Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we gather on the floor of the Senate at an unusually early hour. In fact, the Senate has been in session all night. The question before us is the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education. It is possibly the most controversial nomination made by our new President Trump. This is an office which doesn't usually attract this kind of controversy. Former Secretaries of Education have included Arne Duncan, who ran the Chicago Public Schools system. He was the first to be appointed in the first term of President Obama. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee--who is a friend of mine and whom I have served with-- before his service in the Senate, was also the Secretary of Education. The choice is usually one that is bipartisan and largely supported by not only teachers but parents and administrators and education officials from across the United States. In this case, though, we have in Betsy DeVos of Michigan a person of some controversy. Last Saturday, I spoke to the Illinois Education Association, a group of about 150 teachers who had gathered in Springfield, IL. They have been my friends for many years. Cinda Klickna, who is the President of the organization--we have a relationship that goes back to the days when she was a classroom teacher--she now has risen through the ranks and heads up one of the major teachers organizations in our State. Cinda is a true teacher at heart and really cares for students, cares for schools. She has devoted her life to it. She brought together 150 of her best teachers from around the State, preparing them to become more active politically in our State and Nation. Naturally, they were tuned into this nomination of Betsy DeVos. They have a lot on their minds these days with the selection of the new President. Nearly all of them have written me, sent me an email, or contacted me personally opposing the nomination of Betsy DeVos. I have not met Betsy DeVos. We tried to set up our schedules so I could, but it didn't work. I take as much blame as necessary for that not happening. I have studied her background. I have paid close attention to what she has said since she has been nominated and tried to understand where she comes from. It is true that she is a person of wealth. The Prince family, which she was born into, is well known in the Midwest and in Michigan for its success in the automotive industry and many other endeavors. Then, she married into the DeVoses of Amway, another legendary business, where she has been able to accumulate some money. There is nothing wrong with that in America. In fact, many people aspire to it and reach that goal and are admired for reaching it. It doesn't disqualify her for anything in life as far as I am concerned, but it does not necessarily qualify her for certain things in life. It is not clear to me from her record, when it comes to the field of education, that she is prepared to serve this Nation as our next Secretary of Education. I don't find in her background qualifications for the job that I found when the Presiding Officer was chosen as Secretary of Education or when my friend Arne Duncan of Chicago, whom I had breakfast with yesterday, was chosen for the same position. Ms. DeVos's experience in education is limited to using her family's substantial wealth to push for a so-called reform agenda in her home State of Michigan. Ms. DeVos has never been a teacher. She has never been an administrator. In fact, she has never held any job in public education. Neither she nor her children have attended public school. That is not a disqualification. I attended Catholic schools. My children attended both. She has never been a professor or college president. She has never had anything to do with college financial aid, as I understand it. She has never been involved in a loan program--least of all one as large and complex as the Department of Education's Direct Loan Program. She has never taken out a Federal student loan, nor have her children. Admittedly, that is not a requirement to be Secretary of Education, to have had any of these experiences, but had she had even one or two of these, we could point to real-life experiences which would prepare her for this awesome administrative responsibility. I think these gaps in her life experience are fair to raise when a nominee to be the Nation's top authority in education has shown a lack of familiarity with even basic educational policy issues, as Ms. DeVos did in her testimony before the Senate HELP Committee. She could not articulate the difference between proficiency and growth in the context of K-12 accountability. I can tell you that Saturday at the Illinois Education Association meeting, everyone in the room knew those terms well. They knew the central role they had played in the national debate on education since the election of President George W. Bush and the creation of No Child Left Behind. Ms. DeVos also said in her testimony that States should be able to decide whether to enforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. She apparently didn't know that IDEA is already a Federal law and has been for more than 40 years. As a nominee, Ms. DeVos did not do her homework. Is that the person we want as Secretary of Education? The experience Ms. DeVos has is limited to using her considerable wealth in favor of an agenda for so-called school choice. Ms. DeVos has spent years supporting school vouchers, which funnel taxpayers' money from public schools into private schools. I am familiar with that model, as it was implemented here in the District of Columbia years ago. It actually started with an amendment in the Appropriations Committee by a friend of mine. Mike DeWine was the Senator from Ohio and offered an amendment to create a voucher program in the District of Columbia. It was a surprise because a markup of the Senate Appropriations Committee is not usually the place you tackle something of that moment, but he offered it, and I offered some amendments. The notion behind it was that the District of Columbia would provide vouchers for the parents of children so they could choose the schools for the kids. They wouldn't be forced to attend public schools. They might not attend charter schools. They might choose instead to use their voucher to send their kids to a private school. I offered three amendments that day in the Appropriations Committee. The fate of those amendments told a pretty graphic story about the voucher program in the District of Columbia, and it also reflects on the candidacy of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education. The three amendments were, No. 1, that the teachers in the voucher schools had to have college degrees. That to me did not sound like a radical idea. Most of us assume that if you are going to teach in a school, you have a college diploma. It turns out my amendment was rejected with the DC voucher program that day when it was offered. The argument was made they needed more flexibility in terms of who would teach in these schools. That was worrisome. The second amendment I offered said that the schools themselves, the students, had to take the same test--achievement test--as students in public schools in DC so we could measure one against the other. That amendment was also rejected. They wanted to have the right in the so- called voucher schools to have their own set of tests that they would approve, not necessarily the same test as the kids in public schools. That amendment failed. The third amendment I was sure would pass, but it failed as well. The third amendment said the actual school buildings used for DC voucher schools had to pass the fire safety code requirements of the District of Columbia, and that was defeated too. I voted against the DC voucher program for those reasons. I couldn't understand how you could push for a voucher program not guaranteeing that the teachers had diplomas from colleges, that they had schools in safe buildings, and that the students would be tested against the same public school test that DC Public School students faced. That raised questions in my mind about the true intent and motive of those who were pushing voucher schools. Ms. DeVos, in Michigan, has been a proponent of voucher schools. She has pushed the expansion of charter schools and used her extraordinary wealth to insulate them from commonsense oversight and accountability in her State. Even as the schools failed to deliver on the promises made to children of parents, Ms. DeVos continued to protect them from the same accountability standards as public schools. In 2015, a Federal review found ``an unreasonably high'' percentage of charter schools on the list of Michigan's lowest performing schools. Today, for-profit companies operate almost 80 percent of charters in Michigan, more than any other State, and are underperforming compared to public school counterparts. Let me be clear. I believe some charter schools can be effective. I have visited so many schools in my State, public schools, Catholic schools, charter schools, every imaginable school. I have supported high-performing successful charter programs. I think about the KIPP program here in the District of Columbia, in Chicago, and other places, consistently producing some of the highest results, the best results, and the highest standards for students. Is there a lesson to be learned from the KIPP model for all schools? Of course there is. You have to be blind to ignore it. But on average, charter schools don't perform any better than public schools--on average. To say that this is a model that we should embrace regardless is unfair to students. If we are going to exalt performance and results, let's do it in an honest fashion. These schools that receive Federal and State taxpayer funding should be held accountable, as all schools. Ms. DeVos doesn't agree. Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia asked Ms. DeVos at her confirmation hearing if she agreed with equal accountability for any K-12 school that receives taxpayer funding, whether that school is public, charter, or private. She refused to agree, and at one point even said ``no''. Ms. DeVos also seems unwilling to acknowledge that many private and charter schools are not equipped to support students with disabilities and other special needs in the way the public schools are required to do. These students, along with many low-income and minority students, would certainly be left behind in Ms. DeVos's ideal education world. Last year--and the Presiding Officer was a major part of this decision--Congress did what seemed unimaginable. We came together and passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. ESSA makes important improvements to our elementary and secondary education program. It requires States to set academic standards, measure student achievement, and develop accountability plans for all schools receiving Federal money. Giving Illinois parents, teachers, and principals a replacement to No Child Left Behind was a great bipartisan achievement. I do want to call out in a favorable way, my colleague, the Presiding Officer, Senator Alexander of Tennessee, and my colleague Senator Murray of the State of Washington. They did a great job. While ESSA provides more authority to States and local school districts, it also included important Federal guardrails to ensure key civil rights protections and holds States and school districts accountable. Federal rules to carry out that important Federal task are now in doubt and in jeopardy. I don't have confidence that, as Secretary, Ms. DeVos will appropriately carry out the Federal Government's responsibility under the law to ensure that all students--regardless of income, race, gender, or disability--are achieving. For me, it all boils down to this. I do not believe Betsy DeVos will keep the promise we made more than 50 years ago when Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which guaranteed in the United States of America a free and equal quality public education to every child. I am not going to give up on that promise, which really is a bedrock principle of America. There is more work to do, I am sure, but I believe we can improve America's public schools. Let me also say that I couldn't disagree more with what Ms. DeVos has said about guns in schools. My colleague Senator Chris Murphy represents the State of Connecticut. Both he and Senator Blumenthal have told us many times, in heartbreaking and graphic detail, what happened that day at Sandy Hook Elementary--what they went through just as observers--what they saw in the eyes of the parents who came to realize that their children had been killed--brutally killed in the classroom at that elementary school. I have had the responsibility to meet with the parents of those kids, and to try to make some sense out of a tragedy which is just nonsensical. Ms. DeVos was asked by Senator Murphy about guns in schools. Ms. DeVos said she would not commit to opposing efforts to repeal Federal law that makes schools gun-free zones. She went on with a hard-to- explain explanation about grizzly bears and why schools may need guns to ward off grizzly bears. That kind of statement is reckless and dangerous. We should expect more of someone who wants to be our Nation's top education authority. I am also concerned when it comes to higher education policy. Betsy DeVos has a tendency of siding with corporate and for-profit interests over students when it comes to education. Take for-profit colleges as an example. Despite years of fraud and abuse by for-profit colleges, the extent of which is unparalleled in other sectors of higher education, Ms. DeVos does not see the connection between the business model of for-profit colleges and these abuses. When she was asked by Senator Murray if she believes different types of corporate-controlled structures result in different decisions and behaviors by for-profit institutions compared to nonprofit institutions, Ms. DeVos simply answered: ``No.'' Even for-profit industry insiders have acknowledged that the business model indeed encourages abuse. In a 2015 interview with Deseret News, John Murphy, the founder of the University of Phoenix, admitted that the company experienced a shift in priorities that led to diminished student outcomes when it became a publicly traded company. He says the new focus became increasingly the value of the stock--at any cost, including ``lowering its admission standards,'' and ``jettisoning the academic model'' it had previously relied on. Other companies soon followed the University of Phoenix's corporate example. As John Murphy said, ``Phoenix was the one that got it rolling, then all the other for-profits followed them in.'' What resulted was an entire industry built on defrauding students and fleecing taxpayers. For-profit colleges and universities in America today are the most heavily subsidized private for-profit businesses in our country. These are not