Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2017 along with two members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Warner. In response to data breaches of various companies that exposed the personal information of millions of customers, our legislation asks each publicly traded company to include--in Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures to investors--information on whether any member of the board of directors is a cybersecurity expert, and if why having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary because of other cyber security steps taken by the publicly traded company. To be clear, the legislation does not require companies to take any actions other than to provide this disclosure to its investors. Many investors may be surprised to learn that board directors who participated in the National Association of Corporate Directors, NACD, roundtable discussions on cyber security late in 2013 admitted that ``the lack of adequate knowledge of information technology risk has made it challenging for them to `effectively oversee management's cybersecurity activities.' '' More recently, in Deloitte's 10th Global Risk Management Survey of Financial Services Institutions, published this month, 42 percent of respondents considered their institution to be less effective in managing cybersecurity. And according to the 2016- 2017 NACD Public Company Governance Survey, ``fifty-nine percent of respondents reported that they find it challenging to oversee cyber risk, and only 19 percent of respondents said that their boards possess a high level of knowledge about cybersecurity.'' Indeed, Yahoo in its most recent annual report, which was filed with the SEC last week, disclosed that ``the Independent Committee found that failures in communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security Incident. The Independent Committee also found that the Audit and Finance Committee and the full board were not adequately informed of the full severity, risks, and potential impacts of the 2014 Security Incident and related matters.'' The 2014 Security Incident here refers to the fact that ``a copy of certain user account information for approximately 500 million user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014.'' This is particularly troubling given that data breaches are on the rise. Indeed, 2016 was a recordbreaking year for data breaches, which increased 40 percent from the prior year to 1,093 breaches according to the Identity Theft Resource Center. Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether publicly traded companies are prioritizing cyber security and have the capacity to protect investors and customers from cyber-related attacks. Our legislation aims to provide a better understanding of these issues through improved SEC disclosure. While this legislation is a matter for consideration by the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, this bill is also informed by my service on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. It is through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence perspective that I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy becomes increasingly reliant on technology and the Internet. For example, when he was Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, appeared before the Armed Services Committee in 2015 and testified that ``cyber threats to the U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity of impact.'' He further said that ``[b]ecause of our heavy dependence on the Internet, nearly all information communication technologies and I.T. networks and systems will be perpetually at risk.'' Indeed, retired Army GEN Keith Alexander, who is the former commander of the United States Cyber Command and former Director of the National Security Agency, appeared before the Armed Services Committee this month and stated that ``while the primary responsibility of government is to defend the nation, the private sector also shares responsibility in creating the partnership necessary to make the defense of our nation possible. Neither the government nor the private sector can capably protect their systems and networks without extensive and close cooperation.'' With mounting cyber threats and concerns over the capabilities of corporate directors, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our Nation's cyber security before there are additional serious breaches. This legislation seeks to take one step toward that goal by encouraging publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and customers on whether and how their boards of directors are prioritizing cyber security. I thank Harvard Law School professor John Coates, MIT professor Simon Johnson, Columbia Law School professor John Coffee, and the Consumer Federation of America for their support, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am strongly opposed to the nomination of Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy. While Governor Perry has a long record of public service, he is the wrong choice to lead the Department of Energy. He does not possess the technical expertise or necessary qualifications. Moreover, his past statements calling for the elimination of the Department and questioning the science behind climate change, coupled with his reported lack a understanding about the scope of the Department's responsibilities, call into question his ability to lead an agency that is so critical to our national and economic security. What Governor Perry learned during this confirmation process is that the Secretary of Energy not only oversees our country's energy initiatives and strategies, but is also the steward of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, a part of the Department of Energy, ensures the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. The NNSA brings together exceptionally dedicated men and women from our Armed Forces to work alongside some of our best scientists and engineers to provide expert advice in nuclear nonproliferation and counterterrorism. The Secretary of Energy must understand their work and advise the President on our nuclear arsenal capabilities and national security issues. Governor Perry has no experience in these areas and is not qualified to lead the agency tasked with maintaining our nuclear deterrent. The Department of Energy also protects our Nation's security by strengthening the electrical grid's resilience in the face of natural disaster and cyber attacks. Its Office of Electricity works with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and utilities to protect the electrical grid; yet the Trump administration has reportedly proposed eliminating this office, something which Governor Perry has not sought to dispel. The Department of Energy leads the country and the world in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency. For my home State of Rhode Island, renewable energy from the wind, sun, and ocean is not just a path to local energy production, but also a source of well-paying jobs ranging from steelworkers to scientists. Last year, Rhode Island became the first State to build an offshore wind farm, off the coast of Block Island, proving that offshore wind can be a viable renewable energy source for the United States. This technological feat could not have been accomplished without the science, engineering, and policy research supported by the Office of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. This office drives the research in wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy that has made affordable renewable energy a reality. However, Governor Perry, in his written responses, refused to comment on reports that the administration would cut funding, or even worse, eliminate this vital department. Failure to invest in this department and its research risks our future as an energy-producing nation. We need a Secretary of Energy who also can effectively manage the Office of Science and the National Laboratories, programs that have made the United States a global leader in scientific advancement since the Manhattan project. The National Laboratory system hosts equipment far beyond the capabilities of most universities or companies--such as massive particle accelerators, powerful supercomputers, and high- temperature laser ignition facilities--that are vital to expanding our knowledge base and technological advancement. The future of many of these energy science programs in the new administration is of great concern to the scientific community. The same budget recommendations that would eliminate the Office of Electricity also showed plans to cut supercomputing research, even as China is making large investments to become the world leader in this area. Advanced computing is vital to national defense and economic competitiveness. Shortsighted budget cuts here, or in any of our basic research programs, threaten our Nation's future security and prosperity. Governor Perry has not pledged to protect or prioritize anfof these programs. The Department of Energy's leadership in atmospheric science and climate change is also threatened. The Trump administration has gone beyond merely ignoring the threat of climate change; it has proposed cutting off funding to the critical programs that monitor our planet. It has also cast doubt that climate data will be accessible and available to the public and other researchers. We have already seen an unprecedented attempt by the Trump transition team to collect the names of scientists who study the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions. It appears that, for the first time in the history of the agency, its scientists are worried that honestly reporting their findings may be a career-ending decision. This is an alarming assault on the integrity of American science. The Secretary of Energy must be someone who understands science and will protect the government scientists who work in the national interest. The Secretary must understand and be able to present to the President the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing and that human activities are responsible. All Governor Perry committed to do in this and other areas is to learn more about the science. This is not sufficient. We have been fortunate that recent occupants of this post were not learning basic science on the job. Both Presidents Bush and Obama filled this post with experts possessing a deep understanding of science and technological issues. President Bush appointed Dr. Samuel Bodman, who served as a member of MIT's faculty before moving into business and government. President Obama appointed a Nobel prize winner in physics, Dr. Steven Chu, and a MIT physicist, Dr. Ernest Moniz. The result is that, for the past 12 years, the Department of Energy has been well equipped to respond to challenges in national security, energy, and science. We need a Secretary of Energy who can build on that legacy. We need a Secretary of Energy who has the technical expertise to oversee our Nation's nuclear stockpile, the integrity to protect basic science from political attacks, and the willingness to fight for a secure grid and renewable energy technology. I am not convinced that Governor Perry has those qualifications. For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I want to pay special tribute to an exceptional officer of the U.S. Army, MG Camille M. Nichols. Currently