Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I know several Members are ready to come here and talk on a veterans issue, and they will let me know when they are ready to start. I thought there might be a good chance to get this in.

Our democracy is under attack. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government interfered in the U.S. Presidential election and intervened to help Candidate Trump. Around the same time, Candidate Trump began making flattering statements about Russian President Putin and proposing pro-Russia policy changes while criticizing longstanding U.S. allies, including in Europe.

President Trump continues to defend Putin and offend Western allies. Now we have come to learn that there are unexplained ties between the President, his campaign staff, his associates, and Russia; that many close to the President had meetings and telephone calls with Russian officials during the campaign and the transition; most critically, that the FBI and the Department of Justice are investigating whether the President and his associates coordinated or conspired with the Russian Government to interfere with the Presidential election--an investigation that began last July and is likely to continue for months.

The President and his associates keep giving the American people reason for worry--inaccurate denials, evasive answers, explosive attacks they can't back up, scheming with the chair of the House Intelligence Committee on the committee's investigation of the White House. New, very disturbing information comes to light every day.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that two thirds of Americans believe a special prosecutor should be appointed. The American people want answers. What was the scope of the interference? Who knew what, and when? How can we protect ourselves and our allies, who are facing similar cyber attacks? What is the appropriate government response to such an attack?

I appreciate the work the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. I believe that is the first step, but I believe we must go further. That is why I am again calling for an independent, bipartisan national commission modeled on the 9/11 Commission to fully investigate Russia's interference with our election and our election processes and to investigate the ties between the President, his family businesses, and his close associates and Russia that may threaten our national security. I am also again calling on the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to investigate potential criminal conduct that may jeopardize our security.

Questions about the President's ties to Russia will divide the country, undermine his Presidency, and distract Congress, unless we take these steps. The American people are right to be concerned. The President's stance on Russia is perplexing, starting when he first denounced the role of NATO last spring, calling it ``obsolete,'' suggesting that it would be OK if NATO broke up. Then, he publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.

Then, Mr. Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because of his close political and financial ties to Ukraine's former pro-Russian President. He became the subject of a multi-agency investigation. We don't have the full story, but we do know that he failed to register as a foreign agent while he lobbied for pro-Russian Ukrainian interests in the United States. It appears that Manafort has a $10 million contract with a Russian oligarch who is very close to Putin that would ``greatly benefit the Putin Government'' and that he had at least 15 offshore bank accounts in Cyprus that even Cypriot bank officials thought were suspicious. Once those bank officials began asking about money laundering activities, Manafort closed the accounts rather than answer questions.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump stated that he would ``be looking at'' whether to recognize Crimea as Russian and to lift sanctions. President Trump and his team apparently took little or no interest in the debate over the party platform in the Republican National Convention, except for one thing--Ukraine. They intervened with delegates to get more Russia-friendly language in the Republican Party platform. Candidate Trump's national security policy staffer J.D. Gordon told CNN: ``This was the language Donald Trump himself wanted . . . and advocated for . . . back in March.'' Now Gordon is reportedly under investigation for his ties to Russia.

We have all heard the President compliment President Putin, calling him a strong leader. Why is the President so enamored, when Putin's actions are authoritarian, violent, and anti-democratic? Putin seeks to weaken NATO and the European Council. He annexed Crimea in violation of international law and treaties. He interfered with our national election. Putin has crushed free press in the Russian Federation, placing restriction upon restriction on the press, quashing independent news organizations, and harassing and jailing journalists. The President's outspoken admiration is inexplicable.

So we are still left with a President who has expressed policy views toward Russia that run counter to U.S. ideals and treaty obligations, as well as global norms of international affairs. While we don't know the full extent of the President's financial, personal, and political ties to Russia and Putin, we have plenty of reason to seek an impartial investigation. The President still has not released his tax returns, unlike any previous modern President. His son Donald Junior volunteered, as far as

back as 2008, that ``Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross- section of a lot of our assets. . . . We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.''

In 2013, Mr. Trump said on a talk show: ``Well, I've done a lot of business with the Russians.''

Due to his history of bankruptcies, no major U.S. bank would loan to Donald Trump in recent years. So he has needed new sources of capital for his real estate projects. There is growing reason to believe that Russia--or at least wealthy Russians--have financial interests in the Trump organization. Recent reports link the President and his companies to ten wealthy former Soviet businessmen with alleged ties to criminal organizations or money laundering. The extent of corruption and criminal ties among the oligarchs of Russia are well known, and to stay wealthy oligarchs, they must stay friendly with the Putin regime.

Is the Trump organization reliant on Russian capital or loans from Russian banks? What relationships are there between Russian oligarchs that are tied to the Russian Government and the Trump organization and between those former Soviet businessmen and Trump's properties? We need to get to the bottom of this, with a credible, deliberate, nonpartisan investigation.

Mr. Trump has surrounded himself with associates with close Russian ties--not just Mr. Manafort. Michael Flynn headed to Russia within 18 months after his retirement as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Russian Government's media outlet RT. Secretary John Kerry called RT a ``propaganda bullhorn'' for Putin. Mr. Flynn was paid for that trip by RT, a potential violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and appeared regularly on RT. Flynn, of course, had to resign as National Security Advisor after 24 days in office. But the President knew of Flynn's misrepresentations weeks before he was fired and did nothing until it became public. We now know that Russia's payments to Flynn were generous. In 2015, Russian entities paid him $65,000. We know he worked for pay as a foreign agent for Turkey during the campaign and during the transition, but he failed to register as an agent at the time, as required by law.

Other Trump associates and campaign staff--Roger Stone, Carter Page, and Mr. Gordon--all are reportedly under investigation for intercepted communications and financial transactions with Russia. Stone admitted at least 16 contacts with Gufficer 2.0, the Twitter handle covering for Russian intelligence that released the Democratic National Committee hacked emails.

Page, who has strong financial ties with Russia, admitted to meeting with the Russian Ambassador during the Republican Convention and traveling to Russia during the campaign.

The President's Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from any Department of Justice investigation into Trump and Russia because he did not disclose to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he met with the Russian Ambassador during the campaign.

Now the President's son-in-law and senior adviser is set to testify before the Senate's Intelligence Committee. He will talk about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, a close Putin ally who is head of a Russian-owned bank.

Where does it stop, folks? Where does it stop?

These contacts give us enough reason for pause. Combined with Mr. Trump's positions on NATO, sanctions relief, and Russia's human rights violations, they raise serious security questions for the United States and NATO. As I said, we need an independent prosecutor at the helm to ensure that the whole of the investigation is not compromised--one who is not subject to White House pressure and not in a position of investigating his or her boss--and a bipartisan commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission that is independent of politics.

The chair of the House Intelligence Committee is compromised and damaged beyond repair. He has coordinated with the subjects of his committee's investigation, and he has completely lost credibility. I compliment my Senate colleagues who are working together on an investigation. But the Senate committee does not have the resources to fully investigate this, and the ranking Democrat on the committee agrees we need an independent investigation that could go further, that could be public, and could be transparent.

A former Acting Director of the CIA called the Russian interference in our election one of the most successful covert operations in history. Former Vice President Cheney has said that what they did could be ``considered an act of war.'' By covert interference in a U.S. election, Russia pursued a policy to install its favorite candidate as President of the United States. Yet the President has dismissed the National Security Agency findings, accused our national security agencies of acting like Nazi Germany, and leveled fake charges at the former President.

The American people are not fooled, and they want Congress to get to the bottom of this. We in Congress have a solemn duty to the American people to do just that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Middle East poses some of the most difficult diplomatic challenges faced by our Nation. The region is troubled, unstable, sometimes dangerous. Conflicts span over centuries. Peace throughout the region seems distant and far away. And the problematic powers, like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Russia, promote their own interests in the area, sometimes violently, and those interests are often contrary to ours.

The United States is deeply involved throughout the region. Israel is America's staunchest ally in the Middle East and one of our closest friends on the world stage. The United States has had and will continue to have a special relationship with Israel, and our country will continue to protect and aid Israel to help secure her survival.

I am a strong supporter of Israel. I believe that a qualitative military edge is necessary for the safety of Israel, and I have always voted to support military aid. I have also been a strong supporter of the two-state solution. A peaceful resolution between Israel and the Palestinian people would help heal the source of many of the insecurities facing Israel, but peace has eluded Israel and the Palestinians for decades. Mutual distrust runs deep. Tensions are high between Israel and many of its neighbors.

For all these reasons, the ambassadorship to Israel is one of the State Department's most important diplomatic posts and one of the most sensitive. Since Israel became a nation, the post has been held by 18 of some of our most experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable diplomats. The vast majority were career Foreign Service officers. Many served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. All had significant international and government experience prior to their appointment.

The Ambassador to Israel must be able to thread the needle between Israel and its neighbors. He or she needs to have the confidence, respect, and trust of powers throughout the region. He or she must be seen as an honest broker and have the temperament and finesse to defuse conflict while able to stand one's ground and have the capacity to find common interests and common ground.

