Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my health fellow, Christa Wagner, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the calendar year.

Mr. President, I appreciate your flexibility during Senator Hatch's speech. I thank Senator Duckworth and Senator Cortez Masto for their evolving leadership and for their passion about these issues.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is pretty clear. It is pretty simple. There never has been a nominee for Secretary of Education as unqualified as Betsy DeVos. That is clear to pretty much every Member of this body--not that every Member of this body is going to stand up and vote the way that probably their conscience suggests they do. Whether they like her ideology or not, whether they like the hundreds of millions of dollars they have contributed to all kinds of political campaigns or not, they clearly understand that this nominee, from her performance and her lack of depth of knowledge of education, is simply not qualified.

As many have said on this floor, based on her confirmation hearing, it appears she has a complete lack of knowledge as to what the Department of Education actually does. She didn't seem to understand the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires public schools to provide free and appropriate education to all students with disabilities.

I think that when I first ran for Congress some years ago--I assume it was the same for the Presiding Officer; I know it was the same for the ranking member from Washington State who sits here in this Chamber and who has led the opposition to Betsy DeVos--from my first days in Congress, every time I met with school boards, every time I met with teachers, every time I met with school administrators, with principals, they would talk to me about IDEA. They would talk to me about school districts and the costs and their obligation and duty and desire to serve these students. Yet the designee for Secretary of Education put her hands up when there were discussions in the committee on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

It is astonishing that a nominee for Secretary of Education would demonstrate complete ignorance on something as crucial and important to public school education--to education as a whole--on this. It isn't her hearing performance alone that should disqualify her; it is her record. She has no experience with public schools at all.

The President of the United States has nominated for Secretary of Education someone with no experience in public schools at all--not as a teacher, not as an administrator, not as a student, not even as a parent. Nothing. Her only experience in education is as

a wealthy donor inheriting tens of millions of dollars herself. Her only experience in education is as a wealthy donor who spent millions of dollars advocating for for-profit--not charter schools like KIPP and Breakthrough in my State but for-profit charters in her State, the same policy that has ripped off taxpayers and failed students in Ohio. It betrays students, and it undermines and fleeces taxpayers.

It is obvious that if she and her family hadn't donated $200 million to Republicans and to conservative causes, there is no chance someone this unqualified would ever have been nominated for a position as exalted, as crucial, as important as Secretary of Education. Two hundred million dollars apparently is the price for the Cabinet slot.

So much for the President's campaign promise of draining the swamp. We see nominee after nominee, appointee after appointee coming from Wall Street. Now we see a $200 million contributor has also earned a Cabinet slot.

Because of her crusade, more than 80 percent of Michigan's charter schools are operated for profit. She helped design one of the least effective charter school systems in the country in Detroit. This matters to me because I know a lot about what has happened with for- profit charter schools in Ohio. For-profit charters have failed in Ohio. They have led to a charter school sector. Again, taking out KIPP and Breakthrough and the good charters that we have seen in Ohio, we have seen a charter school sector that has wasted taxpayers' money, that has funneled it to unaccountable for-profit companies, and that have been plagued by scandal after scandal.

I take that personally in Ohio because I know how students have been betrayed by this for-profit sector, I know how taxpayers have been fleeced in my State in this for-profit sector, and I know the devastation it leaves behind in less money, fewer dollars for public schools.

People call my State, regrettably, the ``Wild Wild West of charter schools.'' What a name to earn--Ohio is the ``Wild Wild West'' of for- profit charter schools. Students suffer as a result. Students in public schools, students in for-profit charter schools, and students in not- for-profit charter schools suffer as a result. The last thing we need to do is take the Wild Wild West model in Ohio or, even worse, the for- profit charter school structure and model in Michigan and replicate it at a national level.

This is important to remember: Of all the K-12 students in the country, public schools educate 90 percent of them, 90 percent of the students in this country. Betsy DeVos called traditional public education a ``dead end.'' Dead end for whom? She called traditional public education a ``dead end.''

Think of what we have done in this country. From 1789, when George Washington took the oath of office, up until now, public education has built this country. It has given all kinds of people opportunity, given all kinds of people a chance to get ahead. It has educated our children. We should be proud of our public school system.

We may confirm in the vote today a nominee who called a traditional public education a ``dead end,'' someone who has never worked in a public school, never gone to a public school, never been a parent of somebody in a public school.

She said she doesn't think that all schools that receive taxpayer dollars--whether they are public or for-profit charter--should be held to the same standards of accountability.

To me, one of the most telling moments of the committee hearing was when she would not commit to the same accountability standards for for- profit charters as she did for public schools. Do you know why? Because she knows her for-profit charters that she is so proud of don't live up to the same standards and that they are simply not as good. That is why she doesn't want accountability measures applied equally to for-profit charters and public education.

In Michigan, she fought a rescue plan for Detroit Public Schools that would have finally provided accountability for charters schools. No. She is against that. Why have lower standards for for-profit charters schools? Maybe that is because--I don't know about her investments. I don't think she has disclosed everything to the committee, but neither did Secretary-Designee Mnuchin. Neither did Secretary-Designee Price. I can go on and on. She doesn't want the same accountability for profit charters because it might hurt some of her investor friends.

She funneled $25,000--mostly inherited money--every day to legislators of Michigan until this accountability proposal was defeated. It was probably not $25,000 every day, but over time it averaged $25,000 a day to legislators in Michigan so she could have her way. Talk about draining the swamp. Yet she can't seem to come up with--this I take personally too--the $5 million she owes to Ohio taxpayers for violating State election laws. What is that about? She came into Ohio with a political action committee that she mostly funded and that she was involved in in a number of ways.

The Ohio Elections Commission and Ohio officials in a nonpartisan way found her guilty of campaign finance law violation. This committee was assessed a $5 million fine. Guess what. She quit putting money in this committee because she didn't want it to be subject to the fine. Our attorney general has not gone after her. He wants to be Governor, and he is a member of her party. I don't know their relationship or much care, but she is depriving our State of $5 million that she owes through this committee. Legally, she has found a way, with very expensive lawyers, to weasel out of it, to navigate her way through it.

The fact is, by any standards of decency, she owes my State $5 million. That could be 60 or 70 or 80 teachers. She cares about education. Paying a $5 million fine is probably like me paying 50 bucks. She is a billionaire, and $5 million won't break her. She will hardly notice it. But she is going to be in charge of the Department of Education, which collects student loan debt from people coming out of school making $30 or $40 or $50,000 a year, burdened with tens of thousands in student loan debt and struggling every month to make those payments. Yet she owes $5 million, and she just says: Sorry, I am not going to pay it.

Through this confirmation process, she will not even pay the debt of $5 million. Are my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle saying it is OK to nominate her and confirm her even though she owes this money to my State? She sent us a letter finally last week because I asked her to explain herself in the promise to repay taxpayers in my State.

She sent us a letter last week again refusing to take any personal responsibility for the legal action of this political action committee she founded. She chaired it at the time it broke the law, she paid the legal bills for it, but she wouldn't pay the fine that this committee owes, saying: I don't owe it.

Is that who you want? Is that the kind of person you want in terms of personal integrity, personal responsibility? I don't know how many times I have been preached at in this body by my colleagues on personal responsibility. But she will not pay her $5 million debt. Again, she founded a political action committee. She chaired it at the time she broke the law. She paid the legal fees for it, but she will not pay the money she owes that could hire 60, 70, 80 teachers in my State.

She spent millions pushing the same for-profit education model agenda that has ripped off Ohio taxpayers and shortchanged our students.

