Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the rules that the Federal Communications Commission recently promulgated--and when I say ``recently,'' it was October, only months ago--expanded the concept of privacy and consumer protection as applied to broadband. Now we are on the verge of rescinding those rules through S.J. Res. 34. This resolution is a direct attack on consumer rights, on privacy, on rules that afford basic protection against intrusive and illegal interference with consumers' use of social media sites, websites, that often they take for granted. Many Americans simply don't stop to think about how broadband providers, as the carriers of all internet traffic, are also able to collect and use consumer data, to put together a detailed picture of who they are, what they do, where and when they buy things, where they go, what they like to do--all of it an array of data that people assume is private, all of it freely available to those internet providers. Even when data is encrypted, our broadband providers can piece together significant amounts of information about us--including private information, medical conditions, financial problems--based on online activity. It is a mine that can be used--more valuable than a gold mine--because that information can be sold and bought and used again so that privacy becomes a completely evanescent and illusory feature of our lives. Consumers wanting to switch broadband providers are often hit with hefty termination fees, and they have to experience a lapse in Internet service at home--something that most simply don't have the luxury to do or endure in today's connected society where internet is accessible. They have no meaningful choice about how to safeguard broadband privacy. They have one choice if they want speeds above 25 megabits per second. That is why I applauded those rules when they were promulgated by the FCC back in October, finalizing broadband privacy protections. I applauded them because signing up for the internet should not mean you sign away your rights to privacy. Just as telephone networks must obtain consumer approval before selling customer information, broadband providers ought to be required to obtain consumers' affirmative consent before selling their sensitive browsing or app usage data to advertisers. The FCC rules that this resolution would decimate, utterly destroy, essentially seek to protect that privacy interest. The only way the FCC's broadband privacy rules protect consumers is through an affirmative opt-in consent. That is the only real protection that works. These rules also prohibit pay-for-privacy schemes that would require consumers to waive their privacy protections as a precondition to receiving service. They establish data security and breach notification standards for broadband providers. They also have important national security implications. Just last week, the Department of Justice indicted four individuals, including Russian spies, for hacking into Yahoo! systems in 2014 and obtaining access to at least 500 million Yahoo! accounts. According to the indictment, these Russian intelligence officers spied on U.S. Government officials and private sector employees of financial companies. One defendant also exploited the data for financial gain. Without clear rules of the road, broadband subscribers will have no certainty or choice about how their private information can be used, no protection against abuse, and no assurance that security standards will be bolstered against that kind of attack that the Russians and their spies launched. The FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over the security and privacy practices of broadband, cable, and wireless carriers. If the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in FTC v. AT&T is upheld, adopting a ``status-based'' instead of ``activity-based'' interpretation of the FTC's common carrier exemption, the FTC's jurisdiction and ability to impose privacy and security obligations would be even further curtailed. Critics also say that the FCC's broadband privacy rules would unfairly create a separate regulatory regime for ``edge providers,'' websites such as Google or Facebook. If that is their real concern, why haven't they focused their efforts on ensuring that the FTC has meaningful rulemaking authority so that it can implement privacy and data security rules over such websites? In closing, I have long supported giving the FTC authority to adopt its own rules governing the privacy and security of websites. Giving the FTC authority to adopt new rules would help ensure our privacy, keep our privacy safe no matter where we go on the internet or how we connect. However, I don't see any of our colleagues, in supporting this resolution, rushing to accomplish these goals. We should all remember that consumers need control over their own information and how it is used. This resolution would subvert and sabotage that control. All too often, Americans take for granted privacy until it is lost. Once it is lost, rarely can it be recovered. Once that information becomes public, privacy is irreparably damaged. Today's vote, if it succeeds, will deprive Americans of important baseline privacy standards that they expect and demand the government to provide. Few Americans are aware of this vote today. Many will be aware of its consequences. It will do extraordinary damage to privacy, if it is approved. I urge my colleagues to reject it and to help preserve American privacy. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here in the midst of a Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, showing, and in a way showcasing, the wonder of American justice. This hearing will proceed through the balance of the day with him as our witness, and then into tomorrow with others who will comment on his qualifications. The showcasing of American justice really demonstrates how the rule of law serves our democracy and how we strive to appoint the best possible people--men and women, dedicated public servants--to the courts of our land to assure that the rule of law and American justice are second to none and as infallible in protecting individual rights as they can possibly be. In a sense, I am here to talk about a rule that also serves American justice. It is a rule put forward by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the last administration. I am here to oppose H.J. Res. 83, which would repeal that rule. The rule is known as the OSHA injury recordkeeping rule. It sounds very technical, obscure, and for most people it is, but there are nearly 3 million serious injuries reported every year at American workplaces. For over 40 years; that is, four decades, Federal law has required employers with 11 or more employees in dangerous professions--poultry slaughtering, meat packing, steel mills, construction--which see the bulk of these injuries to keep active records of injury suffered in those workplaces and others like them that are considered dangerous. Having accurate records is common sense for employers who want to know what is going right in their places of work and what is going wrong and how they can prevent workers from being hurt on the job because they don't want anybody hurt. Responsible employers want safe workplaces. It is really that simple. We all know injuries are bad for business and they cost time and money. With those records, OSHA can also investigate companies and work to make them safer and ensure they comply with the law. In essence, they can look at the outliers--who are lawbreakers, who cares less about safety than profits--but also maybe employers who don't do as much as they could or would if they were better informed. A misguided court ruling in 2012, after 40 years of the law prevailing, curtailed OSHA's ability to sanction employers concerning those records. The ruling limited OSHA's ability to sanction employers to just 6 months of the start of the investigation based on the records. Soon after that ruling, OSHA and the Obama administration discovered it could not adequately investigate employers who provided an unsafe workplace, making them effectively immune from some safety laws. After going through all the proper rulemaking, all of the steps that are necessary to make an administrative rule, all the channels and procedures, the last administration put forward a rule that responds to the court decision and allows OSHA to review those records for 5 years. That is essentially how things worked for 40 years. It worked well for 40 years, and it was simply reinstituted because the court decision was so crippling to the rule of law and American justice. That is the rule we are discussing today--a return to longstanding policy that existed for decades under Republican and Democratic administrations, dating back to the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Putting aside the 40 years' worth of this rule working well, it does some very important things. It requires these large employers in dangerous industries to keep accurate records of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. It has no impact on a huge swath of the economy that is not considered dangerous. It doesn't apply to restaurants, offices, and many other workplaces, regardless of the number of employees they have; the rule impacts just the most dangerous industries in our economy and companies in that industry with more than 10 employees. It essentially prevents them from covering up injuries, maintaining fraudulent records concerning injuries, and willfully violating the law. There are things the rule does not do. It imposes no new costs on employers. It imposes no new obligations. It simply returns to a policy that worked well for decades--I repeat, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, accepted by both--and it gives certainty to businesses. That is one of the great advantages in an economy and society where certainty for our job creators is very valuable. Repealing this rule would lead to more dangerous workplaces and give unsafe companies an upper hand in competition. It would unlevel the playing field between the good guys and the bad guys in those industries. This rule would essentially eliminate requirements that employers keep proper records, as they know OSHA can do nothing to investigate. Repeal of the rule amounts to the Federal Government siding with the companies that see injuries on the job but in effect sweep them under the rug. Repeal promotes companies to keep false records--if they keep records at all--limiting enforcement and punishment of anyone who keeps two sets of books, which few would do. Repeal of this rule undermines companies that keep safe workplace records and are in competition with companies that are cutting corners. This has implications for taxpayers. Many procurement processes seek information about companies' safety records, giving a leg up to the safer company, as should be the case. That is in taxpayers' interests. Repeal of the rule would take away this incentive to protect employees. Repealing this rule is bad for taxpayers, is bad for Federal policy, particularly in those areas where the Federal Government is a purchaser and a consumer, because it deserves to know--and so do we all--which ones are the safe employers. Former Obama and Bush administration officials oppose repeal of this rule. Dozens of health and safety groups warn against the spike in injuries that repeal may encourage in work-related injuries and illnesses. Labor organizations representing millions of workers nationwide and many Fortune 500 companies oppose this resolution and support the rule. Health and safety groups, labor organizations, Fortune 500 companies, and officials from the past two administrations all support the rule and oppose this resolution. It is truly bipartisan. I urge my colleagues to unite across the aisle and resist the false and unfortunate arguments that are made in favor of this resolution. I urge colleagues to join me in opposing it because it will endanger workers in the most hazardous places in the workplace and the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on H.J. Res. 69, and I am here to state as strongly and emphatically as possible my opposition to this misguided and unwise measure. As a Senator who fights to preserve and protect the vast diversity of American wildlife and honor the natural beauty of our Nation's great refuges, I urge my colleagues to reject the effort to revoke a commonsense rule of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This rule of the FWS is designed to prevent the use of cruel, unsporting, and inhumane killing methods on Federal land. It is really that simple, and repeal of it is an outrage. Proponents of H.J. Res. 69 have attempted to frame this debate as an effort by the Federal Government to usurp State power, but that argument is simply absurd. The rule at issue is about Federal management of Federal land, Federal control over land owned by the Federal Government, pure and simple. The rule, which took effect in September, does not restrict subsistence hunting or normal hunting practices. It does not imperil public safety or impede on defense of property. It simply prevents brutal, cruel, barbaric hunting methods that target vulnerable bears, wolves, and coyote from occurring on lands that were intended to provide refuge for these animals. ``Refuge'' is the key word. This resolution subverts the judgment of professional wildlife managers to adopt sensible wildlife management actions that are based on the best available science. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule is undermined, any State would be permitted to allow egregious killing methods on these wildlife refuges, which is the one category of Federal lands specifically set aside to benefit wildlife. That is its singular purpose. I will oppose this legislation because I believe in preserving our Nation's natural ecosystem and the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to manage Federal lands for all citizens and prevent the inhumane treatment of our Nation's most iconic wildlife. This rule bans the killing of wolves and their pups at their den sites in springtime when they are most vulnerable. It bans the killing of sleeping black bear mothers and their cubs while they are hibernating in winter--not exactly fair sport and certainly damaging to our environment. The rule also bans the baiting of grizzly bears, which involves the use of toxic, rotting food or grease to lure and acclimate bears to a certain area so that trophy hunters can get a point-blank shot. It prohibits the use of traps such as steel-jawed traps or snares, which cause animals to suffer injury as they fight the trap or even slow and painful death from starvation or exposure. It prohibits using airplanes and helicopters to scout, land, and shoot brown or black bears. These practices are not only cruel and inhumane, they are really unsporting and have no place in a civilized society. This resolution would foreclose our wildlife managers from making Federal wildlife management decisions. It will undoubtedly affect the future of all American wildlife, including regulating inhumane practices on Alaska national wildlife refuges even though those practices may be recognized as cruel and unsustainable. All in all, voiding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule would set a dangerous precedent for the management of public lands across the country. Time and time again, our Federal courts have held that the Federal Government has the authority to regulate wildlife on Federal lands and cannot be superseded by initiatives at the State level. This Federal rule explicitly prohibits only these particularly gruesome and egregious methods of hunting or other kinds of practices on national wildlife refuges. It does not apply to hunting in State-owned wilderness or to rural Alaskan practices for residents who hunt for subsistence. Regardless of my colleagues' claims, there is not a Tenth Amendment issue here, and the case law clearly demonstrates it, from the Supreme Court decision in 1976 that held that ``the Property Clause also gives Congress the power to protect wildlife on public lands, state law notwithstanding''; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which followed it; and just last year, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which repeated the Supreme Court's well-established jurisprudence on the supremacy clause and the property clause. Neither the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act nor the Alaska Statehood Act grants any State official the power to overrule these Federal land managers' decisions. Putting aside the legal issues--and there are none that really argue in favor of sabotaging this Fish and Wildlife Service rule--it is the right thing to do for us and for our future. This legislation would essentially reject our authority and our responsibility and our obligation to future generations to promote humane wildlife management practices. It is not only a matter of our law but who we are and what kind of society we believe we should have. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this abhorrent and appalling legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, even in its early days, this administration has embarked on a course of foreign private interest entanglements and conflicts of interest that are truly staggering. Just this morning, the Associated Press reported that China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new trademarks. They are Trump trademarks, paving the way for the President, Donald Trump, and his family to ``potentially develop a host of branded businesses from hotels to golf clubs to bodyguard and concierge services.'' These reports are contained in public documents. All but three are in the President's own name. The AP report also quotes an official as saying that ``for all these marks to sail through so quickly and cleanly, with no similar marks . . . no issues with specification, boy, it's weird.'' Now, the speculation is that these trademarks could not have been issued without approval by the ruling Communist Party, that hierarchy had to be involved, and that awareness had to involve their approval for these intellectual property interests. The benefit is to the President through his private interests. The fact is, the President of the United States should be beholden only to the American people, not to personal profit, but in fact these trademarks raise the specter that the President possibly is beholden to the approving officials in China even more than to the American people. That is an issue that merits investigation. Like so many issues arising in this young administration, the question is, Who will do that investigation? The lawyers in China representing Donald Trump applied for these trademarks in April of 2016, even as then-Candidate Donald Trump railed against China at his campaign rallies, criticizing Chinese currency manipulation, its intellectual property theft, its attraction of jobs from this country to theirs. The question arises, What has he done about those issues? In fact, China continues to manipulate its currency, continues to attract jobs from this country, and continues its aggressive policies in the area around that country. The question is whether an inquiry is appropriate--which certainly it seems to be--and who will supervise it. It is the same question that arises with respect to Russian interference in our electoral system and the potential ties between Trump team officials and the Russians who committed those acts. Those ties have been established by evidence that is now incontrovertible because it is admitted by the officials themselves, now Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. It is now a matter of factual record that Russia engaged in a series of deliberate cyber attacks in order to carry out an unprecedented plot to undermine the 2016 elections with the goal of assisting Donald Trump. The growing body of evidence clearly and unmistakably indicates that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russia during the election. These deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign government to influence an American election certainly deserve exacting scrutiny and investigation, and the more we learn, the more troubled we become. In fact, we are rapidly careening toward a constitutional crisis. These recent revelations about Vladimir Putin's government and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resulted in his resignation. There have also been details about contact between Attorney General Sessions, our former colleague, and the Russian Ambassador that have caused his recusal from all inquiries of that subject matter. I believe a special prosecutor must be appointed to investigate the Russian interference and meddling in our election, the massive cyber attack misinformation, and propaganda campaign conducted to subvert that election. The potential for cooperation, condoning, connecting between the Trump officials and Russia certainly merits investigation as well. Without reaching conclusions, the special prosecutor ought to investigate and then reach a conclusion. His conclusion should be based on fact, not surmise or speculation. For weeks, I have called for a special prosecutor to investigate possible ties between members of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, and the Trump White House to Russian officials who sought to interfere with our election. I support the Intelligence Committee in conducting its investigation. I would favor the appointment of a special commission or a select committee of the Congress to do factfinding, make reports and recommendations in a fully transparent way, but only a special prosecutor can take action based on criminal intent. Only a special prosecutor can pursue violations of criminal law, to not only investigate but also bring charges and seek appropriate punishment and remedy. Only the Deputy Attorney General of the United States can appoint a special prosecutor because the Attorney General has recused himself--in other words, taken himself out of all of the areas of this subject matter. That is why I asked yesterday that the nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, commit to appoint a special prosecutor. His answer to me was that he wishes to wait until he is approved by the Senate--assuming his confirmation occurs--to decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor. He claims he needs to familiarize himself with the facts and circumstances of any ongoing investigation before he can make a decision. With all due respect, the facts he needs to know are already established. They are already a matter of public record. They are already known to the American public. There is an investigation ongoing by the FBI--and with good reason--into Russian meddling in our elections, this massive campaign of misinformation and cyber attack that they purposefully conducted to influence the outcome of our election. We know the Justice Department must investigate and pursue the ongoing investigation, wherever the evidence leads. Part of that evidence inevitably will be meetings that were conducted by his boss, the Attorney General of United States, Jeff Sessions, which is why the Attorney General has recused himself--because he could be involved in that investigation as a witness, as a subject, even possibly as a target, as could the President himself. To close that investigation, the Deputy Attorney General, or whoever is conducting it, needs to question the Attorney General of the United States. To conduct that investigation, that questioning must occur. So the Deputy Attorney General would be expected to be investigating his boss. If he decides to conduct that investigation himself, he must appoint a special prosecutor to establish the independence of that inquiry, to assure that in reality and in appearance the American public is assured that the investigation is independent, objective, impartial, vigorous, and fair. The facts that warrant a special prosecutor are already known and they are already a matter of public record. That is why I believe he must commit himself now, before his confirmation--in fact, as a condition of his confirmation--to take that action, which preserves the credibility and public confidence in the Department of Justice that he observed very eloquently in his confirmation hearing as one of his central objectives. There is a lot of precedent for this step. The most prominent one perhaps is Elliot Richardson, when he was the Attorney General designee. He was requested by the Judiciary Committee, at that time, to make the same kind of commitment--and he did. He kept his promise. He appointed Archibald Cox to be special prosecutor, and the Watergate scandal was appropriately investigated and pursued. That example--when Elliot Richardson had enough facts, just as Rod Rosenstein does now-- ought to be the lodestar here. It ought to be the model for his commitment to appointing a special prosecutor. The simple fact is, Rod Rosenstein, like Elliot Richardson, knows everything he needs to know to be sure a special prosecutor is necessary, and especially because he is a career prosecutor with a distinguished record, and because he has that intellect and integrity that would qualify him probably to be confirmed, he should know it is the right thing to do. Maybe he will do it if he is confirmed, but it would serve the interests of justice, and it would help to sustain and enhance the trust and public confidence in the Department of Justice if he were to do it now, as Elliot Richardson did many years ago. We live in an extraordinary time. The conflicts of interest and foreign entanglements that threaten our Nation, beginning at the very top of this administration, impose a unique mandate on the Department of Justice. The recusal of the Attorney General from this investigation indicates that leadership and integrity are necessary at every level as never before. That is why, in this extraordinary time, I urge the Deputy Attorney General nominee, Rod Rosenstein, to do the right thing and make sure there is an investigation that is independent and vigorous, as well as fair and full; that we know all of the facts eventually and that action is taken appropriately to deal with the Russian interference in our election, the potential ties between the Trump administration--before and after the election--in those improper interferences by the Russians in our election, and that the danger of coverup, indicated by the potential false statements made by Jeff Sessions before the Judiciary Committee and Michael Flynn elsewhere, be stopped before it starts. Only a special prosecutor can provide the unbiased and fair answers that are so urgently needed. The American people deserve an explanation. They deserve an explanation for the trademarks that have been issued to Donald Trump in China. They deserve an explanation by a special prosecutor on Russian meddling and Trump ties to that meddling. Whether the independent and special prosecutor broadens the scope of that investigation to include the entanglements or conflicts of interest involving China is a question that will have to be addressed by that official, but this much we know now. We are rapidly careening toward a constitutional crisis, a crisis of credibility as well as legal challenges. The historic opportunity and obligation this nominee owes the country cannot be avoided. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Apparently there is another speaker. I withdraw that suggestion.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with a number of my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37. As it has just been announced, we will vote on it later today. I am glad to be joined by so many of my colleagues to fight against efforts to limit the application of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I fought to ensure that harmful provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 seeking to limit the applicability of this Executive order to DOD were stripped from the final bill signed into law in December, and I continue to feel strongly that we must do everything possible to defend American workers. That is what this issue concerns. In 2014, President Obama issued a critical Executive order, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. Then, last summer, after thorough analysis and due diligence by the Department of Defense and several other agencies, he implemented what is known as the fair pay and safe workplaces rule. That rule requires companies doing business with the Federal Government to disclose when they violate any of 14 laws. The list of laws include some that are very familiar to all of us, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Civil Rights Act. This list includes some other laws that may be somewhat more obscure, but those laws have been around for decades. They are well known in the workplace, and they are designed to protect veterans, women, and people with disabilities from harmful, debilitating discrimination. There is no requirement that companies disclose trivial allegations; rather, the rule requires disclosures of violations that rise to a determination by a court or administrative body of an actual violation or serious pending administrative proceeding by an agency. Companies would know of such violations. Most companies play by the rules; all they need to do is check a box confirming they are in compliance. For those companies with compliance issues, the contracting agency would take information about those violations into consideration in the procurement process, and the contracting agency would then try to work with the company to make sure that it comes into compliance with the law. This Executive order is not about exclusion or about blackballing; in fact, it is about including and working with companies to bring them into compliance so they obey the law, knowing what the rules are, and wanting everybody to play by the same rules--not having an unfair advantage. This rule is not about blackballing or blacklisting companies. It is about ensuring that, if they want to do business with the Federal Government, they follow the law and provide a safe and equitable workplace, protecting American workers--veterans, women, and people with disabilities--who may be victims of harmful, debilitating discrimination. The rule is an effort to make Federal resources go to companies that are complying with the law or that are coming into compliance with Federal law. The reason behind it is to protect American workers, but it is also about creating a level playing field for all contractors and making sure there is a relationship of trust with contractors because we need partners who can be trusted to carry out the Federal Government's important work, especially in the area of building our defense weapons. Companies that violate the law are creating an unlevel playing field, forcing law-abiding companies into unfair competition, potentially raising their costs. They skirt the law, saving dollars, presenting low-ball offers, based on noncompliance, cutting corners by, in effect, ducking their legal obligations. If they are hired, they are also at risk of providing poor performance because a company that violates the law and disregards its obligation is much more likely to disregard its moral as well as its legal duties in complying with the contract. It is not just about saving dollars. It is about workers. Every year, tens of thousands of American workers are denied overtime wages, they are unlawfully victims of discrimination in hiring and pay, they have their health and safety put at risk by Federal contractors when they do cut corners, or they are denied basic workplace protections. That is another reason we need this rule, this Executive order, protecting workers and creating a level playing field. Some have called the fair pay rule one of the most important advances for workers in years, and it is. According to one assessment, one in five Americans are employed by companies that do business with the Federal Government. Ensuring that those one in five workers are protected helps countless Americans. It helps them in those workplaces, and it also sets a model for workplaces elsewhere. It is basic, simple transparency that enables the American people to know who executive agencies task with the work, using taxpayer dollars. So requiring companies to disclose--and this rule is about disclosure-- compliance records is something that many States, including Connecticut, already have in place through responsible bidder programs that use self-reporting to improve contractor quality by identifying companies with records of violating workplace laws, among other things. President Trump was rightly praised by many of my colleagues in calling for a ``level playing field'' for businesses in his speech before us, in Congress, last week, and he has been lauded for saying we need to deliver ``better wages for Americans.'' Yet here we are, just weeks into the administration and this new Congress, and we are seeing what the real priorities unfortunately are. Once we put aside the rhetoric, actions are what matter, and these actions truly demoralize and destroy law-abiding companies' chances to compete fairly, and they decimate rights of workers to safe and fair workplaces. I am troubled that rolling back this Executive order which I fought to achieve in the NDAA is so high a priority for the new administration and my colleagues here. Many organizations opposed this effort, and I am proud to join them in trying to forestall this rollback--the Easterseals organization, Paralyzed Veterans of America, VetsFirst, Vietnam Veterans of America, and many others who rightly fear that this course of action will do damaging injustice to our veterans and constituents with disabilities. It will also do potential damage to countless other workers involved in doing the people's work, such as performing contracts for the Federal Government funded with taxpayer dollars--our dollars--that can be used in discriminatory and unfair ways if this resolution is approved. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 37 later today and protect the fair pay and safe workplaces rule. For the sake of our constituents--women, veterans, workers with disabilities, and businesses of America--we must reject this assault on fairness and common sense. