Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, no one wants to live on a dirty planet. Before we created the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, nearly 50 years ago, rivers actually caught fire from pollution, smog covered our cities, and powerplants spewed arsenic and mercury into the sky with impunity. In the years since, the EPA has been at the vanguard of the effort to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. This work is not easy, and the person who leads the EPA has a tough job. It requires toughness and fortitude to fight back against polluters and special interests. In all the years the EPA has been around, we would be hard-pressed to find someone more hostile to the Agency's fundamental mission or as less suited to leading it than Scott Pruitt is. As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt organized, led, or participated in virtually every challenge to the EPA's work during his time in office. His lawsuits have, among other things, sought to prevent the EPA from enforcing rules that keep our water safe, protect our air from harmful pollutants, like mercury and arsenic, and limit the carbon pollution that causes climate change. These lawsuits beg the question: Does Scott Pruitt believe the EPA should even exist? In the weeks and months since he was nominated, Mr. Pruitt has gone out of his way to try and smooth over his record and say what he thinks we want to hear, but we can't fall for it. Instead of listening to what he is saying now, let's examine more closely what he has done as Oklahoma's attorney general. His record is troubling. Throughout his term of office, Mr. Pruitt has been very cozy with fossil fuel companies and affiliated interest groups. A 2014 investigation by the New York Times revealed that energy lobbyists drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send on State stationary to the EPA against the Obama administration's environmental regulations. The CEO of Continental Energy--an oil and gas company based in Oklahoma--served as the campaign chairman for his reelection bid. We just got word yesterday that a State district judge in Oklahoma ordered the attorney general's office to turn over as many as 3,000 documents related to Mr. Pruitt's communications with oil, gas, and coal groups during his time in office. Unfortunately, we will not get a chance to see what these documents reveal before voting on his confirmation. Based on his record and associations, however, I think we can make an educated guess that these documents will reveal the extent of Mr. Pruitt's ties to fossil fuel interests, and we have no reason to believe he will renounce these connections if confirmed to serve as EPA Administrator. He also fought relentlessly against the EPA's efforts to establish basic limits on smog, arsenic, mercury, and other dangerous air pollutants. Mr. Pruitt, for example, sued the EPA not once but twice to overturn the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. These standards would prevent 40,000 pounds of mercury emissions every year and would help keep our food supply safe from contamination. Mr. Pruitt has also repeatedly questioned whether climate change is real. In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Mr. Pruitt refused to accept settled science that humans contribute to climate change. He said there are ``a wide range of viewpoints regarding the extent to which man contributes to climate change.'' In the National Review, Mr. Pruitt said ``scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.'' The fact is, 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and that human beings contribute to it. I hardly think 97 percent of scientists agreeing constitutes a wide range of viewpoints on climate change and the extent to which man contributes to it. From his perch as Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued to prevent President Obama's Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from taking effect. He argued that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to regulate carbon emissions. This is wrong. The Supreme Court ruled twice--first in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 and again in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA in 2014--that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions as pollution under the Clean Air Act. If confirmed, Mr. Pruitt has promised to kill the Clean Power Plan and undo much of the positive work that President Obama did to address climate change. Mr. Pruitt also has a track record of undermining enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Shortly after becoming Oklahoma's attorney general in 2010, Mr. Pruitt gave us a taste of what is to come at the EPA when he eliminated the Environmental Protection Unit within the Oklahoma attorney general's office. For years, this unit investigated water contamination from refineries, lead paint waste, and illegal dumping. In its place, he created the innocuous sounding Federalism Unit. Unlike the unit he eliminated, whose mission was to protect the health and safety of Oklahomans, the Federalism Unit's job is to handle all of Mr. Pruitt's legal challenges against the EPA. Over the past 3 years, Mr. Pruitt has increased the budget of the Federalism Unit by over 700 percent, and the taxpayers of Oklahoma get to foot that bill. Mr. Pruitt's record paints a clear picture: His priorities directly conflict with the EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment. He is much more concerned about protecting corporate interests than keeping our communities healthy and safe from pollution. Over the past few months, I have heard from thousands of my constituents who have urged me to oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I would like to read two of the letters I have received. Georgia is a Ph.D. student at the University of Hawaii. She wrote: I strongly oppose Scott Pruitt's confirmation as EPA Administrator. Mr. Pruitt is a climate change denier who has actively worked against the mission of the agency. As a Ph.D. student in science, I know we need an EPA administrator that respects science and supports clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Pruitt is the wrong choice for our nation and must be rejected. Keiko from Kaneohe also wrote to explain what this fight means to her. This is not a bipartisan issue, but it is as much an American issue as it is a Hawaiian issue, a human issue, and an issue of all inhabitants of Papa, mother earth. I ask that you continue to be vigilant and `onipa'a in the face of climate change deniers . . . Mahalo for looking out for everyone living today and going to be born tomorrow. We have come too far over the past 8 years to let someone like Scott Pruitt destroy the progress we have made. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is probably the most powerful Federal job that most Americans have never heard of. If you were to ask five out of five regular people whether they have even heard of the Office of Management and Budget, or its importance, I would say that probably five of them would say: I have never heard of it; what do they do? The Director of OMB has broad discretion to develop Federal regulations and to set spending priorities across the government-- spending priorities across the government. I think we should make sure that this person actually cares about service to the people of America. For example, if the Defense Department needs more resources for our troops, OMB has to sign off. If the Environmental Protection Agency wants to protect our communities from air and water pollution, OMB has to sign off. If the President wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid under the guise of ``saving money,'' the OMB Director is responsible for implementing the policy. Given the tremendous power invested in this position, the next OMB Director should, at a minimum, believe in the central government functions he or she will be tasked to carry out. That is why I strongly oppose the nomination of Congressman Mike Mulvaney to serve as the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Congressman Mulvaney came to Washington at the very right fringe of the tea party wave in 2010. Since then, he has consistently pursued policies that would be disastrous for our economy, for the most vulnerable members of our society, and for America's seniors--our kupuna. Congressman Mulvaney has been one of the strongest proponents for privatizing and voucherizing Medicare and dismantling Medicaid during his time in Congress. In 2011, while explaining his support for the draconian, really terrible Republican budget that would have destroyed the social safety net and gutted funding for nearly every domestic program--nearly every domestic program and you can imagine the thousands and thousands of domestic programs people across the country are relying upon--Congressman Mulvaney said: Two nights ago, there was a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted to dramatically overhaul Medicare and Medicaid and lightning did not strike us. If that is not a sign that maybe things can be different around here, I don't know what is. So I'm hoping that--I hope we have that exact debate over the course of the next year. Let me be clear. Congressman Mulvaney was gloating over a bill that would be devastating to millions of seniors and Americans on Medicaid and Medicare. If confirmed, Congressman Mulvaney would not just be one extremist in the House of Representatives; he would be the person--the one person--responsible for developing, rolling out, and implementing the President's budget and his priorities. With this power, he would be in a position to fulfill his heart's desire--all of the things he worked on as a member of the tea party and a Member of the House of Representatives. He could destroy programs like Medicare and Social Security, which more than 200,000 seniors in Hawaii and tens of millions across the United States depend on every single day. There are things we can do to fight back. Last month, I fought alongside my friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Joe Donnelly, to prevent Congressman Mulvaney and the Trump administration from using budget gimmicks to privatize Medicare and cut funding from Medicaid. While our amendment was defeated in a very close vote, I was encouraged that two of our Republican colleagues--Senator Dean Heller of Nevada and Senator Susan Collins of Maine--voted in favor of my amendment. This vote demonstrated that there is bipartisan opposition to balancing the budget on the backs of our seniors. This is exactly what Congressman Mulvaney wants to do. He has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal, but he calls Social Security--a program that millions and millions of people throughout our country rely upon--a Ponzi scheme and supports raising the eligibility for it to 70 years old. When he was in the South Carolina legislature, he even supported a bill that said that Social Security was unconstitutional. I would say even the most conservative person would not deem Social Security to be unconstitutional, but that is the kind of position that Congressman Mulvaney takes. His positions on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are enough to disqualify him from serving as OMB Director. We do not need an ideological flamethrower like Congressman Mulvaney at the helm of OMB. Sadly, there is more. Congressman Mulvaney is a debt limit denier. To demonstrate the point, I wish to read his response to a question he received from the Budget Committee: I do believe that defaulting on America's debts would have grave worldwide economic consequences. I do not believe that breaching the debt ceiling will automatically or inevitably lead to that result. Not only is this statement wrong, but it contradicts itself. I was in the House in 2011 when Congressman Mulvaney and his colleagues played political games with the debt limit. I can tell you that the stock market did not agree with his assessment that there wouldn't be an immediate negative impact. Here is what happened over the course of a week. The stock market lost $1 trillion in value--$1 trillion in value. Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit for the first time in our country's history. The Government Accountability Office later found that the standoff increased our borrowing costs by $1.3 billion, which Congressman Mulvaney and his Republican allies were all too happy to pass along to the American taxpayers to pay. Congressman Mulvaney's record clearly demonstrates why he is unfit to serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He wants to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and other vulnerable communities. He believes in governing from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. It isn't even clear if he supports the mission of the department he has been nominated to lead. Congressman Mulvaney joins a list of nominees--many of them confirmed at this point, sadly--ranging from an Education Secretary who does not believe in public education to a Secretary of Health and Human Services who wants to basically dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security not far behind. I ask my colleagues, when does this long list of nominees come to a stop? I say, at the very least, someone with the power of the Director of OMB is where we should be drawing the line, unless we want one who thinks that defaulting on our national debt is not a problem, unless we think that hurting millions and millions of seniors on Social Security and Medicare is not a problem. I feel as though Congressman Mulvaney perhaps has not encountered enough people in his time in public service who have come to him to share their stories of the devastation that would come into their lives if these safety net programs were not there for them. I feel as though maybe if they have come to talk to him, he hasn't listened very well. I encourage my colleagues to hold the line at this point and to oppose this nomination. Congressman Mulvaney is not the person for OMB. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, it is observed that we are being asked to confirm a Treasury Secretary who helped bring about the 2008 financial crisis and profited off the misery that followed. During his campaign, President Trump promised to crack down on Wall Street abuses. In one of his campaign ads, the President said that the CEO of Goldman Sachs was part of a ``global elite'' that was ``robbing our working class.'' He said that on Wall Street, ``It's the powerful protecting only the powerful.'' Given his campaign promises, it is astounding that President Trump nominated Steve Mnuchin, someone whose business record embodies the worst abuses from the financial crisis, to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. In the fall of 2008, when I served in the U.S. House, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson came to Capitol Hill and painted a dire picture. He told us that without drastic intervention by Congress and the White House, the entire global financial system would collapse. The situation was so dire, he argued, that we could not even pause to provide additional, meaningful relief to the millions of families across the country facing home foreclosures. In the years that followed, we learned a lot more about just how bad things were. Many banks sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, packaged those mortgages into complex financial instruments, colluded with ratings agencies, and sold those ``products'' as solid investments. The American people stepped in with hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street. But without effective, broad laws in place before the financial crisis to prevent predatory lending, millions of people lost their homes and trillions of dollars in household wealth. Many of those victims have yet to recover. That was bad enough as it was unfolding, but in the years that followed, we learned more and more about the numerous abuses these banks perpetrated on the American people. After years of pushing subprime loans on minority homeowners who couldn't afford them, foreclosures devastated minority communities across the country. According to a 2010 study by the Center for Responsible Lending, minority homeowners were 70 percent more likely to lose their homes in foreclosure proceedings. Many banks also violated judicial foreclosure proceedings when they signed hundreds of thousands of foreclosure documents without reviewing them, also known as robo-signing. Some of my colleagues might argue that it isn't worth rehashing this devastating economic history, but I disagree because today we will be asked to vote for a Treasury nominee whose questionable business practices earned him the title of ``Foreclosure King.'' As a senior executive at Goldman Sachs for 17 years, Steve Mnuchin was an evangelist for the types of financial transactions--credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations--that crashed the economy in 2008. He said these instruments were ``an extremely positive development in terms of being able to finance different parts of the economy and different businesses effectively.'' What was essentially just business to him devastated the economy and the lives of millions of people. As the CEO of OneWest, Mnuchin was deeply involved in subprime lending and was responsible for tens of thousands of foreclosures across the country. Under Mr. Mnuchin's leadership, OneWest was among the worst offenders in robo-signing foreclosure documents. While he denied this fact during his confirmation hearing, a vice president at OneWest admitted to signing 750 documents per week while spending less than 30 seconds on each one. In other words, he was very busy robo- signing these documents. Under Mr. Mnuchin's leadership, a OneWest subsidiary, Financial Freedom, foreclosed on more than 16,000 seniors who were living on fixed incomes and who had reverse mortgages with that company. In one case, the company foreclosed on a 90-year-old woman's home over a 27- cent debt. Hundreds of families across Hawaii who had mortgages with OneWest felt the impact of Steve Mnuchin's business practices personally. In 2013, I received a letter from Suzanne on the Big Island. Suzanne is a retired Navy civilian. She depends on her disability and retirement income to afford her modest home in Hilo. She had her mortgage through OneWest. When she wrote to me, her home was in court- ordered mediation pending foreclosure. Suzanne went into mediation in good faith, assuming that OneWest would assist her with a loan modification. Well, she was wrong. Suzanne and OneWest agreed that before she signed any modification, she would receive a written offer that included the full terms of the agreement. But during their second mediation meeting, in violation of the agreement, OneWest told Suzanne that she owed $30,000 more than her records showed and made a unilateral offer without disclosing any of the terms, contrary to what they had agreed to. Suzanne wisely refused to accept the so-called offer. At the time that she wrote to me, OneWest was pushing a judge to proceed with her foreclosure. ``I can afford my home,'' she wrote. ``I want to keep my home, but the difference between $1,300 and $1,500 a month is huge.'' OneWest has billions and is considering going public this year. She went on to say: ``They have made unreasonable offers, lost paperwork, ignored requests. All the nightmares you hear about on the news, well, consider me a poster child.'' Suzanne asked us to write to Steve Mnuchin on her behalf, even though she knew that OneWest had a record of hanging homeowners like her out to dry. She said: ``It seems to me that Mr. Mnuchin was one of the architects of our meltdown.'' She is right. There are tens of thousands of stories from OneWest customers like Suzanne across the country, and Mr. Mnuchin is responsible for each one of them as CEO of OneWest. Now President Trump is asking us to confirm Mr. Mnuchin to serve as Treasury Secretary. Throughout his campaign, President Trump made it clear that he wants to dismantle Dodd-Frank, eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and roll back financial regulations that would prevent another financial crisis. As Treasury Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would be charged with implementing this agenda. Credible economists have warned that we could end up in another financial crisis. My question is, Who would a Secretary Mnuchin try to save--Wall Street or the millions of people who will be adversely impacted? His record shows which path Steve Mnuchin would choose. That is why I call on my colleagues to oppose this nomination. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to address the deep anxiety in Hawaii and across the country about President Trump's choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Congressman Tom Price. I am particularly concerned about this nominee because of the mixed messages President Trump has been sending about health care. During the campaign, President Trump promised to protect Medicare and Medicaid. Yet he has nominated Congressman Price to head HHS. Congressman Price has led the effort to privatize Medicare and dismantle Medicaid in the U.S. House. This is hardly someone who would protect Medicare and Medicaid. Shortly before taking the oath of office, President Trump said he supported the concept of universal coverage. He said: We are going to have insurance for everybody. They can expect to have great health care. Yet he nominated Congressman Price, who has spent the past 6 years trying to end universal health care coverage by repealing the Affordable Care Act. President Trump says a lot of things. He tweets his thoughts daily, but at this point, instead of listening to what President Trump says, we should pay attention to what he does. By nominating Congressman Price, the President demonstrated he does not intend to protect access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans--not by protecting Medicare and Medicaid, not by protecting health insurance fraud. President Trump's health care agenda would have far-reaching, negative, painful consequences for tens of thousands of people in Hawaii and millions all across the country. Maybe President Trump should tweet less and listen more. Over the past few months, I have heard from thousands of Hawaii residents concerned that they will no longer be able to afford health care if President Trump succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act and privatizing Medicare. I would like to read a few of the messages I have received. Catherine from Honolulu wrote: I am writing to you to express serious concern over the repealing of ACA and other health insurance changes. As a working (teacher) and single parent of two young children I am very afraid for our future. I am afraid my insurance will not cover my psoriatic arthritis if I change jobs, they change companies, or for some reason I should lose my job or coverage. My medicine without insurance would cost more than my mortgage payment, and would thus be cost prohibitive. If I don't have my medication I would be in so much pain. I would be unable to work and would therefore lose my insurance which would mean I would never be able to get coverage because of a preexisting condition. I am certain there are many other people out there with similar stories. Please do everything you can to make sure this scenario doesn't happen to us. If there is anything I can do, please don't hesitate to let me know. I just don't know who else to turn to. Next, I would like to share a note I received from Julie from Papaaloa on the Big Island. My husband and I are on Medicare, together with a supplemental plan. We are totally dependent on Social Security for our income and Medicare for our health plan. Many millions of seniors are in the same situation as we are. Please continue to fight for us as this abominable horror of an administration goes forward. I shudder to think what would happen if these programs are repealed or privatized. Finally, I would like to share a heartbreaking story from Desi from Mililani on Oahu. Desi is an extremely hard-working, self-employed teacher and the single mother of two daughters. Her youngest daughter has Down syndrome, autism, and is hearing impaired. Desi is self- employed because she needs the flexibility to work and care for her daughter. This year, as a sole proprietor over the age of 55, Desi's premiums for her HMO plan rose to over $680 per month for 2016. In a letter she wrote to me, Desi said: Paying this high monthly premium was no longer possible and was jeopardizing our family's ability to pay our mortgage, food, and other essentials alone. Desi successfully found a cheaper plan in the ACA marketplace for 2017. In her letter she went on to say: If the ACA is successfully repealed, we will no longer be able to afford medical coverage! Families like ours are the reasons why it is so important to defend the Affordable Care Act. These letters and stories demonstrate what is at stake for our 200,000 seniors on Medicare in Hawaii and millions more across the country. That is why I will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent any cuts that would jeopardize our crucial social safety net progress. The fight has already begun. Last month, Republicans in Congress pushed through a partisan budget resolution that would give them the tools they need to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This assault on the Affordable Care Act is also an assault on Medicare and Medicaid because the ACA strengthened Medicare and Medicaid through, for example, closing the prescription doughnut hole and providing free preventive checkups for seniors. This is why I joined with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Donnelly, to introduce an amendment that would block congressional Republicans from privatizing Medicare or increasing eligibility standards for Medicare. It would also prevent changes that reduce funding for Medicaid. During the debate on our amendment, one of our Republican colleagues, in his opposition to the amendment, basically made our point for us. He said something to the effect of, a vote in favor of our amendment to protect Medicare and Medicaid is a vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act. Exactly. In the end, it was a close vote on our amendment. While the amendment lost, I was encouraged that two of our Republican colleagues, Senator Heller of Nevada and Senator Collins of Maine, voted in favor of the amendment. In the coming weeks and months, there will be other battles to protect Medicare and Medicaid. It is going to be a daunting fight, but I am not going to shy away from it. I am going to do whatever I can, whenever I can to protect the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. In this fight, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on Tom Price's nomination to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tom Price is not the champion that millions of people in our country are counting on to protect their health and welfare. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I assume I will be able to resume my comments after the majority leader's statement?

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you.