Most people in this country used to think that billionaires are not above the law. In fact, some people--3 million fewer than voted for the other candidate--some people voted for this President because he said he would drain the swamp. If billionaires are, in fact, above the law-- if we are not holding Betsy DeVos accountable, it is hard to argue that billionaires are not above the law.

She is opposed by the disability community. She is opposed by the civil rights community. She is opposed by a number of people in the more legitimate charter school community. She is opposed by teachers. Even the National Association of Principals has come out against her nomination. If Senator Murray's words are correct about this--and I know they are because we have talked to them--this is the first time in history that the National Association of Principals has come out against a Secretary of Education.

I can't support Betsy DeVos because I can't look Ohio's parents in the eye and tell them she will not put profits ahead of their children's education. Our children deserve better than that.

In closing, I will come back to my comments about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, about which she knew nothing or knew little. I think how could a Secretary of Education-designate, who prides herself on knowing a lot about education, how could she not know much about IDEA? And then it occurred to me. If you are running a for- profit charter school, you don't want disabled kids coming to your school. Why? Because it costs more to educate a disabled child than it does a child without any disabilities. It costs more because you might need more use of a nurse, a student aide, wheelchair accessibility, you might need special tutors. It costs more to educate a disabled child. A for-profit charter school doesn't want children with disabilities to walk through their doors or come in through a wheelchair through their doors. They can't make as much money.

This is how we do privatization in this country: Let the public schools take care of the disabled, the child with disabilities, because we are in this for profit. It is a little bit like Medicare. The private for-profit insurance companies want the youngest, healthiest people in Medicare, the 65- and 70-year-olds who are active, who take walks, do all that. They don't really want the sickest and the oldest. Let taxpayers pay for them. That is exactly what her model of education is all about. Let the for-profit charters skim the cream, if you will; take the children who cost the least and are easiest to educate, but the public schools take care of the children with disabilities.

Let the public schools take care of the children who maybe didn't have as much advantage in life as Betsy DeVos growing up. Let the public schools worry about the kids who might be a little more difficult because of discipline and other issues and what is going on in their homes. That is pretty clear how she looks at the world and looks at this job and, most importantly, how she looks at education in our country.

That is what disturbs me. That is fundamentally why I oppose Betsy DeVos and plan to vote emphatically today, no.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the job of the Attorney General of the United States is to enforce laws that protect the rights of each and every American. More than ever--more than ever--we need leaders who can bring Americans together to improve police-community relations, to ensure that all Americans have access to the ballot, and to reform our criminal justice system.

In the city in which I live, in Cleveland, we are under a consent decree today which already is improving relations between the police and the community. We saw it more than a decade ago in Cincinnati, where Mayor Cranley--then a member of the council and now the mayor-- has worked with the community, as have others. We see more people of color in the police department, and we see better training for police. We see improved relations in that community, in large part because the community came together--police, community leaders, citizens--to make

for better relationships and better relations inside the community. The consent decree there made a huge difference in that city. The consent decree in Cleveland is making a difference there. That is partly the job of the Attorney General--to make sure the Department of Justice stays on course to do that.

When we think of leaders whom we need to improve police-community relations, to ensure Americans have access to the ballot, and to reform our criminal justice system, Senator Sessions is simply not that leader. It is not personal. I have worked with Senator Sessions on issues like trade. I actually told him that, if he had been nominated as the Trade Representative, I would have happily voted for him. But we have strong policy differences on the issues that directly fall under the role of the Attorney General.

I examined his nearly 40-year record as a U.S. attorney, the attorney general of Alabama, and as U.S. Senator. Based on that record, I was the first in the Senate to say I cannot support his nomination. I told Senator Sessions on the floor of the Senate after I made that decision, before I announced it.

I have serious concerns that Senator Sessions' record on civil rights is at direct odds with the task of promoting justice and equality for all. What is more important in an Attorney General than that?

Senator Sessions has a history of racial insensitivity, bias against immigrants, disregard for the rule of law, hostility to the protection of civil rights--exactly what we don't need in the Attorney General of the United States of America.

He condemned the Department of Justice's investigation of law enforcement agencies accused of violating civil rights. He voted against the Violence Against Women Act. One issue after another after another disqualifies him from being the Attorney General of the United States.

Senator Sessions is wrong on voting rights. I served as Secretary of State of Ohio in the 1980s. I take voting rights very seriously. I believe we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for Americans to vote. In those days, in the 1980s, during the Reagan years in Washington, in Ohio we had voter registration, voter outreach, aggressive enrollment of new people to vote, of young people, of people regardless of political affiliation, regardless of ideology, regardless of age and race and income. We encouraged people to vote. We had good cooperation from Republicans and Democrats alike in the legislature.

I even approached the McDonald's corporation and asked them to print tray liners. They put tray liners on every tray. You go to McDonald's and order food. So I asked them to print the voter registration form on tray liners. They printed a million registration-form tray liners, resulting in thousands and thousands of voter registrations--some perhaps with ketchup stains or mustard stains on them, but nonetheless voter registration forms that were accepted by local boards of elections.

Utility companies included voter registration forms in their bills. Newspapers printed them in their daily papers so people could tear them out, fill them out, and send them in.

That was what we did for aggressive voter outreach, supported by people across the political spectrum.

But Senator Sessions doesn't seem to agree with that kind of voter outreach. He has a history of supporting voter ID laws that make it harder to vote. He refused to disavow President Trump's false statement--provably false. Lots of people may believe it because President Trump said it, but it is a provably false statement that there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes in this past election--no evidence, just demagoguery, just lies. But Senator Sessions was unwilling to disavow his perhaps future boss's comments.

Do we want an Attorney General, chief law enforcement official that is going to let the President go out and make statements like that that are provably false? Call them what they are--lies from the President of the United States. Do we want an Attorney General who is simply going to brush those away and pay no attention?

Senator Sessions called Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, good news for the South, even though, overwhelmingly, Senators in both parties had voted to renew and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. He called it good news for the South to weaken protections for people of color and others in voting rights.

Since that misguided decision, States across the country have passed new voting restrictions that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Americans. As Senator Sessions apparently was celebrating by saying ``good news for the South,'' Texas moved within 2 hours of the decision. Alabama, taking their cue from people like Senator Sessions, acted the next day to restrict voting rights. As soon as the Court moved in a way the Court hadn't moved in five decades, State after State began to restrict voting rights because they had license to, because they had a green light, because they now had legal authority-- something they had not had in 50 years.

At least 17 States have passed new voting restrictions since the Shelby County decision, although my State wasn't covered by it. My State, shamefully, is one of those that has restricted voting rights, even though from the 1980s into the 1990s, people of both parties joined me in wanting to expand voting rights and make sure that everybody--regardless of disability, age, gender, race, nationality, or income--was able to vote.

We know who is hurt most by these laws, and there is political reason for it. We know who is hurt most--it is African Americans, Latinos, young people, and seniors. It just happens to be the voters who potentially might vote against the far right, which has lobbied hard after the decision to scale back voting rights.

Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act intrusive. Tell that to Congressman Lewis, who was beat up walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, in Senator Sessions' State, who risked his life numbers of times, who was injured more, probably, than anybody in the civil rights movement, including in his home State of Alabama-- Congressman Lewis' and Senator Sessions' home State of Alabama.

Senator Sessions knows what happened to secure those voting rights for African Americans in his State. He was a young man at the time and saw what happened in the 1950s, and Rosa Parks and John Lewis in the 1950s and 1960s, and still he calls the Voting Rights Act intrusive.