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will end my remarks within a minute. In short, over the past weeks, I have called repeatedly for a special counsel. My view is that now-Attorney General Sessions must be brought back before the Judiciary Committee and provide an explanation. The lack of a credible explanation makes his resignation necessary, and his denial of contacts raises serious and troubling questions about the process that led to his confirmation. Absent swift action by a special counsel, evidence of this troubling conduct will be at high risk of concealment by the very agency, the Department of Justice, entrusted by the American people to seek and uncover the truth. An impartial, objective, comprehensive, and thorough investigation by a special prosecutor is unquestionably necessary now, and I hope we will have bipartisan support for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in the minutes remaining before this vote, I want to briefly call attention to an impending constitutional crisis we are facing in this Chamber and in this country as a result of recent revelations coming to our attention, literally within the last 24 hours, about contacts between now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, our former colleague, and the Russian Ambassador. Nearly 2 months ago, my Judiciary colleagues and I were told by then- Senator Sessions--and the Presiding Officer is on the Judiciary Committee. We were told in no uncertain terms that he ``did not have communications with the Russians,'' and we took him at his word. Last night, we learned that Senator Sessions' statement was inaccurate. These inaccurate, possibly intentionally false, statements misled us. They misled me, personally, and I feel they failed to provide the whole truth about his communications with and ties to the Russians, likely on behalf of the Trump campaign. These contacts were in the midst of an unprecedented attack on our democracy, an act of cyber warfare against our democratic institution that not only violated our law but subverted our electoral process. The potentially false statements on this topic by then-Senator Sessions were not only deeply relevant and critically important in their own right, but they leave us with the question: What else is missing or misleading in that testimony, and the consequential questions about his fitness to lead the Department of Justice must be answered. Unless Attorney General Sessions can provide a credible explanation, his resignation will be necessary. Senator Sessions' false statements heighten my deep concern about credible allegations that the Trump campaign, the transition team, and the administration officials have colluded with the Russian Government, not only in actions prior to the election but possibly since then in what may amount to a coverup. Unless the whole truth is uncovered--and if there is a coverup, truly the adage will be fulfilled that the coverup is as bad as the crime. The only way to deter Russian aggression and continued cyber attacks on our democracy is to uncover the truth and deter this kind of aggression in the future. At the time of his meetings with the Russian Ambassador, Senator Sessions was chairman of the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee. Ambassador Kislyak is, of course, the same individual whose repeated covert contacts with former LTG Michael Flynn, President Trump failed to disclose both to the American public and to his own Vice President. General Flynn's failure to make those disclosures led to his own termination as National Security Advisor. Contacts between these two men would raise concerns under any circumstances, but Senator Sessions' decision to, in effect, conceal them makes them even more troubling. I use that word with regret because I sat in the committee hearing as he answered those questions, and, personally, I can reach no other conclusion than to say he must have intended to conceal them and hide them from us as committee members. The Attorney General, who is the most important law enforcement official in our country, must be held to an even higher standard. The sudden disclosure that he met repeatedly with the Russian Ambassador after denying under oath any such contact, gives us all the more reason--indeed compelling evidence--that a special counsel is necessary, and necessary now, to investigate Russian ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. I have called for such a special counsel or prosecutor for weeks now and led a letter with more than 10 of my colleagues asking that Attorney General Sessions designate such a special prosecutor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 2 more minutes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud and honored to follow my very distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Murray of Washington in this cause which invokes a line that I think the President used last night in his address to us, pledging cooperation for causes where we can make a common cause. Surely no cause is more important than healthcare, no goal is more important than preventive services for women so we can all avoid the costs not only in dollars and cents but the cost of human suffering and foreclosed futures that will come when women are denied these kinds of basic services. I met this morning with a group from Planned Parenthood, patients and providers working in clinics across New England. They told me their story--some of them patients, some of them service providers and volunteers--about the kind of transformative effect that primary care, examinations and screenings, can have for women who would otherwise lack those services. The community health centers cannot substitute for them. Family planning programs under title X are often the only Federal programs dedicated to providing comprehensive services in family planning but also in related preventive health services. Over the past year alone, title X providers have provided cancer and HIV screenings, contraceptive services, and other primary and preventive services to over 4 million women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers in New England and across the country. This network of healthcare providers is a safety net. They compose a network, the title X network, including providers of State and local health departments, federally qualified health centers, and family planning councils. They create a network that provides a critical source of healthcare to people who otherwise would be denied it. They are trusted providers who are willing to serve the uninsured, the uninsured and low-income individuals who risk losing all access to healthcare if it was not for this network. These clinics are often the only healthcare providers in rural areas and other parts of the country. So the political attacks on providers that provide abortion services would mean a loss of access to all family planning and preventive healthcare in these parts of the country--rural, metropolitan, suburban. Not only are these services necessary, but family planning services are really good investments, especially when it comes to the money that otherwise would be spent when illnesses or diseases become more serious. In 2010, the $1.14 billion that was spent in this country on family planning resulted in more than $8 billion in gross savings. That is a clearly worthwhile investment. The resolution that passed the House last month that Senator McConnell is considering bringing to the Senate floor would eliminate protections that prevent discrimination against these very providers, discrimination based on facts or sometimes nonfacts that have nothing to do with the quality of care or the worthiness of the investment in these clinics and healthcare providers. The regulation that Republicans are seeking to eliminate ensures that no qualified providers will be excluded from eligibility for Federal funding for discriminatory reasons outside of that provider's ability to provide care. That is really the criterion that matters. The ones who want to eliminate this regulation apparently would rather risk limiting access to healthcare in order to score political points. Unfortunately, it is really that simple. At a time when Republicans continue to try to push ahead with repealing the Affordable Care Act, which also includes essential support for preventive healthcare, they also want to disrupt the country's healthcare system for this kind of women's healthcare. Just last night, after President Trump claimed he wanted to work with Members of both parties to invest in women's health, we are threatened with this step to eliminate an important regulation that protects women's health. I ask the President and my colleagues across the aisle to join in this common cause, which should unite us on a bipartisan basis. If they want to continue these attacks, we are ready for the fight, but we would much rather cooperate and collaborate in the cause of women's healthcare. I urge my Senate colleagues to listen to the kind of providers and patients whom I met with this morning, the kind of provider that Senator Shaheen brought with her last night as her guest, the kind of providers and patients and volunteers who work in these clinics all across the country, whether it is Planned Parenthood or other kinds of clinics. I ask them to listen to the advocates here, supporters, like the National Coalition of STD Directors, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the ACLU, and the American Medical Student Association. They are just a few of the stakeholders who advocate strongly that this regulation be continued and who oppose the step the House passed and that the majority leader may bring to the floor. These people have dedicated their lives and their careers to assisting the vulnerable, whether they are providing healthcare or legal services or other kinds of support, and they are saying to us: Do not eliminate this regulation. I think we ought to listen to them. I hope my colleagues will. I am determined that we will fight tooth and nail if we need to do so, but I would much rather that we follow the President's offer and that we collaborate to stop the elimination of this regulation, which is so important to making sure that women's healthcare is based on quality, not on discriminatory reasons based on political motive.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are in a day--in fact, yet another day--of fast-developing, dramatic events. The news today that LTG Michael Flynn, who served until recently as National Security Advisor, may be culpable of lying to the FBI and therefore prosecutable for a Federal criminal violation adds urgency to the need for a special independent counsel to investigate all of the events surrounding his conversation with the Russian Ambassador and who knew what about it when and what was done. The severity of this potential constitutional crisis--and we are careening toward a constitutional crisis--makes it all the more necessary that we have an objective and independent investigation, that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself, and the White House guarantee that documents are preserved--as we have requested in a letter sent by Members of the Judiciary Committee, including myself-- today. The severity of this potential constitutional crisis cannot be exaggerated. Still we are in the early days of a new administration but already the turmoil and turbulence throw into question almost all of the proceedings here on other issues, urgent and important issues-- whether infrastructure, trade policy, job creation, economic growth, all of the pressing issues of our day. They also raise potential conflicts of interest on the part of other officials before us now, including the nomination of Scott Pruitt. News that we have also learned very recently, in this day of fast-developing events, increases the importance of deliberate and thoughtful consideration of this nomination. Just within the last hour, a judge in Oklahoma has ordered the release of thousands of emails sent by this nominee, Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, relevant to his dealings with oil and gas interests in his State and elsewhere on relevant legislative and litigation issues. This development really requires a delay in this vote so we can review those emails and know what those conflicts of interest were, what they may continue to be, and whether his answers to our colleagues in his testimony at his confirmation hearing were completely accurate and truthful. We need to delve into those emails, know their contents, examine the contents, in fairness to him and in fairness to an administration that may be appointing for confirmation yet another official like General Flynn, who was forced to resign just days after his appointment. The interests of the Trump administration, as well as this body, would be well served by delaying this vote so we can review those emails. I call upon the Republican leadership to delay this vote, give us a chance to review the emails, and give the American public a chance to understand how those emails reflect on the qualifications of Scott Pruitt and the potential conflicts of interest that may disqualify him from serving in this all-important role. I am here to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt, but whether we oppose or approve of this nomination, we owe it to ourselves--I say to my colleagues--we owe it to the United States Senate to delay this vote so the potentially explosive material and contents of these emails can be fully considered. If we fail to delay, we are, in effect, potentially confirming a nominee who may be compelled to resign after his disqualifying conflicts of interest are exposed to public view. We have an obligation in advising and consenting to be as fully informed as possible. If there were no such emails, if there were no such court order, there might be an excuse for rushing to judgment as we are on track to do now. There is no excuse for a rush to confirmation. Our obligation to advise and consent implies also an obligation to review these emails as comprehensively and fully and fairly as possible before we make this decision. The President has nominated Scott Pruitt as the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to serve a mission, which is to protect human health and safeguard the environment. Even before disclosure of these emails, which involve his contacts with oil and gas interests, he came before us as perhaps one of the least-qualified people in the United States of America to serve in this position. I don't make this statement lightly. It may sound like hyperbole or exaggeration, but the fact is, anyone who studies Scott Pruitt's record as attorney general of his State--and I served as attorney general of mine so I know his position pretty well--can see that his record is antithetical and hostile to the mission and purpose of this Agency. He is a potential Administrator who will take office at a critical juncture for our planet. Sea levels continue to rise, long-established weather patterns have begun shifting, and the average global temperature is rapidly approaching 2 centigrades Celsius above preindustrial levels. That is an increase which many climate scientists believe may be a point of no return--no return for the planet, no return for us, no return for generations to come. We are at a historic moment. The question will be whether Scott Pruitt will be dedicated to doing something about climate change, about the pollution of our air, streams, rivers, and oceans, whether he will be committed to enforcing the rules and laws that protect us against those dangers of degradation of our environment--degradation of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the open spaces we enjoy. That is the same Scott Pruitt who was pressed by our colleagues during his confirmation hearing and could not name a single regulation designed to protect clean air or water that he supports--the very same Scott Pruitt, who was asked by our colleague Jeff Merkley whether he agreed with the statement, ``Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,'' and he dodged and equivocated. When he was questioned about hundreds of thousands of dollars he has received in campaign contributions from energy companies, he basically refused to answer. He dodged the question. That is the Scott Pruitt who would become Administrator of the EPA, and it is the same Scott Pruitt who, as attorney general of Oklahoma, fought the tremendous progress made by the Obama administration at every turn, taking legal action against the EPA no fewer than 14 times. While he was in office, he worked hand in hand with Oklahoma's largest energy companies to roll back regulations that are vital to the health and well-being of the American people, not just the people of Oklahoma, as bad as that would be, but of all Americans, all of our plant. When he worked hand in hand with the Oklahoma energy industry, those common bonds of purpose and work would be well illuminated by these emails that today will be disclosed. In fact, maybe some of those conflicts of interest will be revealed and dramatized by those emails. That is why we must wait to have this confirmation vote. He sued to try and block efforts to reduce nationwide emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 30 times more effective at trapping even carbon dioxide. He block the Clean Power Plan. He took three separate actions against the EPA's mercury and air toxic rule, targeting standards that the EPA estimates will save 45,000 lives. Those are three more actions, it should be noted, than he took to proactively promote clean air and clean water on behalf of the people of Oklahoma in his entire time in office. Why did he take those actions? Who helped him do it? How and why? The emails will help tell that story and answer those questions. Taken alone, even without the emails, these actions hardly show a record of someone dedicated to promoting and protecting the environment. Not once during his confirmation process did Mr. Pruitt demonstrate to me a convincing willingness, let alone eagerness, to uphold the mission of the Agency he now hopes to run, nor has he shown an intent to be open and responsive with Members of this body. Most troubling of all, he has, in no uncertain terms, failed to give any indication that he will be a champion for our environment and that he will advance scientifically sound policies to protect the public's health. The only thing Attorney General Pruitt has made abundantly clear is that he holds a derisively dismissive attitude toward the Agency he now seeks confirmation to lead. His nomination is an affront to the EPA, but even more, it is a threat to our health, a threat to our environment, a threat to the quality