[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1463-S1473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDER--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                          Remembering Ina Boon

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks today by 
paying tribute to a strong, wonderful civil rights leader, Ina Boon, 
who passed away a few days ago. She was 90 years old, and she really 
was the strength and heart of so much of the civil rights work that 
went on in the St. Louis area.
  She began working for the NAACP during the 1950s, and she will be 
sorely missed. She was an extraordinary woman. I think it is important 
to put a tribute to her in the record of the Senate.
  Because of the other thing I want to talk about today, I want to 
mention that Ms. Boon, after graduating from Sumner High School in St. 
Louis, attended Oakwood University in Alabama, which is one of the 
special historically Black colleges and universities in our country.


                            Secretary DeVos

  Mr. President, that brings me to what I want to talk to the Senate 
about today and what I want to try to emphasize. Betsy DeVos has been 
given one of the most important positions in education in this country. 
Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is pretty important that the 
Secretary of Education have a basic working knowledge of history. It is 
one thing to appear for your confirmation and have no idea what the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is or not have a working 
understanding of the Federal laws as they relate to education in this 
country, but it takes it to a whole new level that someone who is 
Secretary of Education would make the kind of statement that Secretary 
DeVos made in the last few days.
  I want to read it aloud. This is the statement from the Secretary of 
Education following a listening session with historically Black college 
and university leaders. I want to pull out the quote that I think is 
important for us to dwell on today. The quote is as follows: 
``Historically black colleges and universities are real pioneers when 
it comes to school choice.''
  Now, let's be clear about what historically Black colleges and 
universities were. It wasn't about a choice. It was about racism. That 
is where these colleges came from. It wasn't that a young Black student 
looked at the State university and said: Well, I have to decide; do I 
want to go to the University of Alabama or do I want to go to a 
historically Black college and university? It may be that way today, 
but it was not when they began. They were established because do you 
know what the University of Alabama said to African-American students?
  You can't come here. You are not welcome. You are not allowed to 
darken our doors. There was no choice.
  This was the Jim Crow era of racism and segregation.
  In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act which provided land 
for the purposes of colleges in each State. In 17 of those States, 
mainly in the South, Black students were prohibited by law from 
attending these land grant colleges. The second Morrill Act of 1890 
required States to establish a separate land grant college for Blacks 
if Blacks were excluded from existing land grant colleges. Many of our 
great HBCU's, like Alabama A&M, Florida A&M, and Lincoln University, in 
my home State of Missouri, became public land grant colleges after the 
second Morrill Act of 1890. These schools were not established because 
someone thought there should be school choice. These schools were 
established because racism left Blacks without any choice. When Blacks 
tried to attend schools like the University of Alabama and the 
University of Mississippi, they were blocked and there were riots. The 
fact that Secretary DeVos doesn't understand this basic fact is 
appalling.
  Her statement was wrong. It was offensive, and it should be 
corrected. We need the Secretary of Education to have a basic 
fundamental understanding of history in the United States of America, 
especially as it relates to education. Is there anything that was more 
important in the history of our country than the struggle for equality 
in education? Is there anything that is more important than recognizing 
and understanding that for years in this country, young Black people 
could be punished for learning how to read? They would be told: You are 
not welcome, even if the universities were public universities.
  So shame on Secretary DeVos. Shame on her for not understanding 
history, for trying to shoehorn the racist history in our country into 
her talking points about school choice. That is wrong, and it should be 
corrected.
  I hope it was an oversight. If it was, I hope she will admit her 
mistake and acknowledge that historically Black colleges and 
universities in the United States of America were not about choice. 
They were about racism. They were about trying to provide an 
opportunity. They were mostly a movement that was largely led by 
ministers and academicians from other parts of the country, trying to 
make sure that in a land that professes equality and justice for all, 
education is the most fundamental of opportunities that must be 
afforded to every single citizen.
  So no, it wasn't about choice, Secretary DeVos. It was about 
something else. It is important that as the leader of education in this 
country, you acknowledge the history that is the underpinning of the 
importance of historically Black colleges and universities in our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Representative Zinke to become Secretary of the Interior.
  As is always the case, I take this opposing position with some 
trepidation. Having served as the Governor of my State, I appreciate 
the importance of deference to a chief executive's decisions to build 
his or her team, but at the same time, I think we in the Senate have a 
constitutional obligation to provide our advice and to provide our 
consent because in the end not all nominees are best for the country we 
are pledged to protect.
  Some of my western colleagues may wonder what stake a small State 
like Delaware on the east coast would have in the selection of a 
Secretary of the Interior. It turns out, there is plenty.
  As the chief land steward of our great Nation, the Secretary of the 
Interior will be asked to manage our collective interests in the 
conservation, use, and appropriate management of the abundant land, 
wildlife, mineral and other resources found on our public lands. For 
that reason alone, we should expect a firm commitment from such a 
leader that the American taxpayer will receive full value for private 
use and profit from the use of our Nation's resources, and we need 
assurances that the use of those resources will not abuse the quality 
of life for Americans while enhancing the profits of a very limited 
few.
  That, I am very sad to say, does not appear to be Mr. Zinke's track 
record.