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have served with Jeff Sessions throughout my time in the Senate and respect him very much as a colleague. I come to the floor of the Senate today not to decide whether Jeff Sessions is doing a good job as the Senator from Alabama, for, of course, that is for his constituents to decide; I come to the floor today to vote on whether to support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General of all the people of America, not just the people of Alabama. That is an awesomely different role and responsibility. I have deep concerns about Jeff Sessions' independence from the President and how he would use his prosecutorial discretion to address a number of critical issues confronting our country. The Attorney General is the American people's lawyer, not the President's, and the job requires the Attorney General to stand up to the President as the people's lawyer. In his first 2 weeks in office, President Trump has demonstrated his intolerance of dissent and independent thinking. He fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates because she did what an Attorney General is supposed to do: She stood up and refused to defend President Trump's Executive order effectively restricting Muslims from coming to or returning to our country. Would Jeff Sessions have stood up to the President as Sally Yates did? During his confirmation hearing, I asked Senator Sessions if he would honor the historical role of the Attorney General and maintain strict independence from the White House. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. This is deeply troubling in light of the ongoing litigation in Federal court challenging the President's Muslim ban as overreaching and unconstitutional. Since the President announced the ban just over a week ago, hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets to oppose it. Lawyers have been camping out in arrivals terminals in airports across the country to help those who are trying to come back or come to our country with legal visas. State attorneys general have been speaking out and filing lawsuits to block this ban. Last week, Hawaii attorney general Doug Chin filed a lawsuit to block the Executive order. I wish to read a section from the State's brief outlining the State's case. Hawaii joins the many voices that have condemned the Order. But this pleading is not about politics or rhetoric--it is about the law. The simple fact is that the Order is unlawful. By banning Muslims and creating a preference for Christian refugees, the Order violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. By those same acts, it violates the equal protection guarantee of the fifth amendment. By failing utterly to provide procedures or protections of any kind for people detained or turned away at our airports, it violates the Due Process Clause. And by enshrining rank discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion, it flies in the face of statutes enacted by Congress. Attorney General Chin is standing up for the people of Hawaii. The people of the United States deserve the same from our Attorney General. To understand how an Attorney General should discharge his or her responsibility, we need only turn to Senator Sessions' own words in an exchange between Sally Yates and Senator Sessions during her confirmation hearing in 2015. I wish to read the exchange. Senator Sessions said at her confirmation hearing: Do you understand that in this political world, there will be people calling, demanding, pushing, insisting on things that they do not know what they're asking for and could indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the respect the Department of Justice has, could diminish the rule of law in the United States? Are you aware of that? You've already learned that the time you've been there. Nominee Yates said: Well, you're right, Senator, I'm not from here. I've only been here for a couple of months, but I can tell you I'm committed to the Department of Justice. I love our department. I care deeply about our mission, and I would do everything in my power to protect the integrity that is the Department of Justice.'' Senator Sessions said: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about. Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say ``no'' to the President if he asks for something that is improper? If the views of the President are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no? Yates' response: Senator, I believe the AG or deputy AG has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President. The people of the United States need an Attorney General who will stand up to the President to defend the Constitution--especially, as Senator Sessions pointed out in his questions of Nominee Yates, when the President is wrong. Based on Nominee Sessions' long-held restrictive views on immigration, I do not think he would stand up to the President as Sally Yates did. I am also deeply concerned about how Senator Sessions would use his prosecutorial discretion to address a number of critical issues. During his confirmation hearing, I pressed Senator Sessions for a commitment to vigorously protect every citizens' right to vote, particularly with regard to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which safeguards Americans from discriminatory voting laws. At a time when our President is making unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud, we need an Attorney General who will vigorously protect the right to vote and not give in to these kinds of alternative facts to justify voter suppression laws. Senator Sessions did not provide me with a satisfactory answer that he would affirmatively scrutinize voting laws for impermissible discriminatory impact. If the Attorney General does not weigh in on these kinds of situations, this means that challenging these kinds of voting laws, these kinds of impermissible discriminatory voting laws, will be left to individuals and groups with limited resources, such as the NAACP. I also asked Senator Sessions whether he would honor the Department of Justice's consent decrees, some 20 of them, that address police misconduct and enhance accountability. Senator Sessions did not adequately assure me that as Attorney General, he would uphold these amendments. In fact, he left the door open for renegotiating these agreements. I pressed Senator Sessions for a commitment to defend Roe v. Wade in Federal court and to enforce laws that guarantee the constitutionally protected women's right to choose. Senator Sessions refused to disavow his past comments that Roe v. Wade was one of the worst Supreme Court cases ever decided and, in his view, not based on the Constitution, when, in fact, the majority decision had a constitutional basis. Should the Supreme Court be presented with a case that provides them the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, I asked Senator Sessions, would he instruct the Solicitor General to argue for the overturning of Roe v. Wade? He said that was a hypothetical and did not respond. Senator Sessions' view on Roe v. Wade is clear. Would anyone be surprised if, as Attorney General, he would support overturning Roe v. Wade given that opportunity? In addition, in one of his first actions, the President reinstated a ban on foreign aid to health providers abroad who discussed abortion. This vow would compromise the health care of millions of women in places where the need is greatest. Taking the President's lead, I seriously question whether his Cabinet nominees, including the Attorney General nominee, will protect a woman's right to choose. I want to turn again to the topics of President Trump's Executive order, basically banning Muslim immigration, because our next Attorney General will likely weigh in on this, as well as other immigration cases. In fact, the Justice Department is already in Federal courts right now defending President Trump's Muslim ban. So while there is an argument being made that this really is not a Muslim ban, I say, you can call a duck a chicken, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. That is what this Executive order is, a Muslim ban. Sadly, stoking fears in minorities and immigrants is a tragic but undeniable part of our Nation's history, and this fear has been used to justify the terrible treatment of minorities from Native peoples to slaves, to immigrants who helped build our country. In 1882, decades of incitement against Chinese immigrants resulted in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, an immoral law that banned all Chinese immigration. This law, and others that followed, created a culture of fear that culminated in the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This was one of the darkest periods of American history, and it took decades for our country to acknowledge our error. Last week, we commemorated what would have been civil rights icon Fred Korematsu's 98th birthday. As Japanese Americans were rounded up for incarceration, Mr. Korematsu, who was only 23 at the time, bravely resisted internment all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld Mr. Korematsu's conviction as being justified by the exigencies of war. Forty years later, documents kept from the Supreme Court showed that the Americans of Japanese ancestry were not involved in seditious actions justifying mass incarceration. Mr. Korematsu waited more than 40 years for a court in California to overturn his conviction. During the Judiciary Committee's markup on this nomination, I read the full text of President Ronald Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing for the internment. I would like to read some of the excerpts. I do see the majority leader here. Would you like me to yield?