However, with David Friedman, the President has put forth a nominee who has no diplomatic experience whatsoever, no government or international experience, who is known for his offensive statements toward Jewish groups and others with whom he disagrees, and who has repeatedly expressed extreme policy views--views antagonistic to any realistic peace process with the Palestinians. Mr. Friedman is not a seasoned diplomat; he is the President's bankruptcy lawyer. President Trump and Mr. Friedman clearly have a lot of experience with bankruptcy, but it is hard to think of a pair of personalities less suited to diplomacy in a volatile region.

Mr. Friedman has vocally opposed a two-state solution--a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for peace in the region since President Ronald Reagan. He not only supports but has generously funded Israeli settlements--settlements long considered as an obstacle to peace by the United States and deemed illegal by much of the international community.

Mr. Friedman's intemperate remarks have been widely reported. He lashed out that liberal Jews ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in identifying good and evil.'' He said that the State Department has ``[a] hundred-year history of anti-Semitism'' and that President Obama is ``an anti-Semite.'' Most horrific, he said:

J-Street supporters . . . are far worse than kapos--Jews

who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. . .

. They are just smug advocates of Israel's destruction

delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas--

it's hard to imagine anyone worse.

Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, serving under both Democratic and Republican administrations, called Mr. Friedman ``unqualified'' to assume the role of chief diplomat to Israel.

Twenty-nine Holocaust scholars objected to his ``kapo'' remarks. The historical record shows, they said, ``that kapos were Jews whom the Nazis forced, at the pain of death, to serve them in the concentration and extermination camps. . . . These Jews faced terrible dilemmas, but ultimately were made into unwilling tools of Nazi brutality. . . . To brand one's political opponents, members of one's own community, as kapos, merely for engaging in legitimate debate, is historically indefensible and is a deeply disturbing example of the abuse of the Holocaust and its victims for present political gain.''

A group of Holocaust survivors called his use of ``kapo''--and I quote a group of Holocaust survivors--``slanderous, insulting, irresponsible, cynical and immensely damaging to our people.''

More than 600 rabbis wrote that his remarks were ``the very antithesis of the diplomatic behavior Americans expect from their ambassadors.''

While Mr. Friedman apologized during his confirmation hearing for his abusive language, I don't believe it erases his past behavior and suddenly qualifies him for the job.

This post should be earned over time, through actions and words that demonstrate without question that the nominee has the right judgment, temperament, and skills. Mr. Friedman has not come close to demonstrating that. We should not risk confirming him to this important post. We have seen how distracting and destructive hotheadedness is at the seat of power.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Friedman also walked back his positions on a two-state solution and Israeli settlements, which prompted the committee chair to wryly ask him why he even wants the Ambassador position if he has to ``recant every single strong belief you've had.''

I am a strong supporter of Israel. I want to see the State of Israel prosperous and secure forever into the future. I believe in the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, to chart their own course and their destiny. I want to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and her neighbors. That is what the vast majority of Americans want. The United States has a strong national interest in securing this peace. The last thing we need is another active military conflict in the Middle East, which could draw in U.S. forces. That is why over 40 years U.S. policy has held that the only realistic path to peace is through a two-state solution. The Palestinians are entitled to a homeland. A two-state solution is the only viable path forward for Israel.

As Secretary Kerry said, ``If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.''

Given Mr. Friedman's past staunch support for a one-state solution and expansion of Israeli settlements, is he really ready and able to embrace and put forward opposing policy positions? Can he ever be viewed by the Palestinians and the international community as an honest broker?

I am under no illusion about how difficult it will be to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Many Presidents and able diplomats have tried and failed to achieve settlement. But the United States must continue to do its best to reach an accord. Above all, we should not make the current situation worse. We need a steady hand in the Middle East.

I am not convinced that Mr. Friedman is qualified for this job, with no diplomatic experience and a history of extreme positions and intemperate language. His contrition is too little, too late. I am worried that by ignoring these huge red flags with his nomination, we run the risk of a diplomatic incident that could needlessly increase risk of conflict in the region. Therefore, I must vote no on this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Tannis Fox, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, Ta-Nez-Bah means in Navajo ``one who completes a circle.'' Ta-Nez-Bah was an apt middle name for Pablita Abeyta whose life encircled art, advocacy, and dedication to Native peoples.

Pablita Ta-Nez-Bah Abeyta was born in Gallup, NM, in 1953, to Narciso Ha-So-De Abeyta and Sylvia Ann (Shipley) Abeyta. Her father was Navajo and an internationally recognized painter and silversmith. Her mother was Anglo and a Quaker and an accomplished ceramist and weaver in her own right.

Pablita and her six siblings were raised in and around the arts and the traditions of the Navajo people. Each had an artistic talent. Her sister Elizabeth was a masterful sculptor and ceramic artist; her brother Tony is a highly acclaimed painter and jeweler; and her sister Alice Seely is a nationally recognized sculptor, painter, and jeweler.

Pablita attended the Institute for American Indian Arts in Santa Fe and received a masters in public affairs from the University of New Mexico in 1983.

She then headed off to Washington, DC, where she would combine advocacy and art the rest of her life and where she would play a key role in founding the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian, NMAI.

Pablita had a full career on Capitol Hill for many years until her retirement, always advocating for Native causes. She lobbied for the Navajo Nation; worked as a legislative aide to U.S. Representative Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado; staffed the U.S. House Interior Committee's Office of Indian Affairs under my uncle, U.S. Representative Mo Udall; held a legislative liaison position at the Smithsonian Institute; and served as special assistant with the NMAI.

Pablita attended the first congressional hearing on NMAI in 1987, worked for its establishment through congressional legislation, and worked on its highly successful private fundraising drive. Her work was instrumental to starting and building the museum.

Pablita was also an accomplished sculptor. Inspired by the strength, beauty, and serenity of Native women, her sculptures have been described as ``smooth, round and sensuous.'' Her artwork won many awards at the Santa Fe Indian Market, was included in a Smithsonian National Museum of American History exhibition, and is held in the permanent collection of the NMAI. Pablita commented of her sculptures that ``. . . the female figurines sing, talk, and reflect the seasons and Navajo spiritual ceremony. I am making a statement with my art about the importance of family, community and my heritage.''

Pablita passed away January 31, 2017, at age 63. She completed many circles in her life, and I honor all that she accomplished.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Wilson Miles Halona, an outstanding member of the Navajo Nation, a loving husband and father, and a courageous American veteran. Sadly, at age 95, he passed away February 28, 2017.

Mr. Halona was born January 1, 1922, in the Chuska Mountains near Tohatchi, NM. His maternal clan was the Ashiihi, Salt People Clan, and his paternal clan was To'hani, Near the Water People Clan. He was the son of sheep herders, Barney and Annie Halona. One of his sons tells the story of Mr. Halona's mother going into labor with him as she was herding sheep in the middle of winter. She stopped to give birth, outside in the cold, and then went back to herding. He came from strong stock.

This is the second time I have had the privilege to honor Mr. Halona. The first was on November 20, 2012, at the Pueblo Indian Cultural Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Wilson was a World War II hero, but had not received the recognition he deserved. Almost 60 years after the war, his family worked to make sure he received the acknowledgment and medals he earned for his bravery and service.

Mr. Halona was part of the D-Day invasion. Serving in the Army, he and his fellow soldiers landed in Normandy, on Utah Beach, in July 1944. They were part of the third wave of American soldiers to land, and there were already many casualties scattered on the beach.

Mr. Halona was a gunner. As he and his battalion started moving inland, they encountered heavy gunfire from Germans who were dug into mountaintops along the beach in cement bunkers. The American troops returned the gunfire and fought for over 3 hours before they destroyed two German bunkers. Mr. Halona's battalion stopped further casualties and took control of the beachfront.

They headed to Brussels and then on to Bonn and Luxembourg, where the U.S. had established a military base. Winter came upon them, and they were snowed in for 4 months. After the snow cleared, the battalion moved to take over Munich, where they saw firsthand the death and destruction of the Holocaust. In Stuttgart, they drove out the Germans, captured Hitler's top generals, transferred them to jail in Nuremburg, and kept guard. Mr. Halona himself guarded Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering for several hours. Mr. Halona credited his Navajo traditions and prayers for helping him during and after the war.

When Mr. Halona was finally given the honors owed in 2012, he received the Good Conduct Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with one Silver Service Star, World War II Victory Medal, the Honorable Service Lapel Button WWII, and the Sharpshooter Badge with Rifle Bar Presentation. I was deeply honored that he asked me to present his medals.

Mr. Halona served the Navajo Nation with distinction as well. He was a member of the Navajo Nation Council for four terms and president of the Tohatchi chapter for eight terms. He was first appointed to the advisory board for the Navajo Housing Authority and then served as its first chair. He was instrumental in developing the housing authority-- The Navajo Housing Authority was one of the first tribal housing authorities to be funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--and making sure that Navajo people had better living conditions. He worked to develop the Indian Health Service within the Navajo Nation and to build schools on the reservation. He even helped create the Navajo rodeo association. Mr. Halona's service to his tribe stretched far and deep.

Mr. Halona was married to his wife, Ruby Arviso, from 1942 until her passing in 2013. He had 7 children, and is survived by 5, along with 16 grandchildren and 29 great-grandchildren.

