Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General.

It is never easy to oppose a President's cabinet nominees, especially when one is your Senate colleague. I generally think the President should be able to assemble his team.

But with this President, we are in uncharted territory. President Trump doesn't want to hire a team that will represent the American people.

Many of the nominees are billionaires who are out of touch with the struggles of average Americans, and many of them have shown great disdain for the very agencies they will lead.

People like Betsy DeVos, who is a billionaire with zero experience in public schools, has been selected to run the Education Department.

People like Scott Pruitt, who has been nominated to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he is sued many times.

When the people nominated to the President's cabinet are intent on dismantling the very agency they are nominated to run, our Constitutional role of advise and consent takes on new importance.

But the position of Attorney General is unique. The nominee requires even more scrutiny. The Attorney General is our Nation's chief law enforcement officer with enormous power to either advance--or roll back--our constitutional protections.

Perhaps Senator Sessions said it best during the confirmation hearing for Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General.

In that hearing, Senator Sessions said, ``You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say `no' about.''

He then asked Ms. Yates, ``Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that is improper?''

I completely agree with Senator Sessions. The Attorney General has the responsibility--the duty--to tell the President no when he is wrong.

And that is why I cannot vote to confirm Senator Sessions. I don't have the faith that he will tell President Trump no when the situation requires it.

But I have even less faith that the President will listen. Sally Yates told him no--she refused to let the Justice Department defend the President's misguided travel ban. She was fired for doing exactly what the position of Attorney General requires.

And when Acting AG Yates said his travel ban was wrong, the President didn't simply relieve her of her position. Instead, he put out a press release attacking her personally. Sally Yates had served the country for almost three decades as a career prosecutor and Justice Department attorney. She deserved the president's respect, regardless whether he agreed with her.

Time and time again, President Trump has shown that he will not tolerate dissent. You are either with him or--in his mind--you are wrong. And you become the enemy. President Trump has put the ``bully'' back into the bully pulpit.

He frequently--and publicly--lashes out against those who express different views. And more dangerously, he lashes out at the institutions that are the fabric of our democracy.

This weekend he attacked a Federal judge who ruled against his travel ban. Rather than respecting the rule of law, and the coequal judicial branch, he once again took to Twitter personally denigrate the federal judge who dared rule against his policy--Federal judge who was appointed by George W. Bush.

President Trump disparages the free press at every opportunity. Any article or story that is critical of his policies is now dubbed ``fake news.'' Members of the press are punished for coverage of the administration that he deems negative. He said he wants to weaken libel laws so it is easier for him to sue the press.

President Trump will continue his assault on the first amendment, defining the press that holds him accountable as the enemy, deriding and belittling those who speak out against him and attacking the free expression of religion and targeting those who practice Islam.

And when he takes these actions, it is up to the Attorney General to tell him that he is wrong. It is up to the Attorney General to speak truth to power, and to be ready to be fired for doing so.

But it is far from clear that Senator Sessions will be that independent voice within the Department of Justice the American public needs.

The Washington Post reports--that Senator Sessions not only agreed with the President's flurry of extreme executive orders, but that he wanted the president to go further and faster.

In an email to the Post Senior Strategist Stephen Bannon said that throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions ``has been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order. . . .''

Loyalty is a valued characteristic in politics. But the Nation's chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost. He or she must defend the Constitution and all Americans, not be the President's personal architect of ``a new political order'' that excludes many people.

Mr. President, for these reasons I must vote no on this nomination.

We have had a very, very long night, and I want to say that I saw my good friend Senator Casey here. I want to thank all the Senators on the Democratic side who have spoken up over the course of these 30 hours. We are trying to address this issue--a very, very important issue--of whether Senator Jeff Sessions should be Attorney General of the United States.

In the remarks I am going to give now, I may draw some of them from the formal remarks I have.

I just want to say that my home State of New Mexico is a majority minority State. We have--and these are the rough numbers--about 46, 47 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Native American. Those are our large minority populations. It is a majority minority State.

I can tell you, since this administration has come in, people are very worried about their voting rights, and they are worried about their democracy. I have been home in New Mexico and heard the exchanges. I have read the various emails. People are concerned about the issue that goes to the heart of this nomination, which is how Senator Sessions would behave as Attorney General on the issue of voting rights.

I fully understand the importance of rule XIX and civility. In my activity here on the Senate floor, I try to be as civil as possible, but I think there is a bigger issue here. So I fully understand the importance of rule XIX. God knows we need to maintain civility in this esteemed body. But when a Member of this body has chosen to be considered for an office outside this body--and in the case of Senator Sessions, for an office in a department in which he has previously served--then his record in that office, better or worse, is critical to our consideration.

When Mr. Sessions exercised his duties as U.S. attorney in Alabama under

the supervision of the U.S. Attorney General--the office he now seeks-- his record on voting rights, the backbone of our democracy, was subject to serious question. In the context of this confirmation, that record must be included in the context of this confirmation hearing. So here we are on the floor. We have debated. The record must be included in the debate on the floor.

As Senator Warren has brought to our attention, it was the judgment of Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, that he used the Office of the U.S. Attorney for Alabama to-- these are Coretta Scott King's words--``chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.'' That was her opinion at the time.

Similarly, in the words of our former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, he was ``a disgrace to the Justice Department,'' the Department which Mr. Sessions will lead if he is confirmed.

I would like to read into the Record today the letter from Mrs. King, which supports her opinion of Mr. Sessions' lack of commitment to justice for all and leave this for my colleagues here today to assess in considering his nomination.

To me, the letter she wrote back on March 19, 1986, goes right to the heart of what we are debating here on the Senate floor. What we are debating is our voting rights and whether we will have, for the next 4 years or 8 years, an Attorney General who is going to enforce the laws, particularly with regard to voting rights.

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

This letter is dated on March 19, 1986. It is a letter from Coretta Scott King, The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change. This is at the top of the letterhead. She is writing a letter to Strom Thurmond, and she says:

I write to express my sincere opposition to the

confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a Federal district

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 a federal judgeship.

I regret that a longstanding 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

letter be made a part of the hearing record.

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

Sessions.

There is a carbon copy of this to Senator Joe Biden. This happened in March of 1986.

Coretta Scott King is speaking out against Jeff Sessions, who was at the time a U.S. attorney, and he was going to be promoted as a Federal judge. We all know the history--he was not promoted as a Federal judge.

Here is her statement, which she asked to have read at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 13, 1986.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my

strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for

a federal district judgeship for the Southern District of

Alabama. My longstanding commitment, which I shared with my

husband, Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black

Americans, rights which include equal access to the

democratic process, compels me to testify today.

Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert

Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and

unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used

the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of

the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to

serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to

happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his

politically motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his

indifference towards criminal violations of civil rights

laws, indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness, and

judgment to be a federal judge.

The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important

to the future of democracy in the United States. I was

privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to

Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was

particularly impressed by the determination to get the

franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As

he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the

Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and

her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended

largely upon students and unemployed adults to participate in

nonviolent protest of the denial of the franchise, Selma has

involved fully 10 percent of the Negro population in active

demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population of

Marion was arrested on one day.'' Martin was referring, of

course, to a group that included the defendants recently

prosecuted for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to

exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the

depth of their commitment 20 years ago, that a united

political organization would remain in Perry County long

after other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry

County Civil League, started by Mr. Turner, Mr. Hogue, and

others, as Martin predicted, continued ``to direct the drive

for votes and other rights.'' In the years since the Voting

Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion, Selma, and

elsewhere have made important strides in their struggle to

participate actively in the electoral process. The number of

Blacks registered to vote in key Southern States has doubled

since 1965. This would not have been possible without the

Voting Rights Act.

However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal

participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the

South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to

the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the

voters. It has been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the

vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to

vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility--

Here she is talking about Jeff Sessions--

to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise

of those rights by Black people, should not be elevated to

the Federal bench.

The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if

confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a

federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished 20

years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years ago, when

we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of voting was

real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in Selma and

Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the time, ``it

was not just a sick imagination that conjured up the vision

of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who forced an

inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who ordered

the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; who

clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously inflicted

repeated brutalities and indignities upon nonviolent Negroes

peacefully petitioning for their constitutional right to

vote.''

Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to

American democracy that we cannot tolerate any form of

infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been

disenfranchised in our Nation's history, none has struggled

longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than

Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box

denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a

broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block

the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the

purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gamut from

the straightforward application of brutality against black

citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as

``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.

The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984

voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique

used to intimidate Black voters and thus deny them this most

precious franchise. The investigations into the absentee

voting process were conducted only in the Black Belt counties

where blacks had finally achieved political power in the

local government. Whites had

been using the absentee process to their advantage for years

without incident. Then, when Blacks, realizing its strength,

began to use it with success, criminal investigations were

begun.

In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney,

exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three

leaders of the Perry County Civil League, including Albert

Turner, despite evidence clearly demonstrating their

innocence of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the

case, Mr. Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by

whites, choosing instead to chill the exercise of the

franchise by blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact,

Mr. Sessions sought to punish older black civil rights

activists, advisors, and colleagues of my husband, who had

been key figures in the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

These were persons who, realizing the potential of the

absentee vote among Blacks, had learned to use the process

within the bounds of legality and had taught others to do the

same. The only sin they committed was being too successful in

gaining votes.

The scope and character of the investigations conducted by

Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were

selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of

their testimony to the government's case. Also, the

prosecution illegally withheld from the defense critical

statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were

pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct''

testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by

the FBI who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand

jury in Mobile when they could more easily have testified at

a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These voters, and

others, have announced they are now never going to vote

again.

I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in

these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious

questions about his commitment to the protection of the

voting rights of all American citizens and consequently his

fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental right.

When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments

of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are

analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political,

and the result frightening--the wide-scale chill of the

exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to

receive that right in the first place. Therefore, it is my

strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions

to the federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my

husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their

lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal

participation in our democratic system.

The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by

which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will

be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil

right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately

results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is

only when the poor and disadvantaged are in power that they

are able to participate actively in the solutions to their

own problems.

We still have a long way to go before we can say that

minorities no longer need to be concerned about

discrimination at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native

Americans and Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented at

every level of government in America. If we are going to make

our timeless dream of justice through democracy a reality, we

must take every possible step to ensure that the spirit and

intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fifteenth

Amendment of the Constitution is honored.

The federal courts hold a unique position in our

constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other

citizens without political power have a forum in which to

vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is

essential that the people selected to be federal judges

respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for

individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all.

The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they

protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel competent

that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge

with fairness others holding differing views.

I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite

judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights

guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for

appointment to the federal district court. Based on his

record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating

effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also

on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my

husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I

therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his

confirmation.

I thank you for allowing me to share my views.

Now this was a letter that Coretta Scott King wrote--I just finished reading it--in March 1986. We know the results of that. After the testimony was taken, Jeff Sessions, because of his record at the time, was not allowed to become a Federal judge. Today, the issue that we have before us, the issue we have before us is, is he fit to be our Attorney General of the United States, based on his overall record, and this is part of the record.

When the majority leader comes to the floor and strikes the words of Elizabeth Warren for just reading parts of this letter, he is not allowing the full record to be before the American people, and he is not allowing a full debate to occur in this Chamber. That is really what this is about today. Are we going to, as a Senate, where we have debate, we have open debate, cut off that debate? Are we able to say things about one another--and especially in this case. This just isn't a debate from one Senator to another.

As to Senator Warren, in which it was said she impugned the integrity of Senator Sessions. Senator Sessions is in a different category here today. Senator Sessions is seeking the office of U.S. Attorney General. This is the most important law office in the land--the most important law enforcement office. This is an office where you can be active and go out and file civil rights cases, you can protect voting rights, you can do numerous things. This is an awesome responsibility. So this should be part of the Record, and I believe it is very important that we put it in the Record, that we talk about it, and then we look at the whole picture.

As I said earlier, I rise in opposition to the confirmation of Senator Sessions. It is not easy to oppose a nominee, especially when one is your Senate colleague. And I generally think the President should be able to assemble his team. But with this President we are in uncharted territory.

President Trump doesn't want to hire a team who will represent the American people. Many of the nominees are billionaires who are out of touch with the struggles of average Americans, and many of them have shown great disdain for the very agencies they will lead. People such as Betsy DeVos, a billionaire with zero experience in public schools, selected to run the Education Department. As we all know, yesterday, we saw what happened; two courageous Republicans--Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins--voted against Betsy DeVos. In an unprecedented move, the Vice President of the United States had to come and sit where the President of the Senate is and cast the tie-breaking vote in order to get her through. I think we are going to look back on that as a sad day for public education because she sure doesn't stand up for public education.

People such as Scott Pruitt to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he sued many times.

When the people nominated to the President's Cabinet are intent on dismantling the very Agency they are nominated to run, our constitutional role of advise and consent takes on a new importance.

The position of Attorney General is unique. The nominee requires even more scrutiny. The Attorney General, as our nation's chief law enforcement officer, has enormous power to either advance or roll back our constitutional protections, and that power resides in that one person.

The other important role of the Attorney General is to make sure the President is obeying the law. In this case, we have a real problem here. Within the first couple of weeks, the courts are calling the President in and telling him he is issuing Muslim bans and other orders and that he is violating the law. So we need an Attorney General who is going to stand up for what the law is, not be political and not be ideological.

Perhaps Senator Sessions said it best during the confirmation hearings for Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General. In that hearing, Senator Sessions said: ``You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say `no' about.'' That is his full quote there.

When he asked Ms. Yates, ``Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that is improper?'' That is the standard we are looking at--pretty tough standard--speaking truth to power, the Attorney General to the President of the United States.

I completely agree with Senator Sessions that the Attorney General has the responsibility, the duty to tell the President no when he is wrong. That is why I cannot vote to confirm Senator Sessions. I don't have the faith that he will tell President Trump no when the situation requires it, but I have less faith that the President will listen.

Sally Yates told the President no. She refused to let the Justice Department defend the President's misguided

travel ban. She was fired for doing exactly what the position of Attorney General requires.

When the Acting AG, Acting AG Yates, said his travel ban was wrong, the President didn't simply relieve her of her position, instead he put out a press release attacking her personally. Sally Yates, who served the government for three decades as a career prosecutor, Justice Department attorney, deserved the President's respect regardless of whether he agreed with her or not.

Time and again, President Trump has shown that he will not tolerate dissent. You are either with him or in his mind you are wrong, and you become the enemy. President Trump has put the bully back into the bully pulpit. He frequently and publicly lashes out against those who express different views, and more dangerously, he lashes out at the institutions that are the fabric of this democracy. This weekend he attacked a Federal judge who ruled against his travel ban, rather than respecting the rule of law and the coequal judicial branch. He once again took to Twitter to personally denigrate the Federal judge who dared rule against this policy--a Federal judge who was appointed by George W. Bush.

President Trump disparages the free press at every opportunity. Any article or story that is critical of his policies is now dubbed ``fake'' news. Members of the press are punished for coverage of the administration that he deems negative. He says he wants to weaken libel laws so it is easier for him to sue the press.

President Trump will continue his assault on the First Amendment, defining the press that holds him accountable as the enemy, deriding and belittling those who speak out against him, attacking the free expression of religion and those who practice Islam.

When he takes these actions, it is up to the Attorney General of the United States to tell him he is wrong. That is where that awesome responsibility resides.

It is up to the Attorney General to speak truth to power and to be ready to be fired for doing so, but it is far from clear that Senator Sessions will be that independent voice within the Department of Justice that the American public needs.

The Washington Post reports that Senator Sessions not only agreed with the President's flurry of extreme Executive orders but that he wanted the President to go further and faster.

In an email to the Post, senior strategist Stephen Bannon said that throughout the campaign, Senator Sessions ``has been the fiercest, most dedicated, most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we were witnessing now is the birth of a new political order.''

Stephen Bannon. This is an amazing quote, a contemporary quote from the President's top strategist. Everybody who is now talking in the press--and there are a lot of leaks out of this White House--say Steve Bannon is the puppeteer. He is the one telling Trump what to do. It is absolutely clear, of all the people in the White House, this is the guy who has the most clout, and it is a debate for all whether he is the puppeteer in telling the President what to do.

But listen again to what he said about Senator Sessions, that he ``has been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda. What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new political order.''

I don't know what this new political order is, where you don't respect the rule of law and don't respect democracy--headed in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

Loyalty is a valued characteristic in politics, but the Nation's chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost.