Ms. HIRONO. I would like to resume my remarks. Mr. President, I want to read some excerpts from President Ronald Reagan's remarks in 1988, apologizing for the internment of Japanese Americans. More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the United States were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent. Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping forward in the internment camps themselves. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this Nation, their Nation. Yet back at home, the soldiers' families were being denied the very freedom for which so many of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives. The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here, we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law. President Reagan's words powerfully demonstrated the wrongness of the internment, but just after this Presidential election, a top Trump surrogate said that the Japanese internment should be used as ``precedent'' for a Muslim registry. And a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia, in 2014, warned that a civil rights atrocity similar to the internment of Japanese Americans could happen again. Justice Scalia explained his thinking with the Latin phrase that means: ``In times of war, the laws fall silent.'' Justice Scalia in 2014, went on to say: That is what was going on--the panic about the war, and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again--in times of war. It's no justification, but it is the reality. The internment of Japanese Americans is yet another example of how, when we do not stand up against unconstitutional actions like President Trump's Muslim ban, we will be complicit in what follows. Time and again, when our country targets minorities for discriminatory treatment, history proves us to have been deeply wrong. I commend my Republican colleagues, Senators Graham, McCain, Hatch, Flake, Sasse, and others, for their statements questioning President Trump's immigration Executive order. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain issued a joint statement, which I would like to read in whole because I very much admire the position they took. In their joint statement they said: Our government has the responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our Nation. It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump's Executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown, through extensive vetting, to pose no demonstrable threat to our Nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children. Ultimately, we fear this Executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this Executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This Executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this Executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security. That is the end of the joint statement by Senators McCain and Graham. I read the statement and I cannot but admire our two Senators for making the statements. I cannot overstate the fearful message that President Trump is sending by pursuing this ban on Muslims. Last night, our colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, was silenced for sharing a letter from Coretta Scott King. If we cannot make a distinction between talking about a fellow Senator from a person who is a nominee that we must confirm, then the rule that shuts down debate should be called a gag rule. Over the last 2 months, I have heard from thousands of my constituents and a number of prominent civil rights organizations, including a number who testified at Jeff Sessions' hearing questioning his nomination. So I will vote against the nomination of Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General because I am deeply concerned about how he would use his prosecutorial discretion to uphold voting rights, protect civil rights, and safeguard a woman's right to choose. I am seriously concerned about Jeff Sessions' willingness to say no to the President when he needs to. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, constituents from every State who care about our public schools and our students in public schools have broken records calling us, their Senators, in opposition to Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary. In the past few weeks, I have heard from thousands of Hawaii residents concerned about voting for an Education Secretary who clearly does not believe in our Nation's public schools. I wish to share two of their messages today. One constituent wrote to me: Dear Senator Hirono, As a proud Hawaii educator for 30 plus years, I'm deeply troubled by the possible appointment of Betsy DeVos to the position of US Secretary of Education. Although I would personally never consider applying for a job I am not qualified to serve in, it's baffling to me that our new Commander in Chief thinks someone who has NO experience as a teacher or administrator could be remotely prepared to lead our nation in this role. I don't have to explain to you what a selfless calling being a teacher is, nor do I believe our Hawaii delegation takes educating Hawaii's keiki lightly, so I implore you to work with other leaders in DC to make sure we have a suitable nominee for this essential position. Mahalo, Sandy from Honolulu Sandy and teachers like her devote more time and effort than is mandated to ensure that our public school students have a solid foundation in education and for life. Teaching is a calling, and I have met with many teachers who are totally committed to doing the very best they can for their students, and they want nothing less from the next Secretary of Education. They deserve a better qualified, better experienced, better prepared, and more committed Secretary of Education than Betsy DeVos. Next, I wish to share a message from Lorelei, a middle school principal on Oahu. Her letter begins: Dear Senator Hirono, 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. Educators and students deserve a secretary who can commit to supporting every student in all public schools, and a leader that will work tirelessly to promote a public education system that provides each child with the optimum conditions for teaching and learning. Betsy DeVos' past work in education and her performance at the recent confirmation hearing demonstrated neither a depth of experience nor knowledge base in education policy and on critical issues facing the community. She ends her letter by saying: As a principal, I have spoken with teachers, parents, students, and community members across the political spectrum and there is widespread agreement that Betsy DeVos is not the right person for the job. As Lorelei said, it shouldn't be asking too much to have an Education Secretary who will stand up for public schools and the millions of our children who attend our public schools. That person is certainly not Betsy DeVos. In his opening remarks at Betsy DeVos's confirmation hearing, the chairman of the HELP Committee said that Mrs. DeVos was in the ``mainstream'' for supporting vouchers to send students to private schools, instead of investing in our public schools. This is not mainstream thinking. Being told otherwise is again dealing in ``alternative facts.'' The chairman went on to repeat a so-called argument that Betsy DeVos and other school choice advocates make--that vouchers are simply Pell grants for primary and secondary education. Now, this is a real head scratcher, and I say: What? Here we go again down the rabbit hole, where up is down and down is up. Pell grants and vouchers are fundamentally different. Pell grants help offset the ever-rising cost of a voluntary college education. All colleges charge students tuition, and Pell grants provide opportunity