correspondence between his office and the very companies he is supposed to ensure follow the law.

We know who some of those companies are. What is he hiding? Why won't he tell the Senate what is in those documents? Why does the Senate Republican leader not want us to see those documents? Because he is saying, no, we have to vote on this now. It just happens to be we will be looking at documents over the next few days, but apparently it is not going to be able to affect this vote.

It could be because in the past he submitted letters to the EPA that were written by the companies he is supposed to regulate. Think about that. An oil company writes a letter and then that letter remarkably ends up pretty much word for word to be sent to the EPA.

Allowing him to become EPA Administrator is like allowing an arsonist to become the fire chief--the goal of both is to burn things down. Mr. Pruitt's record clearly shows he is not the right person to lead our Environmental Protection Agency.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, American families, hard-working American families need a Treasury Secretary who will work for them, not for Wall Street. Remember the tenor of the 2016 campaign, when candidate Trump, at every rally, spoke forcefully about draining the swamp. What we thought he meant was that he would drain the swamp, that he would not be hiring a whole bunch of Wall Street executives, Goldman Sachs employees, and other bankers who helped drive the economy into a ditch; that he would actually stay away from them.

In fact, we have seen the opposite. It has become obvious that the Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin is not about hard-working American families, but he is about working for Wall Street. The Treasury Secretary has enormous influence over Americans' lives, impacting everything from their taxes to their mortgages to their retirement.

Mr. Mnuchin doesn't have a policy background to give us clues as to what he would do with his power. He was a major Trump fundraiser. Here is what we do know. He made millions as a hedge fund manager. He made millions at Goldman Sachs, where he traded mortgage securities and other products that contributed to the financial crisis. He headed what has been called a foreclosure machine, profiting in kicking hard- working Americans out of their homes.

When presented with tough questions from members of the Finance Committee in front of which he appeared, Mr. Mnuchin expected leniency and understanding from a bunch of Senators, but it is not something that he gave--leniency and understanding for Ohio families trying to keep a roof over their heads. They got the runaround from lenders with claims of lost documents, modifications that weren't honored, dual tracking. When this confirmation process began, we believe that Mr. Mnuchin and his bank, OneWest, had foreclosed on at least 40,000 people in three States. We understand--not because of information that he was willing, voluntarily at the beginning to provide--we understand now that it is at least eight States, and I expect we will learn more.

Unfortunately, he probably will be Treasury Secretary by the time a lot of this comes out because the Finance Committee didn't do its job, because Mr. Mnuchin wasn't forthcoming enough, because this Senate is trying to rush through ethically challenged candidates to be Secretaries of HHS, the EPA, Education, State, and Treasury.

OneWest's regulator, the regulator from Mr. Mnuchin's bank when he was CEO--they had shoddy mortgage practices, the regulator said. They foreclosed on more than 10,000 borrowers, including some who were current on their mortgage.

I want to put a picture up on one of the borrowers who was foreclosed on not far from where I live. The ZIP Code I live in, in Cleveland, OH, had the

highest in 2007--the first half of that year, had more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States. To a bunch of U.S. Senators, that is a little troubling. A lot of foreclosures, terrible thing. But most U.S. Senators have probably never been foreclosed on, and I am guessing most U.S. Senators have never spent a lot of time socially with people who are foreclosed on. And I am guessing a whole lot of Senators have probably never even talked in detail about what it means to be foreclosed on.

Think about it. Your family is struggling. Your family lives in a home in Slavic Village, OH, a mile north of my House. And you have been working hard, you and your spouse. The parents have worked hard. The kids are teenagers--the challenges that all families have. They are making moderate incomes. The wife has her hours cut back. Then they are struggling. They have trouble paying their mortgage. They keep paying it. Then the husband has his plant closed. And in some cases, in this lady's case--I will talk about her in a moment--she was foreclosed on, not even because she lost a job. She was foreclosed on because of what Mr. Mnuchin said.

When we talk about foreclosures, we ought to think about what happens to these families. The wife maybe has hours cut back, the husband loses his job because the plant closes. Then what happens? They go to the kids and say: We have to get rid of our pet because pets cost money going to the vet, buying food, putting them for a weekend or day somewhere. They have to take the animal for somebody else to watch. So they give a pet away, which is heartbreaking to kids and to parents. Then they have to cut back on other things. Then they realize they are about to be foreclosed on or evicted. Then they have to move. They bring their son and daughter, 12 and 14 years old, in and they say: We don't know what school district you are going to be in. We don't know where you are going. We don't know if you will be around your friends because we are moving--all those things where their lives turn upside down. They lose many of their possessions. Their children's lives are so different. Their lives are turned upside down.