of our air and water, and a risky gamble on the world we will leave to our children and our grandchildren. There is a very real concern about whose side Scott Pruitt will be on. The question is, Whose side will he be on when and if he is Administrator of the EPA? He has already shown a willingness to use the power of whatever office he holds to advance an extreme agenda and to malign opponents. Polluters do not need another champion in this administration, and our environment does not need another foe. We have enough foxes guarding henhouses as it is in this administration. Mr. Pruitt's coziness with the firms that he will be required to regulate--again the emails will tell the story about his relationships with special interests. That is critically important, and, in fact, even on the record we have now, it should disqualify him from this position. He doubts the effects of climate change and the extent to which our rapidly warming climate is as a result of human activity, calling this debate ``far from settled'' and placing himself well outside mainstream opinion. His denials are rooted in the promise of funds from corporations and interest groups that think it is far better for their bottom line to pretend that incontrovertible climate change simply doesn't exist. He is a beneficiary of the denying corporations and special interests, and those contentions are not only regressive and fallacious but dangerous. If he is a prisoner of those special interests, as these emails may show him to be, my colleagues will regret voting for him-- another reason that delaying his confirmation vote is appropriate and necessary now. The scientific evidence of climate change and human involvement is overwhelming. You don't have to look hard to see it. Most of us in this Chamber would need to speak only with a handful of our constituents-- the men and women who sent us here--to see the real impact this crisis is having. My home State of Connecticut has experienced a major rise in storms that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damage as well as several lives. It seems that as soon as our State begins to rebuild from one storm, another wreaks havoc on many of the same devastated communities. These monster storms have become the new normal. In Connecticut and around the country, weather disasters are rapidly becoming part of a way of life, tragically, for innocent people caught in their wake. In just 6 years, Connecticut has weathered the damage and destruction of a freak October snowstorm, Superstorm Sandy, and the force of numerous nor'easters. Severe storms like these, as well as other disasters--floods, tornadoes, droughts--are happening at a rate four times greater than just 30 years ago. I am not here to argue climate change. I am here to argue that Scott Pruitt is unqualified to fight climate change because he denies it is a problem, and he denies the mission and purpose of the EPA as a vital purpose and mission of our Federal Government. The people of Connecticut understand climate change, and they get it. They understand that it is happening and that it is happening in their everyday lives. They see its effects. They know its causes, and they know the truth. It will get worse. We need to take action. This body is on the verge of action that should be postponed so that we can consider vitally important information in those emails that reflects on conflicts of interest, ties to special interests, influence on Scott Pruitt, benefits to him in the past, and debts that he may owe, literally and figuratively, to those special interests that may impact his performance as Administrator of the EPA. As attorney general of my State, environmental protection was a priority to me. I will be honest; I sued the Federal Government, just as Scott Pruitt did. I sued the Federal Government so that environmental protection would be made more rigorous and stringent and people would be protected, not to slow down the EPA but to speed it up to provide impetus for its action and, in fact, to compel it to carry out its mission and purpose. Scott Pruitt has acted in exactly the opposite way, and the reasons for his antipathy and hostility to the EPA may well be illustrated even more dramatically and directly by these emails that we should consider. I urge the Republican leadership to postpone and delay this vote so that we may, in fact, consider those emails. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize and celebrate the 25th anniversary of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, a company that has brought life-transforming therapies to patients around the world from its headquarters in New Haven, CT. Since its establishment by Leonard Bell in 1992, Alexion has become a global leader in discovering, developing, and delivering therapies for people with devastating and rare disorders. I have always been honored to call Alexion a Connecticut company, and I applaud the life-changing gains in medicine that it has made from the city of New Haven since 1992. Even while maintaining a commitment to developing new therapies that impact the lives of patients with rare disorders throughout the world, Alexion has always remained committed to its community in Connecticut. Whether it is helping connect individuals who are homeless with temporary work assignments in New Haven, partnering with scientists at the University of Connecticut, or subsidizing public transportation to help students get to their classes at Gateway Community College, Alexion has proven time and time again that its commitment to the people of Connecticut and to its over 1,000 employees in the State is as strong as ever. On its 25th anniversary, I applaud Alexion and the people who work so tirelessly for Alexion's values and commitment each and every day. Alexion continues changing lives through its medical breakthroughs, and I am so pleased to know that they call Connecticut home. Thank you.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island who has been such a champion for working people and economic progress in manufacturing and economic fairness so that our country as a whole can advance together. I am proud to be a Senator who fights to preserve, protect, and strengthen the safety net for all Americans, as my colleague from Rhode Island does, and many of us here do. So I come to the floor to speak on Congressman Mick Mulvaney, with reluctance and sadness, because he is out of the mainstream and, really, an adversary of programs that assure that safety net and basic fairness that is at the core of our great democracy and our economic system. I oppose his nomination to serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, hardly the best known of agencies and not necessarily the most glamorous or glitzy but among the most important. His position is among the most consequential because he serves as an economic adviser, as well as an allocator of funding throughout the Federal Government and a leader on important social programs. He has proved strongly antithetical to those programs that have made America great: Medicare, Social Security, and other efforts, including the Affordable Care Act, which are essential to our future. He has broad responsibilities for our Nation's budget. He also has important oversight responsibilities about Federal rulemaking--those unglamorous, sometimes invisible regulations and rules that affect real lives and livelihoods throughout this country. They establish rules of the road in industry. They establish access for people to Federal programs. They provide an essential means of achieving fairness in our democracy--that important process that agencies use to enact safeguards, for example, that keep our air and water clean and our workplaces safe. Congressman Mulvaney's positions on these vital issues are out of step with American values, out of the mainstream of American popular opinion, and out of the area of acceptability in terms of basic public interest. Our economic reality is characterized by one simple stark economic fact: Burdens are falling hardest on the people who can least afford them. I am not talking about people at the lowest rungs of income or wealth but middle-class Americans who work hard and who have seen their incomes stagnant over 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. Stagnating incomes and stagnating futures destroy the American dream. So the Federal Reserve, for example, has reported in 2014 that average incomes have remained flat or fallen for all but the most affluent 10 percent of American families. That is a staggering fact about our economic system and its ability to deliver for Americans generally. That is the context for this nomination. I consistently hear from my constituents in Connecticut that income has failed to keep pace with overall economic recovery. Even as Wall Street has risen, Americans see nothing but stagnant income, sometimes falling economic prospects. Things have gotten better, but good jobs are still out of reach for far too many. Retirement for increasing numbers of baby boomers makes it all the more vital that we protect and strengthen our safety net. The safety net is not the sole answer to larger challenges that must be solved by robust economic growth. That has to be our priority--economic growth in Connecticut and around the country. But increased opportunity depends on growth for ourselves and for our children--my wife and my four children and our way of life. In fact, President Trump himself seemed to recognize this economic fact, one of the few areas where we agree, because he pledged during the campaign to keep our Nation's safety net firmly, irrevocably intact--not to make any cuts to Social Security or Medicare. He pledged and promised. Now, who is his nominee to be head of the OMB, that crucial agency with responsibility for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Mick Mulvaney has an affinity for draconian budget cuts and far-right positions that are completely out of step with this promise and pledge. The President must have reversed himself or revoked his promise, because Congressman Mulvaney has spent his entire political career crusading against exactly these programs that keep millions of Americans out of poverty. Social Security is one of the great achievements of our American democracy. In fact, it is one of the greatest achievements the world has known because it has allowed this Nation to promise its people that they can avoid crushing poverty if they simply work hard and if they contribute to this program that is a form of insurance. It is not a gift. It is not really an entitlement. It is an insurance program. It makes us a humane and decent nation. We care for people who have worked hard all of their lives and need to be protected so they need not depend on their children or their grandchildren. Congressman Mulvaney has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme.'' Tell that to the Social Security recipients in Connecticut. Tell that to the working people of Connecticut. He is out of step with working people and middle-class people who know that Social Security does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit, and it is not the Ponzi scheme that Congressman Mulvaney mischaracterizes it as being. It is fashionable on the far right to use that characterization, suggesting it will run out of money unless severe restrictions are put in place. He has championed those kinds of restrictions--means testing, for example, and raising the retirement age. Those proposals are a disservice to hard-working Americans who reach that retirement age having been promised that they would receive Social Security when they did or work hard to make Social Security work for them, without a means test, without anybody asking them to fill out forms or disclose their incomes and establish standards or tests that make them ineligible. It is true that there are changes to these programs that may be necessary. In fact, I proposed a plan for enhancing Social Security, making it a stronger insurance program by raising the cap on the payment of taxes that are due and other kinds of reforms that will more properly allocate the burdens but not means-testing, not raising the retirement age, which are radical and draconian favorites of the far right. Lifting the payroll tax cap so the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share, as I have proposed, will keep this program solvent for decades into the future. The only reason to reject the commonsense changes I have proposed is a political aversion to raising taxes on anyone at any time, even the wealthiest individuals or the most powerful and profitable companies, which is the mantra of people who have climbed the ladder and want to raise it so that no one else has access to those top rungs. It makes no sense to me that we would ask great sacrifices of our senior citizens but do nothing about eliminating the loopholes that privilege some of the most affluent people and the largest and most profitable companies in the world. We should not and must not use the Social Security trust fund as a means to pay down the debt or reduce the deficit or gamble with the hard-earned benefits 61 million Americans rely on during their retirement. Those 61 million Americans, who come from all of the States and all over the Nation, are represented in this Chamber, and they deserve better than Mick Mulvaney's far-right radical ideas that would restrict their Social Security. He fails to recognize this reality and would prevent Social Security from continuing to flourish and provide the stability so essential to this great Nation--already the greatest Nation in the history of the world because of programs like Social Security and Medicare. Speaking of Medicare, Congressman Mulvaney's proposal for Medicare also betrays the President's promise to leave Medicare intact. He has been vocal, absolutely frank about his support for tearing down Medicare, going as far as to say: ``We have to end Medicare as we know it.'' Do we really have to end Medicare as we know it, tear it down, destroy it? That is what Mick Mulvaney says. That betrays President Trump's promise to keep Medicare intact. Mick Mulvaney has also supported proposals to privatize this lifesaving healthcare program by turning it into a voucher system, which would effectively gut its promise of guaranteed health benefits. A ``voucherized'' Medicare would be devastating for our Nation's seniors. Many of them are already on fixed incomes. This plan would allot them a fixed amount of funds--fixed funds to purchase all of their health insurance, which would result in higher premiums and increased out-of-pocket costs. Connecticut seniors deserve better than Mick Mulvaney's efforts to restrict Medicare in such a disruptive and destructive way. Congressman Mulvaney's actions and statements on Medicare point to a future budget director who has no intention of keeping the President's promise to protect this crucial health program. This country counts on its next budget director to prioritize facts and responsibilities and the public interest above political games; to rely on real facts, not alternate facts. Our budget, our deficit, our national debt are, in fact, fact-bound and fact-based. The world relies on real facts when it looks at the American economy, and the people who work in that economy, whether they are young or old, veterans or civilians, depend on real economic growth. Yet Congressman Mulvaney's reckless approach to fiscal issues has jeopardized this country's stability, causing real danger for the sake of ideology. That approach in the Congress has led to uncertainty and unpredictability, which are the bane of small- and medium-size businesses, which are, in turn, the major job creators in our society and economy. Congressman Mulvaney's extreme views already have negatively impacted the American economy. While in the House of Representatives, he led efforts to leverage the threat of a government shutdown as a tactic to push for specific demands, which included radical anti-choice policies, measures antithetical to women's healthcare and the right of privacy, including defunding Planned Parenthood. As one of the most senior economic advisers to the President and the head of OMB, he would have immense responsibility to influence this administration and the President. His outright disregard for the harm caused by a government shutdown--a tactic that jolts and jeopardizes our economy and disrupts the lives of millions of Americans--should itself alone disqualify him from this critical role within the Federal Government. He also sought government shutdowns as well to block the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which has helped so many people in Connecticut receive the coverage and care they need. I could spend a lot of time talking about the benefits people in Connecticut have received from the Affordable Care Act. Its future is key to the financial future of this country, but Mick Mulvaney has consistently advanced misconceptions and mistruths about the nature and functioning of this law. Again, we can agree to disagree on policy, but misrepresenting the truth and relying on alternate facts is exactly what the budget director should not be doing. He is the one whom we rely on for real facts about our economy and our budget. Even more worrying was Congressman Mulvaney's archaic approach to addressing the debt ceiling. In the face of all evidence, he flatly stated that he did not believe this country would default on its debt as a result of the failure to raise the debt ceiling. Economics 101: The debt ceiling, if it is not extended--that means a default. Experts across the political spectrum agree that a breach of the debt ceiling, and consequently our Nation's full faith and credit, would be catastrophic. I am absolutely unable to vote for someone who fails to recognize that basic economic truth and takes this threat so lightly. Finally, Congressman Mulvaney has demonstrated a near reflexive hostility to Federal agencies and the important work they do. As with so many of the President's nominees, unfortunately, he seems to be hostile to the very mission and purpose of the agency he is going to lead--whether it is the EPA or the Department of Labor or other agencies where nominees have taken stands that, in effect, say: Let's dismantle and destroy this agency. Yet they are the ones who are supposed to be leading and inspiring its efforts. I believe that government could be more efficient and responsive. Waste ought to be eliminated. Fraud ought to be prosecuted. I am eager to work with my colleagues on good-faith proposals to achieve these goals. Federal agencies remain vital to important public purposes that people cannot achieve on their own. They cannot clean our air and water on their own. They cannot ensure public safety through policing on their own. They cannot make sure our national defense is strong on their own. A whole myriad of functions depend on a functional Federal Government. Commonsense rules that prohibit excessive pollution or unsafe working conditions protect all of us. As the head of OMB, which includes offices that oversee Federal funding, he has a responsibility to make sure that rules are enforced and that people are protected. Yet he has opposed the existence of the Export-Import Bank, an institution that is critically important to so many of our job creators, big and small businesses in Connecticut and around the country. He opposed emergency funding for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, despite the devastation caused by this terrible storm, which was unleashed in Connecticut and nearby States. He has questioned the need for government-funded research, despite the myriad advances in science and medicine that have come from government laboratories and research institutions. His record shows that he would be the wrong person for this job, harming our safety net and our fiscal stability. I oppose his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Schumer.