Wilson Miles Halona lived a life of service to family, tribe, and Nation. I honor his life and his work.

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

Mr. President, we are here to consider another joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. This one, H.J. Res. 69, repeals the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation and would allow extreme and inhumane hunting practices on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

My first concern about this measure is that it is a distraction. It benefits special interests to the detriment of the American people at a time when Congress should be focused on much more pressing issues.

Mr. President, 24 million Americans are at risk of losing their healthcare. Clean air and clean water protections are threatened. The President is proposing to cut Meals on Wheels, Head Start, the arts and humanities, and the National Institutes of Health. Each day we learn more details about the President and his team's connections to Russia and about Russia's involvement in our elections.

The American people want Congress to work together to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure and boost our economy. Instead, Congress is wasting time and energy using the Congressional Review Act to repeal commonsense rules that protect people, places, and iconic species. These rules have been vetted over months and years through a thorough public process, but if we repeal them using the CRA, these measures will be permanently blocked unless Congress passes a new law directing the government to act.

My second concern is just as serious. I support responsible hunting practices. Many New Mexicans hunt for sport and for food, but the vast majority of hunters also recognize that some practices are counterproductive, unsportsmanlike, cruel, and they can even wipe out species and the diversity of wildlife in certain regions. The Fish and Wildlife's rule deals with that issue, and it carries Congress's express direction that the Service protect natural diversity at national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

We are talking about national wildlife refuges. These are the country's refuges. The Service bars a few extreme practices for hunting bears, wolves, and coyotes that are totally inappropriate on national wildlife refuge land. These extreme practices include targeting and killing black bears and brown bears and their cubs, and wolves and coyotes and their pups during denning season; baiting Grizzly bears with food so they are easier to kill at point-blank range; trapping brown and black bears with steel-jawed traps that shut on the animal's leg, leaving them to suffer indefinitely; and shooting bears from aircraft or killing them same-day from spotting them with aircraft. Many of these practices violate ``fair chase'' ethical standards established and used by sportsmen across the country. Alaska voters actually oppose these practices.

We are not talking about private hunting land. This is Federal refuge land. Fish and Wildlife's rule is based on sound science and appropriate wildlife management standards. The rule doesn't change or restrict the taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence purposes, which some Alaskans count on to feed their families, and it doesn't restrict sport hunting. Fish and Wildlife's rule is not an anti-hunting rule. It is a commonsense guideline that ensures bear and wolf populations, as well as caribou, elk, and moose, are sustained for generations to come.

Let me reiterate that. Like the vast majority of New Mexicans, I support hunting and sportsmen's access to public lands consistent with State and Federal law and sound wildlife management practices. Fish and Wildlife's rule

doesn't affect these uses at all in any way. Fish and Wildlife's rule carries out Congress's intent in three longstanding pieces of legislation that are now law: the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA; the 1966 National Wildlife Administration Act; and the 1964 Wilderness Act. Importantly, none of these laws prevents reasonable hunting. Together, those acts establish national wildlife refuges and provide for their management, and they establish the 76 million acres of national refuges in Alaska. Alaska accounts for over 85 percent of our National Wildlife Refuge System, so this is not a State or parochial issue. The rule governs the vast majority of refuge lands designated for protection by Congress.

Again, none of these laws prevents reasonable hunting on national refuges. National wildlife refuges are established for the benefit of ``present and future generations of Americans'' and for the whole nation. Every American has an ownership stake in and a right to enjoy public lands and the astounding scenic, cultural, and natural qualities that make these places so special.

The first listed purpose of ANILCA is to ``conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity.'' The words ``natural diversity'' are important to this discussion. My uncle, Congressman Mo Udall, was the floor manager for the House when ANILCA passed in 1980. On the House floor, he said the term natural diversity meant ``protecting and managing all fish and wildlife populations within a particular wildlife refuge system unit in the natural `mix,' not to emphasize management activities favoring one species to the detriment of another.''

He also said that in managing for natural diversity, Congress's intent was to ``direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the best of its ability . . . to manage wildlife refuges to assure that habitat diversity is maintained through natural means, avoiding artificial developments and habitat manipulation programs; to assure that wildlife refuge management fully considers the fact that humans reside permanently within the boundaries of some areas and are dependent . . . on wildlife refuge subsistence resources; and to allow management flexibility in developing new and innovative management programs different from the lower 48 standards, but in the context of maintaining natural diversity of fish and wildlife populations and their dependent habitats for the long-term benefit of all citizens.''

Fish and Wildlife's rule carries out congressional intent by managing the national refuges in Alaska for natural diversity through natural, not artificial means, by continuing to allow for subsistence hunting, and by managing the law for the benefit of all--exactly what Representative Mo Udall said the act was intended to accomplish.

Maintaining natural diversity means promoting the health of all fish, wildlife, and plants in the ecosystem, not favoring certain species and harming others, and not interfering with natural ecosystems. Protecting bears and wolves and other apex predators is essential. It helps maintain predator-prey relationships and the health of Alaska's Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems.

Federal and State laws overlay management of public lands, including national wildlife refuges. State law on fish and wildlife management applies on national refuge land as long as it is consistent with Federal law. The Fish and Wildlife Service in the State of Alaska worked together for years to manage fish and wildlife on Alaskan refuges, and Federal requirements ensured that hunting was balanced with conservation of wildlife and their habitat.

Alaska law did not conflict with Federal law until an Alaskan administrative agency, the Alaska Board of Game, adopted rules allowing for extreme hunting practices on national wildlife refuges within Alaska's borders. The Board of Game said it targeted reduction of wolf, black bear, and brown bear to increase the moose, caribou, and deer populations for harvesting. But the indiscriminate killing of bears and wolves to provide more game hunting is contrary to ANILCA. That law directs the preservation of the ``natural diversity'' or ``natural mix'' of wildlife. The Board of Game regulation allowing extreme hunting practices is not consistent with the law.

As I said earlier, while the Fish and Wildlife's rule does not allow extreme hunting practices, it does not change the rules for subsistence hunting or sports hunting. It even authorizes a process for predator control to benefit prey species and to meet refuge purposes. The process is based on sound science, an evaluation of alternatives, and an assessment of impacts to subsistence uses and needs. Again, Alaskans don't support overturning the Service's rule to allow indiscriminate killing of apex predators. A February 2016 Remington poll found that Alaska voters oppose the extreme hunting practices banned under the Fish and Wildlife's rule by wide margins. Alaska voters don't want to see unsporting and cruel practices used to kill bears, wolves, and coyotes on National Wildlife Refuges in their State.

Wildlife watching is an important part of Alaska's economy. Each year, thousands of tourists visit Alaska's national wildlife refuges to see iconic wildlife. According to a Fish and Wildlife report, wildlife watching on the National Wildlife Refuge System contributed over $2 billion to Alaska's economy in 2011. That same year, hunting contributed approximately $425 million.

Congress's repeated use of the Congressional Review Act with no public hearing, no record or evidence, no use of science, and no stakeholder involvement is a bad way to legislate. It makes government opaque and inaccessible, and what people want to see is transparency and openness, which we didn't have here. It caters to special interests behind the scenes and outside of public view. It makes the swamp murkier than ever.

Fish and Wildlife's rule carries out what Congress wanted when it established the wildlife refuges--to conserve our wild American land and wildlife for generations to come. The rule prohibits the most extreme of hunting practices--against grizzlies and black bears and their cubs and against wolves and coyotes and their pups--and protects the natural diversity. We should not rush to undermine this important, national, long-term goal for short-term political gain--to benefit select special interests.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this week is Sunshine Week, a week when we applaud open government and when we celebrate the institutions that hold government accountable. Throughout our Nation's history, one of the most important has been the press, the free press. Donald Trump, as candidate and President, has repeatedly attacked the press. He has called it the ``enemy of the people,'' he has labeled the national media outlets as ``fake news,'' and he has criticized respected reporters who have reported for years.

He has singled out mainstream newspapers like the New York Times, Politico, and the Los Angeles Times, and television outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN. That is how this President operates. He acts like a bully, and not just with the media. He attacks the courts when article III judges disagree with him, and when they find he is breaking the law. He attacks sitting judges for deciding against him, even those appointed by Republican Presidents.

Without basis, he attacks our intelligence agencies, and he even demeans career public servants who risk their lives to keep our Nation safe. The President's goal is obvious, to undermine the institutions in our country who threaten him, who criticize him. Authoritarians have used this strategy for centuries and continue to do so today in countries where democracy is weak or nonexistent and where autocracy or kleptocracy is strong.

But this is the United States. We are an example to the world of democratic principles and action. The President's repeated attacks on our democratic institutions need to stop and they need to stop now. A free and robust press is critical for democracy to work, period, end of story. Our Nation's history of a free press dates back to our founding. Free press in the colonial United States developed in reaction to severe restrictions on free speech in England.

During the latter half of the 17th century, all books and articles were required to be licensed by the government to be published. Then, ``seditious libel''--bringing ``hatred or contempt'' upon the Crown or the Parliament by written word--was a criminal offense. So to speak against the Crown was a criminal offense. Truth was not a defense.