good corporate models. These are crony capitalist ventures that have found a way to tap into the Federal Treasury at the expense not only of taxpayers but of unwitting students and their families. Nearly every major for-profit college has been investigated or sued by one or more State or Federal agency for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. The numbers tell the story, and I have told them many times. Some 10 percent of college students go to for-profit colleges and universities, and 20 percent of all the Federal education aid goes to the same schools. That is 10 percent of the students and 20 percent of the Federal aid. The schools are extraordinarily expensive. And 40 percent of all the student loan defaults in America are students from for- profit colleges and universities. Corinthian may be one of the worst and well-known examples, though it's not unique. Corinthian, a for-profit college, falsified and inflated job placement rates to entice more students to sign up for their worthless programs. One of the tricks they used was to pay employers to hire their graduates for a couple of months so they could count them as successfully off to work after they graduated. It was a fraud, and they were caught red-handed. The company's predatory practices, once exposed, led to its bankruptcy. But tens of thousands of students were left with huge amounts of student debt and a worthless education. Shame on us in the United States of America for the Department of Education's giving the green light to these schools to do business in America and to defraud these students, their families, and, ultimately, the taxpayers. This embarrassing episode at Corinthian led the Department of Education to create an interagency task force to coordinate Federal oversight efforts of for-profit colleges and a new enforcement unit within the Department to investigate allegations against schools participating in the Federal title IV program. Unfortunately, at her hearing, Ms. DeVos would not commit to maintaining this important office, signaling she is ready to take the cops off the beat at the Department when it comes to for-profit colleges and universities. I am afraid that is consistent with what she has done in Michigan, where she leans toward the for-profit model--blind to the fact that many of these for-profit schools in her State are worthless. For-profit colleges, the most heavily subsidized private entities in America already, have friends in high places in Washington. We know what happened to their stock prices over the years, as students and families realized how terrible they were and stopped attending them. Enrollment went down in many of the schools. Guess what happened the day after President Trump was elected? The stocks of for- profit colleges and universities started to rise again. They saw new opportunities. They were going to get a Department of Education that would stop enforcing the law to stop the fraud that they have been guilty of. At her hearing Ms. DeVos gave us no hope for any different outcome. We know from recent data released by the Obama Department of Education that many for-profit colleges actually receive nearly 100 percent of their revenue from Federal taxpayers in the form of title IV funds, Department of Defense tuition assistance, and Department of Veterans Affairs GI bill. I don't know how a good business-oriented Republican could overlook the fact that these so-called for-profit schools are thinly veneered operations, gleaning every available Federal tax dollar to keep their schools open. Annually, they take in nearly $25 billion in title IV Federal funds alone. The Department has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer funding isn't wasted by enriching investors and executives at institutions that prey on students and don't deliver on their promises. In keeping with that responsibility, the Obama administration created new Federal regulations to ensure that career training programs are meeting the statutory requirement and that they prepare students for gainful employment. The gainful employment rule cuts off title IV funding for programs where graduates' ratio of student debt to earnings is too high. In other words, if they sink these students deeply in debt and they can't end up with a job that is worth at least as much as they need to earn to pay off their debt, then something is wrong with the program. Ms. DeVos would not commit to maintaining this protection for students and taxpayers. Proactive oversight and enforcement is one thing, but when fraud and abuse do occur, Ms. DeVos would not even commit to make it right by the students harmed. She refused to say that she would ensure defrauded students received the Federal student loan discharges to which they are entitled under the law. Maybe this shouldn't surprise us. For one, Ms. DeVos's would-be boss, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, operated his own for- profit college that defrauded students. And as it turns out, Ms. DeVos, a billionaire, has financial connections to the for-profit college industry. She has disclosed investments with several entities linked to for-profit colleges, including Apollo Investment Corporation, which is connected to one of the organizations that just bought the University of Phoenix. Apollo invests in another for- profit college chain that has several programs that are in danger of losing Federal funding because of the gainful employment rule. These colleges also happen to be accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, or ACICS, which put its stamp of approval on the likes of Corinthian, ITT Tech, and the notorious Westwood College. Last year, the Obama Education Department revoked ACICS' Federal recognition, and the accreditor is now actively suing the Department over this decision. Now Ms. DeVos wants to take over the Department, and she is supposed to defend against the lawsuit when she has a financial interest in the schools that are involved? For-profit colleges aren't the only ones who may be given free rein to prey on students under a Secretary DeVos. The private student loan industry is also licking its chops. A recent Chicago Tribune article entitled ``Student Loan Lenders May See Opportunities with Trump in The White House'' told the story. It noted that, since the election, stocks of major private student loan issuers have also gone up. The article quotes a report by financial analyst Bob Napoli that says: ``There could be substantial growth potential in the student lending business as we believe the Trump administration is likely to reduce government involvement in the student lending business.'' What is government involvement in the student lending business? Well, it is an effort to have oversight so that students and their parents aren't exploited by student loans. The fear is that with Secretary DeVos, that oversight would disappear. This government involvement in student lending, which Napoli speaks about, also includes Department of Education direct loans, which help millions of low-income and middle- class students attend college each year with lower interest rates for loans. These loans have fixed interest rates, strong consumer protection, and flexible repayment. In addition to loans, Federal Pell grants provide much needed financial support to thousands of low-income students across the country--financial support they don't have to repay. On the other hand, private student loans often have variable interest rates that can reach nearly 20 percent, hefty origination fees, few consumer protections, and no alternative repayment option. Unlike nearly all other private debt, private student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That is a debt they will take to the grave. A greater role for private student lenders, without strong new protections and oversight by critical agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, would be a ``sentence to debt'' for many college students across our country. I have deep concerns about Ms. DeVos's ability to hold this job as Secretary of Education. This morning or perhaps early this afternoon, we may see history made on the floor of the Senate. It is quite possible that the only way Betsy DeVos can become Secretary of Education is if the Vice President of the United States will come and preside and cast the deciding, tie-breaking vote so that she can become a member of President Trump's Cabinet. I understand from news reports that this will be the first time in history that someone has had to rely on the Vice President's tie-breaking vote to become part of a President's Cabinet. Doesn't it say a lot about the controversy surrounding Ms. DeVos that it has reached this point, that she has to pull out all the stops--literally, all the stops--to become part of the Cabinet? She was asked at one point--I believe by Senator Sanders of Vermont-- how much money she had actually contributed to the Republican Party over the years. Was it $200 million or more? She said she just didn't know. Well, it is not against the law to contribute money under most circumstances. It shouldn't be held against people because many folks who receive political appointments are contributors to the President who makes the appointments. That is not unusual. It has happened with both political parties, but it is seldom a person with such a thin resume--and such a big wallet--who is given such an important job. This goes too far. For Ms. DeVos to be the Ambassador to Aruba, or wherever she might be, that is a good political reward. To be placed in charge of the public education system of the United States of America, I think, is a step too far. I have deep concerns about Ms. DeVos's ability to hold this job and her commitment to public education and protecting students from for- profit interests that seek to exploit them. Like tens of thousands of Illinois parents, teachers, and principals who call my office--as well as national education civil rights organizations--I oppose Betsy DeVos's nomination as Secretary of Education. Two of my Republican colleagues have shown extraordinary courage in announcing their opposition to Ms. DeVos. I want to salute Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Susan Collins of Maine. I am sure it wasn't easy for them to come out publicly against Ms. DeVos. That means right now that there are 50 ``no'' votes and 50 ``yes'' votes, by rough calculation. We need, at this moment in time, one more Republican to stand up and do what is right for America's children and America's students. Who will it be? Who will join these two women from Alaska and Maine and the Democrats in saying to President Trump: We can do better. To my Republican colleagues, I say: Parents, students, teachers in your States are counting on you to stop this dangerous nomination. Please don't let them down. I would also like to note some excerpts from mail I have received about Ms. DeVos's nomination from my home State of Illinois. Hannah is a graduate student at the University of Illinois in a K-12 librarian program. She writes: I am a student who benefitted from IDEA. . . . Without this Federal protection it is unlikely that I would be where I am now. [Betsy DeVos] does not share the American value of equal and free education. Confirming her is dangerous and reckless. The children who need help the most will not be helped. Barbara, mother of two Chicago public school high school students writes: Please do not support Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary. She knows nothing about public education. We need strong support for public education. Hanan, a certified and licensed speech language pathologist writes: As . . . a Mother with three children who received therapy while two currently do, I beg you to vote no on Betsy DeVos. I am afraid of what will become of my children, as well as my students if therapy services are not provided through the public education system. Many of my student families cannot afford private therapy. They rely on getting their therapy through the school they attend. Michelle, a teacher from Chicago writes: As an educator myself, I believe Betsy DeVos is unfit to serve as Secretary of Education. Our schools and our children need a leader who supports public education, is qualified and experienced, and does not have conflicts of interest. Katie, a school counselor from Chicago writes: I fear the impact [Betsy DeVos] will have on the lives of our students. My greatest concern is her sheer lack of understanding of education in the U.S. For myself and my colleagues, many of the questions she was asked during the hearing were topics we share a variety of opinions and could talk about at length. The fact that she answered very few questions, did not know what IDEA is and doesn't even seem to understand the concerns of having guns in schools does not qualify her to be in this position. Alejandra, middle schooler from Bellwood, IL. She writes: I do not believe that Mrs. DeVos is a suitable choice for the place as Secretary of Education for the United States. One of the many reasons for this is because she lacks experience. Another reason . . . is because she has no plans and the few plans that she does [have] may result in harm to the public school system. I believe that Mrs. DeVos does not understand how public schools function and I also believe that she should be replaced with someone with more knowledge and understanding on this subject. Mrs. DeVos does not understand that public schools have the same impact on students as private schools and should be treated fairly. This affects my community because many cannot afford private school and public schools are their only option. If Mrs. DeVos were to become Secretary [of Education] she would most likely harm the public school system and leave many students without an education. From Loves Park, IL, Lisa writes: While my own child attended Catholic school, I am opposed to vouchers. I do not complain about paying education taxes. It was my and my husband's decision to send our child to a private school. It was our choice. But as my immigrant grandmother often said, one of the things that makes America great is education for all regardless of social class. I want every person as well educated as they can be in grades K-12. For goodness sake, vote No [on DeVos]. Travis, a principal from Southern Illinois writes: As a strong supporter of public education, I ask that you oppose the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. We must have a secretary who can commit to supporting every student in all public schools, and provide leadership that will help our neighborhood schools succeed. Betsy DeVos' record in education and her performance at the recent confirmation hearing prove she is the wrong candidate for the job. As a principal, I have spoken with teachers, parents, students, and community members who agree that America's future depends on a strong investment in our Nation's public schools. Celia from