That is why what Mr. Mnuchin did on these 40,000 foreclosures is morally repugnant and outrageous. Yet this Senate is only 3 days away from party-line voting for this incredibly ethically challenged Secretary of the Treasury. Why? I guess listening to my Republican friends here, a number of them suggest they really don't much like this nominee. They didn't much like Secretary Price, a guy who did everything but sell stocks on the floor of the House--bought and sold health care stocks while he was working on health care legislation for those companies. They didn't much like voting for him. And a number of them wanted to vote against the Secretary of Education because she was maybe just the least qualified, as the Presiding Officer knows. She may be the least qualified Secretary of Education who has ever been nominated, but they voted for these people. Why? Because they are fearful. They are fearful of what Donald Trump will try to do to destroy their careers. You know how they know that? Because the Republican conference that meets every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in this room right behind this door--the Republican conference--there are three Members of the Republican conference, of the 52 Senators, who ran for President against Donald Trump. They are Senators Graham, Rubio and Cruz. All three of them were targets of Donald Trump, of Candidate Donald Trump. He insulted them, called them names, turned his supporters on them. The other--52 minus 3--the other 49 Senators know it can happen to them. That is why you are seeing these party-line votes for people as ethically challenged as Steve Mnuchin, for people who have, frankly, betrayed what trust they should have had working for a bank the way they did.

As I said, a OneWest regulator said his bank foreclosed on more than 10,000 borrowers. When I said 40,000, I misspoke. We know it was 40,000 in three States. A number of them--the OneWest regulator said something different, a smaller number that dealt with shoddy mortgage practices.

But whatever the number is here, it is in the tens of thousands. Think about that. Some of these were not even families who were struggling to keep their homes. These families were doing everything right. They paid their mortgages on time. His bank came and took their houses away because he could make more money. He did not care about these people losing their homes.

If he did not care as a banker about people losing their homes, do you think he is going to care much as Treasury Secretary about people losing their homes? Do you think he will all of a sudden develop an empathy for moderate-income people who lose their homes?

He did not have it when he was a banker making millions of dollars. One of the things that is amazing is that he came in front of our committee. You know, these gazillionaires, billionaires, whatever, who come in front of our committees have to disclose their wealth and tell us who they are and what they are.

When Secretary-designee Mnuchin came in front of the committee--get this. I know I can't talk directly to people in the gallery, but I am guessing this would not have happened to them. He forgot to disclose that he had a $100 million investment somewhere. He forgot about $100 million. I am guessing that nobody in this gallery, probably nobody on the floor, certainly no staff people back here because I know what they are paid--none of them would forget that they had a $100 million investment. Maybe he just did not want to tell us about this $100 million investment any more than he wanted to tell us about those robo- signings that I will talk about in a minute.

The report that I mentioned from the regulators said that Mr. Mnuchin's bank violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by initiating foreclosure on 54 Active Duty military families. So, I mean, maybe that is worse; maybe it is not. I think it is probably even worse to foreclose on people who generally did not do anything wrong, but then he foreclosed on men and women in uniform, and put them out of their homes to pad his own bank's profits.

I would assume some of these people in the military he foreclosed on might have just been stationed overseas, protecting Mr. Mnuchin and his family, protecting me, protecting Erin and my staff, and Graham and Gideon and others; that is what they do in the military. He foreclosed on them. So, again, he had no empathy for these men and women in the service. What? He is going to care about these men and women when he is Treasury Secretary?

We now know this foreclosure was even worse than we initially thought. Around the time of the hearing, the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio's most conservative newspaper, a newspaper that always likes Republicans and rarely likes people like me--the Columbus Dispatch ran a front-page investigative story that found that OneWest used robo-signings in mortgage documents with abandon.

This, despite the fact that Mr. Mnuchin claimed in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee that his company had never done so--if you are the CEO making tens of millions of dollars a year, would you not know they did robo-signings? Wouldn't you know that they just had staff that signed, signed, signed without looking at these documents, spending an average of less than 1 minute on each document?

So you are going approve a document which might have to do with a loan to someone, and you did not even spend--as the bank, you did not even spend 60 seconds looking at this. Why? Because all of the profits were generated by volume. Quality did not matter. All the profits for this bank--or much of the profits--were generated by volume.

Ohio reporters found dozens of foreclosure cases in Franklin County alone--Columbus--that had been robo-signed. Yes, Mr. Mnuchin, in this town nobody wants to use the word I am going to use. They want to say that it was a half-truth or it was not quite right or it was fabricated. No, what Mr. Mnuchin did is lie. He said: We did not do robo-signings.