serving as the director of the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, General Nichols will retire after more than 41 years of Active military service on April 1, 2017. From enlisted private, to academy graduate, to two-star general, MG Camille Nichols has demonstrated the Army values of duty, integrity, selfless service, and dedication to country. Many of my colleagues and I have had the pleasure of working with Major General Nichols on a number of issues and programs, and it is my distinct privilege to recognize her accomplishments. MG Camille Nichols began her military career in 1975, as an enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army. While serving in Germany and at the insistence of her leadership, she applied for acceptance as a cadet candidate to the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, thus enabling her to join the U.S. Military Academy Class, USMA, class of 1981. Upon her graduation from USMA, Major General Nichols was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers. Throughout her years of service, Major General Nichols attended numerous advanced military and civilian schools, receiving three masters degrees, and while working full time, earned a Ph.D. in engineering management from George Washington University. After serving in several command and high-level staff positions, General Nichols developed expertise in contracting and acquisition procedures and systems. These demonstrated abilities were recognized by her selection as one of the general officers named to stand up the U.S. Army's Contracting Command. It cannot be overstated that, in all her leadership and staff roles, Camille Nichols positively influenced the lives of thousands of military personnel while she did the Nation's bidding around the world and at home. From Korea to Saudi Arabia; from Operation Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn to commanding general of U.S. Army Contracting Command, Major General Nichols has been out front, pressing hard to ensure the Army is well-equipped with a 21st century fighting force capable of defeating the enemy. As the director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Major General Nichols' undeterred leadership, soldier-scholar depth and breadth of knowledge, commitment to eliminating sexual assault, and commonsense approach to problem solving have contributed immeasurably to the improvement and execution of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program and the DOD-wide strategy. She also spearheaded specialized policies and strategies focusing on prevention efforts, combating retaliation, and addressing the needs of male victims. Major General Nichols' efforts have been instrumental in shaping and articulating program initiatives, plans, and objectives to Congress, senior defense leaders, and the American public, earning the respect of both her superiors and peers. I ask that you and our colleagues join me, as well as Major General Nichols' family, many friends, and peers in saluting this distinguished officer's many contributions and sacrifices in the defense of our great Nation. It is fitting that today we publicly recognize her service and wish her health, happiness, and success in the years to come. Congratulations, Major General Nichols, on completing an exceptional and exemplary career.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump has made it clear that he wants to savage environmental protections, and his administration has already started down this path of reversing some of our hard-fought progress to ensure we have a clean environment: clean water and fresh air. By nominating Mr. Pruitt, President Trump has chosen someone equally hostile to the very notion of defending our environment and our Nation's health. Respected voices on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar alarm over Mr. Pruitt's nomination. President George W. Bush's former EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Agency from 2001 to 2003, stated in reference to Mr. Pruitt: ``I don't recall ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.'' This is a sentiment I have heard from over a thousand Rhode Islanders--environmentalists, researchers, conservationists, community leaders, parents, concerned citizens--who agree that Mr. Pruitt is a troubling choice for this role. They have contacted my office to express how distressed they are that someone with Mr. Pruitt's record and background could be chosen to lead the EPA. Last week I hosted a roundtable to hear these concerns directly from my constituents. These Rhode Islanders shared their worries about the state of our changing environment, anxiousness about Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and concerns over what they have seen so far, and fear is coming with respect to the Trump administration's approach to our environment. Nevertheless, they remain committed to ensuring that we have clean air and clean water because these natural resources are so important to our economy, our health, and our quality of life. I share that commitment. I have consistently voted for strong environmental policies that seek to limit pollution, promote renewable energy, and mitigate the effects of climate change. The EPA oversees the Federal Government's role in protecting our health and environment. It needs a leader who fundamentally believes in its core mission. Scott Pruitt has a record of working against the Agency's goals to protect Americans from pollution. That is the goal of the Agency. He does not believe or respect the scientific findings regarding climate change, and his close ties to the oil and gas industry are a serious concern. These kinds of beliefs and views should be of concern to everyone in this Chamber. As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA multiple times seeking to eliminate pollution regulations. He has a record of not only challenging the legal, scientific, and technical foundations of EPA rules, but he has also questioned the EPA's authority to issue them. Mr. Pruitt filed as the plaintiff in these lawsuits, many of which are still pending. If confirmed as the EPA Administrator, he would be switching sides to become the defendant in these lawsuits. And yet, he has refused to recuse himself from any of these or related cases. He has also failed to provide records of his communications with fossil fuel companies during the years he served as attorney general. It is abundantly clear that he cannot be impartial. This lack of transparency regarding Mr. Pruitt's connections to the oil and gas industry raises serious questions about what influence these conflicts will have on his ability to enforce regulations that protect everyday Americans from pollution generated by fossil fuel use. The EPA Administrator must be someone who will uphold and enforce Federal environmental laws impartially and honorably, with Americans' health in mind. One issue in particular that comes to mind is one I have worked on for decades across multiple Federal agencies--lead poisoning prevention. I have long advocated for better Federal policies and more funding to protect children from lead hazards. While the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do much of this work, the EPA plays an important role as well. I think we saw that very clearly over the last year with the situation in Flint, MI. I was deeply concerned that when asked about lead poisoning among children during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt told the committee that he, in his own words, ``really wasn't familiar with the basic science surrounding the health effects of lead poisoning.'' For the sake of his education on this issue--and to make all my colleagues who might not be aware of the impact--lead poisoning in children can cause serious and irreversible developmental and health problems. We need an EPA Administrator who is familiar with and committed to protecting the health of our children from these and other kinds of environmental health hazards. Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr. Pruitt is qualified to do so. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt also displayed a lack of understanding of the role human activity plays in climate change, as well as a disregard for the scientists who have spent their lives studying and carefully observing our Earth's changing climate. Our next EPA Administrator should understand the threat of climate change and base the Agency's policies on scientific data and findings without ideological influence. Many people across the Nation were distressed and deeply concerned by the removal of climate change reports from the EPA's website shortly after President Trump took office. I share that concern, and I am disturbed that the EPA has recently put a hold on issuing new grants and instituted a gag order on all communications. This is alarming. The halting of Federal funds means that our investments in our water infrastructure, remediation of our watersheds, and support for numerous others environmental initiatives so vital to our local communities and States will be affected, and this will seriously harm environmental protection efforts. In Rhode Island, these cuts could have devastating effects, such as hindering the State's ability to provide clean air and clean drinking water for all residents. We need an EPA Administrator who is committed to safeguarding clean water and clean air and who is experienced in environmental protection. This role demands someone who is prepared to preserve and defend our environment from harm, who can make decisions based on scientific evidence, and whose financial ties will not impact his decisions when it comes to protecting the American public from pollution. Scott Pruitt is not the EPA Administrator we need. The nature of the lawsuits he filed attempting to dismantle EPA regulations that protect clean air and water--the very regulations he would be charged with enforcing--demonstrates that he is not committed to defending our natural resources, our health, and our well-being. Mr. Pruitt, in my estimate, is unsuited and unqualified for this critical leadership position. For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. Mr. President, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the remainder of my time on this nomination to my colleague, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to rescind my previous request and reclaim my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Based on his appearance before the Senate Budget and Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committees, he appears to be a smart and articulate individual, but after examining his record and his testimony, I believe he lacks the fundamental judgment to serve in this important role. Mr. Mulvaney's tenure as a Member of Congress has been marked by symbolic stands and stunts that have been most successful in generating bipartisan opposition rather than support. Until now, it has mattered little whether his proposals have been motivated by firmly held principles or other motives. We have just been fortunate that few of Mr. Mulvaney's ideas have been made into law. However, with an appointment to a position of real authority at OMB, Mr. Mulvaney will have great power to put his ideas into practice. For that reason, it is worth reflecting on the positions he has taken. At times of national