I remember in my State, in 2004, people had to wait 6 hours in Greene County to vote, in Knox County people had to wait 9 hours to vote. The people who are penalized the most are not people of higher income, who tend to have a little more flexibility in their schedule and who can leave work during lunch, go vote, and go back to work. If they have to wait more than 30, 40, 50 minutes or an hour, they often can't do it. They have to pick up their kids where daycare is expensive, and we know that many of them give up and don't vote, which might just be the purpose of people behind the Shelby County vs. Holder decision.

In 1981, when signing an extension to the Voting Rights Act, President Reagan called the right to vote the crown jewel of American liberties. President Reagan said it is the crown jewel of American liberties. Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.

A couple of extensions later, the Court pulled back with Shelby County vs. Holder. Keep this in mind. Sometimes these pass the Congress unanimously. President Reagan said it was the crown jewel of American liberties. The Attorney General-designee calls the Voting Rights Act intrusive.

We need an Attorney General who will use the full extent of his powers to protect the right to vote, not stand by as State after State attempts to suppress it. The Attorney General as a Senator has stood by while the President of the United States has simply lied about 3 to 5 million illegal voters.

The Attorney General-designee stood by and said nothing and was unwilling to criticize the President of the United States. I am concerned that when State after State attempts to suppress the vote and roll back voting rights, he will stand by and do nothing because he called the Voting Rights Act intrusive.

As to criminal justice reform, we need to reform our criminal justice

system and stop ruining the lives of far too many young Black men over nonviolent offenses. Senator Sessions has opposed bipartisan efforts, and there have been a number of them and a number of courageous leaders in this body who have sometimes taken politically unpopular positions on criminal justice reform and done the right thing. Senator Sessions, however, has opposed bipartisan efforts in the criminal justice reform. At the outset of my speech, I mentioned Cleveland and Cincinnati, where it is a decade and a half later, and it has proven to be a success. In Cleveland, it is shaping up to be a success. He has called consent decrees that mandate reform of law enforcement agencies ``an end run around the democratic process.''

Reform of law enforcement agencies in many ways means better police training, with real dollars and real effort put into that police training. Again, he calls all of this ``an end run around the democratic process.'' Senator Sessions blocked bipartisan efforts to reduce sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses.

There is surely a need for an independent Attorney General, and that is my third macro concern about my colleague Senator Sessions being elevated to be the Attorney General of the United States of America. In light of President Trump's cruel and foolish and badly executed Executive order on immigrants and refugees, we need an Attorney General who will be an independent voice beholden to the Constitution and the American people, not to the President. We have seen this order wreak havoc on Ohio students and families.

A Cleveland father who had waited 4 years to reunite with his 14- year-old son was forced to wait even longer when his refugee son was banned.

We are a nation that embraces refugees. My son-in-law, at the age of 10, was living in El Salvador with his family. His mother was a journalist. His mother was the target of threats to her life because of political violence in El Salvador. My son-in-law's family came to the United States and was welcomed in this country. We welcome refugees who were victims, potential victims, or about to be victims of political violence or violence of any kind. That is what we are as a nation.

My son-in-law is married to our daughter. They now have a son who is not much more than 1 year old. He has been a terrific citizen of this country. He has contributed a lot. We know that when a great majority of refugees come here they build lives, they make a difference in the world, and they can live in a free, prosperous nation with opportunity.

I mentioned the Cleveland father. I mentioned my son-in-law. A doctor on her way to the Cleveland Clinic to help treat Ohioans was sent back. She now has returned to the United States, finally, after expensive legal issues, trauma, and all the things that happen when somebody is pushed around by a system like that with an arrogant White House inflicting that kind of pain on her family.

The Iraqis who risked their lives to help American troops have been told: There is no place for you here.

Think about that. The first night after the Executive order, a translator from Iraq, an Iraqi, who had helped American troops and whose own life was threatened, knew he had to leave his country because a number of people targeted people who helped the Americans. He came here. He was handcuffed for hour after hour in a New York airport.

What message does that send to people who help Americans, who help the American Armed Forces around the world?

Students are prevented from coming to our State to learn and contribute in our great Ohio universities. We saw that in Ohio State. We are seeing that in other places. Judges across the country, appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents, are striking down this order because it is not constitutional. It does not represent American values. It makes us less, not more, safe.

In 2015, Senator Sessions questioned Sally Yates in her confirmation to be Deputy Attorney General, asking her this question: ``Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that is improper?''

Senator Sessions is asking an Obama nominee: ``Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that is improper?''

He went on to say: ``If the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?''

That was a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Deputy Attorney Sally Yates in 2015.

Ms. Yates responded: ``Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.''

Senator Sessions, to his credit, was right to ask that question. Sally Yates, to her credit, gave the right answer, and when she was tested just last week, she stood by her word.

Senator Sessions has failed to assure the American people he will follow the law and uphold the Constitution--not simply follow the President of the United States, not blindly follow the President of the United States just because he is his boss. That is not the kind of Attorney General we want. That is not the kind of Attorney General we should vote to confirm today.

There is one last point. I watched the confirmation yesterday of the Secretary of Education. It was so clear to me, so clear to so many of my colleagues, and so clear to the American public that confirming this Secretary of Education was an unprecedented historical move. The Vice President came in and broke the tie, 51 to 50. Two Republicans stood up and voted against the Secretary of Education-designee, showing great courage.

What was so evident was the overwhelming opposition to her. Our mail, phone calls, and emails were 200 to 1 against her confirmation. It was that way everywhere in the country. In Senator's office after Senator's office, we were all hearing much, much more opposition to her than support.

I sensed the fear among my Republican colleagues that voting against a Trump nominee put their political lives at risk; that they all knew that President Trump would tweet about their vote, would call them names, would attack them, would sic his political allies on them. A number of my colleagues were scared, and they knew that voting against her confirmation--even though I know a number of colleagues wanted to vote no on Betsy DeVos because she was singularly unqualified, one of the worst performances ever in a confirmation hearing. She knew so little about the issue of education and so little about the Department which she was charged to run. Nonetheless, they voted for her. Some voted for her for legitimate reasons in their mind: They like her ideology; they like her for-profit charter schools; they are anti- public education--all those things.

A number of colleagues, I am convinced, voted for her because they were afraid of what the President of the United States would do. You can't run a country by being fearful of the President of the United States. I am afraid that in this Attorney General vote we are seeing some of the same fear from some of my Republican colleagues--about standing up to this President, which they will eventually do but they are unwilling to do it now. That is why we only have seen two Republican Senators--Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins--vote no on any of these nominations.

I voted for about half of them. I voted against about half of them. I plan to vote against Congressman Price because he wants to raise the eligibility age of Medicare.

I think about the barber in Warren, the factory worker in Mansfield, the waitress in a diner in Findlay, and the manufacturing worker in Huber Heights. I know they shouldn't be expected to work until they are 67 or even 70 to be eligible for Medicare. I will vote against him.

I will vote against Mr. Mnuchin, who lied to the committee, first about a $100 million investment he had, which he forgot about. It is an understandable problem. Of course, people forget about $100 million investments they have. And he lied to the committee about some of the things he did at OneWest.

A whole host of these nominees simply aren't qualified, and their ethics

are questionable. Other than Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins, I have not seen any of my Republican colleagues--out of fear of this President, fear of this President personally attacking them, publicly and personally--I have seen them shrink back from doing their constitutional duty and voting their conscience.