Well, the Columbus Dispatch--this was up there a moment ago--the Columbus Dispatch said he did. He lied. They say it more nicely, perhaps: Mnuchin's denials don't match the record. He lied.

Again, his lying was not just lying. It was what he lied about, and people lost their homes as a result.

Bill Faith, one of Ohio's and America's housing advocates told the Dispatch, ``The guy is just lying. There is no other way to say it.''

The guy is just lying. Since the Dispatch ran the article--this article--they have continued to report additional findings. Other reporters in other cities have uncovered more instances of robo- signings by Mr. Mnuchin's bank.

I am especially concerned about his defensiveness and outright deception when asked about this. His misconduct caused real, serious pain. That is fundamentally the big issue. It is bad that he lied to a bunch of Senators. OK. That is maybe not that big a deal. It is, but it isn't. It is bad that he lied to the American public, but he lied about something that resulted in people getting evicted, foreclosed on, thrown out of their homes--people with families, people serving in the Armed Forces. That is not enough reason for any Republican--not one Republican--to vote against him? Not one Republican?

I would like some of my colleagues to meet some of these people who were foreclosed on and have them explain to them why they are voting for Mr. Mnuchin. Is it because of fear that Donald Trump might call them out and call them a name and try to destroy their career? Apparently. I can't think of any other reason.

One victim, and I will put her name up, lives, as I said, maybe only 5 miles from where my wife and I live. She is a social worker from Cleveland Heights. Her name is Carla Duncan. She told the Dispatch, ``It got to the point that I was afraid to open my own door.''

Mr. Faith, whom I quoted before, said it has been devastating, not only to people who got caught in this kind of scheme but also to people who happened to live in the neighborhood, people like Ms. Duncan. It is scary that this man, whose bank--because of the behavior of that bank, because of a policy handed down by Mr. Mnuchin, because of a policy about which he lied--lied to the committee of the Senate, lied according to the most Republican conservative paper in Ohio, and she lost her home.

This guy is going to be the Secretary of the Treasury when he did all of that. It is scary. It is scary for hard-working families in Ohio and across the country who are still digging out from the financial crisis. I have said on this floor a number of times: ZIP Code 44105 in Cleveland where I live had more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States of America in the first half of 2007.

How can the people of Ohio of ZIP Code 44105 or any other ZIP Code in a State like mine or Nevada or Nebraska or a number of other States-- how can they trust this Secretary of the Treasury who not only profited off this crisis but made it worse? How can you elevate somebody like that to being Secretary of the Treasury?

One of his employees said the bank did not have any process in place to help families avoid foreclosures. It might cost the bank some profits if they helped these families avoid foreclosure. So, what the heck--foreclosure, we make more money that way. That was Mr. Mnuchin's bottom line. His bank was not even pretending to care about the thousands of families who could lose their homes and, with them, their lives.

Lincoln once said--his staff always insisted he stay in the White House and win the war and free the slaves and preserve the Union. Lincoln said: No, I have to go out and get my public-opinion bath. In other words, I want to talk to people whose lives are affected because of the decisions that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, make. I want to know what people's lives are like--as much as I can understand--so I can make the right decision.

Do you think that Mr. Mnuchin has spoken to these families? Do you think he has met Ms. Duncan? I assume not.

Do you think he has spoken to any of these families who lost everything when his bank took their homes and turned their lives upside down? Do you think he talked to any of them?

Do any of my Republican colleagues talk to people who have lost their homes because of something a greedy bank executive did? If any of my Republican colleagues would talk to people like Ms. Duncan, I am thinking they would not--you know the line: One bird flies off a telephone wire, they all fly off.

I am thinking my Republican colleagues would not quite all be flying off the telephone wire in unanimity and in consensus to vote for people like Stephen Mnuchin, who is ethically challenged, who has wreaked so much havoc on so many people's lives, who has shown no empathy for people, like Ms. Duncan, who were foreclosed on.

We are going to elevate him to Secretary of the Treasury because every one of my Republican colleagues is going to go: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes--52 times. I guess that is what is happening. But it would be really nice if some of my colleagues would go and speak to the Ms. Duncans of the world and call up Mr. Mnuchin and say: Give us a list of the people you foreclosed on. We would like to talk to some of them before we vote.