Streamwood, IL, writes: [Betsy DeVos] will not do justice to all of our students, because she has no experience with public schools. A lot of school districts outside of the metropolitan area do not have charter schools, which she is a big proponent of. Tawnya from Chicago writes: I attended public school in rural Illinois. My kids attend public school in Chicago. My husband teaches at a charter school, but you and I both know that not all charter schools are run efficiently . . . and the record of charter schools in Michigan, Mrs. DeVos' home state are proof of that. Mrs. DeVos has absolutely no business making decisions about public schools, having never attended, nor sen[t] children of her own, nor having worked in any capacity there. I am an evangelical, white Christian who votes in every election, and while I might share some of her basic beliefs, I vehemently oppose her nomination for education secretary. Please lean on those who support her to withdraw her name and do what is best for our Nation's children. Peggy from Belvidere, IL, writes: I am extremely concerned and actually appalled that Betsy DeVos is the nominee for Secretary of Education. I have been in public education my entire life and believe we need to look at the millions that benefit for quality public educators and their dedication. There are wonderful classrooms, but also some systems in need of great improvement, but this candidate is clearly not qualified for, or even interested in giving a second thought to what middle- class and poor children may need. Please vote no! Our children deserve better than this! In this uncertain time, please stand up for our kids' and educators! When I went back to Springfield, IL, I asked the local office there what kind of telephone calls we have been receiving this past week. They showed me the results from Wednesday, approximately 600 calls voting no on Betsy DeVos, 3 yes. Sarah from Hyde Park writes to me: Mrs. DeVos would single-handedly decimate our public education system if she were ever confirmed. Her plan to privatize education would deprive students from a good public education, while helping students from wealthy families get another leg up. It would deprive teachers of a decent salary, and it would make it harder for parents to get a good education for their kids. Public education has lifted millions out of poverty, has put millions in good paying jobs, and has been the launching pad for people who went on to cure disease and to create inventions that have changed our society for the better. I have a daughter who will be starting kindergarten in Chicago's public schools this fall. Please do the right thing for her and millions of other Illinois children who depend on public schools and who will be negatively affected by Mrs. DeVos's confirmation. Dr. Kranti Dasgupta, a doctor from the City of Chicago writes: Not only do ethical concerns exist regarding [DeVos'] conflicts of interest but I am also appalled at how unqualified she is to lead this country in such an important arena. As a family medicine physician, I have worked and trained in some of the poorest neighborhoods [in Chicago]. I have seen firsthand how behind many of these children are compared to their more affluent peers. I strongly believe [a] voucher program would further this education gap by taking money away from public schools that need it the most. Without a solid education, there is little chance for many of those children to lift themselves out of their socioeconomic situation. I implore you to consider the well-being of these children and give them a better chance to be productive citizens of Illinois. Please cast your vote against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. I have a message from Daniel from the Ukrainian Village; Michelle from Bolingbrook; Kristi, a mother of two from the Rogers Park area of Chicago; Crystal from the city of Pekin; and Kristin from Naperville, IL. Daniel from the Ukrainian Village area of Chicago: As the proud uncle of a wonderful autistic child who is being educated in the public schools, I cannot support someone so [un]qualified to be our educator in chief. Further, as you well know, DeVos has a long and documented record of lavishly supporting causes that are antithetical to the values I--and so many other Americans--hold dear. I hope that you will vote ``no'' on this important nominee. Michelle from Bolingbook: I have [worked] in Special Education for the past 20 years. [Betsy] DeVos' nomination is frightening to the future of all children. This isn't about politics; but about the lack of qualifications that she brings to this position. Kristi, the mother of two from the Rogers Park area of Chicago: I feel very strong in the separation of church and state and [Betsy DeVos] does not. She wants to ``advance God's kingdom'' through school reform. Crystal from Pekin: I am a special educator in central Illinois. I teach a very special population of students with severe and profound disabilities in an all special education school. As an advocate for my students, I urge you to reject the nomination for Betsy DeVos. She is not qualified to make decisions that will affect teachers and students in rural public schools across Illinois. Kristin from Naperville: DeVos' skillset is commandeering public funding for private education. She was a key player in shaping the Michigan charter school system, which is severely lacking in oversight, demanding little accountability for how tax dollars are spent or how well students are educated. I don't want to see the same thing happen nationally . . . America's students and teachers deserve better than DeVos. I ask unanimous consent that this several-page document, which includes a list of letters of opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos, be printed in the Record. There are some 322 letters in opposition. To spare the Government Publishing Office, I will not ask that all of these letters in their entirety be printed, but it is a voluminous list of opposition to Betsy DeVos.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I also want to direct my colleagues--I see my colleague on the floor from Connecticut, and I want to yield to him--to a New York Times article, which was published on June 28, 2016, entitled ``A Sea of Charter Schools in Detroit Leaves Students Adrift,'' by Kate Zernike. Let me close by saying, this is rare. It is rare that we have a nomination for the position of Secretary of Education which has drawn such controversy. There were many things that Ms. DeVos could have been given as a reward for her loyal support of Republicans and all of the things she has done in her life, but to be entrusted with the responsibility of running America's public education system at this critical moment in our history certainly is not one of them, as far as I am concerned. We should have taken the time and the President should have taken the time to find a person who had the resume, the qualifications, and the expertise in education policy for this important responsibility. We owe our children nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I am glad I was here for the statement made by the Senator from South Carolina. We disagree on many things. We agree on things as well. I respect him very much and turn to him often to find bipartisan support when, frankly, no one else will answer the phone. He has been a great friend and ally and has been very blunt with me when we disagree. We do disagree today, and I do it respectfully because Senator Graham is a person I do, in fact, respect as a Senate colleague. He is right about one thing: You would expect a new President to pick someone to be an Attorney General whom they know and trust. It might have even been someone from the campaign trail. A classic example is 1960, when President John Kennedy was elected and chose his brother Robert Kennedy, who had worked on his campaign, to serve as Attorney General of the United States. You can't think of a clearer analogy to what has been described today. But the point that was made earlier by Senator Feinstein about the relationship of Senator Sessions with Candidate Trump is one that goes beyond familiarity, beyond support in a political campaign. In fact, they did work together, and they do agree on some fundamental issues. If the press can be trusted--and the White House is the first to tell us they can't--but if the press can be trusted, in a Washington Post article of January 31, 2017, we see a very clear working relationship that extends beyond the would-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the new President Donald Trump but includes a former key staffer for Senator Sessions, Steve Miller, and a man named Steve Bannon, who is with Breitbart News and is now a political inspiration to the Trump White House. It appears that they have a very close working relationship among them. That in and of itself is not troubling, except when you look at the issues they have worked on closely together--the issue of immigration, the Executive orders, of which the Post said Senator Sessions was the ``intellectual godfather.'' That is a clear example pointed out by this article, and that is one of the reasons it was raised by Senator Feinstein. I understand what Senator Graham has to say: that Senator Sessions has been nothing more than a Senator loyal to his home State of Alabama in his politics and in his views on issues. I do acknowledge that and can tell you that, over 20 years, I have heard Senator Sessions's speeches repeatedly, and he does take those positions. But the thing that troubles me is the question about whether the values of the Senator from Alabama are the values we want in the Attorney General of the United States. To be very blunt, in some cases, they are not, as far as I am concerned. I understand that President Trump won the election, but that doesn't mean, when it comes to advice and consent, that every Member of the Senate has to bow and step back a few steps for every nominee proposed by this new President. We have a responsibility to ask what is right for America, what is right in terms of values and judgments that we bring to this job, as well. It is not a happy moment for me to say this, but I do stand in opposition to the nomination of Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United States. The reason I don't view this as a happy moment is I have known him for 20 years. We have worked in the Senate, in committees, and on the floor. I know him personally. I met his family. And to say that I don't support him for this elevation to Attorney General is something that is hard to say, but I know that I have to. This is not a decision I have come to lightly. Senator Sessions is a colleague of over 20 years. But the question we now face is whether he is the right person to be the No. 1 law enforcement official in the United States of America. He comes to this new opportunity in a sharply divided nation. We have a controversial new President who already has seen an Executive order blocked by the courts in what appears to be record time. Think about that for a moment. Donald Trump has been President of the United States for 19 days. In those 19 days, he has issued an Executive order stopped by the Federal courts of the land from implementation and he has dismissed an Attorney General. No other new President, in 19 days, can point to that happening. It is an indication of the types of policies he is promoting. It is also an indication that in the future, he is likely to again test the separation of powers in this government. In this context, the need for an independent Attorney General has never been greater. We need an Attorney General who will not just serve as the President's lawyer or cheerleader but who will defend the constitutional rights of everyone, including protecting those rights from an overreaching President, if necessary. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have carefully considered this nomination, and I am not persuaded that Senator Sessions will serve that level of independence. Also, I have strong concerns that. if he is confirmed, he won't adequately pursue the cause of justice on a range of important issues. In his nomination hearing, Senator Sessions said on issue after issue that he would simply follow the law, enforce the law, but that doesn't come close to capturing the real role of the Attorney General. The Attorney General, as chief prosecutor in America, doesn't just ``follow the law''; that person uses his discretion to determine how the law is enforced and whom it is enforced against. Ignoring that is to ignore one of the key elements of service as Attorney General. As Acting Attorney General Sally Yates reminded us, the Attorney General has a critical role at times in even standing up to the President. The American Bar Association standards say that the duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. I don't have confidence, based on the answers he has given me, that Senator Sessions would follow that standard. Here is one example. At the hearing, I introduced Senator Sessions to Alton Mills of Chicago, who in his youth was a street-level courier for drug dealers. He was sentenced to life without parole and prison at age 24--life without parole at age 24 under the Federal three strikes and you are out law. He was sentenced on a nonviolent drug offense--no guns, no violence. He sold drugs a third time and got a life sentence. Even the judge imposing the sentence did not agree with it, but he said the law said what he had to follow and his hands were tied. Alton Mills needed to pay for his mistakes, but he did not need to spend the rest of his life in prison. In December 2015, President Obama commuted Alton's sentence, after he had served 22 years in prison. Under the Obama administration, Justice Department prosecutors were directed to search out low-level offenders like Alton Mills and use the discretion of the Department of Justice and make sure that they were given a second chance. Senator Sessions has said that he strongly opposes these guidelines. When it came to clemency, Senator Sessions fiercely criticized President Obama, saying he commuted sentences in ``an unprecedented reckless manner.'' Senator Sessions also said: ``So-called low-level non-violent offenders simply do not exist in the Federal system.'' When it came to changing the law that led to Alton Mills sentence, Senator Sessions led the opposition. I appreciate the work we did together on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. But every time I have returned to Senator Sessions and asked him to work with me for the thousands still stuck in Federal prison for nonviolent drug offenses under the old sentencing disparities which we have now rejected, he refused, time and again. He has opposed every bipartisan effort, including a bill that I put together with Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn, and others to allow individuals to petition on an individual