[[Page S1464]]

For example, as a Congressman, I am told he opposed the Federal coal 
leasing moratorium ordered by his predecessor, Secretary Jewell. Some 
would call this an appropriate reaction to an alleged War on Coal, but 
let's just take a moment to take a closer look.
  As you know, I live in a small State, Delaware, that is, as it turns 
out, getting smaller almost every day. With each passing tide and every 
coastal storm, a part of us--our land--disappears forever. We are 
fighting a valiant and, some would say, futile war against an 
encroaching sea. This is not a result of variability in weather 
patterns or long-term trends in ocean dynamics, this is climate change 
at work.
  We are not alone in feeling the effects of our Nation's dependence on 
and robust use of carbon-based fuels--like coal--over the past couple 
of centuries.
  There are Native Alaskan communities that have to move in their 
entirety. Think of that. They have to move in their entirety because 
tides, storms, and waves--assisted by the absence of ice that used to 
protect them from fierce winter storm surges--are literally eating away 
at their communities. I am trying to imagine what it would be like as a 
family to get the news that you have to leave a place that has been 
your home for generations, the place from which your ancestors derived 
their sustenance, honored their forbears, and raised their legacies.
  I also can't imagine being a person who represents those people and 
families, having to help them come to grips with the realities of a 
changing world that we--if we act quickly and assertively--can begin to 
stabilize.
  It means a whole lot to us in Delaware that we take a very careful 
look at when and how we use the bounty of mineral resources under our 
public lands. At the very least, that should include--as Secretary 
Jewell's order envisioned--an assurance that we, as Americans, are paid 
a price for the coal and other public resources our lands provide that 
matches the value they represent.
  It is the least among us who need our government's help, not those 
with the most.
  We should also, as Secretary Jewell's policy recommended, be aware of 
and responsible about the climate change implications of the coal sales 
from public lands. If we humans, as Mr. Zinke admits, are responsible 
for our changing climate and the fact that my State is slowly eroding 
away, then we should embrace--not ignore--the commonsense wisdom of the 
former Secretary of the Interior. Given the chance to agree with this 
common sense in his response to questions from my colleagues on the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Zinke repeatedly demurred.
  Continuing on this theme, Mr. Zinke, in response to questions from 
Energy and Natural Resource Committee members, supported the 
Congressional Review Act resolution to eliminate the Obama 
administration's rule to curb wasteful releases of methane from Bureau 
of Land Management land-based operations--yet another example of 
willingness to sell the American people short in favor of a handful of 
energy companies.
  Wasted gas is wasted public revenue. Let me say that again. Wasted 
gas is wasted public revenue. Wasted methane is adding yet more of a 
very potent greenhouse gas to our atmosphere.
  Given the opportunity to reflect some concerns for Americans, our 
climate, Delaware's and Alaska's shorelines, and our global obligation 
to put a lid on climate contributions, this nominee demurs.
  We have seen this pattern of helping the few at the expense of the 
most across the board with too many of this President's nominations. I 
believe this is ultimately un-American, unwise, unfair, and 
unacceptable.
  I am also concerned with Mr. Zinke's stance toward the use of the 
Antiquities Act by the President to designate lands as national 
monuments. Specifically, during his confirmation, we heard a 
willingness from Congressman Zinke to take the legally uncertain step 
of revisiting the use of the Antiquities Act by the President to 
designate lands and historic sites across the Nation as national 
monuments.
  Undermining the Antiquities Act is--I believe and a lot of people 
believe--bad for conservation, is bad for historical preservation, and 