I hearken back to when Senator Sessions and I were both attorneys general back many years ago, and I remember assuming that role at the State level. It is an awesome role because early on in my administration they brought me cases where Democrats who were in the State legislature were violating the law, and they said: They are violating the law. They said they are violating the law. We have to enforce the law, and I did, and we prosecuted people in my own party.

We had many rulings that came in as Attorney General where people would say: Interpret this law. And the law could be interpreted in a political way where you moved it toward your party, or the law could be interpreted the way it was written, with fairness. It ended up that we did everything we could to try to be fair to the law and fair as it was written.

I don't think Senator Sessions is able to do that, not only based on his history in Alabama as U.S. attorney, but his entire career up to this date.

We talk about loyalty being a valued characteristic in politics. The Nation's chief law enforcement officer must be independent, first and foremost. He or she must defend the Constitution and all Americans, not be the President's architect of a new political order that excludes many people.

For these reasons, I must vote no on this nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article I referred to so that people can see that full article and be able to judge Steve Bannon's quote, who is the President's top strategist.

Thank you.

With that, I will yield the floor momentarily, and I may be back in a minute or two.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as I reflect on the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General, one of the things that hits me is, when we look at the broad scope of how America has been moving forward in the last 100 years, the three big movements that have changed America have been the civil rights movement; the women's rights movement--women's suffrage, women's rights, women wanting freedom over their choices on reproductive rights; and then conservation and environmental rights, which have kind of changed everything since Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and my father and Uncle Mo Udall, who served in the Congress.

I grew up believing civil rights was something that was moving us forward, was inclusive, and was something where we really cared about every person.

The job of the United States Senator is to represent your State. My State of New Mexico is majority-minority, very diverse, and I am very proud to speak out for the people of New Mexico and their civil rights. I have told many of them back home the story I learned through my father and through his public service, when he was a college student at the University of Arizona.

Both he and my Uncle Morris Udall were at the University of Arizona in the lunchroom. Way back in the 1940s, the lunchroom was segregated so the Black students had to eat outside under the trees. They couldn't eat inside. My father and Mo had a friend, a young man by the name of Morgan Maxwell. Morgan still is a good friend of the family, and I am good friends with his son who lives in New Mexico.

Morgan was sitting out under the tree, and Mo and my father went over and said: We want you to have lunch with us. They took him through the line at the University of Arizona. The

people serving looked at him like they were a little shocked and surprised. They said: He is our friend. He is going to have lunch with us. They served him, and they sat down at the lunch table in the lunchroom. It ended up that they had a good lunch that day.

But that push to bring Morgan Maxwell, a Black student, into a segregated lunchroom ended up with the president of the university facing a decision: Was he going to discipline the Udall brothers or was he going to change the rule and integrate the lunchroom? Thank God, he integrated the lunchroom, and the University of Arizona, at that time, moved forward with integration.

I had always heard that story, and it resonated with me a lot. Then, later, as I was growing up here in Washington when my father was Secretary of the Interior, there was a great commotion around the fact that the Washington Redskins was the last team in the NFL to integrate their team. Here, we are talking in the 1960s. The owner of the Washington Redskins was named George Preston Marshall. Everyone knew he was a bigot and racist. He said: This is never going to happen. We are not going to integrate the Redskins. So there was a big movement in Washington to get my father to do something about it.

He took this in a serious way and passed it on to the Solicitor. The Solicitor came back and said: Stewart, actually, you can do something about it. The stadium resides on Park Service property and you are the landlord. Tell him next year when he gets his lease, if his team isn't integrated, you can terminate the lease, or he can integrate. George Preston Marshall raised hell and went to Jack Kent and Bobby Kennedy at Justice and did everything they could to push it aside. The Kennedys backed my dad.

I know my colleague Senator Hirono is here.

The short story is that the Washington Redskins got Bobby Mitchell and had the first winning season the next year in a long, long time.

Those civil rights are things you grow up with. They are things you want to move forward with. That is why I rise today to say I am deeply disturbed about what Coretta Scott King said about Jeff Sessions in 1986 when he was going to be promoted. As U.S. attorney, he chilled the free exercise of vote by Black citizens. That is how he carried out his responsibilities.

I think if you look at the whole history here, he is not fit to be Attorney General, and that is why I am going to vote no, and I urge everybody to vote no.

I see my great colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono, here. She may want to speak. Others may come in.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, President Trump made bold claims about his intention to ``drain the swamp.'' But here we are, debating a measure that would do the exact opposite. The Senate is actually voting to kill an anticorruption regulation.

This regulation was the result of bipartisan effort led by Senator Dick Lugar. Senator Lugar was my mentor when I first joined the Senate. He helped me better understand the role and traditions of this body; and he showed me what it meant to be a statesmen.

Senator Lugar was one of the most thoughtful foreign policy experts to serve in the Senate. He chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, and he was deeply respected on both sides of the aisle.

He understood the ``resource curse.'' How developing countries with billions of dollars in oil, gas, or other valuable minerals often had the worst poverty, how the governments of these countries made deals with huge corporations to sell their resources, but the citizens of those countries never saw the benefits. Instead, corrupt leaders would enrich themselves, rather than use the funds to pay for healthcare, education, infrastructure, or housing.

Senator Lugar, with Senator Cardin, developed legislation to address the resource curse, to bring transparency to an opaque system. The result was section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act. It directed the SEC to issue a rule requiring all oil, gas, and mineral companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments.

This allows the citizens of those countries to hold their leaders accountable. It shines a light on corruption. And when citizens can demand that this money is used for their benefit, it reduces their need for foreign aid.

Opponents of this rule claimed it would put American companies at a disadvantage. In fact, it made the U.S. a leader. Other countries followed suit and passed similar requirements.

The Cardin-Lugar rule became the global standard for transparency. Today, 80 percent of the world's largest publicly listed oil, gas and mining companies--including state-owned companies from Russia, China, and Brazil--are subject to disclosure rules.

This resolution of disapproval is just one of many misguided efforts by Republicans to use the Congressional Review Act to kill regulations that protect the most vulnerable.

The CRA was enacted in 1996 as part of the radical deregulatory and anticonsumer actions by shepherded by Newt Gingrich. Before now, the CRA has successfully been used to overturn only one rule.

There is a reason it has only been successfully used once. The CRA is a blunt weapon. It is a poorly written law that comes with unintended consequences. The CRA allows Congress to strike down a rule in its entirety with only an hour of floor debate in the House and without the ability to filibuster it in the Senate.

This flawed process can undo years of careful work by stakeholders and Federal agencies. Work done through an open, thoughtful rulemaking process. The Cardin-Lugar rule took years to finalize. Republicans want to kill it in a day.

And let's be clear--it does kill the regulation. Earlier today, Leader McConnell mischaracterized this effort. He said, ``Let's send the SEC back to the drawing board to promote transparency.''

But that is not what the CRA does. It doesn't send the agency ``back to the drawing board.'' What it does do is prohibit the agency from issuing another regulation that is ``substantially the same,'' unless Congress specifically authorizes the agency to do so through subsequent legislation.

The courts have not yet determined how different a new regulation must be so that is not ``substantially the same.'' This discourages an agency from issuing a new similar regulation once a rule has been blocked.

This is not going back to the drawing board. This is going back to corruption.

Mr. President, thank you for the recognition, and I thank Senator Merkley very much for yielding.

I have been here on the floor, listening to Senators Kaine and Merkley, and I saw Senator Cardin speaking earlier from my office. We can see that for many of us who sat through these hearings and heard the answers, it didn't give us a lot of confidence that Rex Tillerson was going to be able to step in and be the top diplomat for the United States of America. So I join in all the comments that have been made earlier.

I want to talk about one of the issues that has developed over the last couple of days and that really has bearing on this. For the last century, the United States has led the world stage. We are the inspiration for countless nations as they nurture hopeful democracies-- democracies that respect human rights and individual liberties. We are a nation of freedom, where men and women can work hard, build a happy, healthy life, and live the American dream. That is what makes President Trump's anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant actions last week so repugnant.

I believe his actions violate the Constitution. They also violate everything we stand for as a country. Turning our backs on refugees and those seeking a better life doesn't project strength. It shows weakness. It fuels anti-American rage around the world. Our Nation doesn't punish innocent people because of what they believe and who they pray to. We don't slam the door in the faces of those who need help the most.