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. It is critical to note that neither I nor any proponents of the Social Security Administration's rule believe that all or most or even a significant percentage of those suffering from mental health issues are dangerous--far from it. The overwhelming majority of people who confront mental health issues are peaceful and law-abiding citizens who seek only the treatment that should be everybody's right. In fact, I have been a strong advocate over many years of mental health parity, beginning when I was attorney general in the State of Connecticut. The very first Federal law on this issue that was passed was modeled in many ways after the State law that I championed. I was proud to support the passage of a bill last year to provide more resources to those seeking treatment, and I hope that it moves this country toward providing everyone with the care they need. Mental health issues should be no cause for fear, no reason for stigma, no excuse for shame. Those who have come forward and been open about the treatment they have sought, in fact, have done themselves and their communities and country a great service. If I thought SSA regulations unfairly targeted people with mental illness or that it advanced the perception that they are inherently dangerous, I would oppose it with every fiber of my being, but that is not the regulation we have here. As Senator Durbin said this morning and my colleague Senator Murphy reiterated, this rule is not one loosely applied to anyone who has some trouble balancing a checkbook; it applies only to those disability recipients with a serious and debilitating mental health issue. That is estimated to be about 75,000 people nationwide out of approximately 10 million Americans who suffer from a serious mental illness. Everyone who suffers from mental illness should have a right to treatment, but not all should have a gun. It is very unlikely that people who meet these criteria will be able to safely handle a gun or to safely store it in their home and prevent its misuse by themselves or by others. It is possible that SSA's initial determination will be wrong. That is why crucially--please understand--crucially the regulation also provides due process. In fact, these due process protections are necessary when a constitutional right is at stake. This right, the Second Amendment right, must be respected as the law of the land. The regulation entitles those who are affected by it to advanced notice. When going through the process to appoint someone else to handle their benefits, they are told that they will forfeit their firearms right. They are given that notice, and they are given due process. If they believe this is inappropriate or unnecessary, the regulation gives them that process to appeal. It is one that allows SSA to grant relief upon a determination that the beneficiary will not be ``dangerous to public safety,'' a term that has meaning. SSA is also required to notify the NICS background check system if the name should be removed, whether it was submitted in error or because a beneficiary has recovered from the condition or because they were granted relief through the appeals process. Those are rights with real remedies, with due process, with fairness. If I thought this regulation failed to provide adequate process that every individual is due, regardless of how much I support its goal, I would oppose it with, again, every fiber of my being because it should be and it is the law of the land. Of course there may be ways that this regulation, like any regulation, could be improved if the criteria could be better targeted or if the due process protections could be made stronger or if the administration could be made more efficient. We should not hesitate to make those improvements. I would welcome suggestions for enhancements, but the methods chosen by my colleagues to attack this regulation--the Congressional Review Act--prevent any and all of those improvements. Severely limiting the time for debate denies us adequate consideration. Much worse, it is a blunt-force instrument that will prevent the Social Security Administration from issuing any ``substantially similar'' regulation in the future. So the passage of this resolution will prevent the SSA from complying with the legal requirement for submitting legal records for a background check in the future. It will hamstring this agency and prevent it from fulfilling its obligation to public safety--that is regardless of whether new information comes to light or whether it would be possible to devise a better method of submitting these records. In the words of the well-known and respected group Americans for Responsible Solutions, using the CRA to undo this rule would ``not only allow guns to be placed into the hands of individuals determined to be legally incapable of using them safely, but it also creates an irresponsible, irreversible precedent.'' As I have always said, I will work with my colleagues on any good- faith steps to stem the tide of gun violence in this country, and I would be more than happy--in fact, I am eager--to work with them to fix flaws they see in this regulation. We need to come together to improve the integrity and efficiency of the national background check system and keep guns out of the hands of people who cannot safely handle them. People who are dangerous to themselves or others--it may be a very small number, but they can do great tragic damage. The resolution we will vote on shortly accomplishes neither of these goals. It does nothing to answer my constituents who ask me time and time again why Congress does nothing to confront the epidemic of gun violence in this country. It would create an irresponsible, irreversible precedent. More important than the precedent is the consequence in real lives of the death and injury that could result. Those deaths and injuries are truly irreversible and irresponsible, and we can help to stop them by taking the right stand on this resolution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here principally to speak about the NICS Social Security Act, Congressional Review Act resolution that is before our Chamber, but events of the last 24 hours really raise before us the urgent and unavoidable issue of needing an investigation into the recent activities of Michael Flynn. He resigned as the National Security Advisor last night after revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other top White House officials. He may have misled the President and others in the White House, but there are also very serious questions about who knew what when. These classic what did they know and when did they know it questions must be answered by an independent counsel or commission, and the reason it must be independent is the same very profoundly important reason that I gave to then-Nominee Jeff Sessions, now Attorney General. The Attorney General must appoint a special counsel in cases where there is reason to question his complete impartiality and objectivity; the reality as well as the appearance mandate here that there be an independent investigation by a special counsel. Only a special counsel, independent of the Attorney General and of the White House, can ask with penetrating, aggressive, unflinching analysis whether the President knew before Michael Flynn made those phone calls to the Russian Ambassador and other phone calls to other foreign powers what the subjects of the conversations were, even whether they were going to be made, and only an independent counsel can know, with complete credibility and being regarded that way by the public, as to what happened and who knew what happened and when they knew. This issue is about more than just a phone call to the Russian Ambassador. It is about the integrity and honesty of public officials, about the protections we give to our intelligence, and about the independence of our justice system. I certainly have respect for the Office of Attorney General, but Jeff Sessions was deeply involved in President Trump's campaign and in the Presidential transition. I expressed to him in the hearing on his nomination that he would have to distance himself from an investigation of exactly these issues to maintain impartiality and objectivity in that investigation. So I will write to him today, and the letter will be made public shortly, asking for an independent counsel, a special investigator who can produce the information that is necessary for the public to be assured that there has been an inquiry that is impartial, objective, comprehensive, and thorough. It has to be unflinching and unstinting, and it should be done as soon as possible. Mr. President, I want to address the issue that is before us on the floor relating to the Congressional Review Act resolution that we will vote on shortly and in my view that will undermine existing law if it is passed. Too many times in recent years we have had the terrible responsibility of bearing witness to the trauma and grief that follow gun violence. We see it in our streets every day, not just in Sandy Hook, which every day weighs on our minds and thoughts and hearts in Connecticut but the more than 30,000 deaths every year and countless injures all across the country in big and small towns, the streets of Hartford as well as rural and suburban communities. I am far from the only one in this Chamber who has borne witness to that trauma and grief. Gun violence has claimed too many lives in too many places, through mass shootings in movie theaters as well as the constant drumbeat of shootings that never make the headlines. Our constituents count on us to make them safe. That is one of the fundamental responsibilities of our government. And by overwhelming majorities, including majorities of Republicans and of gun owners, they support commonsense steps to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In failing to move forward with legislation that would advance those goals, Congress has been complicit in this ongoing epidemic. It is truly a public health crisis. If more than 30,000 people died every year from disease or other kinds of communicable illnesses, there would be a call for drastic action. This kind of public health crisis must be met with strong steps. When many of us in this body who believe that Congress must now take action to stem the scourge of gun violence hear one refrain from our colleagues--``enforce the law; enforce the law that already exists''-- we must heed that cry. Enforcing the law that already exists is exactly what this regulation entails. So we must be ready to move forward. Yet, as my friend and colleague Senator Murphy noted earlier, the Congressional Review Act resolution we are about to vote on will not only fail to enforce existing law, it will undermine existing law. Federal law prohibits those who have severe mental health issues--that is to say, issues that would prevent them from safely handling a gun, from possessing a gun. Federal law also requires agencies that have information indicating that people are disqualified from gun possession to share that information with the NICS background check system. Under this regulation, the Social Security Administration has proposed to do exactly that. Pursuant to the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act--a law passed in the wake of the horrific Virginia Tech shooting to address significant loopholes in the background check system--the Social Security Administration will submit records to NICS for Social Security recipients who meet a specific set of carefully defined criteria. The regulation will apply only to a subset of Social Security disability recipients. It does not apply to those who are receiving Social Security retirement benefits. It applies only to those disability recipients who have been found, based on the Social Security Administration's established criteria, to be severely impaired due to a mental disability and who are therefore unable to perform substantial work or manage their own disability benefits. Repealing this regulation could lead to great harm, exacerbating loopholes and failings in the background check system that erode public safety. I have a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors, which represents city leaders from across our country. It says that ``due to loopholes in current law, too many mass murderers are still able to too easily obtain guns. This includes the individual responsible for killing 32 people and injuring 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 that led to the enactment of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. These killings must stop and this rule, as implemented last year, will help to do that.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors, as well as a letter from the National League of Cities.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Vermont on issues that he has worked so long and so hard and so well, and that is health care for our Nation and focusing on the fight for women's health, for access to affordable care for all Americans, and for a Cabinet truly free of conflict and corruption--a cause that we share in opposing Tom Price as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. What is so painfully apparent to him and me and many of our colleagues is that Representative Price's nomination is a doubling down of the ongoing blatant attack on women's health by his administration. His radical anti-choice policies, antiquated views on reproductive health, and demands to repeal the women's health provisions of the Affordable Care Act disqualify him from serving as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. Before the ACA was signed into law, being a woman meant higher health care costs for simply being a woman. It is estimated that this discrimination cost them about $1 billion more every year. They had to pay higher costs simply because they were women. Representative Price has been clarion clear about where he stands on this issue, with his policy effectively eliminating important protections against discrimination that were guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act. Under Representative Price's reckless proposal, all women, including healthy women, could see their insurance costs rise--and rise astronomically. His plan also means guaranteed coverage of maternity care services could be lost. It means well-woman visits, birth control, domestic violence screening, and breastfeeding support-- all provided now without any out-of-pocket costs--would be lost. The simple truth is, with Representative Price's policies, many women will go without necessary care. More than a quarter of all women and 44 percent of low-income women already rely on publicly funded health clinics like Planned Parenthood for contraception. Without guaranteed access to birth control, without cost-sharing, this number will certainly climb. It isn't hard to see why, despite the lonely opposition of Representative Price and the Republican Party, 70 percent of Americans support a birth control benefit. Representative Price callously asked to see one woman who couldn't afford birth control, one woman who was left behind. If he is confirmed and if the policies he vigorously supports are enacted, he will see millions without necessary health care and particularly birth control. As many know, Representative Price's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood means more than just losing access to birth control; it means cutting off preventive care, cancer screenings, and STD testing for millions of low-income women. The women who get their care from Planned Parenthood seek what all of us want, what all of us should have a right to receive--trusted, compassionate, and medically sound health care. Representative Price's politically motivated tax on Planned Parenthood put this care, and their lives, at risk. Clearly, Representative Price is one of the most extreme Members of his party on issues of women's health, and that includes his views on women's reproductive rights--a woman's right to choose. He has supported radical legislation that would ban virtually all safe abortions and even some forms of birth control, which, in essence, would send our country back to a time when women died because the care they needed was outlawed. It was made unlawful; it was banned. That time has gone. We do not want it to come again. Simply put, Representative Price's anti-choice views are not only ill-informed and unconstitutional, but they are downright dangerous. Representative Price has also shown remarkable indifference to the concerns of the millions who will see their health insurance disappear--vanish--following repeal of the Affordable Care Act, if that disgrace should occur. For millions, the Affordable Care Act has been the difference between seeing a doctor at the first signs of disease and waiting until treatment is no longer an option. It has been the difference between financial security and bankruptcy. Much of the bankruptcy in the United States of America has to do with medical costs. For many, it has been the difference--no exaggeration--between life and death. The numbers support this point, whether or not Representative Price wants to believe them. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of uninsured Americans is the lowest it has been in 50 years or more. The positive impact of this law is felt every single day in the State of Connecticut. It has reduced our uninsured rate by a massive 34 percent, resulting in 110,000 Connecticut residents gaining coverage. Many of my constituents have felt emphatic about--and have told me so--exactly how the Affordable Care Act has changed their lives and their family's lives for the better. Representative Price refuses to guarantee that these families will be covered following repeal. So I hope he hears their stories and understands what the Affordable Care Act means to them and the millions of other Americans whom he chooses not to see, not to hear, not to know exist. Representative Price refuses to guarantee that these families will be covered. For example, I point to a woman in Connecticut named Colleen who told me that before the ACA was passed, her medications alone cost $250,000 each year. That is a quarter of a million dollars. Thanks to this law, she has affordable care, no lifetime limits, and knows she will not be a victim of discrimination or denied coverage of her preexisting condition. Colleen said the Affordable Care Act has been the difference for her between life and death. I have also heard from a father whose daughter has a chronic illness. He asked that I emphasize to all of you, my colleagues, that health insurance is ``not a luxury, but a necessity'' for his family. His daughter represents one of the 1.5 million people in Connecticut who are now protected from discrimination based on preexisting conditions, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. I have heard from a retired pastor who counts on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, a farmer who fears for his family's health after repeal, a young woman who was able to start her own business because of the assurances promised by health reform, and a veteran who is scared for his wife. Representative Price cannot promise that these people will keep their coverage, and he has said that outlawing discrimination because of preexisting conditions is ``a terrible idea.'' He thinks it is a terrible idea to outlaw preexisting conditions. I saw the effects of preexisting conditions year after year when I was attorney general, and I went to bat and fought for people who were denied health care because their insurance companies told them that health care isn't to take care of a preexisting condition not covered by their policy. His proposals do not expand access to affordable care, and they do not protect patients. Representative Price's nomination is wrong for the people of Connecticut and for the people of this Nation. Representative Price's plans would also do away with the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, disrupting the lives and health of nearly 15 million Americans. This would leave so many people without access to preventive care, lifesaving medications, and necessary medical interventions. This is simply unacceptable and cannot be the policies of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In fact, instead of expansion, Representative Price wants to block- grant Medicaid and cap the program, resulting in higher costs, less coverage, and devastation for millions of Americans, half of them children who rely on this program. In Connecticut, we have been hit hard by the opioid addiction epidemic. It is a national scourge, a public health crisis, and we have relied heavily on Medicaid to fill the gaps. At a time when this epidemic needs more resources, not less, Representative Price would work to strip that away, leaving people who rely on Medicaid without treatment. His plan for our Nation's seniors is just as dismal. He champions privatizing Medicare by turning it into a voucher system and ending the promise of guaranteed health benefits. Giving seniors a fixed amount of funds to buy health insurance would result in high premiums, increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors, many of them already on a fixed income. And for many Americans, Representative Price may mean the difference between being able to purchase lifesaving medications and putting food on the table or heating their homes. Finally, like many of my colleagues--and Senator Sanders made this point so well--I have serious concerns over Representative Price's potential conflicts of interest. Having repeatedly purchased stock in health care and pharmaceutical companies that would directly benefit from his legislative efforts and advocacy on the company's behalf, he nonetheless made those investments and kept them. In the face of these allegations, Representative Price has simply refused to provide information that could disprove violations, which has led many Americans to question whether Representative Price will truly put their best interests before crony capitalism. The American people know better. These potential conflicts of interest and views on the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, and Medicare are out of touch and out of line with what Americans want and our Nation needs. We should be building on the success of these programs, not tearing them down, and we should be working with one another to improve the health of all Americans, not fostering divisions. Sadly, Representative Price's views and policies make this very attainable goal really impossible. Simply put, his proposals are dangerous, they are disgraceful, and they are disqualifying. I cannot vote for Representative Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. I will oppose his nomination and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from Vermont who has led the Judiciary Committee with such vision and courage over so many years, and whom I respect as a former prosecutor, as I am, as well as a litigator and a conscience of the Senate. I am deeply concerned that our Nation is careening toward a constitutional crisis, a legal nightmare that will test the independence of the judiciary and require the utmost resolve and integrity from everyone involved in the justice system and from the Congress, because only the Congress may provide the kind of check on the ongoing assault against our court system. President Trump repeatedly has tried to put himself above the law, and in just a few weeks has moved from scorning conflict-of-interest and disclosure principles to promulgating destructive, discriminatory Executive orders, and openly attacking the judiciary. His personal invectives and insults are unprecedented for the President of the United States against the judiciary. Without respect for the rule of law and the court system, democracy fails. No Cabinet member has more responsibility to ensure that the justice system is given this necessary respect and trust than the Attorney General of the United States. The sweeping authority in this position impacts the lives and livelihoods of everyday Americans, implicating everything from our immigration system to law enforcement, to civil rights, national security, capital punishment, sentencing, and the U.S. Supreme Court. This job is one I know well. Like some of my colleagues, I served as U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice as the chief Federal prosecutor for Connecticut, for several years, reporting to the U.S. Attorney General, and, then, for several years afterward, as a private litigator, and, then, for 20 years as attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I fought alongside, and sometimes against, the U.S. Attorney General and the armies of lawyers at his disposal. In fact, the Attorney General commands thousands of lawyers who embody his power to speak on behalf of the United States. His job is to protect the public from criminal offenders and to convict the guilty, but also to protect the innocent who may be wrongly accused and to assure that justice is done. In fact, as Justice Jackson said about the role of the U.S. Attorney General, which he filled, he is to seek justice, not just win cases. I know how powerful this position can be and how crucial the Attorney General is not as the appointee of a politician but as a servant of justice. In discharging this sacred obligation, the Attorney General must always remain independent, not just in reality but in appearance. His decisions must supersede partisan politics. In most cases, there is, in fact, no recourse from his decision without political interference, which would be improper. He is not just another government lawyer. He is not just another Cabinet position. He is the Nation's lawyer. He is the people's lawyer. He must be the Nation's legal conscience. This job requires a singular level of intellect and integrity, and a nonpartisan, but passionate devotion to the rule of law. Over the past week, as our Nation's courts did their job and sorted through the implications of the President's hasty, ill-conceived, and illegal Executive orders, President Trump called into question the very integrity of our judicial system. Not only did he label U.S. District Court Judge Robart a ``so-called judge,'' but he also suggested that the American people should blame him and our ``court system'' if something should happen as a result of the court's blocking his Executive order. In this anticipatory blame, the bluster and bullying are inappropriate and un-Presidential, and I believe they threaten harm to our democracy as well as the judicial system. The comments were deeply disturbing to all of us who believe in the integrity of the judicial system--including the American Bar Association, which said through Linda Klein, its president, that ``personal attacks on judges are attacks on our Constitution,'' and ``the independence of the judiciary is not up for negotiation . . . independence from party politics, independence from Congress, and independence from the president of the United States himself.'' Ms. Klein called upon all lawyers to defend the rule of law in light of these attacks on the Constitution. I echo this call proudly today, the importance of which cannot be overstated. Nowhere is that job more significant than the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States as head of that Department. The agency is tasked with seeking and achieving justice, not with carrying out the President's agenda as a priority. That does not mean lawyers at the Department of Justice who are currently defending the orders in court are acting improperly or wrongly. What it means is, the country needs an independent justice system staffed by people who are ready to stand up and speak out to a President whose orders may contravene constitutional law. We saw this principle in action last week. We saw what it really means to serve at the Department of Justice and represent not the President but the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Former Acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates took a stand based on moral and legal principle, and I thank Ms. Yates for her courage and strength in that action. Holding herself to the highest traditions of the Department of Justice, Ms. Yates said that in her judgment these orders cannot be defended, that the rule of law and morality is more important than the politics of the moment and the impulsive edicts of a ruler who apparently fails to uphold the law. Her actions raised the question of whether the next Attorney General will have the same courage and strength. Ms. Yates demonstrated genuine grit and grace in standing strong for the rule of law. Her actions are in the long, proud tradition of the Department. Not since Watergate has an Attorney General or Acting Attorney General been fired for acting in accordance with their conscience and the rule of law. Unfortunately, President Trump threatens to return us to that era. He has made his intentions clear: The Department of Justice will not be an independent authority acting on behalf of the American people. Instead, it will be just another enabler of the President's ongoing efforts to substitute his whims and wishes for legal and ethical responsibilities. I believe the President's orders are misguided and illegal. The courts will rule in days. His orders are wrong, in no small part, because they threaten to take away one of the primary reasons why ours is the greatest country in the history of the world--the country that my father, a refugee from Nazi Germany, sought in 1935. He arrived here at 17 years old with not much more than the shirt on his back, speaking little English, knowing just about no one. This country gave him the chance to succeed. I think about how sad and ashamed he would be if he saw the actions taken by this President: orders to ban people from coming into this country because of their religion; prioritizing one religion against another and raising fears that do damage to our core constitutional principles. Barring refugees like children who are harmed in other lands seeking to come to this country deprives us of the great talents, gifts, and energy that have helped to shape and build this country because we are truly stronger as a result of our diversity. We are a nation of immigrants. Our strength comes from the talents, energy, and vibrancy of these individuals who come to this country as children with their parents. This order makes us less safe because it provides a recruiting tool to extremists like ISIS. We are at war with ISIS, and we must win that war. It frays trust between law enforcement and Muslim communities, but it also weakens us in a deeper moral sense. It is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is wrong for this great country, devoted and founded on the ideals welcoming people seeking that beacon of hope, opportunity, and protection. The rule of law protects us from these moral harms, but the rule of law depends on people. Fortunately, even as we have seen the harms of these past few days play out in real time, we have also seen people who are willing to stand strong against them. People have gone to the streets in marches and rallies in the New Haven Green and in front of our State capitol in Connecticut, and all across our State, saying it is not only wrong, but they will rally against this wrong. All of these points are simply to say that the position of Attorney General is so important because he must stand strong as well for the rule of law. He must be able to speak truth to power. He must have the courage and strength to say to the President of the United States: This order is unconstitutional, not just unwise and unwarranted but illegal. I have, unfortunately, reached the conclusion that Senator Sessions cannot be counted on to play that role, to defend the rule of law, to be a champion of civil rights and civil liberties, not to just follow the law but to lead in this challenge that faces our country as never before because our rights and liberties are now threatened as never before. He must be a vigorous advocate, not a passive follower of the law. Senator Sessions showed this point to me through his testimony at his hearing and his subsequent responses. While he must be ready to say no to the President, what we saw demonstrated so vividly is that Senator Sessions' record and testimony indicates he is unwilling or unready to perform his core tasks. President Trump's vast business holdings present an unprecedented threat of conflict of interest. Yet the President has not only refused to divest himself, he has mocked the idea that he should. Should conflicts arise, the Attorney General must be willing to maintain impartiality, including appointing a special counsel or prosecutor if necessary. There are so many scenarios requiring this step. Yet when I asked Senator Sessions about enforcement of cases against illegal conflicts of interest involving the President and his family--such as violations of the emoluments clause or the STOCK Act--he equivocated. When I asked him about appointing a special counsel to investigate criminal wrongdoing