I hope maybe today, maybe in Senator Sessions' vote, which I believe will be tonight, some of my Republican colleagues will realize they need to do their jobs. They need to stand up for what they believe when they realize this Attorney General-designee, Senator Sessions--a colleague I like personally, but a colleague that simply is not prepared--is not independent. He has not had a record of support for voting rights, for criminal justice reform--all the things that we want in the Attorney General of the United States of America. I plan to vote no today. I ask my colleagues to join me.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is a sad day for our democracy when the words of Coretta Scott King are not allowed on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I wish to share those words with you today in their entirety.

Dear Senator Thurmond:

I write to express my sincere opposition to the

confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal court

judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional

and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone

who has used the power of his office as United States

Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the

ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr.

Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a

shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black

voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be

rewarded with the federal judgeship.

I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from

appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,

I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'

confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this

be made a part of the hearing record.

I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.

Sessions.

Sincerely,

Coretta Scott King.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President--

Up to 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us, which really ought to be titled the ``Kleptocrat Relief Act.''

My Republican colleagues today are trying to repeal a critical bipartisan rule initiated by Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, and Senator Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. It is a critical bipartisan rule to prevent corruption.

This transparency rule is part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law. It is one of the best anti-corruption tools that President Trump now has to keep his promise to, in his words, ``drain the swamp'' in Washington and around the world.

But now, in just week 2 of his Presidency, Republicans are racing to use an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act to wipe it out. The CRA was not intended to hand a new President the power to roll back regulations that protect workers, protect the environment, protect investors, and protect consumers.

In this case, Republicans are using the CRA to target rules that have gone through extensive years-long administrative and public review, including on issues that agencies were specifically ordered by this Congress to study and address.

Republicans' unprecedented use of the CRA is not about Congress performing due diligence or agency oversight, it is a gross abuse of power to make their big corporate allies happy. I heard my friend from Idaho talk about the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. That is just a start.

The rule they are trying to repeal protects U.S. citizens and investors from having millions of their dollars vanish into the pockets of corrupt foreign oligarchs. It does that by requiring all oil, gas, and mineral companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose the royalties and the bonuses and the fees and the taxes and other payments they make to foreign governments.

This kind of transparency is essential to combating waste, fraud, corruption, and mismanagement, as Senator Isakson talked about the poverty he sees in these resource-rich countries.

Yet Rex Tillerson, whom this body just, I believe yesterday, confirmed with a pretty much partisan vote--Rex Tillerson and congressional Republicans want to strip it away. Rex Tillerson, in his years as CEO of ExxonMobil--and we will talk about that in a moment-- strongly opposed this rule, almost by himself, with ExxonMobil as the head of that company.

At Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing, Senator Kaine from Virginia introduced into the record a 2008 report by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. That report was the basis--Republican staff, I assume at the behest of Senator Lugar and others--that report was the basis for what eventually became section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, known as the bipartisan Cardin-Lugar amendment to fight corruption in mineral- rich developing countries. That report concluded that many resource- rich countries are poor because their vast mineral resources often breed corruption. That corruption lines the pockets of the kleptocrats--read ``thieves''--increases poverty, increases hunger, and increases instability.

As Senator Lugar said:

Paradoxically, history shows that rather than a blessing,

energy reserves can be a bane for many poor countries,

leading to fraud, corruption, wasteful spending, military

adventurism and instability. Too often, oil money that should

go to a nation's poor ends up in the pockets of the rich or

is squandered on the trappings of power and massive showcase

projects instead of being invested productively and

equitably.

That is called the resource curse. It prevails all over the world today. For example, oil-rich Venezuela is running out of food and medicine. Resource-rich Nigeria is in an economic mess wracked by terrorism and poverty. Armed groups have fought for years

over mineral wealth in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa.

Resource-rich countries in Asia have similar problems. The natural resource sector in so many countries is famously corrupt--the world's single most corrupt industry, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. But oil companies can no longer hide behind the excuse of confidentiality. Increasingly, companies are expected to disclose what they pay in taxes and other payments to governments whose natural resources they extract. That is what this language from Senator Lugar, Senator Cardin, and Senator Leahy did. That is what the rule does. That is what we should do. This Congress wants to undo that. This is now required under the laws of the United States and 30 other countries, as well as international initiatives. In other words, what we did here was followed by 30 other countries, and a number of more responsible energy companies, I would say, passed this language and began to implement these laws.

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is a global standard that aims to put information about government revenues from natural resource deals into the public domain in 51 countries, including ours. This includes telling us what taxes the companies pay, which is key to ensuring citizens know what benefits they get--from Venezuela or Nigeria or Congo--from their own natural resources.

Let me offer some concrete examples of the kind of corruption we are talking about. This just turns your stomach.

In Equatorial Guinea, according to anti-corruption groups, oil companies, including Exxon, have had a long history of problems on this front. The regime of President-for-life Obiang, who executed his brutal uncle to gain power almost 40 years ago, has been tarnished with allegations of corruption, cronyism, brutal political repression, routine human rights violations, and drug trafficking for years and years.

Years ago, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report and held a public hearing which revealed that a number of oil companies--again, ExxonMobil; they keep coming up in this--were making direct payments into an account in the name of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea located at Riggs Bank in Washington, DC. Virtually all of the money in the account, tens of millions of dollars, consisted of royalties and other payments from oil companies, primarily--surprise--ExxonMobil, to the country of Equatorial Guinea for the right to explore and produce oil in that country. But instead of paying the money to the government or the national treasury of Equatorial Guinea, the companies sent the money to the account at Riggs Bank. That account was controlled by President-for-life Obiang and two of his relatives. The account signatories were the President-for-life, his son, and his nephew. Imagine that. Instead of paying the national treasury, the oil companies made payments into this account in another country, controlled by a dictator and his relatives. I can't believe we in this body support that. How could the citizens of Equatorial Guinea know how much royalty money was coming in for their oil in their country and where it was going when it was in a secret account controlled by a dictator? The answer, obviously, is they couldn't.

The report from the PSI--the committee that investigated--documented that some of the funds from that account were used to make suspicious transactions. The United States then investigated the President-for- life's family finances. Prosecutors noted that President-for-life Obiang's son ``received an official government salary of less than $100,000 a year but used his position and influence as a government minister to amass more than $300 million worth of assets through corruption and money laundering.'' He paid himself $100,000 but found a way to amass $300 million more--all in violation of the laws of his country and our country both.

In 2014, the son settled a case brought by Federal prosecutors. He agreed to sell his $30 million mansion in Malibu, his Ferrari, and various items of Michael Jackson memorabilia he had collected.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that he is still working to delay his trial on corruption charges in France, where prosecutors say he amassed a personal fortune of $115 million, which he used to indulge his tastes.

When he served as Agriculture Minister of Equatorial Guinea, prosecutors say he used his influence over the timber industry--next to oil, the most important export industry in the country--to line his pockets.

Last November, prosecutors in Switzerland seized luxury cars belonging to him, and last month, at the request of the Swiss, the Dutch authorities seized his 250-foot, $100 million yacht named the ``Ebony Shine'' as it was about to sail to Equatorial Guinea. He said the yacht belonged to his country's government. All the while, his people are starving.

You can't make this stuff up. If the bill before us were adopted, the Obiang family would be celebrating. They would be celebrating in Washington, in California, and in Equatorial Guinea.