No publication could criticize the Crown or the government, even if it was accurate. The first newspapers in the Colonies operated under licenses from the colonial Governor. But by 1721, James Franklin, Benjamin Franklin's older brother, was publishing one of the first colonial independent newspapers, the New England Courant, in Boston.

Ben Franklin was his apprentice, typesetter, and sometimes contributed under pen names. Several years later, Ben Franklin began publishing his own independent newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette. His newspaper became the most popular in the Colonies and was published until 1800.

By 1735, the tenets of seditious libel were coming undone. John Peter Zenger, the publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, ran articles harshly critical of the colonial government. Zenger was arrested and tried for libel. While he admitted he published the articles, his lawyer argued truth was a defense. The press, the lawyer argued, has ``a liberty both of exposing and opposing tyrannical power by speaking and writing the truth.''

The judge, however, instructed the jury as to the law at the time, that Zenger must be found guilty if he published the articles, whether truthful or not, but after 10 minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Zenger. These were some of the beginnings of a free press in our Nation.

The first rights in the Bill of Rights are freedom of religion, the press, speech, petition, and assembly. The press, as an institution, is expressly protected by the Constitution. In 1789, the drafters of the Bill of Rights understood that a free press was essential to the growth and success of our new democracy. They understood that debate, disagreement, the free flow of ideas, make an informed public, that the press helps educate voters.

They understood all too well that government power needed to be checked and that the press holds the powerful in check by investigating and exposing arbitrary conduct, abuse, and corruption. A democracy cannot exist without a free press. It is as simple as that, but our President does not seem to understand this or he does not care. According to him, the press is ``dishonest,'' ``not good people,'' ``sleazy,'' and, ``among the worst human beings.'' Those are all quotes by our President.

Established press organizations are the ``fake news,'' and a few weeks ago he declared the press ``an enemy of the people.'' We have not heard attacks like this since Watergate, and even then, it wasn't so much so fast. The President's subordinates are now given license to accuse and to limit press access.

Chief Strategist Steve Bannon said the press should ``keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.'' This quote from Mr. Bannon has extra significance today because he is no longer the head of a rightwing media company. In a controversial move, President Trump issued an Executive order to add him to the National Security Council's Principal's Committee.

Today, we are going to vote on the nomination of General McMaster to retain his three-star general status while serving as the head of the National Security Council. I do not believe a political extremist like Mr. Bannon should serve on the Council. At a minimum, General McMaster should direct Mr. Bannon to stop attacking the free press while serving on the Council.

Senior adviser Kellyanne Conway called for media organizations to fire reporters who criticized Candidate Trump. Press Secretary Shawn Spicer barred the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed, and Politico from a press conference, and the Secretary of State will now travel without the press corps, disregarding a decades-old practice.

Now, don't get me wrong. The press does not always get it right. They make mistakes. News organizations have their biases. Mistakes should be corrected and bias should be tempered by using accepted journalistic methods and professional judgment and following journalism's ethics code.

Mistakes and the exercise of professional judgment are not the same thing as reporting ``fake news.'' The President's Republican colleagues have been too silent in the face of attacks. Few in Congress have stood up against the President's hostility to the press. Government officials are afraid to disagree. Just last week, at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I asked the FCC Chair, Mr. Pai, a yes or no question, does he agree with the President that the press is the enemy of the people.

He did not engage. He would not answer. He let stand the President's remarks. The President's characterization of the press as the enemy is reminiscent of President Nixon, when Nixon said: ``Never forget. The press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The press is the enemy,'' as recorded on his secret tapes.

The press was Nixon's enemy because the press exposed his criminal conduct which led to his resignation. The press is Trump's enemy because the press exposes his and his associates' ties to

Russia, the President's myriad Trump organization conflicts of interest, his constant barrage of misrepresentations of fact.

Nixon's Press Secretary called the Washington Post investigative reporting shoddy and shabby journalism. Like President Trump's accusation of fake news, that same Post reporting won the paper a Pulitzer Prize.

Watergate was a break-in of the Democratic National Committee during the Presidential campaign. Nixon ordered his Chief of Staff to have the CIA block the FBI's investigation into the source of the funding for the Watergate burglary. During this last Presidential election, we had a cyber break-in of the DNC. Even after 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia hacked the DNC to sway the election, Candidate Trump refused to accept their analysis.

The President's Chief of Staff pressured the FBI to publicly deny that Trump associates had contact with the Russians, while his Chief Counsel reportedly breached the firewall seeking information from the FBI about an investigation into the President and his associates. Since the press began to look hard at the ties between President Trump and the Trump organization, his associates and Russia, the President has not let up on his criticism. Just last week, the President threatened by tweet as follows:

It is amazing how rude much of the media is to my very hard

working representatives. Be nice, you will do much better!

The job of the press is not to be nice. It is to gather the facts and report them. Now that the President of the United States has called the reputable U.S. news organizations fake news, others are doing the same. Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesman recently accused a CNN reporter of spreading ``fake news'' because the reporter asked about accusations from U.S. officials that the Russian Ambassador is a spy.

This is a dangerous path. Putin has throttled an independent press in the Russian Federation, imposing restriction after restriction on the news media. Reporters have been harassed, threatened, and jailed. The numbers of truly independent media organizations in Russia have been reduced to a very few, and they have been replaced by state-owned, state-run news media, like RT, formerly known as Russia Today, a propaganda bullhorn for Putin, according to Secretary John Kerry.

The President admires Putin as a--and I will quote the President here--``strong leader.'' Putin has used his strength to silence an independent press. We do not want our press silenced.

Justice Brandeis, in a famous defense of free speech in a 1927 First Amendment case, said: ``[T]hose who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political liberty.''

Does President Trump fear political liberty?

The irony of the President's accusations of ``fake news'' is that he himself has spread misinformation and fanned the flames of internet- driven lies, from questioning President Obama's citizenship, to his frivolous claim that millions of people committed voter fraud and that he really won the popular vote--that is the President's claim, that he really won the popular vote--to President Trump's unsubstantiated accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

We have entered into an era in U.S. politics never seen before in my lifetime. We cannot allow this to be sanitized or explained away. The phrase ``alternative facts'' has become a national joke because it sounds like something from George Orwell's ``1984.''

It is not acceptable for a President to falsify, misrepresent, or flatout lie. The President's party in Congress should not allow this. They should not look the other way and continue to profess that the emperor's clothes are grand.

Reacting to Mr. Trump's attacks on the press, President George W. Bush responded:

I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy. We

need an independent media to hold people accountable. Power

can be very addictive and corrosive . . . and it's important

for the media to hold to account people who abuse their

power--whether it be here or elsewhere.

That was President George W. Bush's recent comment.

President Bush's prescription for democracy in 2017 is the same as the drafters of the First Amendment in 1789: A free and independent and robust media is essential to democracy, and any broad-based attack on the press is an attack directly on our democracy.

There is one thing President Trump must understand: The press won't go away. They won't stop reporting on the actions he takes and on the decisions he makes. He can spend the next 4 years attacking the press, but they will still be there--just as they were after Nixon resigned.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved H.J. Res. 44, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, CRA, that overturned the Bureau of Land Management's resource management planning rule, commonly referred to as the planning 2.0 rule. I oppose this misguided revocation of a rule that would have allowed greater public involvement in the land-use planning process, increased government transparency, and improved the efficiency in making sustainable multiple use decisions for our public lands.

The BLM is responsible for administering 245 million acres, or over 10 percent of the total area of the United States, and 700 million acres, or 30 percent, of the Nation's mineral estate. The majority of BLM lands are in the 11 western States and Alaska.

Across the West, the economy has changed significantly in recent decades. From 1990 to 2010, the population in the West grew by 36 percent, and the economy of the West has grown faster than any other region in the country. As new people and new businesses have moved West, demands on public lands for outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, tourism, conservation, and renewable energy development have been increasing. These demands have the potential to lead to conflicts with uses such as grazing, timber, mining, and oil and gas extraction.

The planning 2.0 rule represented a new approach to addressing increasingly complex challenges on public lands and balancing what are competing uses and, quite frankly, at times competing values for the use of our public lands. Planning 2.0 was the first update of the BLM's planning regulations in 34 years. It included tools to help local land managers respond to these new challenges and the changing needs of western communities.

Under the BLM's 1983 planning regulations, the BLM's planning process has been far too slow. State, local, and tribal governments and the public have been frustrated with the BLM's inability to complete resource management plans that support key infrastructure projects like pipelines, utility corridors, oil and gas leasing areas, and other management designations. It takes an average of 8 years to complete a resource management plan, and the public is provided few opportunities for input. By the time a plan is completed, it is almost already out of date. Since public involvement doesn't occur until nearly the end of the planning process, new information provided near the end can require revision and cause further delay. Litigation also can stall the process and add significantly more time and costs.

Nullifying planning 2.0 through CRA disapproval permanently forces the BLM to use a planning process that wastes taxpayer money and is inefficient at best.