basis for sentence reductions. So to sum it up, Senator Sessions has staunchly opposed using prosecutorial discretion, clemency, or legislation to address the plight of thousands of people like Alton Mills. What can we expect of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the next 4 years when it comes to criminal justice and criminal sentencing reform? I am afraid we can't expect a caring person to take a look at the simple injustice in our system. I have listened. time and again, as many other colleagues have, to the statements made by Senator Sessions on the issue of immigration. I have said before on this floor--and I will say it again--that I am the proud son of an immigrant. For generations. America has been renewed and enriched through immigration. Since World War II, we have set an example to the world when it comes to providing a safe haven for refugees. We have four Hispanic Senators in this Chamber. Three of them are Cuban Americans. What can we say about the Cuban refugees who came to the United States by the hundreds of thousands to flee the oppression of Castro? They were not subjected to extreme vetting. In most cases, we said: If you can find freedom in this country you are welcome. They have made America a better nation for it. Since World War II, that has been America's standard. Now it is being challenged. It is hard to understand how the Trump administration could consider spending so much on a Mexican wall that Texas Republican Congressman Will Hurd, whose district covers 800 miles of the southwest border, described as ``the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border.'' I have come to this floor and voted for more money for walls and obstacles and technology on that border than I ever imagined necessary, in the hopes that we could finally put to rest this notion that we could always do more. I wonder what image it creates of this country, as we continue to talk about walls and banning travel. President Trump signed an Executive order on January 27 banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, and banning refugees from those countries into the United States. As I go through the list of the people who were affected by this, overwhelmingly they are women and children, victims of war, terrorism, and persecution. Many of them have been waiting literally for years to come to the United States. Since World War II, we have accepted so many refugees from Eastern Europe, from Vietnam, from Cuba, as I mentioned earlier, and from Yugoslavia. Over 100,000 Soviet Jews make their home in the United States because we accepted them as refugees. Now President Trump has issued this Executive order that is being challenged in court, and we will know within a matter of days whether it will be stayed or continued, contested or if it will stand as law. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said that she could not stand to defend that order. She felt it was illegal and unconstitutional. The question, obviously, is what would the new Attorney General, if it is Jeff Sessions do, when faced with that same challenge? My fear is that he would not stand in independent judgment of the actions of the President. That to me is unfortunate and falls short of what we expect from the Attorney General. We need someone like Edward Levi, the longtime president of the University of Chicago, who served as a truly nonpartisan Attorney General under President Ford. He restored honor and integrity to the Justice Department after Watergate. Where would Senator Sessions stand once confirmed? Would he defend the President's Executive orders? Would he stand up to the President if he disagreed with him? I have strong concerns. Mr. President, one of the most important issues when it comes to the Attorney General is the oversight of the Civil Rights Division, which is, in fact, the crown jewel of the Justice Department, as far as I am concerned. It is responsible for protecting the civil rights of all Americans. Senator Cory Booker and Congressmen John Lewis and Cedric Richmond gave powerful testimony at Senator Sessions' hearing. They discussed their concerns about the Justice Department under his leadership and whether it would protect the civil and voting rights of all Americans. I took their words to heart. I want to talk specifically about their concerns about the Voting Rights Act. One month from now, we will recognize the 52nd anniversary of what came to be known as Bloody Sunday--March 7, 1965. John Lewis and Rev. Hosea Williams led 600 brave civil rights activists in a march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. The marchers were brutally beaten as State troopers turned them back and chased them down. John Lewis was beaten unconscious and nearly killed. A few months after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, guaranteeing that the right to vote would not be restricted through clever schemes like poll taxes and literacy tests devised to keep African Americans from voting. In 2006, Congress voted to reauthorize that same act after holding 21 hearings, hearing testimony from more than 90 witnesses, and receiving 15,000 pages of evidence. Congressman Lewis said in an op-ed about the ongoing need for that act: Congress came to a near-unanimous conclusion: While some change has occurred, the places with a legacy of long- standing, entrenched and state-sponsored voting discrimination still have the most persistent, flagrant, contemporary records of discrimination in this country. While the 16 jurisdictions affected by Section 5 represent only 25 percent of the nation's population, they still represent more than 80 percent of the lawsuits proving cases of voting discrimination. While Senator Sessions ultimately voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, his comments about the law have been very troubling. In contrast to Congressman Lewis's statement about the need for a strong Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions repeatedly criticized the law's section 5 preclearance provision, which required certain jurisdictions--including, but not limited to, Alabama--to ``preclear'' any changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. At his nomination hearing last month, Senator Sessions reiterated his view that section 5 of the law, in his words, was ``intrusive.'' He also celebrated the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder when a divided Court--5 to 4--gutted the Voting Rights Act and struck down the preclearance provision. That decision left the Department of Justice with fewer tools to protect Americans' right to vote. Nonetheless, on the day of that awful decision, Senator Sessions stated: ``[The decision was] good news, I think, for the South, in that [there was] not sufficient evidence to justify treating them disproportionately.'' Senator Sessions was wrong to dismiss the vital role that preclearance has played in protecting voters from discriminatory laws. When Senator Sessions came to my office for a personal meeting before this hearing began, I sat down with him and talked about the Voting Rights Act. I gave to him a book written by Carol Anderson. She is a political science professor at Emory University in the State of Georgia. The book is entitled ``White Rage.'' Carol Anderson systematically goes through the history of race in America after the Civil War, and she points out in each section how Congress would, on one hand, give rights to African Americans and then turn around and take them away. The most recent example relates to the Voting Rights Act itself and all the efforts of the 1960s to guarantee that minorities had the right to vote in America. She follows it with the undeniable record of efforts toward voter suppression when it comes to minorities in the United States. I pointed this out to Senator Sessions because he has been in denial over this reality. I told him about hearings that we held in Ohio, in Florida, taking election officials, putting them under oath--officials from both political parties--and asking them point blank: Before you established the need for these voting restrictions in your State, what was the incidence of widespread voter fraud that led you to believe it was necessary? And the answer repeatedly was, there was none. No incidents of widespread voter fraud to speak of. No incidents of anything substantial when it came to prosecution. Clearly the motive behind these voter suppression laws are just that--to suppress voters from their opportunity to vote. What can we expect of Attorney General Sessions on this issue? I am afraid, based on his statements, his record, his voting, we can expect the worst. Example: A three-judge Federal appeals court struck down a North Carolina law that required voter ID and limited early voting. The court found that the law was crafted and passed with ``racially discriminatory intent,'' in violation of the Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In the decision, this Federal court noted this regarding the North Carolina statute: Before enacting [the] law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. We are still facing this challenge in America. I wish it were not the case. I had hoped at this point in my life that I would be pointing to our problems with race as something from the past, but it is a current challenge we face, and it is a challenge the Attorney General must face squarely. I do not believe that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will do that, and that is why I can't support him for that position. Of course there is also Senator Sessions' decision as U.S. attorney to bring the 1985 Perry County case when he was in Alabama. He prosecuted three African-American civil rights activists for voter fraud. All three were acquitted. That case prompted former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who was an attorney for the defendants, to send a letter to members of our committee saying, ``To use prosecutorial discretion to attempt to criminalize voter assistance is wrong and should be disqualifying for any aspirant to the Nation's highest law enforcement post.'' Senator Sessions' statements and his records are particularly concerning in light of President Trump's recent repeated, baseless claims about voter fraud in the 2016 Presidential election. Make no mistake--President Trump's false claim that there were millions of fraudulent votes cast in the last election is an excuse for further voter suppression efforts. It is imperative that the Department of Justice be led by someone who values the vital role the Department plays in protecting the right to vote. Given Senator Sessions' dismissive comments about the Voting Rights Act and his history of supporting burdensome voting laws, I am not confident he is prepared to do that. Senator Sessions' record on religious freedom also raises significant questions. The free exercise of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, Senator Sessions has only been outspoken in his defense of religious freedom for some faiths. For example, he denounced a 1997 court order that limited prayer in Alabama public schools, calling it ``one more example of the effort by the courts to eliminate the natural expression of religious belief from public life.'' A year later, he introduced a Senate resolution ``affirming the right to display the Ten Commandments in public places, including government offices and courthouses.'' He said ``[w]e've got to end the hostility toward the display of the Ten Commandments in public places.'' But he has been much more ambivalent about Islam. He has referred to Islam as ``a toxic ideology'' and said of American Muslims ``our nation has an unprecedented assimilation problem.'' When President Trump first proposed his ban on Muslim immigrants during the 2016 campaign, Senator Sessions said, ``I think it's appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has forced that discussion.'' I am also concerned about Senator Sessions' support of laws and cases that permit individuals and companies to discriminate against other Americans on the basis of religious beliefs. For example, in 2015, the Supreme Court held that marriage equality is the law of the land in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Sessions referred to the decision as an: effort to secularize, by force and intimidation, a society that would not exist but for the faith which inspired people to sail across unknown waters and trek across unknown frontiers. After disparaging the decision, Senator Sessions went on to cosponsor the First Amendment Defense Act, which would permit widespread discrimination against LGBTQ individuals on the basis of religious beliefs. Senator Sessions also praised the Supreme Court's troubling 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits closely held, for-profit corporations to deny contraceptive coverage to employees due to religious objections. If confirmed to be the next Attorney General, Senator Sessions will be responsible for protecting the rights of all Americans, regardless of their faith or beliefs. That is why I am deeply concerned about Senator Sessions' record, which suggests that he may prioritize the freedom of certain faiths over others, and permit religious freedom to be used as a guise for discrimination. The Attorney General also has great power to determine how the Department of Justice's resources will be prioritized. I am alarmed that Senator Sessions will not commit to support funding for important programs like COPS and Byrne-JAG. And I am deeply disappointed that he will not commit to increase Justice Department resources for Chicago to address the city's surge in gun violence. I asked Senator Sessions about this when we met in person before his hearing and again as part of my written hearing questions. It is well known that there's been an epidemic of gun violence facing the City of Chicago. There were more than 760 homicides in Chicago last year, a 58 percent increase over the previous year. More than 4,300 people were shot last year in the city. It is a crisis. At our meeting, I handed Senator Sessions a copy of Mayor Emanuel's plan to improve public safety. The plan calls for hiring nearly a thousand more Chicago police; more training and equipment, like body- worn cameras and gunshot detection technology; more mentoring programs for youth; and reforms to rebuild trust and cooperation between police and the community. All of these are areas where the Justice Department can, and must, help. The Justice Department's COPS program helps local police departments put more cops on the beat. The Byrne-JAG program helps them buy equipment. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provides mentoring and violence prevention funds. And the Civil Rights Division was invited in by me, the mayor, and the state Attorney General to review the Chicago Police Department's practices. On January 13, they reached an agreement in principle with the City to pursue much-needed reforms and to seek to enforce the reforms through a consent decree. I asked Senator Sessions about his support for these efforts, especially in light of President Trump's tweets where he has urged Mayor Emanuel to ask for Federal help--even though the Mayor has already asked for aid--and threatened to ``send in the Feds'' to Chicago. But Senator Sessions has steadfastly refused to make any commitment of Justice Department resources to help reduce Chicago's violence. He refused to commit to increase Justice Department funding for Chicago. He wouldn't even commit not to cut funding. He refused to commit to honor the agreement in Principle that the Justice Department signed with the city to reform the Chicago Police Department. And he refused to commit not to request budget cuts to the COPS and Byrne-JAG programs and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This is unfathomable to me. Now is not the time for the Justice Department to turn its back on the City of Chicago and its people. It is hard to understand how the Trump administration could think about spending $15 billion on an inexpensive and ineffective wall and not commit to spend another penny to address gun violence in Chicago. If the administration took just 1 percent of what they want for a border wall and used it to help Chicago implement the mayor's public safety plan with more police, training, and youth job programs, we could save a lot of lives. But instead Senator Sessions and the Trump administration are threatening to cut Federal funds for Chicago. Their priorities are profoundly misplaced. Senator Sessions did say he would increase Federal gun prosecutions. That may be helpful, but it is not enough to reduce gun violence. The Chicago Sun-Times looked at Federal gun prosecutions over the past 5 years and found that cities like Detroit and Baltimore had significantly more than Chicago, but their per-capita homicide rates are still higher that Chicago's. So that is not enough. Senator Sessions also seems to think that immigrants are at the root of most of our Nation's crime problems. That is why he pushes to withhold critical Federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. But many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than native-born individuals. And there is no evidence whatsoever that undocumented immigrants are responsible for any significant proportion of the murders in Chicago. If sanctuary cities are the problem, why did a sanctuary city like New York City experience record low crime in 2016? Senator Sessions' priorities when it comes to these issues does not give me confidence. I am also troubled by the casual approach that Senator Sessions has adopted when it comes to Russian interference in our Presidential election. Election Day 2016 is a day that will live in cyber infamy. A foreign adversary intentionally manipulated America's Presidential election. Amid warnings of Russian manipulation going back to early October, President Donald Trump not only resisted these findings, he has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and dismissed the true nature of Putin and his threat. As early as July of last year, then-candidate Trump urged a foreign adversary of the United States to conduct espionage against Hillary Clinton. He said, ``I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.'' And President Trump, who has impulsively attacked just about anyone who criticizes him, has not criticized the one person who is guilty of sponsoring this cyber attack: Vladimir Putin. This is bigger than one election or one person. This is about our national security, and we should take it seriously. For those who have been following Putin's actions over the last several years, this attack should come as no surprise. Russia has conducted cyber warfare against Ukraine, the Netherlands, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, and a host of other nations. Russia now appears focused on disrupting the upcoming German elections over Putin's dislike of Chancellor Merkel. And it could happen again here. We need to know that the next U.S. Attorney General will take this matter seriously as well and will be independent of the White House. This means allowing career Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI to follow the facts and the law. I am concerned about Senator Sessions when it comes to this assignment. I asked Senator Sessions questions about this. In his written responses, he admitted that he has not even read the January 6 intelligence community assessment on Russian involvement in the U.S. election--neither the classified nor the unclassified version. As recently as last week, Senator Sessions admitted he still has not read this report. The unclassified version incidentally is just a few pages if you don't count the annexes. I read it in less than 15 minutes. Senator Sessions, seeking to be the top law enforcement official in the land, should have found time to read this report. His failure to do so is inexplicable. This does not give me confidence that Senator Sessions is giving this matter the attention it deserves. I also asked Senator Sessions if he would commit not to impede or terminate ongoing Justice Department or FBI investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 election. He would not make any commitment about allowing investigations to continue if confirmed. And I asked Senator Sessions if he would recuse himself from any FBI or DOJ investigation into Russian efforts to influence the election. He said he was not aware of a basis to recuse himself. Well, Department of Justice regulations call for recusals from investigations due to personal or political relationships. And it is clear that Senator Sessions has a close relationship with President Trump, including on Russia issues. Senator Sessions was a prominent supporter of the President's campaign. On March 3, 2016, then-candidate Trump announced that Sessions would serve as chairman of Mr. Trump's National Security Advisory Committee and that he would ``provide strategic counsel to Mr. Trump on foreign policy and homeland security.'' In a July 31, 2016 interview with CNN, Senator Sessions stated the following: What I want to tell you is that Hillary Clinton left her email system totally vulnerable to a Russian penetration. It's probably clear that they have what was on that system. I have people come up to me all the time and say, why don't you--if you want to find out where those 30,000 emails are, why don't you ask the Russians? They're the ones that have them . . . The big issue is, can we, should we be able to create a new and positive relationship with Russia. I think it's . . . it makes no sense that we're at the hostility level we are. On August 15, 2016, USA Today published an article entitled ``Sen. Jeff Sessions backs Donald Trump on Russia Policy'' detailing how Sessions changed his hawkish position on Russia to align with then- candidate Trump's statements. It said: "Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has long supported increased military spending and tough talk about the threat Russia poses to the U.S. and its allies in Europe. Since becoming an adviser to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, however, those principles appear to have undergone some revisions. Trump has upended traditional conservative caution toward Russia by exchanging niceties with President Vladimir Putin and expressing hope for warmer relations. And Sessions, a frequent surrogate for the Trump campaign in public appearances, is nodding in agreement.'' On October 7, 2016, Politico published a story entitled ``Lobbyist advised Trump campaign while promoting Russian pipeline: Richard Burt helped shape the candidate's first foreign-policy speech while lobbying on behalf of a Moscow-controlled gas company.'' The Politico story noted that the lobbyist in question ``attended two dinners this summer hosted by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who had been named chairman of Trump's national security committee'' and that the lobbyist ``was invited to discuss issues of national security and foreign policy, and wrote white papers for Sessions on the same subjects . . . `' In an October 30 interview with DefenseNews, Senator Sessions said, ``The United States and Russia should be able to be far more harmonious than we are today.'' Clearly, an investigation into the reported Russia-Trump allegations has the potential to significantly impact the interests of Senator Sessions' soon-to-be-boss, if he's confirmed, and his close political ally. Again, Senator Sessions' answers to my questions do not give me confidence. In the end, the American people deserve the truth about Russian involvement in our election. The stakes too high to ignore. There are other aspects of Senator Sessions' record that give me serious concerns about what his priorities would be if confirmed as Attorney General, including his vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act; his votes against the Detainee Treatment Act and the McCain-Feinstein Army Field Manual Amendment; his past statement that the use of prison chain gangs was ``perfectly proper''; his opposition to laws such as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; his questioning of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship; and his refusal to commit to recuse himself from involvement in any case, investigation or Office of Legal Counsel decision involving the receipt of emoluments by President Trump. All of these factors have weighed on me as I have considered this nomination Mr. President, let me conclude. We need a nonpartisan Attorney General with the independence, judgment, and backbone to stand up to a President when his actions are illegal or unjust. Senator Sessions is an able politician. He has been an able representative of his State of Alabama. But he is not the right person to serve as Donald Trump's Attorney General. The Justice Department's motto ``qui pro domina justitia sequitur'' refers to an Attorney General ``who prosecutes on behalf of justice.'' Based on his record and his responses to questions over the past few weeks, I am not confident Senator Sessions would be such an Attorney General. I cannot support his nomination, and I will vote against him. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to respond to the statement made by the Republican whip, my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. This is day 20 of the Trump administration. Day 20. Not quite 3 weeks since President Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. This evening at about 7 p.m., we will vote on his nominee for Attorney General. So in the first 20 days of his administration, he will have his Attorney General. What the Senator from Texas failed to relate was the experience we went through not that long ago when President Obama wanted to fill the vacancy of the Attorney General's office with Loretta Lynch, a woman who had served as prosecutor, U.S. attorney, lifelong professional in the Department of Justice, who went through the regular hearing process in the Judiciary Committee, was reported from the committee, and she was sent more than 20 additional questions by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama--more questions which of course, she dutifully answered, as she was required to do. Then she was reported to the calendar, where she sat for 2 months. A 2-month vacancy in the Attorney General's office. Why? Was there something substantively wrong or controversial about Loretta Lynch? If there happened to be, I never heard it. Where then was that argument about national security and leaving the Attorney General nomination in limbo when it was President Obama seeking to fill that spot? Well, we didn't hear it at all. In fact, the Senator from Texas said: Oh, it was related to another bill and whether that bill was going to be called; it was actually Senator Reid who was holding it up. From where I was sitting--and I came to the floor at one point and said: What are we waiting for? This lady is eminently qualified. She has been reported by the committee. She has answered all the questions. She languishes on the calendar. She wasn't alone in this experience, incidentally. The Executive Calendar, as the Obama Presidency ended, was filled with nominees who were held for no obvious reason by the Republicans. They had been reported from the committees. They were ready to fill judicial vacancies across the United States and other posts. And the official position of the Republican Senators happened to be: We are not going to ever let people vote on them because we are hoping and praying we will get a Republican President who can fill those same vacancies with people of our political persuasion. That was the reality. That was the same reality that left Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, languishing for almost 1 year. The Republicans and the leaders in the Senate would not give him a hearing or a vote. And Senator McConnell came to the floor and said: I won't even meet with him. So when I hear these protests now from the Republican side of how we are not moving quickly enough on these nominations, we are. And I think we are moving in the appropriate way. We are asking hard questions. And I don't subscribe to the position of the Senator from Texas, who preceded me here, when it comes to the Voting Rights Act. I listened as Senator Sessions of Alabama said that he believed the Shelby County v. Holder decision was a victory for the South when it ended preclearance of legislation that could have a direct impact on the voting rights of individuals. And I do recall what happened when the Federal court took a specific look at North Carolina's legislation statutes as it related to voting and said the North Carolina legislature had ``with surgical precision'' found ways to exclude African Americans from voting--not 20 years ago but just a few months ago, before this last election. This is a critical issue, and it is interesting to me that last night the dustup on the floor involving the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Warren, was about the same issue, the Voting Rights Act. In a letter sent by Coretta Scott King to Strom Thurmond--then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--when Senator Sessions, before he was Senator, was being considered for Federal judgeship-- this is what Coretta Scott King said in the letter. I am not going to read the personal and controversial sections that have been pointed out before, but it is critical to what her message happened to be. She said to Strom Thurmond in a letter about Senator Sessions moving to the Federal bench: Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to American democracy that we cannot tolerate any form of infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been disenfranchised in our Nation's history, none has struggled longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box denied so persistently and intently. It was a critical issue over 30 years ago when Mr. Sessions was then being considered for a Federal judgeship. It is a critical issue to this day because of two things: a decision by the Supreme Court, which basically took away one of the major powers of the Voting Rights Act, and, secondly, a coordinated effort by Republicans across the United States to suppress the vote of minorities and particularly African Americans. I point directly to that North Carolina decision for what I just said. What they have tried to do is to systematically reduce the likelihood that poor people and minorities will vote. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, I held public hearings in Ohio and Florida. Those hearings were held in those States because they had proposed new restrictions on voters. So, both in Cleveland and in Florida, I brought the election officials--Democrats and Republicans--before my subcommittee, put them under oath and asked: What was the incidence of widespread voter fraud in the elections in your State which led you to make it more difficult and challenging for the people of your State to vote? The answer was: There were none. There were no examples of widespread fraud. There were only a handful of prosecutions for voter fraud. That told the story. This didn't have anything to do with voter fraud. This had to do with discouraging turnout in areas that were more friendly to Democratic candidates, period. So when we make a big issue of the position of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions on the Voting Rights Act, it is with good cause. It is historically an issue which has haunted the United States since the Civil War, when excuses after excuses were made for African Americans seeking the right to vote, and people were denied the right to vote with poll taxes and literacy tests and ridiculous standards to this very day, when the Republican Party strategy is to diminish the African-American vote by voter suppression. Is it important that we know the position of Senator Jeff Sessions on the Voting Rights Act? To me, it is one of the most important questions to be asked. The fact that it evoked controversy on the Senate floor with Senator Warren last night is an indication of how seriously we take it. Yes, we have added a few more hours to the debate. I disagree with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Texas who say: You know how it is going to end; why are you wasting our time? I don't think it is a waste of time to have a fulsome debate in the Senate on something as fundamental as protecting the right of every American citizen to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I will respond to the Senator from Montana. Here is the difference. Eight years ago, when Barrack Obama was elected President and was to be sworn in on January 20, he brought together his team to serve in his Cabinet and said to them: The first thing you need to do is to follow the law. You need to file all the papers required of you by the ethics standards of the United States Government. So, I am told that on January 8, almost 2 weeks before he was sworn in, their paperwork was on file. So they had complied with the law and they were awaiting their opportunity for a hearing. Contrast that with the current situation. There are still proposed Cabinet members by President Trump who have not filed their required ethics disclosures. Why is it important? Because we believe that though we can't reach in and require the President to file his income tax returns, which he has steadfastly refused to do, we know what the standards are when it comes to many of those departments. The standards are very demanding. There has to be a disclosure and there has to be a process of divestment. If I am about to become the head of an agency and my personal wealth includes holdings that have a direct impact on that agency, I am required by law to divest myself of those holdings. The more complicated my portfolio and net worth might be, the more challenging this is. Penny Pritzker, a very wealthy individual from Chicago, was chosen by President Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce. It took her 6 months, I say to the Senator from Montana, to fully comply with the law so she could go through the hearing--6 months. Now we hear complaints from the Republicans: Well, why aren't the Trump nominees going through more quickly? Why aren't our billionaires put on the fast-track? I am sorry, but Trump billionaires are subject to the same rules as all billionaires. They have to file the necessary documents. I might add, you can go back a little further in history and find disqualifications for Cabinet positions. Oh, you hired someone in your household to work for you and you did not pay their Social Security, their FICA? Sorry, you are disqualified from being in a Cabinet. Now we have Trump nominees where that is happening--not with frequency, but it is happening--and it doesn't seem to be even close to a disqualification. So it clearly is a double standard. I would say to the Senator from Montana, the fact that the Obama nominees moved through as quickly as they did showed they took the law seriously, they made the disclosures they were required to make, and in virtually every case had unique qualifications for the job. To put Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education next to Arne Duncan, who headed up the Chicago Public School System as Secretary of Education, is to show that contrast.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully this morning to the statement made by the Republican majority leader, and I was a little bit curious as to what he was trying to say because he talked about a judicial nominee who rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, who received kudos from Republicans and Democrats alike, including Members of the Senate, who went through the Senate without a hitch, and then he couldn't understand why there would be more questions asked now for another appointment. I was puzzled. I thought he was talking about Merrick Garland. We remember him, don't we? Merrick Garland was, of course, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Senator McConnell this morning said repeatedly: So what has changed since the first time Judge Gorsuch came before the Senate? Senator McConnell, what has changed is you, what you did when Merrick Garland's name was sent up. For the first time ever in the history of the U.S. Senate, Senator McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court. It never happened before, not once in history. And if you think, well, maybe the Democrats didn't have a chance to show the same steel will, the same political determination, in the last year of his Presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. He sent the nomination down to the Senate. I believe Senator Biden was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. There was a Democratic majority. In the last year of Reagan's Presidency, a so-called lameduck year by Senator McConnell's description, the Democratic majority in the Senate gave President Reagan the respect of honoring his constitutional responsibility to fill the vacancy and sent Anthony Kennedy to serve on the Supreme Court. So Senator McConnell has asked what has changed. He has changed. He has changed the Senate. And here is the good news for him. We are not going to forswear our own demands that a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court is deserving of a hearing and a vote. I said that over and over again when Merrick Garland was being stonewalled by Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate. I will say it again. I do believe the President's nominee has a right to a hearing and a vote. That nominee also has a responsibility to show us that he is not only qualified to serve on an important appellate court but to serve with a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. On Tuesday night, President Trump announced he would nominate the Tenth Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It is important to put that nomination in context. This is not a run-of-the- mill nomination. It is an extraordinary time in America's history. President Trump's announcement was actually supposed to happen today. Why was it sped up? Why did they hurry it up? Well, because of the avalanche of criticism being heaped on the Trump administration for their Executive orders on refugees and immigration. They had to change the subject. After dozens of legal immigrants were detained at airports over the weekend solely because of their country of origin, including children, seniors, interpreters who helped our troops, Federal courts stepped in to block the President's Executive order. We have done some research, and we are going to do some more. We think this is the first time in the history of the United States that a new President within the first 10 days had an Executive order stopped in the Federal courts. It shows how controversial that order was, that the Federal courts would step in with this brand new President and say: Stop. This has to be weighed as to whether it is legal or constitutional. Then on Monday there was the unprecedented firing of an Attorney General who refused to defend President Trump's unlawful Executive order in court. President Trump moved up his Supreme Court announcement to try to change the headlines. In doing so, he made it even more clear how critical it is that we have an independent judicial system, not a rubberstamp for the President. It's especially vital at this moment in our history. President Trump and his agenda are likely to come before the Supreme Court eventually. From his violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause to his unprecedented Executive actions, President Trump is likely to keep the High Court busy. We need Justices on the Supreme Court who are truly independent. President Trump's announcement came 10 months and 15 days after a White House announcement about another Supreme Court nominee I mentioned earlier, Judge Merrick Garland, perhaps the most well- qualified, mainstream, independent nominee to come before the Senate. Merrick Garland is a son of Illinois, a good man, and an outstanding judge. Judge Gorsuch himself once described Judge Merrick Garland as ``among the finest lawyers of his generation.'' Merrick Garland was subjected to unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. Republican Senators simply ignored their constitutional responsibility to consider this nomination, for political reasons. It was worse than a filibuster. Do you remember the time when Senator McConnell and a number of others in the leadership said they would not even meet with the President's nominee--would not even give him the courtesy of a meeting? Merrick Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history to be denied any consideration by the Senate--no hearing, no vote--nothing. It was shameful. I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution-- every Senator does--and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. I take it seriously. Even though my Republican colleagues chose to ignore their responsibilities when it came to filling that Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, I know we have a constitutional responsibility to give Judge Gorsuch a hearing and a vote. I will do my due diligence as a Senator and give his nomination fair consideration. That is what the advise and consent responsibility of article I, section 8 of the Constitution requires. If my Republican colleagues complain about the process for Judge Gorsuch, just remember that no one ran a worse process on a Supreme Court nominee than my Republican colleagues themselves did for Merrick Garland. They really have no right to complain. Now that President Trump has nominated Judge Gorsuch, Senators will embark on a thorough review of his record. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit in 2006, but the level of scrutiny is far higher for Supreme Court nominees and lifetime appointments to the High Court. He now has a lengthy judicial record which we will review carefully. There are parts of his record that already raise questions and concerns. In recent years, we have watched the Supreme Court transform into a corporate Court, where all too often cases seem to break for the big corporations, regularly against the little guy. We need a Supreme Court that gives the American people a fair shot against corporate elites, corporate special interests. Judge Gorsuch's record as a judge and advocate raises concerns as to whether he would hasten that trend toward a corporate court. I note that yesterday, Reuters published an article entitled ``As Private Lawyer, Trump High Court Pick Was Friend to Business.'' The article said that while Judge Gorsuch was in private practice, he ``often fought on behalf of business interests, including efforts to curb securities class action lawsuits, experience that could mould his thinking if he is confirmed as a [Supreme Court] justice.'' During his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a consistent pattern of favoring companies over workers in cases involving employment discrimination, worker safety, and other matters. That is why we need to carefully review his record. Judge Gorsuch must also answer important questions about his views on issues of fundamental importance to American people, such as our right to privacy. Is there anything more important? Almost on a daily basis we are being asked if we are ready to give up a little more of our privacy. We know that corporate interests and business interests are collecting data on us. We can find it every time we log on to the Internet and there is this cascade of ads on the side of the page asking us if we want to buy something that we just happened to buy a couple months ago. We know as well that information is being catalogued carefully and being used by business interests to promote their products and to categorize us as Americans. We also believe--I think there are even some Republicans who believe--that individuals have a right to privacy when it comes to the overreach of the Federal Government and when it comes to critical decisions so important to our personal lives. At that last heartbreaking moment when a family member has to decide about the medical care for someone who is nearing death, is that going to be subject to a court order or is that going to be a decision made privately by a family? At that moment when a family faces the pregnancy of a teenage girl in the household, is that a family decision or is that a decision where government has the last word? The Supreme Court decides this, and we need to ask Judge Gorsuch what he thinks and understand clearly what he says. We also believe that when it comes to our security--not just our privacy but our security--the Supreme Court time and again will have the last word. When it comes to the issue of safety, health, and environmental protection, where will this new Supreme Court nominee be? Is he going to bend toward the corporate interests and look the other way as we face climate change, the pollution of streams, the contamination of our drinking water, and dangers to our public health? If he is going to rule consistently for the corporate interest no matter what, he certainly doesn't, as far as I am concerned, represent the values we need on the Supreme Court. He needs to answer questions as well on immigration, privacy, campaign finance, and voting rights. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch professes to be an originalist. Let me address that for a moment. I have been with the Judiciary Committee for quite a few years. Time and again, whether it is the nominee for Attorney General or nominees for the High Court, here is the cliche we are given: We are just going to apply the rule of law, whatever the law says. That is what we do. We are originalists. I call that the robotic view of justice; that if you just plug in the facts, a computer can tell you the answer because a computer compares it to the law. Yet we know better. We know judges make decisions based on a variety of concerns, and they weigh some facts more carefully and give some facts more strength than others. This rule of law by robotic justice is a fiction. We know that each nominee, whether from a Democrat or Republican, brings views to the Court that will decide how many cases will lean. Judge Gorsuch has to answer the questions forthrightly. There is a cottage industry of teaching nominees to give thoughtful nonanswers to important questions. That will not cut it for me or many of my colleagues. The American people want honest, candid candidates for the bench. We know Judge Gorsuch is the hand-picked nominee by President Trump and has been lauded by rightwing organizations all over the United States. They hope he will be a dependable vote in their favor, but he has to demonstrate--to me and to many other Senators--that he will be prepared to disappoint the rightwing if the Constitution and law require it. Since the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, Supreme Court Justices have had to show they can pass the threshold of 60 votes to get confirmed. I expect nothing less from this nominee. Justice Elena Kagan, nominated by President Obama, received 63 votes; Justice Sonya Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, received 68 votes; Justice Sam Alito had a cloture vote where he received 72 votes and subsequently received 58 votes for his actual confirmation; Justice Roberts, 78 votes; Justice Breyer, 87; Justice Ginsburg, 96. Judge Gorsuch has a burden to bear. He has to demonstrate that he is a nominee who will uphold and defend the Constitution for the benefit of all of us, not just for the advantage of a privileged few. I take my constitutional responsibility very seriously when it comes to the Supreme Court. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am reviewing the record and preparing questions to ask the nominee. It is going to take some time. It usually does, several months. But my Republican colleagues have kept this seat vacant since February of last year, so they don't have any basis for arguing and complaining that we just have to move on this really fast. I am sorry we are not considering the nomination of Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified mainstream judge who deserved better treatment than he received from Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. No one deserved the treatment Merrick Garland received. With my oath to support and defend the Constitution in mind, I will consider Judge Gorsuch's nomination pursuant to the Senate's role of advise and consent. I will strive to be thorough, fair, and focused on the important principles I have discussed today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a provision in the law which allows the Congress to review regulations within 60 days after they are written and decide up or down. That is what we are doing here. This is about the stream rule that has a direct impact on mining operations, particularly coal mining operations. This has been a battle that has been going on for decades--decades--trying to establish a fair environmental standard for those in mining operations. Efforts have been made, some with limited success. Courts have thrown out earlier versions. So the Obama administration decided they would tackle this. They spent 6 years rewriting 380 pages of rules. Over 150,000 public comments were solicited and received. This is a pretty controversial matter, as you can tell. I have been amused by the critics of this rule who said: Well, Obama just did that as he was going out the door. No. They worked on it for years. There were, as I said, over 100,000 public comments. It is not easy. It is tricky and it is challenging, but they produced it. Now today the Republicans in the Senate and the House want us to wipe it away. What difference would it make? If you don't live next to a coal mine, do you think, well, what difference does it make in my life? I listened to Jeff Merkley, my friend from Oregon, talk about the streams and the rivers. Maybe I don't fish, and I don't care. I don't go out camping, either, and I haven't been hiking. Whether the fish are alive or dead or the streams are polluted or not, who cares? I guess some people feel that way. I don't, even though I don't use our natural resources as much as some. But there is a bigger issue here. This is not just about whether there will be fish alive in the stream or the lake. Let me tell you what that issue is. The issue is the safety of our drinking water. Do you know what is going on when these mining operations dump all this debris into the streams? It rains. Water is flowing. The stream water goes downstream. Now follow the water from the dumping of the mining operations to the chemicals included in that dumping--arsenic, for example. As it goes downstream, it doesn't just kill the fish. In my State, 1 out of 10 people in Illinois depend on those internal river and stream sources for their drinking water. If you don't have honest, realistic, and safe standards when it comes to drinking water, you have decided to up the risk of the people who are drinking the water that comes out of the tap. I think that is a problem. Have you had a conversation with your family at any point about what is going on? Why do we have so much cancer in this area? Why do we have so many problems in this area? Could it be the drinking water? We have asked that question ourselves in our own area of Central Illinois, and many other families have asked the same. If we take the approach which we are being asked to today and wipe away the safety standards for the water that is ultimately flowing into the taps where we drink it, shame on us. Shame on us. Is it too much to ask the mining operations not to dump their trash into the streams? Is it too much to ask them to restore vegetation after they have chopped off the top of a mountain in West Virginia? In Illinois, I can tell you the strip mining, which went on for years and decades left a lot of areas of beautiful farmland in Illinois forever blighted. Whatever happened to the coal companies that stripped off that land, took the coal, and left the mess behind? Long gone. You couldn't find them if you wanted to. What Senator Cantwell has said, and we ought to remember, we believe polluters should pay. We believe that the ultimate responsibility, when it comes to keeping our environment clean, our drinking water safe, is on the polluter. The Republicans disagree. They say: Well, it is just Obama's War on Coal. All right. If you want to bring it down to that level, then it is Trump's War on Clean Drinking Water. That is what this vote is all about. That is what it is all about. Shame on us if we decide to eliminate this protection for families and run the very real risk that the pollution in those streams could cause public health issues, as well as the death of wildlife and fish downstream. That is why I think this vote is so important. This is a first. You heard what Republicans have said is the reason American business is not growing--overregulation. You get this picture of some mettlesome, busybody bureaucrat dreaming up some other way to make life more difficult for people who own businesses. I will tell you there is some of that, and I am not going to defend it, but there is also a conscientious effort by people who are scientists to try to make sure that those of us who are not scientists live in a world that is safe, safe for the air we breathe, safe for the water we drink. If we start sweeping that away, rejecting the science that proves overwhelmingly that we are going through global warming and climate change, rejecting the science that says the runoff in these streams and rivers could ultimately hurt not only wildlife but ultimately hurt the American people and the water they drink, shame on us. Well, we will get rid of regulations, coal mining operations will make more money, and maybe they will continue on--I am sure they will in some respect--but will we be better off as a nation? This is day 14 of the Trump Presidency. It seems like a lot longer to some of us. Republicans in the Senate and the House have decided to strike a blow for eliminating science-based regulation to protect the public health. It is a shame, but it is going to happen. They have the votes on the Senate floor. They are in control and now the American families are going to ask us: Were you there? Were you standing up for us when the safety of our drinking water was at stake? I will be voting no on this effort to repeal this legislation.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, during my time in the Congress, I have had the privilege of visiting many other nations, often fragile or new democracies struggling to meet the needs of growing numbers of youth and emerging middle classes. For example, many of the fastest growing economies are in the developing nations of Africa and Asia. In fact, a few years ago, the World Bank said Africa was on ``the brink of an economic take-off.'' Such economic gains should be welcome news for lifting millions out of poverty, providing better basic services such as education and health care, and improving the lives of women. They are also opportunities to create more markets for our goods and services, to add to our global allies, and to reverse the conditions that lead to violent extremism. But for those of us who have visited many such nations, we are also aware of a major impediment to realizing these improvements--namely effective and clean government. You see, too often, endemic corruption--frequently around lucrative extractive oil and minerals--robs untold sums from generation after generation in many of these nations. Just look at such oil rich nations as Angola, Venezuela, Nigeria, or Equatorial Guinea, where government after government squandered and stole the oil wealth from its own people, far too many of whom still live in terrible squalor. Some of you may remember the devastating column Nicholas Kristof wrote in 2015, ``Deadliest Country for Kids.'' Here is how he describe Angola: ``This is a country laden with oil, diamonds, Porsche-driving millionaires and toddlers starving to death. . . . this well off but corrupt African nation is ranked No. 1 in the world in the rate at which children die before the age of five. . . . Under the corrupt and autocratic president, Jose Educardo dos Santos, who has ruled for 35 years, billons of dollars flow to a small elite--as kids starve.'' He continues: ``There are many ways for a leader to kill his people, and although dos Santos isn't committing genocide he is presiding over the systematic looting of his state and neglect of his people . . . Let 's hold dos Santos accountable and recognize that extreme corruption and negligence can be something close to a mass atrocity.'' In 2008, Republican Foreign Relations Committee staff, under then- Senator Richard Lugar, released a report on this scourge, ``The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox.'' The report from Lugar discussed the ``resource curse'' which is a ``phenomenon whereby large reserves of oil or other resources often negatively affect a country's economic growth, corruption level and stability.'' Why is this important? Let me quote from the report: ``This `resource curse' affects us as well as producing countries. It exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it dulls the effect of our foreign assistance, it empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum supplies by breeding instability. . . . This report argues that transparency in revenues, expenditure and wealth management from extractive industries is crucial to defeating the resource curse.'' Wise words from a wise man. And so, this report became the basis for a very thoughtful, bipartisan law that I was proud to support which tried to tackle this issue in a very commonsense manner. It simply required that the SEC issue a rule requiring all oil, gas, and mineral companies listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange to disclose royalties, bonuses, fees, taxes, and other payments made to foreign governments as a transparency tool for fighting corruption. The U.S. law became the catalyst for others: all 28 European Union member states have enacted similar legislation, followed by Norway and then Canada, who are key players in extractive industries--further establishing an international norm. Moreover, a study conducted by business professors at George Washington University and Catholic University found that increased transparency resulting from disclosures required under the rule lowers the cost of capital for covered U.S. listed firms by up to $12.6 billion. So claims that this is burdensome and will result in competitive harm to American firms are unfounded and simply untrue. So here we are, 4 months since our intelligence services disclosed that a former KGB official led a cyber act of war on our Nation and democracy--and what is the priority of the Republican majority? Establishing an independent commission to look into the Russian attack? No. Taking up bipartisan legislation to tighten sanctions on Russia for its attack on our Nation? No. In fact, not a single Republican has even come to the Senate floor to discuss these grave matters of national security. Ronald Reagan, who understood the Russian mentality so well, must be turning in his grave to see this abdication by his party. Instead, what is the majority party's priority? Well, repealing health care from millions without an alternative-- and, now, trying to strip this good governance anticorruption law--one led by a member of their own party and subject to years of debate and input--aimed at addressing corruption that robs so much from the world's poor--not exactly draining the swamp. This isn't an onerous rule. It is simply a matter of disclosure, transparency, and good governance. It is hard to understand opposition to greater transparency. As such, I will vote against his measure and I urge my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues who have made helping the world's poor one of their endeavors to do the same, don't vote to put more money in the pockets of the world's worst autocrats at the expense of the world's most vulnerable.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the motion to proceed to legislative session and the motion to procced to a joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule, H.J. Res. 38. On vote No. 41, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to proceed to legislative session. On vote No. 42, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 38.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what is the issue before the Senate?