I call on all of us, especially my colleagues across the aisle, to denounce this action and the people behind it. I am relieved that Federal judges around the nation are blocking the President's unconstitutional order, and I am also very proud of our strong constitutional system of checks and balances.

I can't express adequately how proud I am of Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General who was fired by President Trump. Now you have to know something about her. This is a very courageous person who stood up and did the right thing. Sally Yates is a career prosecutor. She has served as a U.S. attorney in the U.S. attorney's office under Democrats and Republicans--a career prosecutor. When she was put up for a vote in the Senate, she got 84 votes when she was approved for Deputy Attorney General of the United States. This is someone who understands what is going on, understands the Constitution, and understands her legal obligations. She stood up and said that she wasn't going to represent in court the President on this Muslim ban, and he fired her. He fired her.

These kinds of actions are disturbing. They are un-American acts, and they are the most urgent reason I rise today to state that I cannot support confirming Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.

There is no doubt that Mr. Tillerson was qualified to run ExxonMobil. Exxon was his first job out of college, and the only company he worked for during his 40-year career in the oil and gas industry. There is no doubt that Mr. Tillerson, as CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil, was 100 percent committed to making sure the best interests of the company's shareholders were served. But with no diplomatic experience or history of public service, I am not confident that Mr. Tillerson is qualified to serve as the United States' chief diplomat.

After studying his work and studying the history and his responses at the confirmation hearing and looking at his answers in writing, I do not believe that Mr. Tillerson is able to commit 100 percent to serving the best interests of the American people. Negotiating the complexities of oil and gas deals is not the same as negotiating the complexities of treaties and agreements with foreign governments.

ExxonMobil's top priority is profit. That is its reason for existence. Leaders negotiate business deals over money and access to resources. The United States and the American people have different priorities--sometimes conflicting priorities.

Our Nation is economically successful, for sure, and we value business and we value making money, but our core values go way beyond economics. We value representative government, we value human rights, and we value freedom of speech. We value the four freedoms that President Roosevelt talked about when we entered into international agreements to spread the four freedoms around the world.

An incoming Secretary of State should not be learning on the job. He or she should already have substantial relevant experience. He or she should already have proven experience fighting for our Nation's core values, for human rights. Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he lacks substantive foreign policy experience and knowledge. He told the committee many times that he was not familiar with the issues at hand or needed briefing. He must have said that a number of times. As just one example, Mr. Tillerson was unfamiliar with Russia's role in the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Syria. He had no opinion of the legality of the slaughter under international law. These are some of the most important, most urgent foreign policy matters we face, but he was unprepared to answer them.

Like Senators on both sides of the aisle, I am concerned about Mr. Tillerson's close personal business ties to the Russian Government. I am concerned about those. They may color his view of Russia. He has been long friends with Vladimir Putin. He has a highly profitable relationship with Igor Sechin, the head of the state-owned oil company Rosneft. I worry that these ties make it difficult or maybe even impossible for him to objectively evaluate Russia's actions and to act in America's best interests.

Are his close ties to Russia why he does not condemn Russia's actions in Syria? We cannot be sure. Mr. Tillerson also will not confirm whether he will advocate maintaining sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea. We know that the sanctions also continue to cost ExxonMobil because it is not able to drill for oil in Russia's Arctic.

Will Mr. Tillerson not commit to maintaining sanctions because of his ties to Russia? We cannot be sure.

In a third example, Mr. Tillerson would not commit to sanctions against Russia for its interference in our Presidential election. He said he didn't have enough information. Well, every U.S. security agency--all 17 of them--has concluded that the Russian Government hacked the Democratic National Committee, disclosed email from the hack from getting in there, and tried to influence our election. They agreed that these actions were authorized at the highest levels of the Russian Government, with fingers pointing right at Vladimir Putin. The intelligence community's public reports stated it this way:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an

influence campaign in 2016

aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were

to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process,

denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and

potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian

Government developed a clear preference for President-elect

Trump--

Now President Trump--

We have high confidence in these judgments.

So 17 of our intelligence agencies pooled together all of their information, and they had high confidence in what they concluded there.

Mr. Tillerson had adequate information to make a strong statement against this attack, against this hacking, and in favor of American democracy. He did not make such a statement.

We must have a Secretary of State whose allegiance is 100 percent committed to U.S. interests. Mr. Tillerson's equivocating testimony on Russia did not convince me that he can be counted on to serve America's interests and America's interests only. Mr. Tillerson's equivocations mirror the Republicans' record on Russian interference in our democracy.

While the President has plans to dismantle the post-World War II international order, Republicans have done nothing to address Russia's attempt to dismantle our democracy.

I was also unsatisfied by Mr. Tillerson's answers on climate change. While he acknowledges the existence of climate change, he testified that ``our ability to predict that effect is very limited'' and that what action to take ``seems to be the largest area of debate existing in the public discourse.'' That is not what the overwhelming majority of scientists tell us. Our ability to predict what is happening to the planet's climate is not ``very limited,'' and there is international consensus written into the Paris Agreement as to what actions nations agree they must take. Scientists from all over the world have joined together through the United Nations and said that climate change is real and we have to take specific actions.

I appreciated that Rex Tillerson at least said that he believes the United States should remain at the table, but he questioned a key part of the Paris Agreement: the nationally determined contribution, or what is called the NDC. Without the NDC from the United States, the agreement is likely to fall apart, and his claimed support for the Paris Agreement becomes meaningless.

I cannot be clearer: Ignoring the threat of climate change is a direct threat to the United States. We have heard other Senators talk about the threat to their States, and it is a direct threat to my home State of New Mexico.

While President Trump may be trying to quiet our climate scientists, the science is clear. Climate change is real. We just finished the hottest year in recorded history. We know we must act, and we know there will be devastating impacts if the United States does not lead on this issue.

No matter what one believes about science or foreign policy, we should all be alarmed at the lack of transparency in the new administration, especially the unwillingness of our President and key Cabinet members to be open and honest with taxpayers about their finances and potential conflicts.

While Mr. Tillerson has divested from ExxonMobil, we still don't have copies of his tax returns. Mr. Tillerson's ties to ExxonMobil are decades old. Yet he has said he will recuse himself from matters related to ExxonMobil for only 1 year. For only 1 year will he recuse himself. He has worked for this company his entire life. He should refrain from taking calls from his old company for as long as he serves as Secretary of State. He is serving the country. He is serving in a taxpayer-funded job. I don't understand why he cannot agree to this simple standard to avoid the appearance of any conflict. If he deals favorably with ExxonMobil, how can the American people know he is working for us or for his former employer, which made him an extremely wealthy man?

But most concerning to me is whether Mr. Tillerson will be able to speak truth to power. We have just seen this weekend how vital that will be in this administration, where it appears that there is no unifying vision, and different factions of President Trump's Cabinet are competing for his attention. We need a leader with a clear vision for America's role in the world, someone who will put American values ahead of everything else.

Too many times, when pressed during his confirmation hearing about U.S. interests and values, Mr. Tillerson did not give straight answers. On questions such as human rights violations in the Philippines and Syria, he did not call out these offenses for what they were. On questions about whether we should maintain sanctions against Russia for illegally invading Crimea or for interfering with our electoral process, he deferred; he wavered; he said he would decide at a later date when he can be briefed or meet with the President. If Mr. Tillerson can't give straight answers, from the heart, about the most pressing human rights issues, on violations of international law, on a foreign power's interference with our Presidential election, how can we expect him to speak up and temper the worst angels in the Trump administration?

If Mr. Tillerson were the nominee for a more conventional Republican President, these concerns would not be as serious. But I think every Senator can agree that Donald Trump is not a conventional President. He is offending allies and upending alliances on a nearly daily basis. He has made negative statements about the German Chancellor's domestic policies. He is threatening to extort the Mexican Government to pay for an offensive and ineffective wall on America's southern border. He has repeatedly questioned NATO, the fundamental alliance that has secured peace between major powers since World War II. He is threatening to slash funding for the United Nations, including the World Health Organization, which fights global pandemics.

While addressing employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, standing in front of a wall honoring professionals who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, President Trump threatened to take Iraq's oil--that he wanted to take another look at taking Iraq's oil-- and he said: ``To the victor go the spoils.'' This is a line attributed to Julius Caesar, who decreed himself Emperor. He began rattling the saber with China before he was sworn in.