Planning 2.0 provided earlier and more frequent opportunities for public involvement as part of the new planning assessment step. By inviting State, local, and tribal governments and the public to share information and participate in developing alternatives before the draft resource management plan could be published, planning 2.0 made it possible to discover the issues and potential conflicts and work out solutions before huge investments of time and labor were expended. Early involvement and collaboration with the public and all stakeholders made the planning process more efficient and effective.

Under planning 2.0, the formal planning process remained largely unchanged: a draft environmental impact statement and a draft plan were still required, but with an expanded public comment period, from 90 days to 100 days. Draft plan amendments are often less complex, and so the minimum comment period was reduced from 90 days to 60 days. The rule provided opportunities to extend any comment period as necessary.

Planning 2.0 preserved and enhanced partnerships with State, local, and tribal governments in the planning process. The rule maintained the coordination and consistency requirements, and it recognized the special roles of State, local, and tribal governments, affording opportunities to participate side-by-side with the BLM as cooperating agencies. The final planning 2.0 rule took meaningful steps to accommodate requests from States and local governments to improve the planning process and to ensure governors were able to raise concerns and fully engage in the planning process, as required by the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act.

As vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I closely review Federal actions that affect native people and Indian Country. Under planning 2.0, the right of federally recognized tribes to government-to-government consultation was clearly enumerated and protected. The BLM worked extensively to make sure the new planning process was more inclusive. Planning 2.0 recognized the value of the knowledge, history, and culture that tribes bring to the planning effort. By formalizing the tribal consultation role and providing early and more frequent opportunities for tribes to provide input, the BLM had taken an important step to ensure Indian Country was able to be fully engaged in the process. Repealing planning 2.0 through the CRA now risks ignoring the concerns of tribes in favor of commercial interests and their lobbyists in Washington, DC.

Pressures on BLM lands have increased in scale and complexity, and planning 2.0 encouraged the collection and use of high-quality data. It encouraged flexibility to identify a planning area boundary that reflects the resource issues. By looking at larger landscapes, local offices could have collaborated where there are shared resource issues and could have reduced conflicts and litigation for large-scale projects. Planning 2.0 would have enabled the BLM to set clear goals and allowed local offices to work together on landscape-wide planning where resource issues span multiple administrative jurisdictions.

The rule identified important corridors for wildlife and critical habitats early in the planning process so that those important areas could be managed and conserved in balance with other uses and development decisions. Working across boundaries is especially important to tackle wildfire prevention and eradication of invasive species, which are degrading our public lands and placing neighboring private lands at risk of harm. Efficient and collaborative planning is desperately needed to approve infrastructure projects, pipelines, and energy transmission corridors that are stalled under the current planning process. Eliminating planning 2.0 reinstates a cumbersome and inefficient planning process that increases burdens on industries and the public.

Opponents of the planning 2.0 rule mischaracterized the rule as a last minute ``midnight rule'' that excluded public comment. This is simply not true. The planning 2.0 initiative went through a transparent rulemaking process over 2 and a half years. The BLM responded to over 3,000 public comments on the draft rule and made critical changes in the final rule. Congress held two hearings on planning 2.0, and the BLM incorporated that information before publishing the final rule. The BLM conducted extensive public outreach through public meetings, webinars, an extended public comment period, and input from a broad spectrum of the public that resulted in significant revisions to the final rule.

However, the CRA resolution disapproving planning 2.0 was accomplished without public hearings and without transparency. Management of our public lands will now revert back to a process that gives commercial interest greater power and the public less opportunity for meaningful involvement.

Opponents of planning 2.0 expressed concern that emphasizing landscape-scale planning could result in the primacy of national objectives over State and local objectives. This is not true. Planning 2.0 did not centralize decisionmaking in Washington, DC, or dilute local control of the planning process. The rule actually allowed for more local community involvement and preserved the priority status for local governments and states in land use planning. Increasing the opportunity for public voices helped develop plans that met the increasingly diverse needs of western communities. Further, the rule did not require all resource management plans to be multistate landscapes. The rule provided the process for planning at larger landscape-scales when it made sense given the resources involved.

The use of the Congressional Review Act to revoke planning 2.0 is a reckless tactic. Specific concerns could and should have been addressed through the regular rulemaking process or targeted legislation by Congress instead. Under the CRA, once Congress passes a resolution of disapproval, the BLM is prohibited from writing a new rule that is ``substantially the same'' without additional legislative action. As a result, many of the provisions of planning 2.0 that improved the planning process cannot be enacted or proposed again without express congressional approval.

Secretary Zinke has now been confirmed and should have been given the opportunity to consider revising planning 2.0 and making any necessary changes. With passage of H.J. Res. 44, Secretary Zinke will face considerable legal uncertainty, and his authority to reformulate a new planning rule will be limited substantially. This resolution should have been rejected and the new administration given the opportunity to reformulate planning 2.0 and to make sure the public continued to have a voice in decisions that affect their way of life.

Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Madam President, I also rise today to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I believe the President should be able to assemble his or her own team, and I understand that elections have consequences and that a President should be able to put forth his or her policy agenda. I voted on this floor many times in support of nominees with whom I have policy differences, but they have been qualified persons, experienced in their field, who believe in the fundamental mission of the agency they are tasked to lead. That is not the case with Attorney General Pruitt. Mr. Pruitt has extreme environmental policy views, and he has zero experience running the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, he does not believe in the fundamental mission of the EPA. Attorney General Pruitt made his name opposing EPA rules that protect human health and the environment--fighting against clean air and clean water, disregarding the science behind the EPA's protections for human health and the environment on behalf of for-profit special interests, not the public interest.

He has brought 19 suits against the EPA. Eight are currently pending in courts, and if confirmed, he won't recuse himself from all the pending cases. As a lawyer and especially as your State's top lawyer, you shouldn't change sides in litigation. It is just not right. There may be an ethics violation here. I have never heard of a lawyer representing both sides of a case.

Let's look at just a few examples from his litigation records, starting with his opposition to clean air. Mr. Pruitt is leading litigation against the EPA's ozone or smog rule. In 2015 the EPA revised its ambiant air standards

for ground level ozone. The EPA was long overdue in revising its ozone standards to protect public health. It even had to be sued by States and environmental organizations to make sure the standards adequately protected human health. High concentrations of ozone are bad for public health, children, and older adults, and people with lung diseases such as asthma are especially vulnerable.

The EPA set a standard of 70 parts per billion. This standard is based on the best science, which included thousands of studies analyzing the effects of ozone on public health. In addition, the EPA built in flexibility for States that would have trouble meeting the standard. But the Oklahoma attorney general currently leads a four- State charge to do away with the rule.

Mr. Pruitt thinks it is OK for powerplants to emit unhealthy levels of mercury and other toxins into the air. In 2011, the EPA passed the mercury and air toxics standards. This rule limits emissions from powerplants of mercury, arsenic, and other metals. Like the ozone standard, this rule was long overdue, and the EPA was forced by the courts to develop the standard.

The science is well established that these toxins are a serious public health threat. Fortunately, there are proven and available technologies to limit the emissions. Scott Pruitt fought the mercury and air toxics standards, and he is still litigating in court against the standards even though the vast majority of powerplants in the Nation are currently in compliance with the standards.

Just to show you how serious this is in my home State of New Mexico, pregnant women and children can only eat a very small amount of fish from the streams of New Mexico. Our streams are polluted with mercury. The levels are so high that vulnerable populations are advised to severely limit their consumption. Scott Pruitt wants to continue this pollution of our streams.

Mr. Pruitt testified in the hearing before the EPW Committee that he saw a role for the EPA to address pollution that crosses State boundaries, but his litigation history does not support that testimony. As Oklahoma attorney general, he fought the EPA's cross-state air pollution rule, a rule designed to reduce powerplant emissions across State lines that cause smog and pollution and health problems in downwind States. Especially, the cross-state air pollution rule reduces sulfur dioxide, or SO 2, and oxides of nitrogen or NOX emissions. NOX emissions contribute to fine particle and soot pollution and to ground level ozone formation, otherwise known as smog. Even though this pollution affects the air and health of downwind States, Mr. Pruitt sided with the powerplants.

Air pollution is not the only problem that crosses State lines. River and stream pollution does not stop at State boundaries either. The EPA and the U.S. Army passed the clean water rule in 2015. The rule clarified a dizzying set of Supreme Court cases defining protected water. The EPA and the Army reviewed the best science, reviewing more than 1200 peer-reviewed public scientific studies to define protected waters.

New Mexico is an arid State. We have very little surface water. We need to protect all of our surface water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses. By the way, the EPA and the Army's definition of surface waters is no broader than my own State's definition of surface waters. New Mexico's definition is appropriate and reasonable to protect our precious surface water.

The attorney general of Oklahoma is fighting the clean water rule, too, even though it protects against cross-state pollution.