fiscal and economic turmoil, Congressman Mulvaney could consistently be found among those stoking the flames of pandemonium in order to advance a partisan or ideological point. Indeed, he was among those Republican Members of Congress who cheered efforts to force the country to default on our financial obligations in 2011, dismissing the domestic and global alarm over Republican brinkmanship as ``fear mongering'' and as promoting a ``fabricated crisis.'' In 2013, he voted to support the Republican shutdown of the Federal Government, which ultimately cost American taxpayers $2 billion in back wages for Federal workers who were locked out of their jobs. In addition to this and other fiscal waste, the 16-day shutdown hurt the economy. Moody's estimated that it ``cut real GDP by $20 billion, shaving half a percentage point off growth in the fourth quarter [of 2013].'' In 2015, Mr. Mulvaney was part of another Republican shutdown effort. This time it was to shutter the Department of Homeland Security to protest President Obama's immigration policy. Thankfully, House Republicans relented before the shutdown took effect. Otherwise, the closure would have caused about 30,000 furloughs and about 200,000 other people, including Coast Guard personnel, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol and Customs officers, to report to work, most of them without the promise of a paycheck. When Americans have suffered natural disasters, Mr. Mulvaney has shown himself among those who are the least sympathetic about providing Federal assistance, insisting, for example, that emergency aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy should be offset. He has at least been consistent in this regard, since he voted against similar aid to his home State of South Carolina. Of course, his opposition in that instance was mainly symbolic because it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass. But this should give every American pause. Mr. Mulvaney's record of supporting brinkmanship and his responses to written questions show that his first instinct will be to use any one- time emergency as an opportunity to force lasting budgetary cuts. I am also concerned about Mr. Mulvaney's intentions with regard to the elimination of the sequester-level budget caps. In 2013, with sequester cuts on the horizon, Mr. Mulvaney ruled out revenue increases or scaling back the sequester. He said: ``We want to keep the sequester in place and take the cuts we can get.'' As the nominee to OMB director, Mr. Mulvaney now believes, like President Trump, that the sequester caps should be lifted for defense, but he has made no allowance for nondefense discretionary programs and agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Mulvaney has thus far failed to grasp that there is simply no way to secure support for sequester relief without addressing both the defense and nondefense sides of the ledger. Moreover, he has not recognized that it is repugnant to many to suggest that one side of the budget can be cannibalized to fund the other side. The best way to fund sequester relief is through the proven combination of additional revenue and reasonable cuts. It has worked before, and we should look to that solution again. We should also reject efforts to use Overseas Contingency Operations accounts, or OCO funding, to fill the gap when it comes to defense spending. It is not a legitimate tool to fix the sequester. Despite my many disagreements with Mr. Mulvaney, this is one point where we do appear to see roughly eye to eye in terms of using the OCO for those overseas contingencies they were designed to fund. Where we disagree most vehemently is on the matter of core programs that help Americans lift themselves up so they can participate fully in our economy and society. Although he has recently changed his position, Mr. Mulvaney, as a State legislator, voted for legislation that questioned the constitutionality of Medicaid and Social Security, and today he still questions the constitutionality of Federal involvement in education. This is more than a philosophical stand. His position will color how the administration invests in schools and students over the next 4 years. I am especially disturbed that Mr. Mulvaney is not even willing to commit to protecting funding for the Pell Grant Program and to reducing college debt, a burden faced by students and their families all across this country. I have also been disturbed by Mr. Mulvaney's cavalier position about benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare, by such measures as increasing the retirement age. Let's be clear. When you force a person to wait 2 or 3 more years to begin collecting the full benefits they have earned, it is a cut. If poor health or lack of job prospects forces a person to begin collecting benefits before reaching the normal retirement age, he or she will see a significant reduction in monthly benefits. These cuts fall heaviest on the most vulnerable--low-income workers and workers in the most physically demanding jobs, those who simply cannot continue to work for another few years. We can make changes to sustain these programs without the deep cuts to benefits that Mr. Mulvaney would promote. In this one area, I would hope the President could prevail over his staff. Many times during the campaign, President Trump promised to protect Social Security and Medicare. In fact, last March he said: ``It's my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as it is.'' It remains to be seen how sincere the President is on this issue. Last month, he was effectively rebuffed by 49 Republicans who voted successfully to kill Senator Sanders' amendment to create a point of order that would prevent the Senate from breaking President Trump's promise that ``there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.'' Unfortunately, the President said nothing about this vote, which should lead all Americans to ask how committed he is to his promise. His choice of Mr. Mulvaney also leaves me concerned that he is not sincere about this promise, since Mr. Mulvaney seems clearly intent on making cuts to these vital programs. Mr. Mulvaney has also proven himself unsympathetic to the challenges facing working men and women in this country. He has sponsored legislation to bar the Federal Government from requiring project labor agreements. He has voted to repeal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements, and he has cosponsored legislation to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain. Moreover, Mr. Mulvaney failed to pay more than $15,000 in unemployment and FICA taxes for a household employee between 2000 and 2004, only making good on that obligation during his nomination process. Even if this could be characterized as an oversight, it is worth noting that Mr. Mulvaney has previously proposed legislation to bar tax delinquents from serving in elected office in South Carolina and to authorize supervisors of Federal employees to take punitive action against workers who have failed to pay taxes. One wonders how Mr. Mulvaney would feel about the fitness of a Democratic nominee with a similar challenge. Finally, let me say a few words about Mr. Mulvaney's laissez-faire approach to regulation, particular the oversight of Wall Street. I believe strongly that the lack of effective regulation, the lack of oversight, and the lack of appropriations for the financial regulatory agencies contributed heavily to the great recession, which is why I worked so hard to support the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, including the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Mr. Mulvaney, not surprisingly, takes a different view. As a member of the Financial Services Committee in the House, he said: ``I don't like that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exists.'' The CFPB is a consumer-focused agency that has brought nearly $12 billion in refunds and restitution to consumers for Wall Street's abuses. This includes more than $120 million that have been returned to our military families through the efforts of the Bureau's Office of Servicemember Affairs, which I worked with Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts to establish. Because of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, working Americans have an advocate in the consumer finance marketplace that is laser-focused on protecting them. Mr. Mulvaney would prefer to transform this agency into a paper tiger that is subject to partisan political pressure and influence from the various industries it is attempting to police. We should not allow him the chance to do that from a perch at OMB. The country has been fortunate that House Republican leadership, with good reason, in my view, did not reward Mr. Mulvaney with a position of authority from which he could exercise real control. Unfortunately, the promotion that President Trump has offered would give him great power-- power that will ultimately, I believe, be destructive in his hands. As a result, I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury. No Cabinet official can have such a profound impact on our economy, on family budgets, on taxes, and on consumer protection as the Secretary of the Treasury. It is a job of immense reach that requires a steady hand, a commitment to fairness, and a deep knowledge of our Nation's financial markets and the rules that protect the savings and investments of middle-class Americans. In light of this reality, I do not think Mr. Mnuchin meets these requirements. I know that for many of my fellow Rhode Islanders and for many Americans, the economy is not producing the jobs and wages they want and they need. I share that sentiment and have pushed for job and wage policies like the minimum wage, paid leave, and health care that help struggling families cope. I have pushed for job creation by putting people to work by rebuilding our Nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, schools, and new housing. But I think it is important that everyone in this Chamber take a step back and understand where our economy was, where it is today, and what is at stake. In 2007, the housing market began to collapse. One measure of the housing market is the seriously delinquent rate, which is the percentage of loans that are 90 days or more past due or in the process of foreclosure. Here are just a few examples of the hardest hit States: 13.2 percent in Arizona in December 2009, 9.63 percent in Ohio in December 2009, and 20.61 percent in Florida in March 2010. By the end of President Obama's term in office, here are the seriously delinquent rates for those same States: 1.35 percent in Arizona in September of 2016, 3.59 percent in Ohio in September of 2016, and 4.14 percent in Florida in September of 2016. Just to remind on this, Florida went from a seriously delinquent rate of over 20 percent in 2010 to just over 4 percent in 2016 because of the policy, the programs that were initiated by the President and supported by this Congress. In 2007, the unemployment rate began to skyrocket. Again, here is what that meant in a few States at their highest unemployment rates: 11.2 percent in Arizona in November of 2009, 13.6 percent in Nevada in December 2010, 11 percent in Ohio in January 2010, 11.2 percent in Florida in January 2010, and in my home State, double digit unemployment rates also. By the end of President Obama's term in