I know we are voting on Monday. My colleagues, mostly, are home for the weekend. I am not sure they are going to have dinner with very many of these Ms. Duncans. I think they are probably going to have dinner at nicer places than Ms. Duncan has been able to go to because of the economic problems caused by this future Treasury Secretary.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Mnuchin actually said to the committee that he ``never wanted to be in the mortgage servicing business.'' It showed in his treatment of homeowners, including the Active-Duty members of our military in Ohio and across the country. It is a strange thing to say, for someone who brought a thrift that held more than $20 billion of its own mortgages and serviced $185 billion worth of mortgages in total. He said he did not want to do this, but then he bought that bank. I don't know quite what he was talking about.

It concerns me because he suggests he was more focused on turning a profit--pretty obvious. We know that. What he was doing, instead of helping Americans keep their homes was--while he was CEO of OneWest, what was he doing? He was handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in insider loans to a troubled Hollywood media company.

So on the one side he is foreclosing on people's homes. He is making a lot of money doing that. He is making a lot of money, so he had a lot of money to hand out. He is handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in insider loans to a company in Hollywood, a media company called Relativity. He was friends with the CEO of Relativity. His hedge fund, Dune, was an investor. He was cochairman of the board.

On top of all this, the FBI is investigating Relativity. A group of Relativity investors have filed a lawsuit accusing him of fraud.

It is bad enough what happened to Ms. Duncan and how he lied to the committee, not to mention the FBI investigation and all of that. A guy like that could not get elected to the Senate with his ethics challenges.

Do you know what else? He probably could not get hired in the Treasury Department or in this body with those kinds of ethics, but we are going to vote for him--52 of my colleagues, all apparently afraid of Donald Trump calling them out, giving them a nickname, and ruining their careers. They are all going to vote 52 times--52 of them--for him as Secretary of Treasury.

So let's review: False testimony, families losing their homes to a big bank's abusive practices, fraud accusations, insider loans, and this President chose Mr. Mnuchin, this President who said he is going to drain the swamp.

Mr. Mnuchin made a fortune kicking military servicemembers and seniors and working families out of their homes. He gave false testimony to the Finance Committee. With that record, what are Wall Street lawbreakers going to think when he is supposed to be the top voice on financial oversight?

He has never had empathy for people like Ms. Duncan. He really did not much care or talk to these people who lost their homes. He also won't do that as Secretary of the Treasury. He won't--I can't imagine-- show any empathy toward people who are hurt by his actions.

He is also setting an example to Wall Street that now there is no sheriff in

town. If you are Wall Street, you can get away with anything with this guy as Secretary of the Treasury. You can get away with anything with Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.

Last week, the former second in command at Goldman Sachs, Clevelander Gary Cohn, went on TV to praise the President's Executive order to start rolling back Wall Street reforms. The Executive order puts Steve Mnuchin, if he is confirmed, in change of dismantling Wall Street reform.

After the crisis, Democrats put a real cop on the beat by creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This independent law enforcement agency returned $12 billion in hard-earned money back to 29 million Americans. We know it works. We also know that Wall Street hates the consumer bureau.

The American people don't suffer from the same collective amnesia that Wall Street and its allies in Congress have about how devastating the crisis was for our country. The people we represent know, and Mnuchin's bank proves, when we turn the reins to Wall Street, it is working families who pay the price. Wall Street has recovered from this financial crisis. ZIP Code 44105 in Cleveland has not recovered from this financial crisis. Seniors who have lost savings haven't recovered. People who have lost jobs haven't recovered. People who have lost their homes haven't recovered.

Mr. Mnuchin has done just fine. People at Goldman Sachs have done just fine, and so many others have. I just don't know how we trust Mr. Mnuchin to rein in Wall Street.

I would ask my colleagues, in conclusion, if they believe misleading the Senate should disqualify them from confirmation because how are we going to have hearings in the future when people--they may raise their right hand and swear an oath or they may not. But it is generally expected that, if you are going to testify in the Finance Committee, you might want to tell the truth. It is kind of expected. It is kind of what you are expected to do.

But Congressman Price didn't tell the truth. Now he is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He lied, according to the Wall Street Journal, America's most conservative mainstream newspaper. Mr. Mnuchin, came in front of the Finance Committee. He lied, according to the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio's most conservative Republican newspaper. So why should testimony to a Senate committee even matter? Why should it even matter? When you put a cop on the beat like Mr. Mnuchin, why should Wall Street get more honest instead of even less honest when it comes to abusing the public? That is my fear if Secretary Mnuchin is confirmed.

Again, I am sorry my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just--they are afraid of this President of the United States.

In a few months, they will quit being afraid of him because they will realize the kind of President it looks like he is turning out to be. It seems to me they may be the last to learn this.