to low-income students to be able to go to college. In contrast, every American child has a right to a free primary and secondary public education. Vouchers actually take resources away from public schools and make it that much harder to provide a good education for all of our students. Vouchers take money away from public schools; Pell grants don't. When a student uses a Pell grant at a private college or university, it has no impact on the funding a State college or university receives. But when a student uses a voucher to attend a private school, it takes away money from local public schools. How is taking money away from local public schools mainstream thinking? The Secretary of Education should be focused on improving our public schools, not taking money away from them. Furthermore, saying that Pell grants are similar to vouchers reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the Pell grant program. Among her many duties as Secretary, Betsy DeVos would be in charge of managing $30 billion per year of Pell grants, which help more than 8 million students afford a college education in this country. During the 2014-2015 school year, more than 21,000 students in Hawaii were able to finance their college education with nearly $81 million in Pell grants. Last Congress, I led legislation to protect and strengthen the Pell grant program. But under Republican majorities, Pell grants are under the constant threat of irresponsible cuts and dismantlement, even though college today is more expensive than ever. Can we really trust Betsy DeVos to fight to protect Pell grants? Somebody who equates Pell grants with vouchers is not someone who understands her responsibilities under the Pell Grant Program. So can we really trust Betsy DeVos to support the Pell Grant Program? I don't think so. I have spoken out against Betsy DeVos's nomination a number of times, but some questions need repeating. What are we telling our students if we have an Education Secretary who is not committed to improving the public education system so that our students can succeed in school and in life? Nine out of every 10 students in the United States attend public school. What are we saying to them? Is it the best we can do to give them an Education Secretary who does not believe in the public schools they attend? Who doesn't believe that their education is worth fighting for? If this is the message you want to send to our students and their families, then vote for Betsy DeVos. On behalf of the nearly 200,000 public school students in Hawaii and their teachers and other educators in Hawaii, my answer is a strong, strong no. I urge my colleagues to question Betsy DeVos's commitment to our public schools and to the millions of students who go to public schools and vote against her nomination. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Will the Senator from Washington yield for a question?

Ms. HIRONO. As we have spent many hours debating whether Mrs. DeVos is the best person to head our Department of Education, my question is, Do you think Betsy DeVos is the best prepared, the best experienced, and the best committed person to lead as the Secretary of the Department of Education? With your indulgence, I would like to put this into a little bit of a context because we talk about how foundational public schools are and how education is a great equalizer. I speak from experience as an immigrant coming to this country not speaking any English, and I learned from the public schools and the committed teachers in public schools how to read and write English, to develop my love of reading, to count on an education system to prepare me for success, not only in school but in life. That is why I want to also ask my colleague from Washington State, for the nearly 200,000 young people in Hawaii who attend our public schools and obviously the millions of young people in our public schools throughout the country, Do you think Betsy DeVos is the best we can do for these people who are attending our public schools?

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, why are we even debating the nomination of a person who clearly does not believe in our Nation's public schools? No matter whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, no matter what part of the country you live in, whether rural or city, whether you have children or not, who would say that education is not important or valuable? Who would say that education is not foundational to success in life? Nine of every 10 students in the United States attend a public school. Who among us would say those students should be led by a person who does not believe in public schools? Who among us would say that we should have an Education Secretary who does not commit to making public schools better for the sake of all of our children? Then we should ask ourselves: Is Betsy DeVos the best that we can do for our children and young people? Does Betsy DeVos believe in public schools? No. Has Betsy DeVos ever been a teacher, a principal, or even attended public school? No. Does Betsy DeVos believe that we should hold charter schools--which are public schools, by the way--equally as accountable as other public schools? No. Does Betsy DeVos understand educational civil rights laws that provide all children with disabilities the opportunity to pursue a free and appropriate public education? No. Did Betsy DeVos commit to holding schools accountable for campus sexual assault? No. Again, I ask: Is Betsy DeVos the best that we can do for our children and young people? No. Again, why are we even here to debate whether such a person should lead the Department of Education? I feel as though we are going down a rabbit hole where up is down and down is up. It should not be asking too much to have an Education Secretary who will stand up for public schools and the millions of our children and young people who attend our public schools all across our country. Education is foundational. I think we all acknowledge that. I speak from experience. When I came to this country at almost 8 years old, I did not speak a word of English. I attended public schools where I learned how to speak English, developed my love of reading, and ultimately prepared for college. Public schools really helped prepare me for life. I had a great sixth grade teacher. His name is Yoshinobu Oshiro. Before he was a teacher, Mr. Oshiro served in the military intelligence service during World War II, one of the segregated Japanese-American units that went on to earn the Congressional Gold Medal. He really cared about his students, and he encouraged me to study hard. I have stayed in touch with Mr. Oshiro for decades. When I was last home in Hawaii about a month ago, I invited him to the historic meeting of President Obama and Prime Minister Abe of Japan at Pearl Harbor. I wanted to make sure that Mr. Oshiro met both Prime Minister Abe and President Obama. This happened. Today, I have a photo of Mr. Oshiro. There he is, meeting President Obama on that historic day in Hawaii. Mr. Oshiro was a very important part of my life. In public schools across the country, there are many more Mr. Oshiros, teachers who go out of their way to support and encourage their students. They deserve a leader who will fight for them, who understands the challenges our public schools face, and who is committed to meeting those challenges. They deserve a leader who wants all of our children in public schools to succeed. If you can truly say that Betsy DeVos is that leader, that she is the best we can do for the millions of children attending public schools in our country, then vote for her. But I cannot. Thousands of my constituents agree. I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Murray.