office, here are the preliminary rates for those states as of December 2016: 4.8 percent in Arizona, 5.1 percent in Nevada, 4.9 percent in Ohio, and 4.9 percent in Florida. We have seen improvement across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to take all of this into account when they consider Mr. Mnuchin. These are sobering numbers, and behind each of these numbers is an individual or a family, our constituents, who suffered real and serious harm. We owe it to our constituents to do something so that these generational losses will be prevented from happening again. We came out of a deep abyss through difficult work, through cooperative efforts; we have reached a point where we are poised, I hope, to continue to move forward, and we don't want to go back. That was at the heart of our work on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It was to learn the lessons from this catastrophe so that we would never endure another in our history. Unfortunately, for some of my constituents in Rhode Island and others around the country, the aftershocks of that financial crisis have not fully dissipated. We are still living in some respects with what happened. There are still too many looking for a decent-paying job or facing gut-wrenching financial decisions like whether to turn the heat off or to skip feeding the family another day, just to make ends meet. Indeed, one of my constituents recently wrote: My wife and I lost nearly half our assets in the 2008 financial crisis. Over eight years later, and our house is still worth less than the mortgage that remains on it. We are both professionals, and will have to stay that way until we are 75 in order to come close to the standard of living we enjoy now during retirement. The financial reforms enacted under Dodd Frank, and Obama's regulation that requires financial advisers and brokers to act in their client's best interests, are critical to my family's well-being and to the health of the US economy. I would like to know how you plan to defeat any attempts to unravel these rules. Given the clear threat that Trump poses to our economy, and the losses I have already suffered due to bankers' greed and incompetence, without these rules I feel better off putting my money in my basement and will do exactly that. At least we won't lose half of what we own. Those are the words of a professional family in Rhode Island who have seen this struggle firsthand, and they ask this question: What are you going to do to protect the reforms and the advances we have made that have been manifested in the economic statistics that I shared with my colleagues? As you can see, for this Rhode Islander and for many others, the law we put in place to stanch the bleeding and stabilize the financial system is a critical help. But some have so demonized Dodd-Frank that they would have you believe otherwise. That may be why its opponents prefer calling it Dodd-Frank instead of its full name, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, because it is about reforming Wall Street and protecting consumers. It is a lot easier to be against something called Dodd-Frank than it is to be against Wall Street reform and consumer protection. But as my colleagues just heard in my constituent's own words, Dodd-Frank is ``critical to my family's well- being and to the health of the US economy.'' The question I have to answer as my constituent's Senator is whether Mr. Mnuchin will support Dodd-Frank, push efforts to further reform Wall Street, and place as his highest priority the protection of consumers as our next Treasury Secretary. Based on a review of Mr. Mnuchin's record, the answer, to me, is very clear: No, he will not. As chairman of OneWest Bank, Mr. Mnuchin made a fortune employing questionable foreclosure practices that made the financial crisis worse for families and seniors. What is particularly worrisome is that OneWest engaged in so-called robo-signing, where companies cut crucial corners by not properly reviewing or even bothering to read foreclosure documents. Indeed, according to one news report: Erica Johnson-Seck, vice president of OneWest's department of bankruptcy and foreclosures . . . robo-signed an average of 750 foreclosure documents a week, according to a sworn deposition she gave in a Florida case in July 2009 . . . Under oath, Johnson-Seck acknowledged that she did not read the documents she was signing, taking only about 30 seconds to sign her name. To speed up the process, Johnson-Seck said she shortened her first name on her signature to just an ``E.'' She said in the deposition that OneWest's practice was to review just 10 percent of the foreclosure documents for accuracy. As part of the confirmation process, when asked whether his company engaged in robo-signing, Mr. Mnuchin responded that OneWest did not robo-sign documents. However, it is not clear that this was the case, and not just because of Ms. Johnson-Seck's deposition. Quoting from a Bloomberg article written by one of Rhode Island's finest exports, Joe Nocera, who writes: ``But here's the clincher: In 2011, the man who now says his bank never robo-signed documents signed a consent order with the Office of Thrift Supervision, which had accused it of--you guessed it--robo-signing.'' Disturbingly, Mr. Mnuchin's response on this issue either raises troubling questions about his management capabilities or his willingness to be forthright, or potentially both. Ironically, Mr. Mnuchin's confirmation process mirrors his career in at least one way. While the Senate Finance Committee normally requires at least one Democratic Senator to be present in order to vote in committee on a nominee, the normal rules were suspended so that Mr. Mnuchin could be reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate. In other words, the rules were not followed, special shortcuts were created for him, and much like the robo-signing that occurred at OneWest, Mr. Mnuchin is on the path to robo-confirmation without a full and proper vetting by the United States Senate. The last thing this body should be doing is robo-stamping Mr. Mnuchin's nomination so that he, as Treasury Secretary, can change the rules and rig the system in favor of the insiders at the expense of working-class Americans who are working overtime just to, in many cases, make ends barely meet. For example, Mr. Mnuchin has stated that his first priority would be enactment of the Trump tax plan. This plan makes deep, unfunded cuts to revenue, and roughly half of the reduced tax burden is just for the top 1 percent, the wealthy, who don't have to worry about how much a gallon of milk costs, what it costs to ride the bus or fill the gas tank. We have seen what huge tax cuts for the wealthy will do to the economy. Just look at the economy in the late 2000s and the deficit. The economic plan endorsed by President Trump and Mr. Mnuchin will not help the middle class, but will only further skew the economy in favor of the wealthy and well-connected and do precious little for job growth. In addition, the incoming Treasury Secretary will be tasked with rolling back the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in support of a President who said: We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that have nice businesses, and they can't borrow money. . . . They just can't get any money because the banks just won't let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank. Indeed, Mr. Mnuchin seems all too eager to assist because he himself has said that ``we want to strip back parts of Dodd-Frank that prevent banks from lending.'' We are simply not seeing this, though. According to JPMorgan's chief financial officer, Marianne Lake, on an analyst conference call last month, ``loan growth remains robust.'' According to Bloomberg: At JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, core loans increased 10 percent to $806.2 billion last year, with gains in every category, including credit cards and wholesale debt. Bank of America Corp.'s total loans climbed 1.1 percent to $906.8 billion, while Wells Fargo & Co.'s grew 5.6 percent to $968 billion. According to the same article, ``banks now have a record $9.1 trillion of loans outstanding.'' Based on this, it seems that big bank lending is actually doing well, and maybe the reason the President's friends have not gotten loans is that they borrowed too much and possibly have gone bankrupt too much, and the megabanks want to be careful about whom they lend to. Indeed, Anat Admati, a finance professor at Stanford University and a member of the FDIC's Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee, notes that: The claim that regulations are prohibiting lending is simply false. . . . The banks have plenty of money and can raise more from investors like other businesses if they have worthy loans to make. If they don't lend, it's because they choose not to lend and instead do many other things. This is a key point. According to Bloomberg: Banks don't actually ``hold'' capital. In banking, capital refers to the funding they receive from shareholders. Every penny of it can be loaned out. A 5 percent minimum capital requirement means that 5 percent of the bank's liabilities has to be equity, while the rest can be deposits or other borrowing. The more equity a bank has, the smaller its risk of failing when losses pile up. Given the protection that equity provides, you are left to wonder why Mr. Mnuchin and President Trump are so anti-capital. Indeed, from that same Bloomberg article: Former Goldman Sachs partner Phillip D. Murphy, who was a member of the banks' management committee with [National Economic Council Director Gary] Cohn and Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, said he's mystified with the changes they're pushing. ``To think that undoing those regulations is going to lead to a better result is folly,'' said Murphy, who's seeking the Democratic nomination in this year's gubernatorial race. ``The fox is in the hen house, that's what this is. This is people on Wall Street who should know better.'' For an administration that campaigned on a claim of dismantling a rigged system, I am confused why President Trump nominated Mr. Mnuchin to be his economic quarterback for working-class America. Mr. Mnuchin has spent his professional life spotting value, and he has done quite well for himself. But despite this ability to value assets, Mr. Mnuchin still seems puzzled about how to value the assets that matter most to working class Americans. My constituents don't need fancy Wall Street calculators or formulas to understand that there is a value and a benefit to reforming Wall Street and keeping reckless greed in check. There is a value and a benefit to protecting consumers and their hard- earned wages. And there is a value and a benefit to keeping a family in their home and avoiding foreclosure. Indeed, an individual who made his fortune aggressively foreclosing on his fellow Americans does not possess the right values, in my view, to be our Treasury Secretary. Based on his record, I am not convinced Mr. Mnuchin is capable of draining the swamp, and I fear he may end up further rigging the system in favor of the 1 percent at the expense of working class Americans. For all of these reasons, I do not support Mr. Mnuchin's nomination, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting no. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the remainder of my time to Senator Wyden of Oregon.