Here is one more example--the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan is our country's best effort to address climate change. We know that climate change is happening. We know that the climate change is primarily caused by humans. We know that powerplants are a major contributor. We know that we need to take action and that we need to take action fast to protect our planet. The Clean Power Plan significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions from existing, modified, and future powerplants. The Clean Power Plan was developed based on the best science. It was developed based on a tremendous amount of input from the States, industry, environmentalists, and others. It provides States with a lot of flexibility with how to comply. Mr. Pruitt, true to form, is litigating against the Clean Power Plan. Mr. Pruitt apparently does not understand the science of climate change.

In the National Review in 2016, he wrote: ``Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.'' During his confirmation hearing, he similarly stated:

Science tells us that the climate is changing and human

activity in some manner impacts that change. The human

ability to measure the extent of that impact is subject to

continuing debate and dialogue as well as they should be.

That is not what science tells us. That is maybe what fossil fuel special interests tell him, but that is not what science tells us. His views are not consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change. The 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found it ``extremely likely'' that more than half of the global warming that occurred between 1951 and 2010 was a consequence of human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

So many of the decisions made and the regulations passed by the EPA rely heavily upon good science. It is absolutely critical that the EPA Administrator understand and use the best science.

I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt understands and will use the best science if he is confirmed to lead the EPA.

When developing regulations, the EPA must first follow the law's requirements to protect human health and the environment. Then, within the law's requirements, the EPA should take account of input and information from all sources--from industry, environmentalists, States, and public agencies.

I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt will follow the law's requirements to protect public health and the environment, and I am not convinced that he will take into account the input of all stakeholders. Throughout his career as attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has aligned solely with industry and against public health and the environment. He has no record of aligning with the public or of securing our environment for the future.

As attorney general, he engaged in a scorched earth policy against environmental regulations. He dismantled his environmental protection unit. He became very close politically to the energy industry. He adopted letters written by energy lobbyists almost verbatim, and then submitted them on behalf of the State of Oklahoma in Federal legal proceedings.

As chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association, he became even more closely aligned with the fossil fuel-related companies.

Mr. Pruitt's record is one-sided and extreme, and it does not give me confidence that as EPA Administrator he would have any commitment to protecting the public health now or protecting the environment for future generations.

Finally, I am concerned that Mr. Pruitt has not shown and does not have the proper respect for tribal sovereignty. Oklahoma is home to 39 tribes. Mr. Pruitt's litigation history as attorney general has consistently been anti-tribe. As vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I pay special attention to a nominee's record on tribal issues, especially nominees for agencies that will deal with tribes on a government-to-government basis, like the EPA.

As Oklahoma's top attorney, Mr. Pruitt routinely sought out ways to fight tribal sovereignty--even all the way to the Highest Court in the land. In Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mr. Pruitt filed an amicus brief in support of a corporation that refused to submit to tribal jurisdiction. Mr. Pruitt's side lost. This case is a prime example of Mr. Pruitt's misguided views of tribe and their inherent sovereignty. Indian Country needs an EPA Administrator who respects tribal sovereignty. I am not convinced Mr. Pruitt does.

Just recently we had in town the National Council of American Indians. They submitted a letter on January 18. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would like to just read a couple of paragraphs from the letter.

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians

(NCAI), the oldest, largest, and most representative American

Indian and Alaskan Native organization serving the broad

interests of tribal governments and communities, I am writing

to express our deep concern of the nomination of Oklahoma

attorney general Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency based on his history of

fighting environmental regulations and the new

Administration's statements denying the existence of climate

change. The continuing impacts of climate change are a major

concern of Tribal Nations and, before this Committee votes to

move forward with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to

lead the EPA, it must thoroughly consider the potential

impacts that his nomination will have on climate change, the

protection of natural resources, and protection of Tribal

trust and treaty rights.

American Indians and Alaskan Natives are disproportionately

impacted by climate change due to our geographic areas and

direct connection and reliance on the surrounding

environments. It is threatening to destroy our lands, waters,

and natural resources, which will impact our traditional and

customary ways of life that have been sustainable for

thousands of years.

We are at a critical moment in combating the increasing

climate change effects from human-made sources. Indian

Country, the United States, and the world cannot afford to

take a backseat role in fighting climate change.

In conclusion, my concerns about Mr. Pruitt's record on environmental policy aren't just because we disagree on policy. Mr. Pruitt has made his reputation in litigating fiercely against the EPA's most important regulations to protect public health and the environment, clean air, clean water, toxics on land--you name it--regulations that comply with Federal environmental laws that are based on good science, that have taken years to prepare, and that have taken fair account of all stakeholders' input.

I cannot support a nominee to lead this Agency whose record is so hostile to the environment. For all of these reasons, I must vote no on Mr. Pruitt's nomination to be EPA Administrator.

Finally, we have today the court's ordering Mr. Pruitt to release a large number of records that are relevant to this particular nomination. He has refused to release them. The administration, in vetting him, did a very poor job. As you know, they do not vet anybody. They throw it up here, and we have to do the vetting. That is our job to do the vetting. This is a critical part of the record--a vast number of emails that should be looked at.

Many of us believe we should have the time to look at these emails, to deliberate about them, to maybe even ask some written questions to Mr. Pruitt about them, but this nomination is being rammed through. In a couple of hours, we are going to have a vote. Luckily, Senator Merkley is going to urge that we vote to delay this so we can have a chance to look at those emails. It is so that all of us--all of the 100 Senators--have the opportunity to have a full, complete record on Mr. Pruitt.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to oppose the confirmation of Congressman Mick Mulvaney as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I respect Mr. Mulvaney's public service representing the people of South Carolina, who elected him to serve in the State legislature and in Congress. However, the question before us today is whether the Senate should confirm him to one of the most important economic positions in our government--a position that has major ramifications for global financial markets, the United States and New Mexico economies, and the jobs, health care, and retirement security of every American.

Unfortunately, Representative Mulvaney's record shows a shocking willingness to put at risk the security of the public debt of the Nation and endanger essential Federal programs that New Mexicans depend upon. I want to underscore a few of Representative Mulvaney's previous statements made as a Member of Congress.

First, he has supported playing chicken with the debt ceiling over partisan political issues, an action that would jeopardize the U.S. Government's ability to repay the public debt. If the debt ceiling is not raised, Federal officials have said that the revenue coming into the government would not be enough to cover its obligations-- potentially disrupting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, military payments, student loan payments, and many other government services.

Despite these clear dangers, Representative Mulvaney voted no on raising the debt ceiling every time it came up for a vote in 2011, 2012, and 2013. He claimed that risking disruption to Social Security and veterans benefits was ``a fabricated crisis.'' He went so far as to question the majority leader, claiming that, if the Senate chose to raise the debt ceiling, the majority leader ``should just quit and go home.'' I, for one, will be here to defend the full faith and credit of the United

States' public debt and protect essential government services that our sick, our elderly, and our veterans depend upon.

Putting someone with such strongly held and reckless views into power at the OMB is an endorsement of policies that could cause another global financial crisis--devastating millions of American families. I cannot in good conscience support his nomination for this reason alone.

Second, Representative Mulvaney is a founding member of the group of extreme House Republicans who forced the government to shut down in October 2013 over their blind opposition to the Affordable Care Act. In New Mexico, the impacts of the shutdown were felt immediately as our civilian employees were sent home from military installations, national parks and forests were closed to tourists, and countless other services were halted. The shutdown lasted over two weeks, and Representative Mulvaney and other members of his extreme wing of the House could have ended the shutdown at any time.

Representative Mulvaney claims that he opposes wasteful government spending, but an analysis by Standard and Poor's found that the October 2013 government shutdown cost $24 billion--$24 billion with nothing to show for it. Even Representative Mulvaney admitted that his shutdown hurt people. On October 16, 2013, he told CNN, ``Were people hurt by this? Sure.'' He admitted that, if you were one of the millions of people who relied on the shuttered services, his shutdown hurt you, but Representative Mulvaney showed little remorse. I stand by what I said at the time. Insisting on blind cuts or a government shutdown to prove a point isn't leadership.

Third and finally, Representative Mulvaney is on record advocating enormous cuts to Medicare, and he is a proponent of Speaker Ryan's preferred voucher concept for Medicare. He also has long been hostile to Social Security and voted in the South Carolina State Senate to declare Social Security, along with Medicaid and the Department of Education, unconstitutional.

Workers earn their Social Security benefits through a lifetime of paying into the Social Security system. And it is unfair to delay or cut the benefits they have paid into. Raising the retirement age to 70, as Representative Mulvaney has advocated, would cut benefits by nearly 20 percent for all beneficiaries. Raising the retirement age would be hardest for those New Mexicans who work in jobs that require heavy manual labor, which becomes harder to do as we age. With all the challenges people have saving for retirement, especially as New Mexico continues to struggle to recover, the last thing we should do is raise the Social Security retirement age.

In conclusion, Representative Mulvaney has demonstrated that he has no reservations about using a government shutdown or the public debt as bargaining chips. He has stated that he will push to eliminate Social Security for people under 70. He will slash Federal consumer protections and cut support for small businesses, labor rights, financial oversight, community health, and environmental protection. I have heard from many people and groups--a broad coalition of consumer, small business, labor, good government, financial protection, community, health, environmental, civil rights, and public interest organizations--who oppose the nomination. I stand with them. I strongly oppose Representative Mulvaney's nomination to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Congressman Tom Price to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

I oppose the nomination because Mr. Price wants to dismantle America's health care system--with no guarantee that Americans will continue to receive the health care coverage they now enjoy. He is part of the Trump ``repeal with no plan'' contingent.