The President has done all of this while repeatedly praising Vladimir Putin as a strong leader and proposing to improve relations there, while making them worse nearly everywhere else.

This weekend, he closed America's doors to Muslim refugees trying to escape the very evil our government is fighting against. He not only closed the doors to people who believe in our democratic institutions and the freedoms we enjoy, he closed the doors to people who have risked their lives in service of our ideals.

These are not normal changes in foreign policy between administrations. I would change many aspects of U.S. foreign policy if I could. But President Trump's approach to foreign policy so far is one of reckless change that is frankly scaring the American public and our allies around the world. In such a foreign policy environment, we need experienced, skilled hands, people who understand these allies and who understand our longstanding alliances and why we have them. But the President has fired all U.S. Ambassadors, and most high-level State Department employees have resigned or been forced out.

Mr. Tillerson, there is no doubt, is a talented businessman. He loves his country. He has devoted himself to other worthy causes, like the Boy Scouts. It is no exaggeration to say that the post-World War II international order is under attack by the President, endangering U.S. leadership in the world. As a result, our national security and place in the world are threatened like never before. During such tenuous times, we need a leader as our chief diplomat who is prepared to take the reins and calm the waters. But I do not have confidence that Mr. Tillerson has the experience, knowledge, values, or temperament to stand up to the President, to be a voice of reason, or to moderate the President's extreme views and actions. For these reasons, I oppose Mr. Tillerson's confirmation as Secretary of State, and I urge my fellow Members, including those who claimed the mantle of President Reagan, to do the same.

I know my good friend Senator Markey, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is here on the floor, as well as Senator Coons, another member of the committee, and I think both of them will speak on the Tillerson nomination.

I yield to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the confirmation of Congressman Mike Pompeo as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I respect Congressman Pompeo's background and service to our Nation. However, I strongly believe that his positions on at least three key issues undermine his qualifications to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

First, he has supported broad surveillance programs that allow the government to spy on the American people--programs that were far- reaching, invasive, and violated law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights to privacy.

These programs were hastily passed as a part of the PATRIOT Act in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I was one of only 66 Members in the House of Representatives to vote against the PATRIOT Act.

Since then, we have learned through reviews by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as well as the unauthorized disclosure of programs by Edward Snowden, that these programs did go too far. There is no doubt about it. They did go too far.

The government collected massive amounts of personal cell phone information, with no probable or reasonable cause to justify the collection, and the PATRIOT Act was used to obtain hotel records, car rental records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, and other personal information. While the government collected personal information from innocent Americans, there is no credible evidence that it made us more secure.

The majority of the American people opposed the surveillance program. They understood it went too far and violated our basic American right to privacy. So Congress responded and passed the USA FREEDOM Act-- bipartisan legislation to rein in the surveillance programs.

Congressman Pompeo was skeptical of the USA FREEDOM Act, and he introduced his own bill to resume and expand the spying programs.

I believe in strong national security, and I have consistently supported our

military and our National Labs to ensure that we have the strongest and most effective defense in the world. However, in the United States of America, we protect national security and our constitutional rights. The United States is not a police State. The U.S. Constitution protects us from overreaching invasions of our privacy. Congress struck an appropriate balance in the USA FREEDOM Act between security and civil liberties. I hope the new administration will not try to return to mass surveillance programs that don't work, aren't supported by the American people, and invade our civil liberties.

Second, Congressman Pompeo's views on torture are deeply concerning. He has stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation programs used by the CIA in the Bush administration ``were within the law'' and ``within the Constitution.'' That is his quote, ``were within the law'' and ``within the Constitution.'' They were not. They violated Federal law prohibiting torture, and they violated the U.N. Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions--treaties the United States signed and that became Federal law. Programs of torture were a stain on our Nation's history and contrary to our value as Americans.

Beyond the legality of these programs, any CIA Director must understand that the use of torture is ineffective. It yields bad intelligence, which makes it harder for our analysts to do their jobs. The Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000-page classified report, issued in December 2014, concludes: ``The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.'' This finding is from the publicly available executive summary from the report.

On key national security issues, like the use of torture, the new administration's top appointees must speak with one voice. Secretary of Defense Mattis has disavowed the use of torture. His many years of experience, training, and leading troops have taught him that torture does not work. Americans go to war--and risk and sacrifice their lives--to preserve our deeply held values. We cannot be engaged in conduct antithetical to those values at the same time. We must lead by example.

Finally, if America uses torture, we have no moral authority to stop foreign countries or terrorists from torturing Americans. We can never give implicit license to others to brutalize our soldiers. President Obama banned the use of torture in 2009. Again, I hope we will not be forced into debate about whether to return to the use of inhumane interrogation techniques that don't work and that undermine what we stand for as a nation.

Third, Congressman Pompeo has expressed that the Guantanamo Bay detention center should remain open, and he has said he believes detainees can be imprisoned indefinitely. The continued use of Guantanamo Bay prison and indefinite detention are at odds with our Nation's commitment to human rights and rule of law. There is no place in America's traditions under the Constitution and under international norms for indefinite detention without trial or adjudication. Guantanamo Bay hurts America's standing around the world, it is a recruiting tool for terrorists, and it is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Again, we must strike an appropriate balance between national security and America's fundamental principles. We cannot take actions to preserve American values that at the same time are opposite those very same values.

Finally, Congressman Pompeo's views on Muslims are troubling. He has stated that Muslim leaders are ``potentially complicit'' in acts of terrorism if they don't condemn it. Muslim leaders around the world have condemned extremists' violence. Muslims around the world strongly condemn such acts. Accusing Muslim leaders of complicity and acts of terrorism that they have nothing to do with, that they oppose, is not acceptable speech from a Director of a national security agency.

In conclusion, I want to underscore that I have nothing but respect for the men and women who work in the Central Intelligence Agency. They are true patriots who work hard every day, at personal risk, to keep our Nation secure. These patriots deserve a leader who will keep our Nation secure and secure our Nation's basic values.

In defense of America, in the name of national security, we must protect Americans' constitutional rights, the rule of law, and human rights. I believe Congressman Pompeo's views do not hold with American values. His positions will not keep America safe. I think they could undermine our security. For these reasons, I must oppose Congressman Pompeo's nomination as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I voted against the confirmation of General John Kelly to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I have deep concerns about the homeland security policies that President Trump advocated during the campaign, and I worry that as Secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly will feel it necessary to work to advance those reckless policies. For instance, General Kelly was unable to promise the Senate that the administration will refrain from deporting our nation's DREAMers, and I am troubled by his stated plans to reverse the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, DACA, program. Furthermore, General Kelly did not provide sufficient assurance that he fully opposes the President's wasteful and misguided plan for a border wall.

However, now that he has been confirmed, it is my hope that Secretary Kelly will be the voice of reason in the deliberations to shape the Trump administration's homeland security policy and that many of the reckless ideas candidate Trump espoused during the election will never become reality.

While I voted against General Kelly, I recognize and appreciate his long and distinguished career in the marines. I believe this experience, particularly his final assignment as head of the U.S. Southern Command, will serve him well. In addition, I am encouraged by several statements General Kelly made during his confirmation hearing-- statements that are at odds with the dangerous comments President Trump made during the campaign.

At the hearing, General Kelly spoke out against the use of torture and said the U.S. should always abide by the Geneva Conventions. He did state that building a wall along the southern border was not an effective way to secure the border, though he has not promised to oppose such a plan. He agreed with the intelligence community's assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking into our elections. He said that surveilling mosques and targeting Muslims as security threats was unacceptable. Finally, he said the sweeping collection of data on Americans violated the right to privacy and a much more focused effort is needed.

General Kelly has a reputation for speaking truth to power--I sincerely hope he does so as a member of the Cabinet, and I hope the President will listen. New Mexico is a majority-minority border State with thousands of hard-working families now living in fear of President Trump's immigration plans. Unfortunately, I am deeply concerned that General Kelly will be the instrument of the President's harmful and backwards homeland security agenda.

Mr. President, Gen. Jim Mattis is an extraordinary individual and an American patriot who has dedicated his life to service of country.

Nevertheless, his nomination did concern me, given that it was contrary to underlying law that has been in place since World War II. This law restricts individuals who have come out of the military less than 7 years ago from serving as Secretary of Defense. The reason for this longstanding law is to ensure civilian control over the military. Civilian control is an important American tradition which General

Mattis himself called a ``fundamental tenet of the American military tradition.''