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel McCartney, a fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for this session of Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to President Trump's nomination of Congressman Tom Price for the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department he has been picked to lead is charged with protecting the health of all Americans, from safeguarding Medicare and nursing home care for seniors to investing in medical research and supporting public health programs, such as lead poisoning prevention and youth suicide prevention. Unfortunately, Congressman Price has demonstrated over the last decade in Congress that he is unwilling or unfit or both to protect these critical health programs. In his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Price has offered plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and turn Medicare into a privatized voucher program. This is the opposite of protecting the safety net programs for our most vulnerable citizens. Time and again, Congressman Price has proved that he favors corporate interests over patients, which has raised ethics concerns. For these reasons, I will oppose his nomination. First, I would like to talk about the Affordable Care Act. About a month ago, I was here talking to my colleagues on the floor about the impact of the ACA in my home State of Rhode Island and the consequences of repeal. In short, repeal of the ACA would be catastrophic in Rhode Island and across the country. Yet Congressman Price has led the efforts in the House of Representatives to repeal the ACA without any replacement. In fact, he is the architect of legislation to do just that. The uninsured rate today is at its lowest point in recent history. That holds true in my State of Rhode Island. The uninsured rate there has fallen from nearly 12 percent to under 4.5 percent. That translates to over 100,000 Rhode Islanders who have gained coverage because of the ACA. While it is not the case in every State, in Rhode Island insurance rates have dropped. In fact, consumers in Rhode Island have saved $220 million since 2012. We cannot go back to a system that allows private insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or charge more to those who need insurance the most. By contrast, Congressman Price opposes the preexisting conditions ban, one of the most popular provisions of the ACA. His plan would allow insurance companies to deny coverage or to charge more to those with preexisting conditions, older Americans, and women. He has also proposed getting rid of the essential benefits package in the ACA. These protections require insurance companies to cover things like prescriptions drugs, maternity care, pediatric services, and mental health care. These are really things that any basic health coverage should include, yet Congressman Price has advocated taking away these consumer protections. Stop and think about that. Congressman Price does not think that health insurance should cover pregnancy, for example. I mean, we are not really talking about extravagant services. These are the services that a reasonable person would expect their health insurance to cover. In fact, Congressman Price's plan, the Republican plan to repeal the ACA, would mean that nearly half a million Rhode Islanders with preexisting conditions--that is nearly half the population of my State--could be denied coverage or charged more. Those who might still be able to get coverage would quickly find that it does not cover that much. These consumer protections that are embedded in the ACA affect everyone, not just those who have coverage because of the ACA. Before the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans, including coverage through your employer, could impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, meaning coverage could end just when you need it most. With Congressman Price in charge, if he has his way, we will see a return of these limits, even for employer-sponsored health plans. The nominee's stance on the Affordable Care Act is not my only worry because when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, benefits that Americans have worked hard to earn and to fund, Congressman Price's views are far outside the mainstream. Medicare is one of the great success stories in expanding access to care and keeping seniors out of poverty. Since the passage of Medicare in 1965, we have seen significant decreases in the numbers of seniors living in poverty, and this is largely because of Medicare and, of course, Social Security, another critical safety net program for seniors. I believe that Medicare is essential for the quality of life of Rhode Island's seniors and for seniors across the country. In fact, I supported the ACA because it made key improvements to Medicare that strengthened its long-time solvency and increased benefits, such as closing the prescription doughnut hole and eliminating cost sharing for preventive services, such as cancer screenings. Over 15,000 Rhode Islanders saved $14 million on prescriptions drugs in 2015, an average of $912 per beneficiary. In the same year, over 92,000 Rhode Islanders took advantage of free preventive services, representing over 76 percent of beneficiaries. We see these benefits because of the Affordable Care Act. Repealing the Affordable Care Act, as advocated by the Congressman, means repealing these benefits for seniors and shortening the life of the Medicare trust fund by over a decade. What is worse is that Congressman Price not only wants to repeal the ACA and the Medicare benefits that come with it, but he has also advocated for privatizing Medicare, turning it into a voucher-based program, as well as raising the eligibility age. Simply put, this would end Medicare as we know it. Millions of Americans, including over 200,000 Rhode Islanders, have paid into the system, counting on the benefits that they have earned and worked their entire life for. Under Congressman Price's plan, Republicans would shift more costs to seniors who have played by the rules and planned for retirement with quality Medicare coverage. Congressman Price and Congressional Republicans will tell you that they are trying to cut costs under the banner of trying to save Medicare. If that is the Republican standard, then why do they oppose the ACA which actually improved Medicare services, cut costs, and extended Medicare solvency? That seems to be a pattern with many on the other side: Act very serious and concerned about Medicare's finances, but then make every effort to demonize and roll back these improvements. In fact, Medicare spent $453 billion less from 2009 to 2014 than it expected under growth trends prior to the ACA, all while increasing benefits like free preventive care and better prescription drug coverage and adding over a decade of solvency to the Medicare trust fund. The projected cost--the best projections were actually lowered by the ACA while benefits were increased. This talk of supposedly saving Medicare is really, in my view, a ruse to make draconian cuts to free up more Federal funding for things like tax breaks for the wealthy. We cannot allow Republicans under Congressman Price's leadership to go back on the Medicare guarantee we have made to seniors that we represent all across this country. Congressman Price has also made a number of troubling statements about Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. First, repeal of the ACA would have a disastrous effect on State Medicaid programs, kicking 11 million Americans off their health insurance, including 70,000 Rhode Islanders. However, this is not enough for Congressman Price. He has offered legislation to cut Medicaid even further, to the tune of $1 trillion, by turning Medicaid into a Block Grant Program. I think my colleagues should really consider how this would impact their States. Including those newly insured by the ACA, Medicaid covers 74 million Americans. Who makes up this population? Well, half of the Medicaid enrollees are children. Medicaid also pays for half the births in this country. These are staggering numbers. In Rhode Island, one in four children is covered by Medicaid or CHIP, and one in two people with disabilities is covered by Medicaid. While Medicaid was initially designed to help low-income families, seniors now account for approximately half of Medicaid's spending nationwide. Nearly 60 percent of nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid across the country, and that holds true in my State of Rhode Island. Many of these people are our neighbors, our friends. They have been working all their lives, and they have qualified for this coverage because they have been able to move some of their assets out of their ownership because our rules don't recognize retirement accounts. So these are our neighbors. When Congressman Price talks about turning Medicaid into a block grant program, every Member of this Chamber has to stop to realize that there is no way to cut Medicaid by trillions of dollars without harming children and seniors and placing each of our States in a very difficult position because they, too, contribute to Medicaid; because they have a responsibility to children and seniors for health care; because they do also help support nursing home, nursing facilities for seniors and the disabled. And they would be in a disastrous situation. Now, all of these are, I believe, reason enough to oppose Congressman Price's nomination. However--and I alluded to this earlier, and Senator Wyden went into great detail--Congressman Price has a history of conflicts of interest, such as investments in the very issues and companies he worked on, as a Member of Congress. Congressman Price traded hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care pharmaceutical stocks, all the while advocating for regulation legislation that would financially benefit these very companies. Again, Senator Wyden has made a very detailed and very persuasive case in this regard. In fact, as Senator Wyden has pointed out, after receiving information from a fellow Congressman and now a member of President Trump's transition team, Congressman Price was one of a small group who was offered the chance to purchase stock in a biomedical group at a discounted price. Now, Democrats are not going to have the opportunity to fully examine these issues. I find the examples we do have to be deeply concerning. The very articulate, eloquent, and detailed--exhaustively detailed-- statement by Senator Wyden adds further credence to this presumption. This is a very disconcerting pattern of behavior. Indeed, I believe this pattern of behavior warrants further investigation, but those requests have been denied by the Republican majority. These allegations are now even more concerning because of the need for further investigation, but those requests have been denied by the Republican majority. These allegations are even now more concerning because Congressman Price is being considered for the top role in this administration in charge of protecting the health of all Americans and, indeed, affecting the corporate situation of thousands of companies throughout this land that he may or may not have a financial interest in. Now I have heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who have expressed these concerns to me, from his support for the efforts to repeal the ACA and cut Medicaid and Medicare to his questionable investments. I agree with them. As such, I am unable to support Congressman Price's nomination for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and I would urge others to look very carefully at the record, carefully at the advocacy for the elimination, basically, of Medicare as we know it, of block-granting Medicaid, which would harm children and seniors and put excruciating financial pressure on every State in this country, and his own behavior with respect to personal investments. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, after a great deal of careful thought and consideration, I have decided to oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I have long served with Senator Sessions. While he and I have frequently disagreed on certain legal and civil rights issues, I have never doubted the sincerity or heartfelt nature of his positions. I am deeply concerned, however, that he cannot be the effective check on the Executive Branch that our nation currently needs. In just the short time since President Donald Trump took office, our Nation has faced upheaval and challenges to the way our government typically runs. The President's unprecedented refusal to divest himself of his business holdings while in office has created legal and constitutional conflicts that are unique in our Nation's history. His use of social media to antagonize American businesses has already caused needless volatility in our economy, which is the cornerstone of global financial stability. Most recently, he has unilaterally enacted a ban on travel to the United States from several Muslim-majority countries--creating chaos in airports, separating families, and tarnishing our Nation's image around the world. It is of great concern to me that Senator Sessions has already stated his unwillingness, if confirmed, to recuse himself from investigations into potentially unlawful activities of the Trump campaign and Trump administration. Moreover, Senator Sessions and I disagree on how the law should treat immigrants, refugees, the LGBTQ community, women, and racial minorities, among others. These disagreements go to the heart of the Justice Department's law enforcement and civil rights functions. For instance, in 2013, Senator Sessions voted against a bipartisan effort to reform our Nation's immigration laws. This effort garnered overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle and would have done much to address the immigration problems facing us today. He also voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides much-needed support to and protections for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities--and is overseen by the Justice Department that he hopes to administer. Additionally, his statements and votes in opposition to reaffirming the prohibition on torture run counter to our values and basic precepts of international law. And he has voted against every recent effort in this Chamber to establish the most basic, commonsense laws that would keep our communities safe from the threat of gun violence. He also has called into question the Voting Rights Act and praised the Supreme Court's harmful decision striking down a key section of this law. These are just some of the clear disagreements I have with the positions Senator Sessions has taken over the years, which cause me to doubt his ability to effectively lead the Justice Department. Our next Attorney General should be a champion for all Americans' civil rights and civil liberties. The occupant of that office should give Americans confidence in our judiciary, our elections, and the impartial due process that is the hallmark of the rule of law. Therefore, I cannot support Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the nomination of Betsy DeVos has triggered an outcry of deep public opposition. It has also inspired an outpouring of popular support for public schools. Public education is what has made America great. It is at the heart of the American dream. Our schools are much more than just a collection of classrooms. They are expressions of our communities and our values. This is a lesson I learned from my parents. My father was the school custodian in a public school. He took tremendous pride in ensuring that the school was clean, in good repair, safe, and welcoming to the students. He was part of the public school team entrusted with our community's children. He, along with the teachers, principals, and every staff member at the school were deeply committed to public education. We saw that commitment each and every day. He spoke of that commitment when he came home in the evening. The teachers would do much more than what was asked of them to ensure that students got the best opportunities and best education. Everyone in our school was pulling for our children. That is the way it should be, and that is the way it must be. This was free public education, the hallmark of America, and perhaps one of the most important contributions that we have made to progress, prosperity, and economic growth, not only here in the United States but around the globe. That is what we are talking about today-- the future of public education. It is that kind of commitment to public education, going in early, working hard--I can remember of course in the wintertime, when the storms would rage through Rhode Island, it was not uncommon for my father and his colleagues to be out there on a Sunday afternoon, if the storm was bad enough, shoveling all night long so that Monday morning the school was open for the children, the teachers could get there, and the food could be prepared. That is the type of commitment that has been evidenced throughout our history when it comes to public education. That investment of effort but also of trying to understand and trying to improve public education has been at the heart of what we have all done. Indeed, I believe it is that kind of commitment to public education that has caused millions of Americans to speak up about the nomination of Betsy DeVos. Teachers, parents, and community members have been calling across the country, writing, emailing, urging the Senate to reject her nomination. I have received over 12,500 calls and messages from Rhode Islanders, an unprecedented negative response to a Presidential nominee. We are the smallest State in the Union. We have a population of just over 1 million people, and we understand that even for the most challenging and publicized issues, we rarely get this type of response. It is because this nomination touches a nerve. It touches a nerve with people who are products of public schools because they honor the success of public schools, but it also touches the nerves of people who may not have attended public schools because they recognize the value, the necessity, the need for good public education. Without it, we can't move forward as a nation; without it there is no alternative except typically very expensive private arrangements to educate our children. Once again, free public education has been a hallmark of this country. It might have been one of the most dominant factors in ensuring equality. Our country is based on equality--equality before the law. But without a good education, how can one be equal? How can one understand their rights and use their rights, understand their abilities and use their abilities? Our constituents all across the country want a champion for public education at the helm of the Department of Education. They want someone committed to public schools, someone knowledgeable about the Federal role in education, and they have determined that Betsy DeVos is not that person. Having looked at her record and viewed her performance during the confirmation hearings, they are telling us that she is the wrong choice to lead the Department of Education, and we should heed their pleas. Of the thousands of Rhode Islanders who have contacted me to express their opposition to Mrs. DeVos's nomination, I would like to share the sentiments of a few who exemplify the deep concerns I am hearing. One teacher wrote: Mrs. DeVos is not versed on the real concerns of families and their children, and does not know the issues and concerns educators face in our schools. As a teacher in a public school, I believe she is completely unqualified to lead the Department of Education. She does not understand the definition of proficiency and she did not know our children were protected by Federal laws (disability act). As a parent, I do not believe Mrs. DeVos understands the concerns middle income families have regarding their children and their futures. She also does not believe that guns should be kept out of our schools. This proves how out of touch she is with our students, their families and teachers. I think many Americans agree with the sentiment that Mrs. DeVos is out of touch and out of step with American families. Neither she nor the President seems to have much, if any, experience with public schools, as students, parents, educators, or administrators. Another theme that Rhode Islanders wrote about was the double standard of this nomination. One vice principal wrote: We as administrators are required to be highly qualified in order to run our schools through an evaluation process. We also require this of our teachers as well. How can we support someone in a position to lead the educational process who is not held to these same standards? That is a fair question that neither Mrs. DeVos nor the Trump administration has answered. But again, it is not purely about her resume. Another theme I heard about from many Rhode Islanders is their fear of the empathy gap from this administration. Here is an example from a letter written by a public school principal: [M]y heart is sinking. I have worked as an educator in urban public schools for the past 19 years, as a teacher and, now, as a principal. I was an attorney before I was a teacher--I came to the profession as a second career, by choice, with a passion for righting the inequities our students face. I have worked all of my career with our most needy populations, a group whom I believe also to be our most brilliant, caring, loving, and amazing young people. I feel blessed to get to work with them and their teachers every day. I ache for the things they don't have that other schools have, and for my powerlessness to right that wrong. Betsy DeVos wishes to take on a role with the power to right those wrongs. Yet, she seems unaware that such inequities exist, and is undisturbed by them. She has never worked with young people in schools, much less in public schools, much less in urban schools. She has never been a teacher or an administrator or the parent of a child in a public school. She has never wrestled with the incredible want for resources, the choices we have to make every day, all within a city and state with some of the most prestigious and wealthy schools just a few steps away. The realities for our urban students are so vastly different from the reality that Betsy DeVos and her contemporaries live in. To hear her unable to even comprehend the need for equal access and equal opportunity for high quality childcare and post-secondary education was painful. To hear her say it would be nice for everyone to have access to a college education, but nothing in life is free--she is completely unaware of her