In Nigeria, again according to Global Witness, a major oil deal struck by--surprise--ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government is being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, a law enforcement agency that investigates high-level corruption. The probe centers on a protracted and controversial deal agreed to by ExxonMobil and the Nigerian Government in 2009 to renew three lucrative oil licenses, which at the time accounted for around a quarter of Nigeria's entire oil production.

ExxonMobil agreed to pay $600 million to renew the licenses and construct a powerplant at a cost of $900 million to the company, making a total contribution of $1.5 billion. Yet documents suggest that the Nigerian Government may have valued the licenses at $2.5 billion and that the Chinese oil company CNOOC offered to pay $3.7 billion for the same licenses--over six times the amount reportedly paid by ExxonMobil.

Other incredible and notorious examples abound. It would be reason enough for us to act to try to help the millions of people around the world who are victims of this corporate collusion, but in today's world, the resource curse doesn't just impact far-off countries; it affects Americans every day. It has empowered anti-American dictators in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, situations which cost American lives and American taxpayer dollars. It worsens global poverty, which can be a seedbed and a fertile growing ground for terrorism against us and our allies. It leads to the instability that threatens global oil supplies. It raises gas prices at home.

That is why we need this rule--all of the above--to protect American national security interests by combating the corruption and secrecy, with all these oil companies at the table with them. That has caused conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in Africa and the Middle East. As ISIS has demonstrated, nonstate actors benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their terrorist operations.

Despite all this, the Republican-led House of Representatives, as Senator Crapo said, voted yesterday to repeal this bipartisan initiative--an initiative that holds Big Oil accountable and protects the American people. Today, the Senate Republican leadership is following suit. It is a little ironic in light of the fact that Candidate Trump, at almost every rally in my State, almost every rally in State after State after State where he was campaigning, talked about draining the swamp.

Since the rule's creation, ExxonMobil, led by Mr. Tillerson--now the Secretary of State--and Big Oil allies, such as the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation, have fought to kill it.

Who else opposes this rule besides Senate Republicans, House Republicans, and President Trump? There are the autocrats in Russia. We know about the connections between Russia and the Secretary of State. We don't know quite enough about the connections between our President and President Putin because we can't get the President's tax returns. We know something is going on. Everybody knows it. Nobody knows quite what.

Who else opposes it? Autocrats in Iran, where Advisor Flynn made some interesting and provocative comments today, autocrats in Venezuela, autocrats in Africa with oil wells, gasfields,

or copper mines who want to keep their payments a secret. It is working for them. It is working for the autocrats. It is working for Exxon. Apparently it is working for Republicans in the House and Senate too. I am not sure exactly how, but I know it is working.

More than 30 countries--mostly the United States, Canada, and European nations--have adopted similar anti-corruption standards. Senator Lugar, Senator Leahy, and Senator Cardin's law passed as part of Dodd-Frank, and the SEC is adopting this rule. More than 30 other countries in the world followed our lead, and some of the more responsible oil companies were prepared to comply. So to be clear, with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level. It is working.

Many companies already report such payments under European rules and are doing just fine, so this is hardly causing them undue burdens in the regulatory framework that my colleagues like to talk about. That is why many in industry support the rule, despite the actions of Exxon, the bad actor here, and the CEO of Exxon--now, amazingly, our Secretary of State.

BP and Shell--two major, large oil companies--have publicly endorsed payment reporting and lining up U.S. rules with those in other markets. Foreign and state-owned oil companies from China and Brazil, including CNOOC, PetroChina, Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras, are required to disclose under U.S. rules, leveling the playing field for U.S. companies. Gazprom, Rosneft, BP, and Shell already report under UK rules. The largest mining companies in the world, including Newmont Mining, BHP Billiton, and Rio Tinto, have supported similar reporting. Oil, gas, and mining workers unions, such as United Steelworkers, back the rule.

Notice who doesn't back the rule: Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, and autocrats in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

Investors also support it--including investor groups with $10 trillion under management--so they can better understand and manage the reputational, expropriation, sanction, and other risks facing firms in which they invest. It is supported by the American Catholic bishops, the Presbyterian Church--all kinds of religious groups.

Who is against it? Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, the President of the United States, ExxonMobil, the Secretary of State, who used to be CEO of ExxonMobil, and autocrats in Iran and Venezuela. We get the picture.

All these groups who care about justice, who care about fair play, who care about doing business with predictable and fair rules, like BP and Shell, all of them support it--Global Witness, the ONE Campaign, Oxfam, and Publish What You Pay.

We need to be clear on one other thing my friend from Idaho said: This rule won't cost a single American job. Everything oil companies can legally do today is still allowed under the anti-corruption rule. They only have to do one more thing: They have to report their numbers to the Securities and Exchange Commission. How can that cost millions of dollars?

The Cardin-Lugar rule makes Big Business and government more transparent, fights corruption, and does it all without hurting taxpayers. It is a creative approach to global problems that our leaders did embrace until we had a President who wants to ``drain the swamp,'' he says--should be embracing, not rejecting at the behest of just a few actors.

Again, who is lobbying to overturn this rule? It is autocrats around the world. It is Exxon. It is the American Petroleum Institute. It is a very small number of companies, when so many people are on the other side.

If we repeal this measure today, shareholders, investors, and poor communities around the world will continue to see their money and natural resources stolen by crooked oligarchs. We will be undoing the moral leadership. This is in so many ways a moral question that Senator Cardin, Senator Lugar, and Senator Leahy brought to us bipartisanly, with broad support by both parties. We will be turning a blind eye to corruption, we will be betraying our principles, and we will be undercutting our allies in Europe and Canada who followed our lead and crafted their own rules based on ours.

Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, any future ``substantially similar'' rule will be forever prohibited from being written by the SEC. That makes no sense.

I hope this effort fails. I know my Republican colleagues understand this because enough of my colleagues recognize the merits of this anti- corruption measure and they refuse to kowtow to the dinosaur wing of Big Oil. It is not even all of Big Oil; it is the dinosaur wing of Big oil. It is the autocrats. It is the American Petroleum Institute. It is the Chamber of Commerce. It is ExxonMobil.

I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Leahy for their work, and I thank former Senator Lugar from Indiana for the important work he did on this measure.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Alaska--also from Cleveland--and those of my friend from Cincinnati, Senator Portman, about opioids. I appreciate his leadership in my State, the work he has done, and the work we have done together on opioid addiction. It is a tragedy, and I don't go much of anywhere in the State without finding someone who is affected, someone who is addicted in a family, or a close friend who has died.

As Senator Portman said, Ohio has more opioid deaths than any State in the country. We are the seventh largest State, but the State with the most deaths. It is troubling, and clearly we are not dealing with it as well as we should.

Mr. President, I rise to close the debate on this motion today on the Congressional Review Act to wipe out the SEC rule. I rise in opposition to the bill, as a number of colleagues on my side of the aisle have very strong feelings on it. With the exception of my friend from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking Committee, there weren't many Republicans who wanted to come to the floor for this, in part because I think it is just the supporters they have on their side don't make you want to rush to the floor and support them. Some called this the Kleptocrat Relief Act. I will give you a real quick history before I wrap up.

There is a provision in Dodd-Frank to deal with giving the President and others the best anticorruption tools we could have around the world, where countries that have lots of natural resources have been countries with all the wealth from natural resources. They are some of the most corrupt governments with some of the worst poverty anywhere on Earth.

This legislation in Dodd-Frank, and the rule that came out of it from the SEC, was going a long way to preventing corruption. What we saw was the support. Thirty countries in the world followed suit from our country. The companies that were affected, with a few very notable exceptions, were beginning to do what they knew they needed to do and should have done and that the rule called for. As a result, we were going in the right direction until this new administration, this new Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record relevant letters from investors.