Due to this fundamental concern, I opposed the legislation to create an exception to the law to allow General Mattis to serve. I intend to oppose any future such exceptions for any future President as long as I serve in the Senate. However, now that the exception exists for General Mattis, and he is eligible to serve and has been nominated, I supported his confirmation today.

During his confirmation hearing, he clearly stressed that he understood his new role and would work to ensure the longstanding American tradition of civilian control. He will serve at the pleasure of the new President, but his job now is not to simply give and follow orders, but provide candid advice, ask tough questions, provide civilian leadership, and exert broad management over all aspects of DOD, not only warfighting. During his career in the U.S. Marines he has distinguished himself both in combat and at home, earning the respect of his fellow marines as well as servicemembers in every branch of the military. He has also held his marines and anyone serving with him to the highest of standards, emphasizing commitment to duty and the importance of learning and perfecting their profession.

While I voted against a waiver for him to serve as Secretary of Defense, I in no way can oppose him on the merits now that the waiver has been approved. My vote on the waiver was no way a reflection of my support for his qualifications, but a vote which I felt was important to maintain the tradition of civilian control of the military, an important American tradition which General Mattis himself called a ``fundamental tenet of the American military tradition.''

As Secretary of Defense, he will be charged with the important task of providing civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, the largest agency in our country, and the one tasked with our national defense.

New Mexico plays an outsized role in these efforts, beginning with our national labs, that maintain our nuclear weapons and play an important role in multiple defense efforts.

In addition, New Mexico is home to three Air Force bases. Kirtland Air Force Base, one of the most diverse in the country, not only plays a lead role in managing our nuclear weapons, but is both the home of state of the art Air Force Research Lab facilities and AFSOC's premier training wing--the 58th Special Operations Wing. Cannon Air Force Base, home of the 27th Special Operations Wing, is at the tip of the spear in our efforts to counter terrorist threats to the United States. Holloman Air Force Base, which was recently selected to receive additional F- 16s, continues a proud tradition of training our future F-16 pilots. Furthermore, White Sands Missile Range, which is utilized by all our services, is the premier testing facility in the country. Finally, New Mexico also shares the Army's Ft. Bliss with our neighbor El Paso.

I would encourage Secretary Mattis to visit New Mexico as soon as possible to learn more about how New Mexico supports our Nation's military. I am proud to support them and our many veterans who have made New Mexico their home.

Mr. President, how am I recorded?

I vote no--

--because this will hurt the citizens of New Mexico and the Republicans have no plan--no plan.

Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Warren and my other colleagues this evening, to oppose this action by President-Elect Trump and congressional Republicans to take health care away from tens of thousands of New Mexicans.

Let me be clear. What President-Elect Trump and Republicans are doing now will throw health care into chaos. It is reckless. It will hurt thousands of New Mexicans and millions of Americans. The worst part is, the Republicans have no plan to replace care they will take away.

The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law. I have always said we should work to improve it. It has helped thousands of people in my home State of New Mexico. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, New Mexico had a high rate of people without health insurance. It was one of the highest in our region and in the country. Since 2010, that number has gone down 44 percent--pretty incredible.

Countless people have written me, called my office, and stopped me on the street to tell me how relieved they are to have health care. Others tell me we can't afford to go back to having insurance companies in charge, we can't go back to caps on coverage, back to allowing corporations to deny care because of a preexisting condition, and back to lifetime limits.

Tonight I want to share what just a few of my constituents have told me.

``Save my daughter.'' That was the heartbreaking plea that came to me from one of my constituents, Kevin from Albuquerque. Kevin's 33-year- old daughter Amber has multiple sclerosis. It is a tough disease, as we all know.

To treat her MS, Amber must follow an exact and rigorous drug regimen, coupled with regular visits to her neurologist and annual MRIs. The retail cost of her drugs is $60,000 per year. Her doctor visits and MRIs would run into the thousands of dollars.

Amber works. In fact, she has a good-paying job, but her employer does not provide health insurance. Amber purchases health insurance through the individual open market without Affordable Care Act subsidies. Amber is able to work because she gets the medical care she needs through insurance. Kevin fears his daughter will lose the right to health insurance if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. The ACA makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition such as MS.

The Affordable Care Act provides assurance that Amber will get the coverage she needs to remain healthy, to lead a normal life, to work, to contribute to society, and to stay off public assistance, and to survive. This one provision protects an estimated 861,000 New Mexicans and an estimated 134 million Americans. It is a safe bet that all of us here know at least one person like Amber. It isn't surprising that the vast majority of Americans--close to 70 percent--want to keep this protection.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates more than one-quarter of all adults under age 65 have health problems and that could make them uninsurable without the Affordable Care Act. If President-Elect Trump and the Republicans get their way, all of this will be at risk. Kevin is also scared because the cost of treating Amber's disease is so high. Without the ACA, any insurance company could cut off her health coverage if her medical expenses exceeded the company's lifetime limit. This provision protects an estimated 550,000 New Mexicans and an estimated 105 million Americans.

People who need medical care the most, people with serious medical problems, have some of the highest medical costs. If President-Elect Trump and Republicans have their way, care for people like Amber would be wiped away. I am the father of a daughter, and I am angry this father has to worry about whether his daughter will get the medical care she needs to live a healthy and productive life.

Let me tell you about Pam and Mike. They are a husband and wife from Placitas. They own a small business. They signed up for an insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act as soon as they could because premiums before the ACA were too expensive and Pam had a preexisting condition. Using their new preventive care, they found out that Mike had an aggressive form of cancer. Thankfully, doctors caught the cancer at an early stage. Mike was treated at the New Mexico Cancer Center and is now cured. Pam says there is no question that the ACA saved her husband's life.

Because of the ACA, private health plans must cover a range of free preventive services--everything from cancer screening to flu shots. Over 730,000 New Mexicans now benefit. Discovering a disease early saves lives and reduces health care costs, but preventive care is expensive if you are uninsured or poor.

An overwhelming majority of Americans--83 percent, in fact--support making preventive health care free. What would President-Elect Trump and Republicans do to make sure Pam and Mike and millions of others can keep getting cancer screenings? Nothing. They have no plan. They talk but no plan.

Next, I want to tell you about Karen from Albuquerque, the mother of two college-aged children. Karen's son graduates next May and turns 23. She is worried he will not get health insurance for an entry-level job. Her concern is well-founded since young adults have the lowest rate of access to employer-based insurance. Young adults do get sick, and one in six has a chronic illness such as cancer, diabetes, or asthma. Karen wants her son to have medical care if he needs it.

Today, the ACA allows him to stay on her insurance policy until he turns 26. This is one of the ACA's most popular provisions. The vast majority of Americans--85 percent--want young adults to be able to get insurance, but President-Elect Trump and congressional Republicans would leave an estimated 15,000 New Mexicans, like Karen's kids, and an estimated 2.3 million Americans without coverage because they have no plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

New Mexico is not a wealthy State. A lot of working people qualify for Medicaid. New Mexico wisely adopted the Medicaid expansion under the ACA, allowing 82,000 more people to get health care. Before the ACA, the only place many New Mexicans could get health care was in the emergency room. Now many are scared that President-Elect Trump and Republicans will take their health care away.

Take Amy, her husband, and her four boys--ages 13 to 19. Amy and her husband own a family business in Sante Fe. Before the ACA, they went without health insurance because they couldn't afford it. They just hoped nothing catastrophic happened to them. As soon as she could, Amy applied for health insurance under the Medicaid expansion. It covers her, her husband, her oldest son. Amy says she is grateful that because of the ACA, medical bills will not ``drain us financially.''

There are 8.4 million people across this country like Amy. Like Amy, many are low-income workers. They have jobs but no health insurance. They couldn't afford health insurance before the ACA, and they will not be able to afford it if President-Elect Trump and congressional Republicans have their way and repeal it with no plan to replace it.

These hard-working Americans deserve good medical care. Americans agree. Eighty percent favor the Medicaid expansion for low-income, uninsured adults.

Finally, we have 19 pueblos--Indian pueblos--and 4 tribes in New Mexico. Native Americans make up more than one-tenth of our population. As vice chair of this body's Indian Affairs Committee, I represent all of Indian Country. Native Americans are eligible to receive care through the Indian Health Service, but it is severely underfunded.