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil has been nominated to be our Secretary of State. We are going through a procedural 30 hours of debate, moving to that issue. As we can tell, many speeches are being given on the floor on a lot of different topics, but the underlying order of business is the next Secretary of State of the United States of America. His nomination comes to us at a particularly challenging time. We live in a dangerous world. We know that. We learned it on 9/ 11, and we learn it every day when men and women in uniform are risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives for this great Nation. We also live in a complicated moment in time with the changeover in Presidents and clearly a changeover in foreign policy. We note that in the first 12 days--the first 12 days of the Trump Presidency--how many serious foreign policy issues have arisen, some the creation of the new President of the United States. It is customary, it is traditional, for the President of the United States to make one of his first major visits to Mexico, or Mexico to the United States. The reason, of course, is they are our third largest trading partner, and in so many different areas, we work together closely with Mexico. We certainly work together with them on issues of security, issues of terrorism and narcotics and trade issues that go on, on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this new President Trump is off to a rocky start with the President of Mexico, to the point where the President of Mexico canceled his visit to the United States. Strong statements were made during the campaign by President Trump about building a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it. How many times did we hear that? Over and over again, the Mexican Government has said: We will never pay for it. So that standoff over a campaign threat or promise is at this moment inhibiting a relationship which traditionally has been strong for generations. Secondly, since being elected President of the United States, President Trump has said that NATO is obsolete. NATO is the alliance created after World War II to protect Europe against aggression from outside, particularly from the Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has expanded to include many other countries--the Baltics, for example, and Poland. As a result, these countries have become dependent on NATO for their security. The theory behind NATO is very basic. If one of our NATO allies is attacked, we will all defend. So we can understand why a small country like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, even Poland, realizing that they are vulnerable to Russian attack, count on NATO. When the President of the United States says that NATO is obsolete, people living in those countries wonder: What about tomorrow? What happens tomorrow if Vladimir Putin, who has been guilty of aggression in Georgia, as well as Ukraine, decides to pick a Baltic country next? So the uncertainty created by President Trump's statement on NATO is one that haunts us to this moment. But the one that is really overwhelming over the last few days is President Trump's Executive order when it came to refugees and immigration. The story of refugees in the United States does not have a good start. Going back to World War II, a man named Breckinridge Long was in charge of immigration into the United States during that war. He worked in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Sadly, his view on refugees was harsh, and as a result, the United States was caught up many times denying access to the safety of the United States to people who were vulnerable to persecution and genocide. The most noteworthy example was the SS St. Louis in 1939, which brought 900 people from Nazi Germany to the United States to escape the Holocaust. They were turned away. They were forced back into Europe, and hundreds died as a result of it. That was the policy of the day. When Robert Wagner, the Senator from New York, asked that we allow 10,000 German children to come into the United States to escape the Holocaust, that measure was defeated in committee in the U.S. Senate-- children coming to the United States. After World War II, when we saw 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust and so many others whose lives were compromised and lost, we decided to change the U.S. approach when it came to refugees. Instead of pushing back against them, we began to embrace them. And do you know what has happened since? We developed a reputation around the world as the safe place to be, the country that cared. Ask over 600,000 Cubans who came to the U.S. shores to escape Castro's regime. Remember, at that time, Castro had allied with the Soviet Union, our mortal enemy of the Cold War. Yet, without vetting--without extreme vetting--we said to these Cubans: You are welcome to be safe in the United States, and they came in the thousands. Are they an important part of America? You bet they are, and there are three Cuban-American U.S. Senators to prove it. Today, a question has been raised by the Trump regime as to what our view is going to be toward refugees in the future. Thank goodness we didn't raise it with Cuba, nor did we raise it when Jews in the Soviet Union were facing persecution. They asked for a chance to come to the United States. Synagogues and communities across the United States opened their arms and gave them a chance, and over 100,000 came to our shores. We are better for it. We really have demonstrated that our ideals and values as a nation apply to those who came to our shores. The list goes on and on, from Yugoslavia to Viet Nam, to Somalia, and many other places where the United States has shown that we are a caring nation. Now comes this new President who says: It is America first; we are going to redefine this refugee policy. Well, this redefinition of America around the world is something that many of us believe is just plain wrong. These Executive orders were issued by President Trump without consultation with even his own Cabinet members who have been appointed. Those in the area of national security, for example, weren't consulted before these Executive orders went into effect. When I talked to the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, it turns out they were given instructions at the last minute as to how to treat passengers coming into international terminals over the weekend. I know what happened at O'Hare. Over 130 people were stopped and detained and questioned, and some were never allowed to board planes in other countries, and some were returned to those countries. It was chaotic. It didn't show basic competency in running a government, and it was fundamentally unfair. Let me say it wasn't just a matter of an uncomfortable situation. It wasn't just a situation of people being inconvenienced. One of our priorities when it comes to refugees, even from those seven countries that President Trump noted, were those who were in desperate medical conditions. So when the President said: I just wanted a pause--a pause for these seven countries--let me ask what we think that pause means to that 9-year-old Somali child in an Ethiopian refugee camp with a congenital heart disease that can't be treated anymore in that camp and who was finally going to get to come for medical care in the United States. That pause by President Trump could be deadly. A 1-year-old Sudanese boy with cancer. A Somali boy with a severe intestinal disorder living in a camp that doesn't even have medical facilities. A pause. We will get it together. We will get back to you later. That is the kind of human condition that is being affected by these orders issued by our new President. Is it any wonder that so many people around the world have reacted? First, they should react when it comes to our security. Do we know how many terrorist refugees have come from these seven countries on the list? None. Not one. Not one Syrian refugee has engaged in terrorist activities in the United States. If you watched ``60 Minutes'' over the weekend, you will understand why. This is not an easy ask. You don't just hold up your hand and say: I am ready to go to the United States. You first submit your name to the U.N. Commission on Refugees. Then we cull the list to find the ones we might consider in the United States, and that is about 1 percent. Then we put them through a vetting process that can go on for 2 years--2 years of being interrogated, investigated, examined, watched, and challenged. Then, finally, after those years, they may have a chance to come to the United States. So now we are going to move to extreme vetting? What is that going to be--trial by fire? What is left? We are doing the very best. The fact that there has not been one refugee from any of these countries engaged in terrorism is an indication that we have a good process that is stronger than any nation on Earth. Yet the President has said we are going to stop these refugees from coming indefinitely from Syria and for months from these other six countries. Then he made a statement on a Christian broadcasting show that he was on that really went far over the line. During the course of the campaign, he said repeatedly: This will be a Muslim ban. Then he said: They told me to stop saying ``Muslim ban,'' so he stopped for a while. It turns out that Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, said: Well, he called me in and said, How do I put together something legal that is a Muslim ban? I think Mayor Giuliani may have been speaking out of school, but it is an indication of what was really going on in the Trump campaign and this administration. On this Christian broadcasting show, the President was explicit that he would give priority to Christians because he believes they would be persecuted in those countries. That flies in the face of some fundamentals in this country--the fundamentals of our Constitution-- because we have said that when it comes to religion, this government shall not favor any religion. Here we have the President of the United States on a television show saying the opposite. It is being challenged in court, at least to some extent. It has been slowed down by retraining orders issued by Federal courts and judges around this country. Last night, the Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, said that in good conscience, she could not defend President Trump's decisions in these Executive orders. For that act of courage, she was fired. I am sure she expected it. But I want to say that for a woman who has given her life--20 years of it, at least--as a prosecutor and who had an exemplary career at the Department of Justice, my hat goes off to her. I think she did what she thought was right and faced the consequences. History will prove her right and this decision by the administration wrong. So now we have Rex Tillerson, who wants to be Secretary of State of the United States of America. How would you like to take over that job tomorrow in light of what I have just mentioned--the Executive orders issued by the President without consultation with the Department of State; judging NATO to be obsolete in his Twitter; and then having a relationship with Mexico where the President is cancelling trips to the United States, not to mention other things said about China and other countries. It is an awesome challenge. It is a challenge that we have to ask whether Mr. Tillerson is prepared for. He has had 40 years of success with ExxonMobil, starting as a production engineer and going to the top of the company. Now the question is, Is he ready to give up his loyalty to a company and to have a loyalty to a country even if the decisions he has to make as Secretary of State may be inconsistent with the best business policy for that company? I am going to yield the floor. I see my colleague from the State of Wyoming is here. I believe this will be ongoing, so I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming from the other side of the aisle is my friend. We spend time in the gym together; I go there regularly--for no apparent reason. But we are friends, and we disagree on some political issues. I just wish to clarify one or two things. When it comes to Congressman Price, I don't know him personally. He has been chosen by President Trump to head up the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the biggest and most important. He has stated, as a Member of Congress from Georgia, that he believes we should change the Social Security system as well as the Medicare system and privatize Medicare. That is a worrisome suggestion for 50 million or more Americans who count on Medicare and do not exactly look forward to being placed in the loving arms of an insurance company at some point late in their lives. So there are questions there. But the question at hand was brought to the attention of the American public today, not in some liberal newspaper, but in the Wall Street Journal. It turns out that Congressman Price has been engaged in the purchase of stock that has a direct impact on the medical profession. Whether he properly filed disclosures in buying that stock or whether he did something improper is still to be resolved. Part of the reason the nominees for President Trump are taking longer than others is that many, like Congressman Price, have extensive financial holdings. We found that when a billionaire from Chicago-- Penny Pritzker--was nominated for Secretary of Commerce under President Obama, it took literally 6 months for us to gather all the financial information about her and to divest her of any potential conflicts of interest. It turns out that many of these nominees did not have their ethics filings on file in time to be considered in a timely fashion, and, in some cases, information about them was found to be in conflict with reality, and now there is a further investigation necessary. It isn't just a matter of spite; it is a matter of doing our due diligence, as required by the Constitution and required in the U.S. Senate.