is bad for economic development opportunities associated with national 
monuments and our national parks.
  For those who don't know, the Antiquities Act has been used by 
Presidents dating back to the early 20th century--roughly 100 years--to 
preserve and protect our Nation's historic sites and preserve Federal 
lands for all of us--all of us--to enjoy.
  During his time in office, President Obama utilized the Antiquities 
Act to safeguard and preserve Federal lands and cultural and historic 
sites. Ultimately, he designated over 550 million acres of land as 
national monuments, including what we call the Delaware national 
monument.
  Delaware, as it turns out, has a special history with the Antiquities 
Act, which I will take just a moment to talk about today. Before 
Delaware saw the establishment of national parks in our borders, we had 
a national monument for a couple of years.
  In 2013, President Obama recognized Delaware's important 
contributions to the founding of the United States, including its role 
as the first State to ratify the U.S. Constitution, by creating the 
First State National Monument, with our urging and support.
  Before that designation, Delaware was the only State in the Nation 
that had neither a national monument or a national park. We were the 
first State to ratify the Constitution but until a couple of years ago 
no national park. We were the only State that was in that situation. 
Simply put, Delaware was missing out on tourism and economic 
development that a national monument or park can bring.
  The economic opportunities afforded to States with national monuments 
and national parks, as it turns out, are significant--quite 
significant. Each State with a park or monument sees economic benefits 
of at least $1 million, I am told, if not much more, in tourism and 
economic development, and every year millions of Americans and 
countless others from across the world plan their vacations around 
America's national parks and monuments.
  Believe it or not, if someone in some other country--whether it is 
Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Central America--if they are interested 
in coming to the United States, they go on the National Park Service 
website, and they look up all of the national parks and monuments 
across the country and decide which ones they might want to visit. The 
single most popular destination within the U.S. borders for tourists 
from other parts around the world, believe it or not, are our national 
parks. Isn't that extraordinary. The economic opportunities afforded to 
States with national monuments and national parks are significant--
again, around $1 million or more.
  Delaware's national park celebrates Delaware's rich colonial history 
as the first State to ratify the U.S. Constitution. As it turns out, 
the Constitution was first ratified on December 7, 1787.
  Many years before that--maybe 150 years before that--the first Finns 
and Swedes came to America, and they landed in what is now Wilmington, 
DE. They sailed across the ocean in the Kalmar Nyckel and the Fogel 
Grip from Sweden and Finland. It was before they even had a Finland, 
and the Swedes and Finns were one.
  They sailed through the Delaware Bay and north to the Delaware River 
and came to an uncharted, unnamed river that headed off to the west, 
off of the Delaware River. They went about a mile. When they came, 
there were a lot of big rocks along the coastline, and they landed 
there at the rocks. They declared that spot the colony of New Sweden, 
which later became Wilmington, DE. They built a fort called Fort 
Christina, and they built a church, the Old Swedes Church. It is the 
longest continuously operating church in America.
  About 15 miles south of that spot on the Delaware River is actually 
the river they sailed up on and planted their flag, the Christina 
River. They named it after the 12-year-old child Queen of Sweden, but 
about 50 miles south of the Christina River, further down the Delaware 
River, is a town of New Castle. There is a big statue of William Penn 
in the town of New Castle, and it is because William Penn first landed 
in America--not in an area