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO. Yes, I will.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about efforts underway to use the Congressional Review Act to eliminate protections that have saved lives and cleaned up our environment. I certainly respect the views of my friend and colleague from North Dakota, but there are other perspectives to consider. And while today it is a stream buffer rule, tomorrow it will be some other rule intended to protect the health of our communities and our citizens. The Congressional Review Act is a rarely used tool that can erase rules that have taken years and much public input to develop. Passing a CRA resolution, as we are being asked to do in this instance, also prevents us from implementing similar protections in the future. The reason is that by passing this kind of resolution, it prevents us from implementing any kind of other rule that is similar in nature. Regardless of whether you voted for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, nobody wants to live in a dirty environment where we don't have clean water, clean rivers, clean streams, or clean air. Once again, we are being told to choose between a clean environment and creating jobs. In Hawaii, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and some of the most robust protections for our environment. Today's debate over the stream buffer rule and future debates under the Congressional Review Act are not about States' rights. Today's debate is not about regulation for the sake of regulation. It is not about a war on coal; it is about preventing fossil fuel companies from creating unhealthy communities by polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe. The Department of the Interior has been working on this rule for 7 years--7 years. It replaces an outdated regulation that was written during the Reagan administration in 1983. Science has come a long way in 34 years. In that time, we have learned a lot about the detrimental impacts of coal mining on clean water and public health. Clean water is essential, and politically expedient decisions we make now will have lasting impacts for years to come, as families in Flint, MI, know all too well. The stream buffer rule that we are being asked to undo requires coal companies to monitor water for contaminants. Communities have a right to know what is in their drinking water. They have a right to know that their water is clean. They have a right to know what kind of contaminants are in their water. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation. Why are we making this debate a fight between supporting jobs for coal miners and clean water? Divide and conquer is a time-tested tactic that ends up hurting vulnerable populations and communities. Let's not fall prey to such divisive tactics. This is why I am perplexed as to why we are voting to undo the progress we have made. I will be voting against the CRA and any other CRAs that harm our environment and public health and force us to make a false choice. Again, while I respect the views of my colleagues who have a different perspective on what we are being asked to do today, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, it hasn't even been 2 weeks, and President Trump has already demonstrated that he has little tolerance for independent thinking and dissent. He has his own version of reality, which is why his administration resorts to alternative facts. When the media accurately reported how small the crowd was at his inauguration, he presented us with alternative facts. When the media pointed out he lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any President, he boldly proclaimed, without any evidence, that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally. Many consider this whopper as a cynical way to encourage more States to pass voter suppression laws justified by the bogus claim of widespread voter fraud. Just 2 days ago, the President again showed the American people how intolerant he is of principled dissent when he fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refused to enforce or defend his totally unjustifiable, knee-jerk, and probably unconstitutional Executive order on Muslim immigration. By firing Sally Yates, the President demonstrated once again that he values loyalty to himself above service to the American people and adherence to the Constitution. This is particularly disturbing as we begin to consider the President's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to sit on the Supreme Court. I am only beginning to scrutinize Judge Gorsuch's record, but I am very concerned that he will be a rubberstamp for President Trump's radical agenda. You don't have to take my word for it. You only have to listen to what the President has been saying over the past 2 years. In June 2015, then-Candidate Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper that he would apply a pro-life litmus test for his nominees to the Supreme Court. He did it again at a press conference last March, during the third Presidential debate, and shortly after his election. This isn't the only litmus test President Trump promised to apply. In February 2016, President Trump committed to appointing a Justice who would allow businesses and individuals to deny women access to health care on the basis of so-called religious freedom. In February 2016, President Trump told Joe Scarborough he would make upholding the Heller decision on guns another litmus test for his Supreme Court nominee. Like tens of millions of Americans, I am deeply concerned that President Trump applied each of these tests before he nominated Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In the weeks and months ahead, I will carefully and extensively scrutinize Judge Gorsuch's record. I will question him on his judicial philosophy and how he interprets the Constitution. I will insist he clarify his position on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, on voting rights, and the appropriate balance between corporate interests and individual rights. I will do my job as a United States Senator. The American people deserve nothing less from each of us. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Mike Pompeo to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Representative Pompeo has been wrong on many critical intelligence issues during his 6 years in Congress. He will not disavow his past support of torture. He opposed the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's torture report. He has advocated for reinstating mass surveillance of American citizens. He recently left the door open to outsourcing surveillance of American citizens to foreign governments to circumvent existing laws. He opposes the closure of Guantanamo. He opposes the Iran nuclear agreement. Congressman Pompeo is the wrong person to the lead the Central Intelligence Agency. I urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO.--I vote no.

Ms. HIRONO. On behalf of the 200,000 seniors in Hawaii on Medicare--

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I would like to reclaim the time that Democrats have to talk about the Hirono-Donnelly amendment. We are expecting some of our colleagues to be here. I see Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.