at Deutsche Bank, owed more than $300 million by President Donald Trump, he equivocated. When I asked him about the investigation of Russian hacking, he equivocated. His answers to questions I submitted to him in writing were no better. Those answers give me no confidence that he will be an independent, nonpolitical enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment that the Nation needs. At a moment when the incoming administration faces ethical and legal controversies that are unprecedented in scope and scale, Senator Sessions has simply given us no confidence that he will appoint an independent counsel or demonstrate the independence that is necessary. His record over many years and his recent testimony fail to demonstrate the core commitments and convictions necessary to be our next Attorney General. He has failed to show how he can be that legal conscience, that unmistakable, unshakable, ethical voice independent from the White House. He has failed to prove that he will be a champion of constitutional rights. Indeed, his career demonstrates an antipathy and hostility to the very rights and liberties that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer must always promote proactively, as well as defend. Focus for a moment, shall we, on some of the rights that affect women and their privacy. Women comprise more than half the population, but unfortunately our society and our laws have too frequently prevented them from achieving the equality that every American should enjoy. Over the course of his career, Senator Sessions has opposed key legislation that protects and further enhances women's rights. As a Senator, that trend was worrying. As Attorney General of the United States, it must be disqualifying. In 1973, the Supreme Court recognized a vital constitutional right of privacy for women. It is a right that is both basic and fundamental, now enshrined in five decades of precedent, that women have the freedom to choose what medical procedures they will undergo to make private health care decisions and personal reproductive rights decisions without interference from the government. As we all know, declaring abortion illegal solves no problem. Laws against abortion do not stop them from happening, it simply stops them from happening in a safe, legal manner. Laws that restrict abortion force women to put their own lives at peril rather than enjoying full freedom. Yet Senator Sessions' congressional record and hearing show that he is inherently opposed to providing women with the ability to make those preeminently private health care decisions. He has gone on record stating he believes Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound and wrongly decided. He voted against an amendment that expressed constitutional support for the underlying Supreme Court decision. Most troubling, he supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion with only a few inadequate exceptions. It is no surprise that he has been supported by extremist groups like Operation Rescue. As Attorney General of the United States, Senator Sessions would be tasked with protecting the very women whose rights he has criticized. Far too many women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights are already faced with violence and harassment outside of health clinics. I know only too well the kind of intimidation and fear- inspired actions that can take place because as attorney general of my State, I enforce the statute to protect those clinics. Those women look to the Department of Justice to enforce the Federal law that prohibits interference with people seeking to access these clinics, and it keeps them safe. There is a very real concern about whether these women will receive the same protection under Senator Sessions' tenure. With limited resources across the Department of Justice, decisions must be made by the Attorney General in setting priorities for enforcement. Senator Sessions' past positions and stances make clear that the protection of women's rights is far from a priority for him. He told me at the hearing that he would ``enforce the law.'' But when important constitutional rights are under threat, American women need more than someone who will simply follow or enforce the law. They need a champion and so do all of our civil rights and civil liberties and voting rights and other key freedoms. I am disturbed as well by Senator Sessions' vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He has stated that he does not oppose the principle or some of the provisions of the law, and I take him at his word, but the circumstances behind his vote are no less disturbing. We must recognize that our Nation's tribal communities face epidemics of both domestic and sexual violence. Studies show that almost three out of five Native American women have been assaulted and that one-third of all Native American women are raped during their lifetime. The VAWA Reauthorization of 2013, the Violence Against Women Act, that he voted against included significant new language that closed a glaring loophole in the jurisdictional requirements of this basic law. The bill guaranteed and granted tribal communities power over non- Indian defendants who commit domestic violence against Native Americans in Indian Country. Before the reauthorization act, tribal courts lacked jurisdiction to prosecute these horrific crimes and often the assaulter would escape prosecution entirely. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions told us that he had ``a big concern'' about that jurisdictional provision in the reauthorization act. He was concerned that the law would leave non- Native Americans open to prosecution under tribal law, despite safeguards in the bill that were clear and unequivocal. The large gaps that the original law left were apparently acceptable to him. Additionally, the VAWA reauthorization included a nondiscrimination clause. This provision protects members of the LGBT community from discrimination in housing and employment, schools, and other areas of civil rights cases. Senator Sessions also took this issue with the nondiscrimination provisions in the reauthorization act, including the protection for LGBT individuals. He took issue with those provisions. I am concerned, also, by several other votes that Senator Sessions took in 2004. He voted against extending Federal unemployment benefits to people who leave their jobs as a result of being victims of domestic or sexual assault. In 2009, he voted against an amendment which would have strengthened the rights of victims of wage discrimination, contributing to the roadblocks and hurdles that women encounter while facing issues of inequality. As recently as March of 2015, Senator Sessions voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, a vote he has taken multiple times before. These bills sought to strengthen women's rights and opportunities in the workplace. In 2017, our world is one where women still struggle to obtain the same pay levels as men in the workplace for the same work. This kind of discrimination is un-American and really an embarrassment to our Nation. Senator Sessions' voting record consistently shows his opposition to this kind of key legislation designed to protect women from oppression and discrimination and protect women's autonomy and choice, and I cannot support an Attorney General with this record. Speaking on the floor some time ago, I added other details as to the reasons why I have opposed Senator Sessions. I see colleagues on the floor right now so I will end here with this point. Over the past weeks, I have received an outpouring of outrage from throughout my State of Connecticut, more than 4,500 letters from Connecticut residents opposing this nomination because they recognize the need, the desperate imperative for a true champion of civil rights and liberties, constitutional freedoms in this office facing the threat that is more real and urgent than ever before in our history. Just hours ago, I received a million signatures on a petition from civil rights groups. They are contained magically on a thumb drive that is so easy to display, even if the signatures are not readily visible, but these million brave and steadfast individuals and the organizations that represent them. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Liberties, other groups that have proudly and actively worked on this cause are to be thanked, as are the advocates throughout the country who have galvanized public opinion, raised awareness, and shown what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like. This is what America looks like. This is what Connecticut looks like--people rallying and rising up against an unconstitutional immigration ban, against a set of nominees that fail to reflect and serve America against an Attorney General nominee, in particular, who cannot be relied upon to actively and aggressively, vigorously, and vigilantly protect our constitutional rights and liberties. We need a champion of those rights and liberties. I regretfully oppose Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General because we cannot count on him to do so, and I urge my colleagues to join in this opposition. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my great colleague and a champion of education and consumer rights, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and to address this body and, most particularly, the Presiding Officer, who has contributed so much himself to the cause of education. We know, better than anyone, how important the Federal commitment to quality education is--not just a C or D education but excellence in education. The American people deserve a Secretary of Education who embodies and exemplifies that commitment to excellence. Unfortunately, the nominee before us, Betsy DeVos, fails on every count to meet that standard. So I am here today to voice my continuing concern about this nomination, which is antithetical to the very mission of the Department she has been selected to lead. She is unquestionably unqualified, unknowledgeable, unprepared for this job. She is unfit to run the Department of Education. As hard and as unkind as that verdict sounds, we have an obligation to speak truth here and speak that truth to power, even when it is the President of the United States, even when it is a job as critically important as Secretary of Education--especially when it is as important as this job. She is wealthy. She is a billionaire. She has committed her career to pushing for private school vouchers and unregulated charter schools. Having reviewed her full record, including her confirmation hearing and her responses and lack of responses to followup questions that my colleagues sent to her, I respectfully say to my colleagues: We should not approve this person. She has committed her career to pushing for private school vouchers and unregulated charter schools, not to the public education our students deserve. The incoming Secretary of Education will face a myriad of challenging and constantly evolving problems that will demand a high level of leadership and guidance, from soaring student debt to faltering school and student achievement scores across the country, to the pervasive school violence and bullying that threatens so many of our students, to unscrupulous for-profit schools, profiteering off students and veterans. Clearly, the problems, these problems and others, require a Secretary who will not just rubberstamp or approve the policies of special interests or delegate systematic problems to private schools. The Secretary of Education is responsible for overseeing a budget of Federal spending over $36 billion--that is K-12 education funding--and $150 billion in higher education funding each year. In addition, there is a portfolio of more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding Federal loans. That is the largest consumer debt in this country other than mortgage loans. The leader of this Department is responsible for determining policies that affect our neighborhood public schools. She is responsible, if she is confirmed, for enforcing key protections under a number of civil rights laws designed to ensure every child access to education. This job requires a singular level of intellect and energy, preparation, devotion to the welfare of students, parents, and, yes, educators and teachers. Our educators and teachers are the real heroes of our educational system. Our public schoolteachers are second to none in the world for their commitment to opening businesses, creating dreams, and enabling students to achieve those dreams, and those dreams will be in peril if Betsy DeVos is our Secretary of Education because she has demonstrated her disrespect for the enterprise of public education. From implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act, improving education quality, protecting Pell Grant Programs, and reducing pervasive student debt in higher education, to policing the epidemic of campus sexual assault and protecting students' civil rights at schools across the country, clearly our Nation's chief education executive needs to be immensely qualified--not just questionably qualified--but unchallengeably prepared and well versed in these complicated issues. The fact is, Mrs. DeVos has no relevant experience as a teacher or as a leader of a public school. She has said that neither she nor her children have ever received a student loan or a Pell grant. She has no direct experience with our public education system that would enable her to lead it. In addition to her lack of knowledge of higher education public schools, she has demonstrated a profound animosity, an antipathy to them. She has spent her career systematically privatizing and dismantling public schools instead of working to build them and improve them. For decades, Mrs. DeVos spent millions of her fortune advocating for the diversion of public money to unacceptable private schools and unaccountable private schools, especially in her home State of Michigan. Mrs. DeVos helped to design an ineffective charter school system with little accountability for results in Detroit. However, the systems that she helped to design and promote actually siphoned money from Michigan's already underfunded public school system and caused achievement rates there to drastically plummet. Despite her rhetoric, school privatization schemes are plagued with severe problems. They often strip students with disabilities and their families of their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This point underscores a fundamental theme for Mrs. DeVos's record, indicating how she would pose a threat--in fact, an unprecedented danger to students' civil rights across the board. When asked during her confirmation hearing about the IDEA, Mrs. DeVos admitted that she was ``confused'' and thought that States were best positioned to enforce the Federal law. That answer exposed not only her lack of knowledge but her lack of caring. Someone who cares about students with disabilities would have known that this landmark education law depends on Federal enforcement for its effect, and she, as Education Secretary, would be the one to do that enforcement. Before the passage of the 1975 law that later became the IDEA, when decisions about students with disabilities were left to the States, only one in five students with disabilities received an education. Does she believe that we ought to go back to a time when States were able to openly discriminate against students with disabilities, that States should be again delegated that responsibility, which they failed to enforce effectively? Whatever her answer, clearly her blatant disregard for the IDEA threatens students with disabilities and already underfunded disability programs. Mrs. DeVos also threatens students' rights and campus safety under title IX, including rights that are designed to protect students against campus sexual assault and other violence. This issue has concerned me. I have held roundtables around the State of Connecticut and have submitted a measured bill that would help address this problem at the college level. But Mrs. DeVos has advocated for legislation that would actually increase the difficulty for victims of sexual assault to receive support. During her hearing, Mrs. DeVos told Senator Casey, my colleague, that she could not commit to continuing the Obama administration's title IX guidance that requires schools to have procedures in place to investigate and address instances of campus sexual assault or risk losing Federal funding. That title IX commitment is at the core of the Federal responsibility to protect students against sexual assault. We can agree or disagree on the detail, but this blatant disregard for title IX responsibilities goes to the essence of her commitment to education in this Nation and to protecting students against the scourge of sexual assault, which we know is all too pervasive still on many of our campuses. Even worse, according to tax records, Mrs. DeVos has spent millions of dollars funding ultraconservative organizations that promote anti- choice, anti-Muslim, and anti-LGBT policies like conversion therapy. I never would have thought that I would be on the floor of the Senate considering a candidate who supported anti-LGBT policies or anti-choice or anti-Muslim policies. They don't belong in our schools. They certainly should not be supported by our Nation's Secretary of Education. On the issue of for-profit education, again, it is a source of great concern because it has given rise to so many abusive tactics directed often against our veterans. During her Senate hearing, Mrs. DeVos did little to allay my concerns about her record as a school choice advocate and political donor, averse to