[[Page S1465]]

close to Philadelphia where they have Penn's Landing. He landed in New 
Castle, DE, and he brought with him the deeds to the land that later 
became Pennsylvania and Delaware.

  Further down the coast toward where the Delaware Bay meets the 
Atlantic Ocean is a town called Lewes, DE. Lewes, DE, was settled by 
the Dutch, the first time unsuccessfully. The settlers lost their 
lives. The second time they came back in greater numbers and 
successfully settled Lewes, DE, and it endures to this day.
  The Brits didn't much like the idea that the Dutch had a foothold in 
that part of Delmarva, in what is now Sussex County, DE, and one night 
many years ago--several hundred years ago--the British surrounded 
Lewes, DE, which was then inhabited by the Dutch, and they burned it to 
the ground. The next morning when the sun came up, there was one house 
standing in Lewes, DE, and it was Ryves Holt House. It is believed to 
be one of the oldest standing houses in all of North America.
  If you drive up from Lewes headed north on Route 1 toward Dover Air 
Force Base, just before the Dover Air Force Base is a colonial 
plantation called the Dickinson Plantation, named after John Dickinson 
who was a penman, an early writer who spoke about and wrote some of the 
early writings that had been cited and encouraged the colonists in what 
is now America to rise up against the tyranny of the British Crown.
  As you go a little further up Route 1 to Dover and go to downtown 
Dover, you come across an area where there used to be a tavern called 
the Golden Fleece Tavern, and that was the place where, on December 7, 
1787, after three days and nights of debate and discussion, luckily, 25 
early colonists decided to ratify the Constitution, which had come down 
the week before from Pennsylvania. We were the first State to ratify 
the Constitution.
  A few years before that, a fellow named Caesar Rodney, who had been 
president of Delaware and later held any number of offices in the State 
even before it was a State, actually rode his horse right past the area 
where the Golden Fleece Tavern was--where the Constitution was 
ratified--and rode his horse all the way up to Philadelphia, PA, in 
order to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Declaration of 
Independence. That is a little bit of the history of Delaware.
  The National Park Service decided 3 years ago that the early colonial 
settlement leading up to the ratification of the Constitution is what 
made Delaware unique, and our national park includes a number of those 
different components. Think of it almost as a necklace with different 
stones of value and interest around our State. That is what it is.
  That is the national park today. It started off really as a national 
monument from the Antiquities Act. Given that kind of history, we need 
to make sure that future administrations and future Presidents have the 
ability to utilize the Antiquities Act to safeguard the country's 
history, protect the outdoors for all of us to experience and to enjoy.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to send what I think is an 
important message that we want people in our government who are there 
to help people. I will be voting no on the Zinke nomination as a 
result, and I encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last November, I was in Maui celebrating 
the 100th anniversary of Haleakala National Park. The weather at the 
summit of the volcano was terrible. It was raining in sheets, with 40-
mile-per-hour wind driving the rain sideways, but I was there with over 
40 schoolchildren to plant Haleakala silverswords--a special, 
threatened plant that only grows in the harsh climate at the summit of 
Haleakala volcano. The silversword can live for almost 100 years before 
it flowers, spreads its seeds into the wind, and dies.
  Silverswords have dotted the landscape of Haleakala's summit for 
millennia, but invasive species, human activity, and climate change 
have pushed the plant to near extinction. In the early 1900s, 
scientists estimated that as few as 50 plants remained on the volcano, 
but this changed after Haleakala became a national park in 1916. In the 
100 years since, park rangers and visitors have made a concerted effort 
to protect the silverswords from feral goats and sheep and to make sure 
hikers don't go off the trail and trample their shallow root systems.
  After the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the silversword 
became listed as a threatened species. Through the law, 
conservationists have provided resources to help restore the 
silversword population on Haleakala for the hundreds of thousands of 
people who visit the park every year. Groups of students, including 
those whom I joined on that cold November day, have planted over 1,000 
silverswords to supplement the population of silverswords. They were 
there to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Haleakala National 
Park.
  I share this story because it demonstrates many of the reasons the 
Department of Interior is so important in the role it plays in 
preserving our public lands.
  Business is booming at our national parks. In 2015, our national 
parks hosted 305 million visitors--a new record--and these visitors 
generated $17 billion in economic activity in nearby communities.
  Our national parks are suffering from an overwhelming deferred 
maintenance backlog of $12 billion. Our national parks are also 
understaffed. Because of sequestration and a variety of other factors, 
10 percent fewer people work in our national parks today than 5 years 
ago. This is at a time when visitors to our parks are ever growing. 
This means fewer rangers and support staff dedicated to maintaining 
parks like Haleakala and protecting species like the silversword. To 
add to this, the administration has put a 90-day hiring freeze in place 
that threatens nearly 2,000 permanent vacancies that are critical to 
helping our national parks function.
  We need an Interior Secretary capable of standing up to the President 
to make preserving our public lands a priority. But during my meeting 
with Nominee Zinke and his confirmation hearing before the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, on which I sit--and his record as a 
Member of Congress--I did not receive the assurances and commitments I 
needed to support his confirmation as Interior Secretary. Although he 
expressed some support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or the 
LWCF--an important program that funds land purchases to add to 
protective areas like our national parks--he said the program could 
benefit from some ``changes.'' The only change I wish to see is to 
permanently reauthorize and fully fund the LWCF, which has suffered 
from chronic underfunding throughout its history, and I will continue 
to work with my colleagues, like Senator Maria Cantwell, who is ranking 
member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate, 
to accomplish this goal.
  We also need an Interior Secretary committed to preserving our public 
lands, not exploiting them for fossil fuel production. Congressman 
Zinke and the Trump administration are too wedded to the fossil fuel 
industry and fail this test as well.
  Supporting alternative and renewable energy development is an issue 
people in Hawaii and, I would say, a lot of people in the rest of our 
country care about.
  Earlier this year, I received a letter from Michael from Pahoa, who 
said that Representative Zinke ``has consistently voted for carbon 
heavy energy sources. His anti-environmental record shows a leaning 
that could well move exploration and extraction to areas formerly 
closed to exploitation. With interests in oil pipelines, he has a 
conflict of interest in moving away from fossil fuels and into 
alternative and renewable resources. We have destroyed enough of the 
country for the enrichment of the 1% with little to no benefit to the 
rest of our citizens. He is a destroyer, not a fixer. Not someone for 
the environment or the people.''