In my view, any repeal of the Affordable Care Act must be coupled with a program that has rock solid guarantees to the American public, guarantees that Americans will not lose the health care benefits they now have.

Further, I oppose any vote on Mr. Price's nomination until there has been a full investigation and disclosure to the American public of his conflicts of interest. Mr. Price has invested in companies just prior to introducing legislation that would benefit those very companies. Before we vote on Mr. Price, the American public needs a full accounting whether his investments comply with Federal insider trading laws and ethical provisions.

The President's first order of business was an attack on Americans' health care. His Executive order gives Federal agencies broad authority to grant waivers, exemptions, and delays of provisions in the ACA. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Price will be given rein not only to grant waivers but to not enforce key ACA provisions and to pass regulations that undercut ACA protections. For example, undermining the individual mandate--a key target of Mr. Price's--could lead to collapse of the individual health insurance market and drive up premiums for everyone.

The ACA has resulted in the broadest health care coverage Americans have ever known. Now over 91 percent of Americans have health insurance.

In my own State of New Mexico, the number of uninsured has dropped by over 50 percent. New Mexico is not a wealthy State. We had one of the highest rates of uninsured in the country before the ACA--19.6 percent. That's almost one in five people. Now, only 8.9 percent of New Mexicans do not have insurance. This is still too high, but it is a big improvement.

Americans strongly support ACA protections. Almost 70 percent of Americans think insurance companies should not be able to deny insurance because of a preexisting condition. Eighty-five percent of Americans want their young adult children to be able to get coverage on their insurance policies. Eighty-three percent think preventative services should be free.

The Republicans and Mr. Price have no plan to make sure Americans do not lose these rights and benefit.

Now, the ACA is not perfect. We all know this. It needs improvement. It needs work. But the solution is not to throw the health care system into chaos with no plan. The solution is to work together on a bipartisan basis and fix the ACA's problems.

Hundreds of my constituents have called and written asking me to protect the ACA. New Mexicans are scared--really scared--that their health care will be taken away. People are scared their health is in jeopardy. For some, they are scared their lives will be put at risk.

I am angry that the President, Mr. Price, and the Republicans have created so much fear and worry among my constituents and around the Nation. None of them has to worry whether their children will get the health care they need. My constituents now do.

Kevin, from Albuquerque, now has to worry whether his 33-year-old daughter Amber will get the health care she needs. Amber has multiple sclerosis. That is a tough disease. I talked about Amber once before here, and her story bears retelling.

Amber's annual medical costs are high. Her medications alone are $60,000 a year. Her doctor visits and MRIs run into the thousands of dollars.

But Amber now has health insurance through the open market thanks to the ACA. And, thanks to the ACA, she is healthy. She works. She leads a productive life.

Without the ACA, Kevin worries his daughter will be kicked off her health insurance plan because her medical expenses are so high and that she will not be able to get new health insurance--because of her preexisting MS. For Amber and Kevin, the ACA's protections mean everything.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans and millions of Americans like Amber. This one ACA provision--prohibiting discrimination based on preexisting illness--protects an estimated 861,000 New Mexicans and 134 million Americans. If we ourselves don't have a serious illness like Amber, we have a family member or friend who does.

Same with people who have high medical costs. These are the people who need medical care the most. The ACA provision--prohibiting lifetime benefit limits--protects an estimated 555,000 New Mexicans and 105 million Americans.

Why is there even any discussion about jeopardizing millions of Americans' health care?

The ACA saves lives. It saved Mike's life. Mike and his wife, Pam, are from Placitas, NM. Before the ACA, they didn't have insurance. They couldn't afford it and probably couldn't get it for Pam because she had a preexisting illness.

As soon as they could, they signed up for an insurance plan under the ACA. Using their new preventive care services, they found out Mike had an aggressive form of cancer. Thankfully, they caught it early. Mike was treated at the University of New Mexico Cancer Center and is cured.

Pam says there is ``no question'' that the ACA saved her husband's life.

Hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans and millions of Americans benefit because the ACA requires health insurance companies to provide free preventatives services. It is well documented that such services prevent illness, save lives, and save money in the long run.

I am also concerned about the impact ACA repeal would have in Indian Country. During his confirmation hearings, Congressman Price was asked specifically about the devastating consequences Medicaid expansion repeal would have on Indian health providers. These providers depend heavily on this Federal funding to provide lifesaving services to our Native communities. Any reduction in Federal funding to these facilities would be unconscionable.

But Congressman Price has a clear record of voting to support the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and, when asked directly, could offer no solution for making Indian Country whole if this funding were to be cut. Nothing in his hearing or written answers has assured me that Congressman Price intends to protect Native communities from the negative impact of ACA repeal.

And, finally, ACA repeal would be devastating to my State's economy. That is what a Ph.D. economist from New Mexico State University told the New Mexico Legislature last week. Dr. Jim Peach said ACA repeal would be ``devastating'' to our State.

As I said, New Mexico is not a wealthy State. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, at 6.6 percent.

But the ACA has been an economic boon for us. Seven of the 10 fastest-growing job categories in New Mexico are in health care. In fact, boosts from health care and tourism actually led to positive job growth for the last 2 months. So health care jobs are of critical importance in New Mexico.

But, if the ACA is repealed, it is estimated New Mexico could lose between 19,000 and 32,000 jobs. I can tell you right now New Mexico cannot take that kind of hit in its employment numbers.

And, the loss in spending in New Mexico would be astronomical.

ACA repeal would mean a loss of $93 million in Federal marketplace spending in 2019 in New Mexico and $1 billion between 2019 and 2028.

It would mean a loss of $2.2 billion in Federal Medicaid funding in 2019 and almost $27 billion between 2019 and 2028.

This hit to our economy would be immediate and would be sustained. Tax revenues would decrease. And the New Mexico legislature is struggling mightily now how to balance the State budget.

The fact is no State budget is ready to take on the extra load if the ACA is repealed and health care gets pushed back to the States. We will go back to the days of no care, uncompensated care, and use of taxpayer-subsidized ER services as a last resort.

But Mr. Price and the Republicans are not talking about any of the damage in human or fiscal terms if the ACA is repealed.

In fact, they are already moving to undermine the Affordable Care Act, roll back its protections, reduce assistance to families, create chaos in the insurance markets--by executive action alone.

President Trump's Executive order directed his government not to implement the Affordable Care Act wherever possible under existing law. And we cannot be confident they will not bend the law in pursuit of this Presidential decree.

I cannot support a nominee to head our health care system who is not firmly committed to maintaining the health care coverage Americans now have. And who will not push--and push hard--for the right of every American to have health care.

Finally, I cannot support holding a vote on Mr. Price until all financial conflicts of interest of his have been fully vetted and the American public knows there has been no violation of law or ethical responsibilities.

Mr. Price is a wealthy man, like so many of Mr. Trump's cabinet nominees. And he has tried to increase his wealth by investing in health-related companies. It is widely reported--in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere--that Mr. Price has made over $300,000 worth of investments in health-related companies--companies that could benefit from his legislation.

We are all familiar with the STOCK Act. It applies directly to us and prohibits us from using inside information that we obtain through our positions as Members of Congress for personal gain.

There are serious questions whether Mr. Price's investments ran afoul of the STOCK Act.

I would like to refer to a February 7, 2017, column from the New York Times discussing Mr. Price's widely reported investments. So, a first example, in March of last year, Congressman Price announced opposition to a Medicare measure that would limit the money doctors could make from drugs they prescribe their patients. The proposal was meant to reduce doctors' financial incentives to prescribe expensive drugs.

Makes sense--we don't want doctors to prescribe more costly drugs because they would personally benefit.

But, just 1 week later, Mr. Price bought stock in six pharmaceutical companies that would benefit if this consumer protection measure were defeated.

And then, at the very same time, those very same companies were lobbying Congress to block the measure. And Big Pharma succeeded.

A second example--last year, he purchased shares in Zimmer Biomet, a company that makes hip and knee implants.

Six days later, he introduced a bill that would have directly helped Zimmer. His legislation sought to delay a Federal regulation that would have changed payment procedures for Zimmer. In fact, Zimmer was one of two companies that would have been hit the hardest by the regulation.

Mr. Price has said his broker bought the Zimmer stock. But these circumstances warrant investigation.

And, bottom line, Mr. Price is responsible for his investments.

A third example--last summer, Mr. Price was offered a special deal-- to purchase shares at deeply discounted price from Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian drug company. He got in at 18 cents a share--at a time the stock value was increasing rapidly, rising to more than 90 cents a share. The value of his shares rose more than 400 percent.

At the same time, Innate Immuno needs Federal Drug Administration approval for one of its drugs.

This deal raises questions whether Mr. Price gained from an investment opportunity--unavailable to the public--from a company whose profits could be influenced by his political decisions.