Long delays are common. As a result, many tribal members rely heavily on Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA health exchanges. More than 132,000 tribal members are enrolled in Medicaid in New Mexico alone. The All Pueblo Council of Governors, which represents all 19 pueblos, tells me, without the ACA, more tribal members will go back to the days of long delays, many will see their coverage cut.

This is also the subject of an amendment I will be offering. Indian Health Services' hospitals are heavily dependent on third-party collections for clinical services. In fact, current Federal funding covers less than half of their operational costs. Fortunately, increases in revenue from the Medicaid expansion have offset those annual costs. But without that revenue, necessary services may no longer be available throughout Indian country. This is unconscionable. My amendment would protect the Indian Health Service from any cuts in Federal funding if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.

There are tens of thousands of stories in New Mexico like those of Kevin,

Pam, Mike, Karen, and Amy. Over 360,000 New Mexicans have gained health care since the Affordable Care Act was passed, and over 21 million Americans have health insurance because of ObamaCare. I have heard from New Mexicans who are terrified because there is no plan to replace the Affordable Care Act's protections, benefits, and rights.

Republicans have called to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for years. They have had years to figure out how to replace it, and they have not. They have no plan. Repeal and replace is not a sound public policy. It is only a sound bite.

Health care is a basic human right. Providing adequate medical care for everyone should be our guiding principle for health care policy. What is the guiding principle of repeal and replace? Act now; figure it out later.

I have said it before: The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but it was historic--the biggest expansion of health care since the 1960s. It has helped millions of Americans get care. Many of them now can see a doctor regularly for the first time ever.

We need to work to improve, not repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to continue what has become a tradition. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, I took to the Senate floor and called for this body to adopt its rules with a simple majority vote and to amend them so they actually allowed the body to function as our Founders intended.

I did the same at the beginning of the 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses. Today, at the start of the 115th Congress, I again call for reform. This is something I have done as a member of the majority and the minority. Senator Merkley has worked closely with me on this issue and spoke briefly yesterday about our efforts.

But we did not start this tradition. It dates back decades. My predecessor, Clinton Anderson, was a leading proponent of what has become known as the ``constitutional option'' in the 1950s and 1960s. Vice President Walter Mondale--then a Senator from Minnesota--carried on the tradition in the 1970s. When Senator Merkley and I first joined the Senate, Senator Tom Harkin worked closely with us to help us carry on the tradition.

The proposals we have offered to change the rules at the start of a new Congress have never been radical. They were changes we were willing to live with whether we were in the majority or minority. We have offered the same proposals as Members of the majority and minority. We believe the Senate is broken, and even the minority party should want to fix it.

Congress had made some progress in recent years, but unfortunately, it took unprecedented Republican obstruction to bring it about. Republicans blocked nominees to all sorts of positions submitted by President Obama, so we took action to change the rules to break through the gridlock. It was unfortunate that Republicans precipitated that situation, but the result was for the best.

New rules allow for a lower cloture threshold for all nominees except those to the Supreme Court now, and the new Republican President can take advantage of them, just as President Obama was able to do for the final years of his term.

But no one would argue that Congress or the nomination process has been fixed. Further debate and reform is needed on many aspects of Senate function.

We believe the Senate should openly debate and consider its rules at the start of each Congress, to consider changes that can provide commonsense reforms. This ongoing process is the ideal way to restore the best traditions of the Senate and allow it to conduct the business that the American people expect.

We have one goal whether we are in the majority or in the minority: to give the American people the government they expect and deserve--a government that works.

This is not just about rules. It is about the norms and traditions of the Senate.

Neither side is 100 percent pure. Both sides have used the rules for obstruction. No doubt they had their reasons.

But I don't think the American people care about that. They don't want a

history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is fair, that is reasonable, and that works.

I hope that all my colleagues--and especially the new Senators--give serious consideration to reform.

We do not need to win every legislative or nomination vote. But we need to have a real debate and an open process to ensure we are actually the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on the Homeland Security bill. She has taken that over this year and learned it, knows the ins and outs of it. She is someone who truly cares about being fiscally responsible. She just recently pointed out to our caucus that if we pass the House bill with all of the riders in it, it would cost $7.5 billion more and put us $7.5 billion more into debt, which I do not think is a fiscally responsible move. So we should be taking a very hard look at these riders as they come through from the House.

I have come to the floor to talk about how important it is for us to pass a clean appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. I wish to talk about how failing to pass a bill will impact the southern border, impact my State of New Mexico, where DHS plays a vital role in security, in business, and in people's daily lives. The men and women at DHS make sure commerce is conducted smoothly across our border with Mexico. They make sure workers can get back and forth. They inspect shipments coming into the country, and they protect our communities from drug smugglers and crime.

It is inconceivable to me that Republicans would threaten to stop funding this agency over a policy dispute with the President. I have heard Republican leaders say the era of shutdowns was over, but here we are again, rapidly approaching the date when DHS funding expires. We need an appropriations bill that does not disrupt this important work.

I talk to New Mexicans who live in the border communities. I talk to ranchers and farmers in my State. Border security is not theoretical. It is not a political game. It is crucial to safety. It is crucial to trade at our ports of entry, such as Santa Teresa and Columbus. In New Mexico a shutdown of DHS is a threat to our security, to jobs, and to our economy.

I have read some reports where congressional Republicans have said on the record that a delay in funding DHS would not be a big deal. They say most of the Department's employees are considered essential so they would still be working at our borders and screening airline passengers. That may be true, but those employees would not get paid. I am not willing to tell our Border Patrol agents and TSA officers with families to feed that they still need to go to work, but they are not going to get paid because Washington cannot get its act together.

I know my constituents would feel a lot more secure in border communities if the Border Patrol officers were getting paid rather than worrying about their mortgages, their car payments, tuition payments, and other household expenses. Despite the Republican claims that DHS will not actually shut down, there would be significant consequences if Congress failed to fund DHS.

Consider what would happen to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC as they are called out in New Mexico. FLETC serves as the law enforcement training academy for 96 Federal agencies. FLETC in Artesia, NM, trains all of our Border Patrol agents and Bureau of Indian Affairs police officers.

If we fail to fund DHS, FLETC training grinds to a halt. This will impact every Federal agency whose law enforcement officers must complete basic training before they can be deployed in their posts of duty. A delay in training impacts securing the Nation's borders, aviation security, protecting our Nation's leaders and diplomats, securing Federal buildings, and other countless Federal law enforcement activities.

The economic impact is huge. Over 3,000 students, 350 of them in Artesia, NM, are expected to be in training at the end of February. If DHS is not funded, they have to go back home. This will cost about $2.4 million in airfare to send students back to their agencies, and then turn around and fly them back to FLETC when Congress does its job and funds DHS.

Regardless of your views on immigration policy, wasting law enforcement's time and taxpayer money does not improve our security. Artesia is not a big city. Its economy relies on FLETC. The students spend their money at local businesses. Many residents are contract employees at the facility. If FLETC closes, it has a real impact in our community.

As a New Mexican, I am appalled that a DHS shutdown is even being considered. We cannot risk our national security, our community safety, and our border commerce just so Republicans can prove some sort of inside-the-beltway point about how angry they are about immigration reform. The House Republican bill threatens to deport millions of people who have been living and working and going to school in our country for many years. The Senate should choose a different route: Put a clean bill on the floor, allow an open amendment debate, and enact a bill the President can sign before any shutdown occurs.

Few States understand the importance of comprehensive immigration reform as New Mexico does. We need a system that secures our borders, strengthens families, and supports our economy. In fact, we almost had just that. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill in the last Congress, but House Republicans let it die--would not even take it up, would not put it on the floor.

That bill was not perfect. It did not satisfy everyone in every case, but that is what compromise means. That is what a bipartisan effort requires. Due to the House's failure to act on immigration reform, over 400,000 people in my State live in immigration limbo, all the while they work and raise families. Deporting these children and families is not a realistic option. We need to focus limited resources, as the President has done, on securing the border. We need to go after drug dealers and gang members and potential terrorists.

I and so many other New Mexicans are appalled that Republicans want to take out their anger on the DREAMers. They will not commit to real reform, but they will commit to chasing down children--innocent children--brought to this country by their parents. These are inspiring young people in my State, when I talk about these young DREAMers. They have worked hard. They have persevered. They know and love this country as their own.