Mr. President, on one side of this argument, one side of this rule, we see in the end--and this kind of sums it up. We have these 30 countries that followed us and passed the rules and the laws the same as we did. We have on our side, the American Catholic Bishops, the Conference of Bishops, the Presbyterian Church, groups like the One Campaign and Oxfam--public interest groups that made their mission trying to end corruption and deal with the economic and social distress and devastation brought on by some of these companies and some of these kleptomaniacal--for want of a better term--governments. That is on the one side.

On the other side, we have my Republican friends in the Senate and House. We have Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State, who lobbied vigorously and unceasingly against this rule as president of Exxon. We have Exxon on the other side. We have the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. And on that side for this bill--against the rule--we have autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, Venezuela. You can bet on this vote tomorrow morning, if 7 a.m. comes out the way it looks like it will, you can bet there will be celebrations in Russia, in Iran, and Venezuela, in all these countries where these kleptocrats, where these leaders who are so corrupt, where they benefited so much.

I think that really sums it up, how important it is that we defeat this bill, how important it is that this President, who came to town and has been in office less than about 2 weeks, his second week in office--his campaign was all about drain the swamp, and one of the first things he did, with his Republican House and Senate Members following along like sheep, they have done this. It is just incredible how they moved so quickly to side with the autocrats, to side with the Russians, to side with Big Oil, to side with ExxonMobil and these autocrats in places like Iran and Russia. It is not a good commentary on this body. I am sorry to see it.

I ask my colleagues to vote no.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss what happened in the Finance Committee today--or what didn't happen in the Finance Committee today. Two newspapers--one, the Columbus Dispatch, one of Ohio's best and most conservative newspapers, and the Wall Street Journal, one of this country's most conservative newspapers--reported that the two nominees in front of the Senate Finance Committee had lied to the committee. Treasury Secretary-Designee Mnuchin had lied when asked if his bank, OneWest, had done robo signings; he said no.

The Columbus Dispatch investigative reporters found, in fact, that they had done robo signings, and they found that dozens--probably hundreds, maybe thousands--of Ohioans lost their homes. A woman named Miss Duncan, who had paid her mortgage month after month, was doing everything right. She was foreclosed on--not anything of her doing--and her financial life was turned upside down.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Congressman Price, the designee for Health and Human Services, had lied about insider information he had. He had advantages that other investors didn't have in buying health care stocks as he sat on the health care committee in the House, as he voted, as he wrote amendments and bills dealing with health care.

These are nominees for agencies--the two most important economic agencies in the Federal Government, probably, at least in the Cabinet-- who have lied about things that affect people's lives. It is hundreds of people--thousands, maybe, in my State. We are not even the largest State on foreclosures caused by OneWest. Thousands, hundreds of thousands--who knows how many around the country, as he will not tell us yet--have lost homes because of his and his bank's actions, making him wealthier, to be sure, but upending people's lives in the cruelest kind of way when their homes are foreclosed on.

We are saying to Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Finance Committee: Get some answers here. Find out why these two nominees lied, and find out what they are going to do to fix it. Find out what they have in their backgrounds that they haven't disclosed to this committee.

We have no business voting on nominees before we have that kind of information. That is the reason that Democratic Senators of the Finance Committee, led by Ranking Member Wyden, decided not to come to the committee to vote today--because it is the only way we can get Senator Hatch to bring those two forward to give us the information and to give the American public the information they need.

I might add that we probably did President Trump a favor today, because if these two nominees had been brought forward--and I assume confirmed, because Republicans are voting for every nominee, it seems, no matter what; I haven't seen a break from that yet--they may have come to the floor and have been confirmed, and there likely would have been a scandal early in the Trump Administration and in the Treasury Department and Health and Human Services Department--two incredibly important agencies.

I think that we, perhaps, in some sense, saved President Trump from himself and the damage that his nominees could do. I don't expect appreciation or thanks from the White House on this, but I do think this is an issue that should be taken care of before they head two of the most important and largest--if not largest, two of the most important--Federal agencies.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, the city of Cleveland lost a committed public servant last week, Officer David Fahey. Officer Fahey dedicated his career to protecting our community and was tragically killed in the line of duty in a senseless hit-and-run.

A Navy veteran, Officer Fahey followed in the footsteps of his mother and his stepfather, both retired Cleveland police officers, and his brother Chris, an officer who joined the force in 2013.

At a memorial last week, his brother said that Officer Fahey ``loved this neighborhood; he loved working for this neighborhood and he loved this city, and he loved working for this city.''

And our city has given his family an outpouring of support.

A crowd of some 200 people gathered outside the First District police headquarters for a vigil.

Fellow officers from the Cleveland Police Academy's 133rd graduating class came out to honor their classmate's memory. They prayed together, calling him their brother, their friend, and their angel.

That spirit of community represents the best in our city that Officer Fahey loved and served.

Connie and I extend our deepest sympathies to Officer Fahey's family and fellow officers. We pray that this outpouring of support and comradery brings them comfort during this difficult time.

We join our fellow Clevelanders in thanking David Fahey for his service to our community.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hatch amendment.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 2 million children have health insurance today that did not have it prior to the Affordable Care Act.

In my State, Governor Kasich, a Republican, who is a friend of mine and of many of us in this Chamber, has said that he has admonished his Republican colleagues to not repeal the Affordable Care Act without an immediate replacement. Governor Kasich expanded Medicaid. As a result, 700,000 Ohioans were provided insurance because he expanded Medicaid. He asked the question: What happens to these 700,000 people in my State--just in Medicaid expansion alone--what happens to them if the Hatch amendment passes or if the Affordable Care Act is repealed?

I ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution. It violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I call for amendment No. 86.

Mr. President, thanks to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP--two programs made stronger by the Affordable Care Act--95 percent of children in America now have affordable, comprehensive health insurance that covers annual physicals, dental care, and hospital stays. Why would we want to move backward instead of building on that 95 percent?

Amendment No. 86 creates a budget point of order against any legislation that would decrease coverage, reduce benefits, or raise costs when it comes to children's health insurance. Rather than ripping away coverage from children, we should be building on that 95 percent number; we should build on that progress; we should work to get 100 percent of our Nation's children covered.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

How am I recorded?

On behalf of 700,000 Ohioans losing their insurance, I vote no.

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

Mr. President, skyrocketing drug prices are crippling far too many American families. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe the cost of their prescription drugs is too high and that Congress should work to lower the price of medication that people need.

This should be our top health priority for 2017, lowering drug costs for families, not taking health care away from Americans with no plan to replace it. Think about that. This Congress is hell-bent on, instead of attacking one of the major causes of health care inflation--and we have done a good job the last 10 years, by and large, of keeping prices from going much higher than they would have otherwise. Keep that in mind while we hear the generally specious arguments against the Affordable Care Act. Instead of doing that, the majority party has fallen all over itself to try to take away health insurance from 900,000 people in my State; taking away from 1 million seniors the Medicare consumer protections and Medicare services of preventive care, such as osteoporosis screening, diabetes screening, physicals, all that the doctors order; taking away from 100,000 young people the ability to stay on their parents' health care plan; and stripping from virtually all Ohio citizens the consumer protections of denying people coverage because of previous conditions, cutting people off their insurance policy because they happen to get too sick and might have cost the insurance companies too much money.

This health care coverage that has saved 24,000 American lives each year since 2014, just think what could happen if we took away their health care coverage.