own privilege, the privilege of her children, and the privilege of her family and extended circle, those who have billions of dollars, who were born into great wealth, and who have never had to struggle economically. That is unacceptable in someone who wishes to fill one of the most distinguished offices in our land. Our students and teachers and schools need a champion who will work tirelessly to reverse the inequities of our educational system-- inequities that I am painfully aware of every day here in Rhode Island. It isn't right that some students have football fields, and 1:1 computers, and huge libraries, and food choices and AP classes and much more, while others have no outdoor spaces, little access to technology, and crumbling buildings. We cannot allow that to be who we are. Our families work incredibly hard and want the very best for their children. To say, ``everything in life isn't free,'' when it has been for Mrs. DeVos's family, is hypocritical and mean. We need a champion of equity. Please vote against her confirmation. This next letter I want to share is from the mother of a special needs child. Like many Rhode Islanders, she is distressed by the fact that Mrs. DeVos has suggested that a landmark civil rights law should be left up to the States. She writes: I have grave concerns about the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. As a parent of a special needs child, it would not be an understatement to say that I was horrified at Ms. DeVos' answers to the questions about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act during her recent hearing. The one thing we rely on the Department of Education to do is to vigorously enforce and uphold the landmark civil rights law that is IDEA. Without it, our children will fall through the cracks. It is extremely difficult to navigate the system and make sure your child gets the support he or she needs. My son is 20 now so I've been doing it for a long time. I've served on both state and local special ed advisory committees, school committee, taken special ed training, even mentored other parents, and I STILL don't completely understand all of the nuances of the IDEA laws. For someone to be appointed to the highest office in the land in charge of upholding those laws and not be aware of them, is unacceptable. It's too big of a learning curve. Surely there are more qualified candidates. Last Congress, we came together to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act. We passed the Every Student Succeeds Act on a strong bipartisan vote--85 to 12. We moved toward giving States and school districts more flexibility in designing their accountability systems, especially regarding how they identify and intervene in schools that are struggling to serve their students as well. We strengthened transparency, including greater transparency about resource equity. We agreed to maintain key Federal protections--or, as Senator Murray calls them, ``guard rails''--to ensure that we do not return to the days when students, such as students with disabilities, English language learners, poor and minority students, routinely fell through the cracks. For the Every Student Succeeds Act to work, States and school districts need a strong partner at the Department of Education--a partner who understands how public schools work, a partner who is committed to strengthening public schools. Mrs. DeVos is not that partner. Her life's work has been to divert taxpayer dollars to fund alternatives to public schools. Some on the other side of the aisle have argued that private school vouchers are no different from Pell grants or GI Bill benefits. This claim is another one of those alternative facts that the new administration is so fond of. Public elementary and secondary education is enshrined in our States' constitutions. Attendance is compulsory. Public schools do not charge tuition, and they must accept all students. Pell grants and GI Bill benefits support postsecondary education, which is voluntary. Schools do not have to accept all students, nor are students required to attend. Individuals must pay to go to college. We do not want a system of elementary and secondary education where students and families must pay and schools can choose which students they serve. That is not the universal system of public education that has made our Nation great. Our constituents understand that, which is why we have seen the public outcry against this nomination. And with this public outcry, they reaffirm our commitment to public education, recognizing that it has been the force that has pulled this country forward over generations; indeed, generation after generation. With that understanding, we have just, in fact, on a bipartisan basis, provided more flexibility and more discretion to the Department of Education. We need a Secretary who will take that discretion and flexibility in the spirit of public education with a fundamental and primary commitment to American public education, with a desire to see American public education succeed, not fail. We need that type of Secretary. Unfortunately, Mrs. DeVos is not that type of Secretary. So I urge my colleagues to heed the call of all of our constituents in an unprecedented outpouring of messages and phone calls and text messages and rallies, and join me in voting no against this nomination. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be the Secretary of Education. This is not a position I take lightly. I have never opposed the confirmation of a nominee for Secretary of Education. I also have never seen the intensity of opposition to a nominee for this position as we have witnessed with Mrs. DeVos. Thousands of Rhode Islanders--educators, parents, community leaders-- have written or called to express their dismay that a person with Mrs. DeVos's record and background would be chosen to lead the Department of Education. What I have seen and heard about Mrs. DeVos leads me to agree with my constituents--she is uniquely unsuited and unqualified for this critical position. The U.S. Secretary of Education oversees the Federal Government's role in ensuring educational equity in our public schools regardless of family income, race, ethnicity, language, or disability. Mrs. DeVos's work has been in the opposite direction. She has dedicated her time, political capital, and personal fortune to creating private sector alternatives to public education. She has also fought to shield those alternatives from the same standards and accountability that apply to public schools. For example, she spent a reported $1.45 million to reward or punish Michigan legislators as part of her effort to kill an accountability plan that would have included charter schools. This hostility to public schools and affinity for using public dollars to fund private schools or for- profit education companies makes her, in my estimation, a poor choice to lead the U.S. Department of Education. Mrs. DeVos's crusade for vouchers raises another fundamental question about whether she respects the separation between church and state. This is a founding principle of our Nation. However, in the past, she has talked about her education reform efforts in religious terms as advancing God's Kingdom and reversing what she feels is a trend of public schools displacing church in community life. In an administration that has signaled a willingness to discriminate based on religion, these views are cause for real concern and they have no place at the U.S. Department of Education. Mrs. DeVos's crusade for school choice in Michigan has been a failure for students. Since 2000, student achievement in that State has fallen. In 2000, Michigan students scored above the national average on the National Assessment of Education Progress in fourth grade reading and math. By 2015, they were below average. As a single-issue educational reformer, Mrs. DeVos does not have the breadth of knowledge necessary to oversee our national education policy from preschool through adult education and postsecondary education. Her policy solution for education is choice. As they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. This one-size-fits-all approach is a real danger given the diversity of our students, our institutions, our communities, and the different educational challenges across the lifespan of individual Americans. I know many parents and students and employers are worried about our schools. I share that worry, and we need to do more, but Mrs. DeVos's plan to eliminate those neighborhood schools rather than do the hard work of repairing, renovating, and providing the supports that enable all schools to be ready to learn at school is cause for alarm. During her hearing, Mrs. DeVos displayed little understanding of the Federal student aid programs that provide approximately $150 billion in assistance to students struggling to pay for college. So not only does she have a single-minded focus on private charter elementary schools, she has very little grasp--from her hearing testimony--on the challenges for postsecondary education in the United States. She also appeared confused about questions regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--the landmark law enacted in 1975, and updated many times since, that protects the rights of children with disabilities to a free and appropriate education. At first, she suggested that States should be allowed to decide whether or how to enforce the law, and that, in my view, is a disqualifying answer. This has been a Federal initiative that has proved successful. Indeed, many of us can recall when students with special needs were ignored--totally ignored--until the IDEA, and now they have been incorporated into our public school systems and into our educational system, which has benefited these students, their families, and our country. I also share my colleagues' concerns about Mrs. DeVos's finances and her ability to carry out her duties as Secretary free from conflict of interest. Her ethics disclosures show investments and relationships across a range of education interests from for-profit early childhood education companies to for-profit education management entities, advocacy organizations, education software, campus services, private student loans, and student loan debt collectors. She has not fully disclosed her assets to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and has declined to provide information on the holdings in two family trusts that she will retain if she is confirmed. This lack of transparency raises real questions about whose interests will be served under her administration at the Department of Education. Education is really the launching pad for the American dream. It is the engine that drives this country forward. The Secretary of Education must be a champion for public education. As we have seen from the Office of Civil Rights data collection, we have significant gaps in opportunities and resources in schools across this country. Our Secretary of Education must be dedicated to helping States and school districts close those gaps. These children cannot afford to have resources drained from their public schools for vouchers that will do little to improve the quality of education in their communities. And as many of my colleagues in rural States have indicated, there is just, in many places geographically, the inability to substitute a public school with a vouchered charter