[[Page S1466]]

  Congressman Zinke also does not share a commitment to protecting 
endangered and threatened species like the silversword. While in the 
House, Congressman Zinke voted to block funding for any listed 
endangered species on which the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to 
conduct a 5-year review. It didn't seem to matter to Congressman Zinke 
that the reason these reviews did not take place was because 
Republicans in Congress failed to appropriate the necessary funding to 
conduct these reviews. Cutting funding in this way would devastate 
conservation and recovery efforts for as many as 850 species across the 
Nation, 137 of which are in Hawaii and 1 of which is the Haleakala 
silversword.
  During the confirmation process, I asked Congressman Zinke if as 
Secretary he would work with Congress to ensure that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service would receive sufficient funding to conduct these 
reviews and recover our Nation's endangered species. He responded by 
saying that he would ``work closely with Congress to ensure recovery 
programs are appropriately funded.'' I don't know what he means by 
``appropriate,'' but I do have a feeling that my view of sufficient 
funding, which is the question I asked him, and his answer that he 
would support appropriate funding are probably very different. In fact, 
I wonder if, under Secretary Zinke, there would have been the funding 
necessary to help Maui students plant their 1,000 silverswords on 
Haleakala's summit. This is wrong.
  Congressman Zinke also does not share a commitment to combating 
climate change or supporting research that will help in that effort.
  Washington, DC--do you notice how warm it is? It is February. It is 
60 degrees. Washington, DC, is on track to have experienced the warmest 
February on record. We have a new administration stocked full of 
climate deniers. As Secretary of the Interior, Congressman Zinke will 
be leading the U.S. Geological Survey, the USGS, an agency that lists 
climate change as one of its top mission areas.
  During his confirmation process, I asked Congressman Zinke if he 
would try to limit the USGS's work on climate change in any way. 
Unfortunately, Congressman Zinke did not provide a definitive answer--
only saying that he would need to learn about the USGS's role in 
climate change research. His answer did not reassure me that he will 
allow USGS and other agencies in his Department to continue to make 
climate change research a priority or to protect the right of these 
scientists to pursue their research without interference. This is 
particularly concerning in light of the Trump administration's ongoing 
efforts to silence our Federal workers, including those within the 
National Park Service, who are speaking out about the threat of climate 
change.
  We need a Secretary of the Interior who will protect our public 
lands, make investments to conserve our endangered and threatened 
species, and who will continue to confront climate change. His record 
of past statements demonstrates that Congressman Zinke is not the right 
person to lead the Department of Interior at this juncture, at this 
critical stage. I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address 
the nomination of Congressman Ryan Zinke to lead the Department of 
Interior.
  As Secretary of Interior, Representative Zinke will be the steward of 
our Nation's precious public lands, national parks, tribal lands, and 
historical and cultural resources. These lands not only play an 
important role in preserving habitat, landscapes, and history, they 
also create jobs and invigorate nearby communities.
  During his confirmation hearing, I was excited to hear Congressman 
Zinke refer to himself as a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist.
  We all know the important role Teddy Roosevelt played in protecting 
our natural resources. During his Presidency, Roosevelt established 230 
million acres of public lands. In 1901, he created the U.S. Forest 
Service and established 150 national forests. In 1906, he signed into 
law the Antiquities Act, legislation that allowed either the President 
or Congress to set aside ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest'' in 
order to stop their destruction. With this act, he designated 18 
national monuments, including several iconic areas.
  A modern version of Teddy Roosevelt would be a wonderful selection to 
head the Department of Interior. But, after closely examining 
Representative Zinke's record, he doesn't appear to be a Teddy 
Roosevelt conservationist.
  Last Congress, Representative Zinke voted in favor of an amendment to 
the House Interior appropriations bill that would have rolled back the 
authority of the President to use the Antiquities Act in seven Western 
States. He also supported a bill that would have effectively eliminated 
public review of hardrock mining activities on Federal lands. And he 