Instead, lowering drug prices should be something we can come together on.

Americans of all political parties and Americans who don't even bother voting are all facing skyrocketing pharmacy bills. There are concrete actions we can take right now to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

Senator Franken and I led 18 of our colleagues in outlining 5 of them in a letter to the President-elect in December, including putting an end to abusive price gouging, requiring more transparency from drug companies, boosting competition and innovation in the market, and allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate better prices for seniors. That is what we do with the Veterans' Administration. The VA, on behalf of 7 million veterans, negotiates directly with the drug companies to get a significantly better price for the cost of drugs--saves taxpayers, saves veterans. Medicare should do the same thing.

Senator Klobuchar and I worked with several colleagues to reintroduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Negotiating better prices for seniors will save significant taxpayer dollars.

Instead of focusing on the priorities that the vast majority of Americans agree on, Congress and President-Elect Trump are working to throw 30 million Americans and some 900,000 Ohioans off their health insurance with no plans to replace it. It is reckless and dangerous. It will cause premiums to skyrocket. It will cause costs to go up for everyone. Do you know what it does? It gives a $30 billion tax break to drugs companies and tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the richest Americans.

On the one hand, Congress will not do anything about drug prices because the pharmaceutical industry, frankly, gave too much money to far too many of my colleagues. On the other hand, this same Congress is going to strip away health care and consumer protections to seniors on Medicare and people of all ages and at the same time give a tax break to the drug companies. We must fight against these attempts to decrease coverage and increase costs for working families.

Whether you support the Affordable Care Act or not, we all agree you can't ask people to change horses midstream without giving them a second horse.

Last week, I spoke with one of my constituents, Kathy, who wrote to my office last November with the heartbreaking story of her husband Lee. He is fighting stage IV cancer. Before 2010, insurance companies denied Kathy and her family the family coverage she needed because her husband's cancer was a preexisting condition. Thankfully, the Affordable Care Act stopped insurance companies from abusive practices like this. It allowed Kathy's family to buy health insurance through the marketplace, helping them afford the care he needs to fight this devastating disease. Still, like so many Ohio families, Kathy continues to struggle to afford the prescription medicines she and her husband need. She fears what will happen when a family like hers is simply kicked off their insurance.

Imagine 900,000 Ohioans with insurance and, like that--because of partisan politics here, because so many of my colleagues ran for President, in some cases, or ran for the Senate or ran for the House by saying they are going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, and they are going to get rid of it and not replace it for a couple of years maybe.

Governor Kasich, Republican Governor in my State--also in the Presidential race with my friend in the Presiding Officer's chair--has said to the Senate and House, to Ohio's Republican Members: Don't cancel the Affordable Care Act. Don't throw people off insurance unless you are going to replace it with something right now that will take care of those people; 700,000 people on Medicaid expansion, another 200,000 people, 26-year-olds, on their parents' plan, people on the exchanges, people getting insurance in other ways.

When I was talking to Kathy the other day, she was choked up talking about the stress and heartache dealing with a loved one with cancer, how she can't even bear the thought of adding more insurance worries on top of that. I was speaking to a hospital administrator today at one of Ohio's great hospitals. He said he thinks what this Republican Congress is going to do in the Affordable Care Act is morally reprehensible. He said: How do I explain to people right in the middle of their treatment that we can't do it anymore? Because we will not have the resources if the Affordable Care Act is repealed and the insurance is canceled and the Medicaid expansion is gone and hospitals can't take care of everybody like they are pretty much now. How do I explain to somebody right in the middle of cancer treatment, right in the middle of another kind of long-term or short-term illness that their insurance has been cut off?

Instead of kicking people off their insurance with no plan to replace it and handing billions of dollars in tax breaks to the drug companies, let us make our first priority lowering drug costs for the people whom we say we are serving.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, 70 years ago United Mine Workers president John L. Lewis, a lifelong Republican, sat down with the Democratic Secretary of the Interior, Julius Krug. They struck a deal to end a national strike. They promised health and pension benefits for miners in exchange for a lifetime of hard work. It is a promise that the Federal Government has kept ever since.

For 70 years, no matter the President, no matter the party in control of the Senate, we have kept that promise. That changed, unfortunately, in December. This body left for vacation. It left tens of thousands of mine workers to face an uncertain future, not knowing if the pensions and health care they had earned for themselves--and in many cases for their widows--over a lifetime of hard work would be there for them in the future. This is shameful.

Senator Portman, my Republican colleague from Ohio, and I and Senator Manchin and Senator Capito, a Democrat and a Republican from West Virginia, and Senator Casey--a number of us--said: We should not leave Washington to go home to our families until we take care of mine worker families.

Congress has the power to stop these cuts and to live up to this pledge. We had a bipartisan solution that would have passed if it had been brought to the floor. But instead, Congress broke its promise to these miners and their families. Congress stole the health care they had earned by passing a continuing resolution that failed to address the pension problem, and it stole the funds that were still left in their health care plan to pay for a 4-month fix--4 months, 4 months. Who can make health care decisions when you don't know if you will have health care coverage 4 months from now?

These working people don't deserve to live with this kind of uncertainty. I have heard my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, always talk about predictability. Government should never inject more uncertainty into the lives of individuals, never should inject uncertainty into the lives of business people as they make investment decisions.

But that is what we have done with these mine workers. We have made their lives less certain, less predictable, and their health care so unpredictable. This is the health care these workers fought for, the health care they sacrificed raises for. Keep in mind that at the bargaining table, workers will be willing to accept less wages today in exchange for health care and pensions in the future. That is what collective bargaining is often about. That is what is so important.

This is health care they sacrificed raises for. It was the health care we promised them. My colleagues know their stories of hard work and sacrifice. We know these stories because over the past year, these miners traveled here by the busload. They rode long distances. They gathered in the heat and in the cold for hours outside this building to make their voices heard.

They worked decades in the mines--hard back-breaking work. But that work had dignity. It was dangerous work--work where some of them were killed on the job, work where many of them developed health problems later. Many of them died younger than people who dress like we do and have jobs like this. Their widows have been denied these pensions and health care. They clocked in every day, these workers. They knew the conditions they faced. Many of them now suffer from black lung or other illnesses. They accepted a lifetime of hard labor because they valued their jobs, they valued their work, and they believed that good-paying union jobs were their tickets to the middle class.

These miners believed in the covenant we used to have in this country that promised if you work hard your whole life, if you put in the hours, if you save a little and do your part, you will be able to help your children go to college. They believed that would give their kids a chance at a better life perhaps than they had. They believed that if they upheld their end of the deal, if they put in the work to power our country by mining coal used for a generation of electricity, their government would do the same. In December, Congress told them they were wrong. I don't accept that. These workers sacrificed their lungs and their backs to keep our lights on. It is shameful that Congress, despite all intents and purposes, has stolen what they earned. These miners should have spent Christmas with their grandkids, not worrying about whether they could afford their medicine.

We aren't giving up. We had a bipartisan solution in December. We will keep fighting until mine workers across Ohio and this country have the full health care and retirement security that we promised them. They kept faith with us and powered our country. It is time to keep faith with the workers in our industrial heartland and to right this wrong.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the ensuing quorum call be divided equally between the two sides.

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, this week marks the final week of Black History Month, an annual tradition that celebrates Black history and culture but also is a call to action to continue our Nation's march, as halting as it sometimes is, toward equality.