A Cabinet nominee should not come into office under a cloud of conflicts. A vote on his nomination before there is full inquiry into his investments and ethical behavior is premature.

For these reasons, I will vote no on the nomination of Mr. Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times column I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me first of all begin by thanking Senator Murray for her leadership in terms of leading us to scrutinize this nominee, Betsy DeVos. It seems to me the more we dig into this, the more we look at it, the worse it gets. So I rise in strong opposition to the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

Mrs. DeVos is nominated to lead our Nation's public education system. Yet she has worked for decades to privatize it and even to create profitmaking centers. She wants to siphon public funds to private schools. She has led a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign to fund private, religious, and for-profit schools with public education dollars.

We can all agree that we want our Nation's schools to be the very best they can be. We want our children to have all the opportunities we can provide, but that really is the issue. That is why Democrats have held the floor all night long to do everything in our power to convince the Senate to reject this nomination.

I believe in the public school system. I want all of our children to have opportunities. That is the fundamental principle of our American school system. Everyone should be able to get a great education.

Mrs. DeVos wants to dismantle our public schools. She would drain resources from the children and teachers who need it the most. I can't say it strongly enough: A vote for Mrs. DeVos is a vote to destroy our public school system. My constituents agree. We have received over 63,000 emails and over 2,000 telephone calls in the last month alone opposing this nomination. These are recordbreaking numbers from my office for a Cabinet nominee. Many of those calls and letters are from public school parents and teachers, men and women who are dedicated to our students and our public education system. They understand that Betsy DeVos is not qualified to lead our Nation's public education system.

Betsy DeVos is the first nominee in history for Secretary of Education with no experience in education or public administration. She is not a teacher. She is not a school administrator. She didn't attend public schools. Her children didn't attend public schools. She has never held a government position, let alone one in education. In fact, she has open disdain for government.

Mrs. DeVos's complete lack of experience and profound lack of understanding of education policy were on full display during her confirmation hearing. Under questioning, it was clear that Mrs. DeVos was completely uninformed about the ongoing debate in education policy between proficiency and growth. This issue is critical. It is well documented that there is a correlation between test scores and students' socioeconomic status and race. So evaluating schools based on average test scores tends to penalize schools with large numbers of low-income and racial minority students. Even if those schools produce significant student growth on math and reading test scores, proficiency or growth is one of the most basic education policy questions, and yet the President's nominee for Secretary of Education doesn't understand the issue. Maybe this is because she has been single-mindedly focused on feeding private, for-profit charter schools with public dollars and the religious and other private schools through vouchers. So her knowledge about education is limited to her pet issue.

Valerie Siow, who has taught in public schools in New Mexico for 13 years, observed that Mrs. DeVos ``had not bothered to do her homework'' for the hearing. It is clear that Mrs. DeVos does not have the breadth or depth in education policy or finance to be the Secretary of Education.

Senator Hassan has a son who has cerebral palsy. She told us a moving story about the good education he received in the New Hampshire public schools, despite his disability, because of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or the IDEA.

Senator Hassan asked if Mrs. DeVos would require schools using vouchers to comply with that law. Mrs. DeVos initially responded that she believes the decision should be left to the States. When Mrs. DeVos was informed that it is Federal law, that it is not up to the States, she responded that she must have been ``confused.'' Confused? Mrs. DeVos bragged that she has been an education advocate for 30 years. The IDEA was passed over 25 years ago, in 1990. Mrs. DeVos was not ``confused.'' She plainly did not know what the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is.

It is very disturbing that she appears not to know how public schools educate and accommodate kids with special needs. Does she not know what an individual education plan is? She didn't know, as she said in a hearing to be Secretary of Education, that the millions of public school children with disabilities have a Federal right to a free and appropriate education.

It is just as troublesome that Mrs. DeVos did not know that children with disabilities can lose their Federal right to an equal education under State voucher programs--voucher programs she has spent years advocating for. She did not know that voucher programs can require students with disabilities to sign away their IDEA rights. Most troubling of all, she would not commit to making sure voucher programs comply with the law.

I am also quite concerned that Mrs. DeVos fails to appreciate the important role that tribal cultures play in educating Native American children. This Nation has a solemn trust and treaty responsibility to provide quality education to Native students, both through the public school system and the Federal Bureau of Indian Education. Her testimony has proven that she is uneducated about these students as well.

Many States have significant tribal populations. In my home State of New Mexico it is about 10 percent. As vice chair of the Indian Affairs Committee, my job is to make sure that any Education Secretary is committed to respecting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Mrs. DeVos has given me no assurance she understands, cares about, or is prepared to address the needs of Native American students. Nothing in her hearing or written answers convinced me that she will respect tribal cultures, tribal sovereignty, or the right to self- determination. In fact, her lobby organization, American Federation for Children, supports the expansion of vouchers into Indian Country, diverting money from tribal schools to private schools. I cannot support taking money away from schools run by tribes and losing self- determination efforts tribes are making.

The National Indian Education Association has said: ``Federal funding should not be moving over to a private school system . . . move out of our

tribally-run school system and to a system that does not require consultation and does not require active engagement of Native communities.'' I couldn't agree more. She just shows a basic lack of understanding of tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

Betsy DeVos seems to be driven by her personal religious views. I respect the strength of her Dutch Calvinist religious beliefs, but imposing her religious beliefs should have no place in funding public education, which serves children of all beliefs.

In 2001, she talked about whether Christian schools should continue relying on contributions instead of vouchers. Mrs. DeVos said:

There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to

fund what is currently the need in education. . . . Our

desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue

to advance God's kingdom.

I support her right to devote her philanthropic dollars to her church and other religious efforts, but I oppose her view of using public dollars to advance her view of ``God's kingdom'' in public schools. Separation of church and State is a fundamental principal in our democracy to protect people and communities from religious coercion by the government. I am concerned that Mrs. DeVos does not have the necessary respect for other people's religious beliefs and that her policies could disregard the importance of tribal perspectives on education.

We need assurance that every public school student--no matter their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, ability or disability--will be respected, protected, and included at the highest levels in Washington, DC. That is the job of the Secretary of Education. Mrs. DeVos has not shown over the many decades she has lobbied on education that she agrees with this basic proposition.

I support making good, quality public school options available. There are many great public charter and magnet schools around the country. We have some good ones in New Mexico. But these public schools should meet the same accountability standards as other public schools--standards for student achievement, teacher performance, and fiscal responsibility.

I also support the option of private and religious schools. We have great private and religious schools in our country. But public dollars must go to public schools, not private or religious schools, and certainly not private for-profit schools. The first objective of any for-profit venture is to make money. That cannot be the first objective of a school using public funds.

The first and foremost objective of public education funds should be education for students. When public dollars are used, their use must be fully accountable and transparent to the public. Betsy DeVos would not commit that private for-profit charter schools and voucher schools should have the same accountability standards as public schools. Why didn't she make this commitment? Likely, because the private charter schools in Michigan, funded by public dollars--that she has championed for decades--do not have to meet the same accountability standards as public schools. This is wrong. These same schools--her work for decades--have not shown appreciable gains in Michigan over the years. In fact, Michigan test scores have gone down over time. These schools have not shown significant improvement over public schools in Michigan.

Finally, I am not convinced that Mrs. DeVos has been transparent in her responses to the American public. She did not make her disclosures available to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee at the time of her confirmation hearing--this is unprecedented--and the committee had no opportunity to look into her many, many financial conflicts.

Since then, she has entered into an agreement with the Office of Government Ethics. While she will divest from approximately 100 investments that pose a conflict, we do not know if she has divested from all conflicts. Mrs. DeVos benefits from three trusts. She has not disclosed the assets in two of those trusts.

The complexity and enormity of Mrs. DeVos's $5 billion holdings is mind-boggling. We know that from one trust at least 100 conflicts required divestment. Without transparency in other trusts, the public does not know if she has any more conflicts.

I also want to raise the issue of Mrs. DeVos's unwillingness to address her PAC's unpaid $5.3 million fine in the State of Ohio for violating campaign finance laws.

This situation is troubling on a number of levels. First, Mrs. DeVos led a multimillion dollar political effort to influence elections throughout our Nation. Second, while doing so, Mrs. DeVos's political action committee willfully ignored campaign finance laws and warnings from State election officials. She racked up an unprecedented $5.3 million fine in Ohio. Then, third, rather than acknowledging that she broke the law and owning up to her responsibility to pay it, her PAC simply folded up shop and walked away.

As Secretary of Education, Mrs. DeVos will be responsible for overseeing college loans for millions of students. Yet she refuses to acknowledge or pay her own debts. Does she believe the law doesn't apply to her?

I have written to Mrs. DeVos and the HELP Committee several times demanding answers about this. Her responses were evasive. She refuses to pay the fine--hiding behind the corporate veil--while still paying lawyers to fight it. This is hypocrisy, on top of disregard for the law.

We have never had a Cabinet nominee, who led a dark money PAC, which broke the law and flouted the judicial system. This is absolutely, totally, unprecedented.

For all these reasons, I must vote no on the confirmation of Mrs. DeVos as Secretary of the Department of Education.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.