or private school. If we break faith with these public schools, we will leave thousands of Americans, particularly in rural communities, without any real choice. The Secretary of Education should be working toward helping our teachers, principals, school leaders, and parents ensure that we are reaching all students and helping them succeed. All students include students with disabilities and English language learners. All students, together, learning from one another and not in separate and, indeed, perhaps inherently unequal environments. Our goal should be equal opportunity. And if we pursue that goal, we will see the progress and success of America continue. We need a Secretary of Education who is prepared on day one to lead our Federal student aid system that includes a student loan portfolio of over $1 trillion with more than 40 million borrowers. This is another aspect of the responsibilities in postsecondary education that, in her testimony and in her presentation, Mrs. DeVos appeared to be ill-informed about. Our Secretary of Education must be at the forefront of expanding college access, improving affordability, and ensuring that students' educational and financial interests are protected. We need a Secretary of Education who is prepared to address the needs of adult learners, especially those who have been left behind in a changing economy. Mrs. DeVos has provided no insight as to how she will lead the Department of Education's efforts to support adult learners. In fact, one of the realities of this economy is that learning today is lifelong, lifetime learning. We have left the period in which a high school diploma would be adequate for a person to get a good job, move up through the ranks in a company, retire comfortably, and provide for the next generation. Now, the intensity of education and the duration of education has to be for a lifetime. And, once again, that knowledge, that expertise, was not demonstrated in her testimony. Sadly, I do not believe that Mrs. DeVos is the Education Secretary that we need. She has dedicated her time and wealth to promoting alternatives to public education, which I believe is the bedrock of our democracy. I think one of the most significant reasons this country grew and expanded was that going back to our earliest days, we, more than any other Nation in the world, pioneered free public education, accessible to all, and that engine drove this country forward. To ignore that, to abandon public education, would be a tremendous setback to not only our economy but to the fabric of our society. Her focus on vouchers and for-profit education calls into question-- very dramatically--her commitment to public schools. It does not seem to be her major priority, and I would argue that has to be a major priority of the Secretary of Education, along with the Federal role of ensuring that the rights of all students are protected, regardless of where they live. This can't be a Department of Education that is focused on certain ZIP Codes and ignores other ZIP Codes. Furthermore, nothing in her background and in her testimony before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee inspires confidence that she has the experience or vision necessary to oversee public education policy, including higher education and adult education. For these reasons, I cannot support her nomination, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. As I indicated in my opening remarks, having served under both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, this is the first time I have ever felt that I could not support a nominee for the Department of Education. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Capito, Van Hollen, and Isakson in the introduction of the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act of 2017. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to get us closer to the goal of hopefully one day curing cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults. Representatives McCaul, Speier, Kelly, and Butterfield are introducing the companion legislation in the other body. I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just nine years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain. With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced bipartisan legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. This was an important step. Yet, more work remains. The STAR Act seeks to advance pediatric cancer research and child-focused cancer treatments, while also improving childhood cancer surveillance and providing resources for survivors and those impacted by childhood cancer. If a treatment is working, doctors elsewhere should know immediately. The same should happen if a treatment isn't working, or if other major medical events occur during the course of a particular treatment. It is critical that doctors, nurses, and other providers are able to effectively communicate information about the disease, the treatment process, and what other health and development impacts children can expect to experience with a particular course of treatment. As such, the STAR Act would reauthorize the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, creating a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study and would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases. This legislation also includes provisions dealing with issues that arise for survivors of childhood cancer. Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors are likely to experience at least one late effect of treatment; as many as one-fourth experience a late effect that is serious or life- threatening, including second cancers and organ damage. We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore improved models of care for childhood cancer survivors. Lastly, this bill would ensure more pediatric expertise at the National Institutes of Health to better leverage the research investment to improve pediatric cancer research by requiring the inclusion of at least one pediatric oncologist on the National Cancer Advisory Board and improving childhood health reporting requirements to include pediatric cancer. Last year, Senator Capito and I were able to get a provision of this bill included in the 21st Century CURES Act, which was signed into law at the end of the year. That provision will provide some clarity for patients and their physicians attempting to access new drugs and therapies from pharmaceutical companies. When a patient has run out of other options, the last thing they and their families need is to spend months being given the run-around trying to access a potential treatment. I am hopeful that we can build on this momentum. Indeed, it was heartening to see the House of Representatives pass the Childhood Cancer STAR Act as one of its last acts of the 114th Congress by a unanimous vote. While, the Senate was unable to follow suit as time ran out at the end of the year, HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have committed to working with Senator Capito and me to move the legislation this year. The Childhood Cancer STAR Act has the support of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, St. Baldrick's Foundation, and Children's Oncology Group, among others. I look forward to our continued work with these stakeholders to build support for the bill and with the HELP Committee to see this bill advance through the legislative process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Capito, Van Hollen, and Isakson in the introduction of the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act of 2017. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to get us closer to the goal of hopefully one day curing cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults. Representatives McCaul, Speier, Kelly, and Butterfield are introducing the companion legislation in the other body. I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just nine years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain. With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced bipartisan legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. This was an important step. Yet, more work remains. The STAR Act seeks to advance pediatric cancer research and child-focused cancer treatments, while also improving childhood cancer surveillance and providing resources for survivors and those impacted by childhood cancer. If a treatment is working, doctors elsewhere should know immediately. The same should happen if a treatment isn't working, or if other major medical events occur during the course of a particular treatment. It is critical that doctors, nurses, and other providers are able to effectively communicate information about the disease, the treatment process, and what other health and development impacts children can expect to experience with a particular course of treatment. As such, the STAR Act would reauthorize the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, creating a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study and would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases. This legislation also includes provisions dealing with issues that arise for survivors of childhood cancer. Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors are likely to experience at least one late effect of treatment; as many as one-fourth experience a late effect that is serious or life- threatening, including second cancers and organ damage. We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore improved models of care for childhood cancer survivors. Lastly, this bill would ensure more pediatric expertise at the National Institutes of Health to better leverage the research investment to improve pediatric cancer research by requiring the inclusion of at least one pediatric oncologist on the National Cancer Advisory Board and improving childhood health reporting requirements to include pediatric cancer. Last year, Senator Capito and I were able to get a provision of this bill included in the 21st Century CURES Act, which was signed into law at the end of the year. That provision will provide some clarity for patients and their physicians attempting to access new drugs and therapies from pharmaceutical companies. When a patient has run out of other options, the last thing they and their families need is to spend months being given the run-around trying to access a potential treatment. I am hopeful that we can build on this momentum. Indeed, it was heartening to see the House of Representatives pass the Childhood Cancer STAR Act as one of its last acts of the 114th Congress by a unanimous vote. While, the Senate was unable to follow suit as time ran out at the end of the year, HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have committed to working with Senator Capito and me to move the legislation this year. The Childhood Cancer STAR Act has the support of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, St. Baldrick's Foundation, and Children's Oncology Group, among others. I look forward to our continued work with these stakeholders to build support for the bill and with the HELP Committee to see this bill advance through the legislative process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes, I will.

Mr. REED. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. That is the point I was going to make, and she made it more distinctly and more decisively.