This week we take an important step toward awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March. Senator Scott and I and Senators Shelby and Sessions and the banking committee moved forward on that earlier today. I am proud to be one of the 65 cosponsors. I am also introducing a resolution this week instructing the Postal Service to issue a commemorative stamp honoring the 50th anniversary of the Selma marches.

It is far past time for us to honor the brave men and women who risked life and limb to demand full participation in our democracy. We can do this on the Senate floor. We can do it by traveling to Selma. Next week Senator Scott and I will lead a delegation to Selma for the anniversary of the march. I understand my colleague from Ohio may be joining us. I took my daughters Emily and Elizabeth there a number of years ago. I look forward to the journey to Selma with my wife in a couple of weeks, marking the 50th anniversary.

Fifty years ago, Dr. King led thousands in that 54-mile march--the second Selma bridge crossing, if you will. They arrived in Montgomery 4 days later to a crowd of 25,000 Black and White supporters. In his speech that day, Dr. King told a story of one of the marchers: Sister Pollard, a 70-year-old African-American women who lived in Montgomery during the bus boycott a little less than a decade earlier.

She was asked if she wanted a ride during the march instead of walking. She said: ``No.''

The person said: ``Aren't you tired?''

She said: ``My feet are tired, but my soul is rested.''

Progress is never easy, and as we celebrate Black History Month, we are reminded of the long journey we have traveled and how far we still have to go.

This month we celebrate the contributions African Americans have made to the fabric of our Nation.

When Carter G. Woodson started what became Black History Month in 1926, my State of Ohio--the Presiding Officer's State--had already produced 19th-century poet Paul Laurence Dunbar; Columbus native Granville T. Woods had already invented the telegraph device that sent messages between moving trains and train stations; Mary Jane Patterson had already become the first Black woman to graduate from Oberlin College, in my part of Ohio; Garrett Morgan, a Clevelander, had already invented the traffic signal; Ohio State Representative John P. Green had introduced a bill to establish Labor Day in Ohio, which later became Labor Day, which we all celebrate; and COL Charles Young, who found freedom in Ripley, OH, in the Presiding Officer's old congressional district, became the highest ranking African-American commanding officer in the U.S. Army in 1894--120 years ago--and the first African-American superintendent of a national park.

This month we celebrate these and other pioneering Ohioans: two Pulitzer Prize winners--Nobel Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison from Lorain and former Poet Laureate of the United States Rita Dove from Akron.

Olympic Gold Medalist Jesse Owens grew up in Cleveland. Jesse Owens spoke at my brother's high school graduation in Mansfield.

Howard Arthur Tibbs from Salem served with the Tuskegee Airmen, and I was honored to meet his family in 2007 when this body posthumously awarded him the Congressional Gold Medal.

Congressman Louis Stokes, who so many in this body know, rose from one of the first Federal housing projects in the Nation, in Cleveland, to prominence as a lawyer and legislator. Yesterday Louis Stokes celebrated his 90th birthday. He argued before the Supreme Court in his legal practice, and during his two decades in Congress he was a forceful advocate for the city he loves.

This month we honor them and many others. These achievements have come in the face of centuries of oppression, making these achievements all the more remarkable. They have not come to be recognized simply through chance. It took a century of concerted effort--longer than that, really--led by Black Americans such as Dr. King, to give voice to the struggles and the stories, the triumphs and the traditions of the African Americans who have shaped who we are as a country and as a people. These stories are the ones we celebrate this month and the ones we must do more to honor and tell.

This month I am introducing legislation to begin the process of designating the Parker House in Ripley, OH, as a national monument. John Parker was a slave who purchased his freedom, became a successful businessman, and helped many others to freedom on the Underground Railroad through crossing the Ohio River and heading north, some to Oberlin and ultimately many to Canada.

Stories such as these are too often untold and overlooked. They show us how African Americans have shaped their own destiny in this country.

I hope today my colleagues will join me in honoring the African Americans who have made us who we are as a nation. I would add that I hope this 50th anniversary, this trip that a number of colleagues and I will take to Selma, will mark progress in voting rights.

We took huge strides in voting rights in the last 50 years. In fact, in 1964 it was a conservative Republican Congressman from north of Dayton by the name of William McCullough, who was the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee--Jacqueline Kennedy and others credited Congressman McCullough, perhaps more than any other single Member--even more than Hubert Humphrey or Everett Dirksen--for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passing the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate and being signed by the President.

Unfortunately, in the last few years we have seen State legislators and far too many Members of this body try to scale back and roll back some of those gains in voting rights--all in the name of stopping fraud, when in fact voting fraud is much exaggerated by them. It barely exists. But the efforts to roll back voting rights has resulted from that. It is wrong, and it is shameful, especially as we celebrate the 50th anniversary.

I am hopeful we can move forward in spite of what this very conservative Supreme Court has done, move forward in voting rights as we honor Black History Month, as we honor 50 years of Selma, and as we honor the work African Americans and Whites have done to make this country a better place to live.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have made great strides in recent years ensuring that Americans of all ages have access to quality health care. Part of this success comes from the Children's Health Insurance Program created in 1997 as a joint State-Federal health insurance program for low- to moderate-income children and pregnant women.

Because of CHIP, 10 million children, including 130,000 children in my State--most of whom are sons and daughters of working parents who are in low-income jobs and not making enough money to afford insurance and for employers that typically don't offer insurance--have access to health care today--health care they may not have received otherwise.

We know CHIP works not just in the number of children insured under the program but because of the flexibility CHIP provides States and the quality of care children receive. It works. It works for children, it works for parents, and it works for communities.

That is the good news. The bad news is, even though the law is on the books until 2019, the funding for CHIP will expire in September. That is why I am proud to introduce legislation today with my colleagues Senators Stabenow, Wyden, Casey, and Leader Reid to protect the CHIP program and to extend its funding to match the authorization until 2019.

The Protecting and Retaining our Children's Health Insurance Program--PRO-CHIP--Act is straightforward, it is common sense, and will provide much needed budget predictability for our States.

The Republican Governor of my State supports CHIP. He understands they need it in Ohio and across the country sooner rather than later so they can properly budget and plan and avoid gaps in health care for vulnerable children.

Again, these 130,000 children in my State alone are overwhelmingly sons and daughters of working parents who don't make enough money to pay for health insurance out of pocket, and who are working at companies and businesses that don't provide health insurance.

I am honored that 30 of our Senate colleagues have already joined as cosponsors. Providing health insurance to low-income children isn't just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Children stay healthier, families function better, neighborhoods are better off, and children do better in school as a result, with fewer sick days. They feel better when they are at school because they have a family doctor, because they have health insurance.

We know it works. Listen to these numbers: Thanks to CHIP, the number of uninsured children has fallen by half, from 14 percent in 1997--when this bill passed with bipartisan support, and it has been extended and reauthorized a couple of times since--to a record low of 7 percent in 2012.

In nearly every State of the Union, Governors planning their State budgets and parents planning their family budgets are relying on us to extend CHIP now. We should not go right up to the deadline, as some are now talking about in terms of shutting the government down. We should not go up to the deadline but do it now. It would provide a sigh of relief for parents, not only for financial reasons but because CHIP means better access to comprehensive care for their kids.

Think about the anxiety parents face knowing they have insurance today under CHIP but not being certain they will have it this time next year. We should act together to protect this vital program that provides comprehensive health care coverage for 10 million children. States will start to roll back their CHIP program and funding for the program will expire at the end of September if we don't act soon.

This has always been bipartisan. It should continue to be. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to prioritize children's health and help pass this PRO-CHIP legislation as soon as possible.