They are young leaders such as Mabel Arellanes. Mabel came to Santa Fe with her mother from Mexico when she was just 6 years old. Mabel graduated from Capital High School. Her dream was to go to college, but her immigration status made that impossible. From the age of 15, Mabel worked to help other DREAMers. She helped pass the New Mexico DREAM Act. Mabel eventually did get to college and graduated from the University of New Mexico with honors. She is in her second year of law school now.

Another one of the DREAMers--this is Alejandro Rivera. Another DREAMer, he moved to Belen, NM, when he was 7 years old. After high school, Alejandro enrolled at the University of New Mexico. Undocumented, he could not get financial aid. He and his mother worked hard to pay tuition. Alejandro also volunteered to help other young people get an education and to follow their dreams. He is at work now on his Ph.D. in education. We may disagree on the specifics of immigration reform, but these DREAMers have earned our admiration. They should not be pushed back into the shadows by the House deportation bill.

The men and women who work to keep us safe, who screen more than 1 million people a day through our ports of entry, who patrol our borders and help secure our communities should not be a bargaining chip. In New Mexico we believe homeland security should be a priority, not a talking point. Secretary Johnson at DHS has been very clear. Key security initiatives are left waiting. His predecessors have also been very clear. Last week all three former DHS Secretaries, two of whom are Republican, sent a letter

to the Senate leadership urging them to pass a clean funding bill.

We live in a very dangerous world. We face terrorist threats at home and abroad. Recent events make that very clear. Now is not the time to play politics with homeland security. In fact, there never is a right time for that. The American people are watching. The people of my State are watching. They are watching these games. What they see is a lot of sound and fury that leads nowhere. What they want is a government that works.

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 in morning business. I know the managers will be here shortly, and when they arrive I will obviously yield the floor to them.

Mr. President, today we are voting in the 11 o'clock series on the renewable electricity standard--a bill to promote 25 percent of our electricity to come by renewable sources by 2025.

From what we have heard these past few weeks, we are either on the floor debating an energy bill or a jobs bill. This is what my Republican friends and colleagues have been saying.

The Keystone Pipeline fits neither one of these descriptions. The Keystone Pipeline is not an energy bill. The bill lacks a comprehensive energy policy; it lacks even trying to set one. This is not a ``do it all, do it right'' energy bill. It isn't even a ``drill, baby, drill'' bill. This is the ``drill, Canada'' bill.

If we are going to debate energy policy, we need to debate and adopt a renewable electricity standard. The Keystone Pipeline is an investment in doing things the old way--importing foreign oil. Instead of doubling down on foreign oil, we should be talking about how we can move America forward by investing in homegrown energy for the future. The renewable electricity standard is such a bill.

I wish to point out that States already recognize this fact significantly. Colorado has a 30-percent target by 2020. Nevada has a 25-percent target by 2025. Oregon has a 25-percent target by 2025. A number of other States have renewable electricity targets. Twenty-nine States, in fact, are developing a national market. There are many States that are meeting these goals and moving forward aggressively.

In 2013, the State of Iowa produced 27 percent of its electricity alone with wind power.

I see the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the floor. I promise to yield. I only have a couple of more minutes. I thank the chairwoman.

This amendment--the renewable electricity standard--is a start to a comprehensive energy policy for the United States.

We are told the Keystone Pipeline is a jobs bill. We are told Keystone will create jobs. Of course, we are all for that. But how many jobs? We are talking about 2,000, 3,000 construction jobs, but the permanent jobs are in the range of 50. How about a renewable electricity standard that promotes long-lasting manufacturing and installation jobs--American jobs, permanent jobs--jobs that can't be outsourced?

The renewable electricity standard could create an additional 274,000 to 297,000 jobs in the United States in such areas as construction, operations, and engineering. Over 50 percent of these jobs would be created in the manufacturing sector. These are hundreds of thousands of 21st century American jobs in my State and across the country. We owe it to all Americans to consider this and other amendments that would improve the bill.

Right now, we are losing out to other countries in both solar and wind. China has the largest market share. A national renewable electricity standard would help us move forward aggressively to get our market share in those two areas.

It is clear to me a national renewable electricity standard would combat global warming while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. It will help maximize our energy potential while strengthening our economy and our energy security.

Let's vote on that. Let's move forward to meet the real energy needs of American families.

I thank the chairwoman for being so gracious and for her courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this amendment creates a national market for renewable energy. A bill similar to this has passed the Senate three times and also passed the House once. These are the jobs of the future--renewable energy jobs. More than half of the new generation of energy in the world is in renewables, and this amendment--it is estimated by the people who have studied it and the experts--would create about 300,000 new jobs.

So I ask my colleagues to support it. It is a good complement to the bill we are on, and it would create a lot of new jobs.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Moran amendment, which would delist the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species.

To be clear, I appreciate some of the concerns about this listing by farmers, ranchers, and industry. I am concerned about any unintended consequences this listing may have on rural New Mexicans. I strongly support and I assume the Senator from Kansas supports the bipartisan five-State effort for a thorough review.

The Fish and Wildlife Service took numerous steps in this process to respond to all stakeholders and to enable habitat conservation and economic growth. New Mexico has been and continues to be a leader in cooperative conservation in places where the prairie chicken is found. Ranchers and oil and gas industries deserve their praise for their efforts. So it is working and the sky is not falling, but we should not take this top-down political approach. Listing and delisting of the species by Congress goes against the intent of the law, which requires the government to make these decisions based on science, not politics.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 77.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let me just say to the two leaders on the floor who have participated in this open amendment process that I really appreciate the way Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell have worked through this bill. I really appreciate all their help.

I have heard, at least on our side of the aisle, over and over that this is the way the Senate should be moving, this is the way we should be working. So I think all of us are very appreciative of how the two managers of the bill have worked together.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we are voting to end debate on the Keystone Pipeline bill.

I want to be clear right from the start. I do not support this bill. I will vote against cloture and against final passage of the Keystone Pipeline bill. And I am disappointed about the way it is being jammed through to a vote.

I supported the motion to proceed to this bill for one reason and only one reason--because we were assured there would be an open amendment process.

We started that process last week. We have worked back and forth between Republican and Democratic amendments. Many of those amendments are important. And I believe we should continue until every Senator who wants to amend this bill has had a chance to make his or her case.

I have an amendment for a renewable electricity standard which would create hundreds of thousands of 21st-century American jobs in my State and across the country. We owe it to all Americans to consider this and other amendments that would improve the bill.

The bill as it stands is not acceptable on many levels.

First, I am concerned that the new leadership chose to begin with a bill mandating a single pipeline for a foreign private company. This is a questionable use of the Senate's time and an unprecedented piece of legislation. Congress has never gotten involved in mandating a pipeline of this nature. But that is where we are. Now we are voting to cut off debate. The majority leader moved last week--late in the night--to set aside the Democratic amendments and bring an end to debate.

So we have a bill with a questionable beginning and a regrettable ending. The result is a missed opportunity to seriously address the energy needs of our country.

I said at the beginning of this debate that we are faced with a choice, a profound choice. We can deny that our climate is warming. We can fall behind our economic competitors. We can ignore the danger to our planet and to our security. That is one choice. Or we can move forward with a clean energy economy, with an energy policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the environment, and that will keep our Nation strong.

We had a good debate on climate change during this bill about whether or not humans significantly contribute to it. Many Senators made it clear where they stand. Many agree that yes humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

But while that is good for the record, it doesn't do much for the reality, because we have fallen short of taking any real action to address this great challenge. In fact, we are now compounding the problem by trying to pass this bill.

The bill lacks a comprehensive energy policy; it lacks even trying to set one. This is not a ``do it all'' energy bill. This isn't even a ``drill, baby, drill'' bill. This is a ``drill, Canada'' bill.

I believe we should continue working on the bill to address serious climate solutions, like a renewable electricity standard. The Keystone Pipeline is an investment in doing things the old way--importing foreign oil. Instead of doubling down on foreign oil, we should be talking about how we can move America forward by investing in the homegrown energy of the future.

A national renewable electricity standard would combat global warming, while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. It will help maximize our energy potential, while strengthening our economy and our energy security.

Let's vote on that, and let's move forward to meet the real energy needs of American families.