protection against the abuses of for-profit. We know there are for-profit schools and colleges that do great work. They contribute vitally, but unfortunately, for-profits also have been plagued by abuses that need to be fought and overcome. Mrs. DeVos successfully lobbied to expand even failing schools in Michigan and to protect those for-profits from scrutiny and oversight. This record of enabling for-profits and her own self-dealing in a for- profit preschool herself does not bode well--that is an understatement--for the hundreds of thousands of students who have been neglected, deceived, and scammed in recent years by predatory for-profit college institutions like Corinthian Colleges and ITT Tech. They left in their wake, when they collapsed and failed those students, a myriad of tragic stories, tragedies not just for the loss of money but for the loss of future opportunities, and that is far from the kind of record that we want replicated under our next Secretary of Education. In fact, during her hearing, Senator Murray asked Mrs. DeVos about 17 specific bad actor for-profit higher education institutions, including Corinthian and ITT. They have been accused of using exotic dancers to recruit students, falsifying job placement rates, or stealing Federal financial aid. Mrs. DeVos would not confirm whether she believes that those practices and misuse of taxpayer funds at any of those 17 schools are, in fact, unacceptable. She simply would not respond definitively to that question. The Secretary of Education is responsible for policies that could either lift or exacerbate the crushing burden of student debt at those for-profit schools. She is the one who could alleviate that burden, yet she refused to commit to protecting any current student loan repayment options or benefits or even helping severely disabled borrowers receive loan discharges that they qualify for. She refused to commit to protecting the Pell grant, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, or maintaining the existing transparency information on the college scorecard or Federal student aid data center. Mrs. DeVos refused to commit to keep private banks out of the student loan system or ensure that taxpayers do not subsidize career education programs that consistently leave students with unaffordable mounds of debt, without meaningful prospects in the job market. Her record and her responses to Senate questioning reveal that putting her in charge of the Department of Education would be akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. I realize that analogy is overused, particularly in this town, where there are so many instances of it. But her lack of appropriate, definitive responses are as telling and compelling as her answers about her commitment to protecting, rather than endangering, the individuals and institutions that will be her mission if this body confirms her. As a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have a special interest in protecting our Nation's servicemembers and veterans from insidious and pernicious predatory for-profit colleges. It is a paramount concern. It ought to be a paramount concern for our Nation because all too often, veterans are victims of these predatory for- profit colleges who lure them even while they are still in the military. They lure them with promises and images that create expectations never to be fulfilled, and so many veterans emerge from these colleges with mounds of debt but no degree. Yet Mrs. DeVos refused to say whether she understands that Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense student loan and assistance programs are even federally funded or whether she would commit to closing the 90-10 loophole that has enabled colleges to aggressively market and mislead many vets. We have all spoken on the floor about the need to close that loophole. It is the plain vanilla solution that should be a matter of consensus, yet Mrs. DeVos refused to commit on that issue. She has earned a failing grade for lack of study, complete lack of diligence in preparing for her testimony and to lead in higher education programs. Her commitment to protect students and veterans from massive debt, low-quality education standards and accountability, or pernicious for-profit companies and leaders deserves a failing grade as well. I will not support a nominee who fails to agree that predatory practices, exploitation of taxpayers, and deception of students have no place in our education system. While Mrs. DeVos evaded questions about bringing accountability to schools, she also refused to commit to keeping guns out of schools. When asked by my colleague Chris Murphy whether guns have any place in or around schools, Mrs. DeVos gave the following reply: ``I would imagine that there is probably a gun in the schools to protect from potential grizzlies.'' That statement has given a lot of amusement to a lot of people around the country, but it deals with such an intensely serious subject, that it is really no laughing matter. All of us who went through the tragedy and grief experienced by those families and loved ones who lost children in Sandy Hook, CT, and saw the strength and courage of the Newtown community cannot regard with anything but contempt that answer. When she was further pressured whether she would support a plan from President Trump to ban gun-free school zones, Mrs. DeVos revealed that she would support ``whatever the President does.'' In some ways, that answer is as repugnant as the remark about grizzlies, saying she would follow whatever the President does, without leading and providing vision and intellectual tools that are necessary for the President to act, is an abdication of responsibility. These answers are woefully unacceptable. We recently observed the fourth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. We still remember the 20 beautiful children and 6 exceptional educators who were brutally murdered in Newtown. The day of the Sandy Hook shooting was the most heartbreaking day of all my years in public service. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, there have been at least 210 school shootings since Sandy Hook. Words cannot capture the sense of grief and outrage we must feel in the face of continued gun violence around the country--in our schools, malls, clubs, churches, public venues, and private homes. This scourge of gun violence must be combated, and yet Mrs. DeVos has indicated she is impervious to the emotional force of the tragedies arising from gun violence. I want to share a passage from a column written by my friend Erica Lafferty, the daughter of Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung. Dawn was the heroic principal of Sandy Hook Elementary School murdered at the massacre that day as she desperately attempted to save her students and staff. My mom spent her life preparing to take care of students. She earned a degree in education. She spent years in a classroom, teaching special education for kindergartners and middle-schoolers. By the time she became a principal of Sandy Hook, she knew exactly what elementary schools should be--a happy place for kids where they could learn and grow in a safe environment. To claim that she should have done more to take care of her kids is an insult to all that she did, and to the lengths to which so many teachers go to ensure a good and safe learning environment. That Mrs. DeVos thinks ``bears'' when asked about guns in schools proves just how little she has considered the important role of the Education Secretary in keeping students and faculty safe. It is insulting to tell teachers that they should add ``sharpshooter'' to their job descriptions. It is absurd to teach students to duck and cover in active shooter drills rather than demanding our legislators do the responsible thing and make it more difficult for dangerous people to get their hands on firearms. That is what Betsy DeVos should have said in her hearing when she was asked about gun violence in our schools. That is the sense of outrage that should have come from her spontaneously, and it should be the leadership that she should provide. There is nothing more important than keeping our children safe from anyone who would do them harm, particularly in a school, which should be the safest place in the world, and that means that our Secretary of Education must provide leadership, courage, and strength to stand up to an administration that fails in its responsibility on the issue of gun violence. The families of Sandy Hook asked us to honor their children and family members with action, to make America safer and to make our schools safer. I cannot support a nominee who fails to prioritize the basic safety of students in our schools or take the scourge of gun violence seriously. I cannot support Betsy DeVos because she fails to demonstrate basic caring--put aside her lack of knowledge--but a basic caring about the fate of students who may be in danger of gun violence and equally in danger of failing to achieve the American dream. Her responsibility is beyond being a bureaucrat or a placeholder in a Federal organization chart. She has a public trust, even as a nominee, to show America the importance of public education. Her career is about demeaning and detracting from public schools. Her testimony at the Senate hearing betrayed a lack of preparing that would disqualify students in schools from a passing grade. I have received numerous correspondence, letters, and emails about this nomination. In fact, 14,000 letters from teachers, concerned parents, and citizens expressing outrage at the threat that Mrs. DeVos poses to public education, disability rights, and student success. For a small State like Connecticut, 14,000 emails and letters is unprecedented. It is an outpouring, an uproar that is certainly unprecedented in my time in the U.S. Senate and in the memory of staff who work here. These letters come from teachers, students, parents, really everyone affected by public education. I want to close by saluting them and most especially the teachers and parents who are so committed to their students. Erin, a third grade teacher from Connecticut captured this fear in her letter to my office: I write this to you as a teacher in despair. After a decade and a half of public service as a teacher, I fear that our basic precepts of our obligation to educate ALL children has come into question. I am fearful of what lies ahead for my students if someone like Mrs. DeVos is in charge of our Department of Education. Her lack of experience in public education, her desire to separate and sort our children by their income, academic ability and socioeconomic status, her blatant disregard for students with special needs and our obligations to these students under IDEA--strike panic in the education community. One of the best things about being a public school teacher is the challenge and privilege to work with all kinds of students with all kinds of abilities and needs. I have the honor to work in a school that is rooted in the inclusion of all students. More than 15% of the students in my school have special needs. We are so proud to provide this group with the services that are specialized just for them to meet their academic, social and emotional needs. You see, our work here is not merely about proficiency, it is indeed about growth. We are tasked to help our children grow to their own individual potential--not just meet a mandated standard. When I think of some of the beautiful and important achievements that my students make, they are often not about a score on a proficiency test. I think of the autistic student in my class that is working to be able to communicate his wants and need to others. When he can play a board game with a peer, that is growth. My classroom reflects the tapestry of our American society. I have students of all abilities and needs and we have built a caring classroom community that allows for us all to grow each day. I have been highly trained to work with ALL students. I assure that my student's Individualized Education Program goals under the law are being provided for. I seek out and provide resources. I advocate. I accommodate educational programs to meet each child's unique learning needs. I encourage. I celebrate the milestones and yes, the growth. The public education system as we know it ensures a free and equitable education for all students--regardless of their academic needs, their socioeconomic status, their race, religion or parental involvement. Please continue your efforts to convince your fellow Senators that Mrs. DeVos will be a reprehensible choice for our Department of Education. Jen, another teacher in Connecticut shared a similar message with me in her letter to my office: I am a teacher in esteemed Fairfield County, Connecticut-- but don't let the package fool you. My section of Fairfield County, my very public middle School in Danbury, Connecticut has hosted over 37 nationalities at one time under one roof. You see, our public schools are a mirror. Our schools reflect the world as it exists outside our doors. We open them and the world pours in. This is how it works. We offer influence. We set expectations. We administer tests and benchmarks and are tied to terms like ``proficiency'' and ``growth''. Within this academic framework, cultures clash. It's inevitable. Differences abound. And yet, in this sphere of gaps and spaces, we bridge to one another. We reach because we have to; there is no option. We see differences and we've learned the inherent power in them. We develop minds of course--but we also develop tolerant citizens who can thrive in a multi-cultural and diverse society. Vouchers and school choice, as Mrs. DeVos champions, present as an antithesis to these core democratic philosophies. What is showcased as an opportunity for growth is a thin veil for layered discriminatory practices. Vouchers decrease the potential of many to the potential of few. Vouchers are a cousin to segregation, if not a sibling-- and the consideration of DeVos as secretary undermines, with longevity, the very fabric of a United Nation. I was asked to share personal stories and I can--I've seen it all in fifteen years: kids who experience unprecedented success and kids who break your heart in two with the devastation forced upon them. We can't ever know who will triumph, it is impossible to know--we can only keep the playing field as fair and accessible as possible to all. Deborah, a fourth grade teacher from Connecticut, was frustrated with the conflicts of interest surrounding Mrs. DeVos in her letter to my office: Mrs. DeVos has a very clear conflict of interest on many levels. Financially, she wants to maintain the $5-25 million dollar investment she has in Neurocore, a biotech company which deals with attention deficit disorder. Her investment in Windquest Group, which backs Neurocare, is a company focused on ``a science and brain-based program that targets children is clearly a conflict. She has presented a clear history of donating to and investing in companies or organizations which affect students. As a teacher in a Title I public school, it is essential that the Secretary of Education is equipped to deal with the issues we deal with every day. In my class I routinely deal with issues of poverty, homelessness, underfed students who count on free or reduced meals and extra food sent home weekly for the weekend. Their parents normally work two or three jobs to try to pay the bills. If a student is hungry, they are concerned with where their next meal is coming from, not which genre I'm teaching. This is not a business, it's personal for every student we teach. If students are held to standards which are not realistic, supported, funded, or understood by the federal government then the ability to achieve & thrive as a society will cease to exist. Finally, Nancy, a 26 year veteran of teaching and Danbury, CT, 2016 Teacher of the Year, shared anecdotes of her experiences teaching special education students. Here is a passage from her letter: Please do not approve a person who has no experience with public education and has no clear understanding about student need or how students learn. This is an extremely important job. We should not take it lightly and just let anyone take that title. Mrs. DeVos' plan for our children will disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and quite honestly, every child in America. Her inaccurate, incomplete and poor answers to questions posed to her by Congress as well as her track record in Michigan where she worked to destroy public education, serve as evidence that she is not qualified for the job. She bought her way to this appointment with huge donations to those who would vote for her. She does not understand that education is not a for-profit business; it is an investment in our most important resource and the future of this country--our children. Betsy DeVos is not the right person to lead education in the United States of America. I will finish by saying that I firmly believe we owe our students high standards, just as we demand of them high performance, but that requires of us a commitment that Betsy DeVos has failed to make. It is a commitment to invest more resources in public education, to give back and give more to our public schools. After observing her testimony, I am convinced she lacks that leadership ability or requisite record to serve as the steward of public education and to hold that trust that our country desperately and urgently needs now, not at some point in the future. That commitment is necessary now because every day, every month, every year is a lifetime in a student's education. So I will vote against her confirmation today, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.