supported the Keystone XL pipeline.
  Conservationist groups seem to have similar concerns about 
Congressman Zinke's record.
  The League of Conservation Voters gave him a 3 percent rating for 
2015 and a 5 percent rating for 2016--hardly what you would expect from 
a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist. This troubles me, as Representative 
Zinke, if confirmed, would be responsible for managing new monuments of 
great importance--namely, the Pullman National Monument and the Bears 
Ears National Monument.
  The Pullman National Monument was designated by President Obama in 
2015 in a Chicago neighborhood that has played a significant role in 
our country's African-American and labor history.
  It represents the culmination of a collaborative effort by 
businesses, residents, and other organizations seeking to restore and 
preserve this unique community.
  The Pullman neighborhood was originally developed a century ago by 
rail car magnate George Pullman as a factory town that would help shape 
our country as we know it today.
  It was the birthplace of the Nation's first Black labor union, the 
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, which is credited with helping to 
create the African-American middle class and making crucial civil 
rights advancements in this county.
  Pullman workers also fought for fair labor conditions in the late 
19th century. During the economic depression of the 1890s, the Pullman 
community was the catalyst for the first industry-wide strike in the 
United States, which eventually led to the creation of Labor Day as a 
national holiday.
  The Pullman National Monument not only highlights stories from 
communities that are rarely represented in other national parks, but 
its location on Chicago's South Side--easily accessible to millions of 
people by public transportation--also makes it particularly unique. 
Following its designation, the Pullman neighborhood joined the National 
Mall and the Statue of Liberty as one of the few DOI-managed lands in 
an urban area.
  But Pullman now needs an Interior Secretary who is committed to 
dedicating resources that will ensure the monument is a driver of 
tourism and job creation in the community.
  Public lands have certainly been a great economic driver in Utah, and 
the Bear Ears National Monument will no doubt build on this success.
  The 1.35 million acre swath of land, declared a national monument by 
President Obama, covers forested mesas to redrock canyons and will 
protect the region's abundant cultural resources, which include well-
preserved cliff dwellings, rock and art panels, artifacts, and Native 
American burials.
  Bears Ears is special, as it is the first monument of its kind to be 
proposed and advocated for by a united coalition of five tribes, who 
sought its protection because of its important place in all of their 
respective cultures.
  Congressman Zinke is well aware of the monument and has said his 
first priority as Secretary would be to go to Utah and make a 
recommendation regarding the status of the Bears Ears National 
Monument.
  While this monument designation has been met with opposition from 
Utah politicians, the attacks on the Bears Ears Monument do not reflect 
the views of all Utahans.
  Recently, Utah's paper of record, the Salt Lake Tribune, called the 
political fervor a ``blindness.''

[[Page S1467]]

  ``That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political system 
that has given us leaders who are out of touch with their 
constituents.'' It continues, ``The Bears Ears monument may be with us 
forever, and there is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The 
presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries and 
shared management [Utah Rep. Rob] Bishop pursued with his Public Lands 
Initiative.''
  Sadly, attacks on monument designations are nothing new.
  One of our greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, faced a 
great deal of opposition to his designation of a national monument you 
may be familiar with, the Grand Canyon. Most Americans can't imagine an 
America without the iconic Grand Canyon, a true national treasure.
  But, at the time of its 1908 designation, groups were opposed to 
protecting this area. For years after its designation, oil and gas 
miners fought against additional protections for the Grand Canyon. In 
the end, conservationists won out, and by 1919, the Grand Canyon was 
made into a national park to be protected for future generations.
  Roosevelt said, ``It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to 
permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a 
cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United 
States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, 
we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds 
and mammals--not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with 
hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were 
awakening''
  Since Roosevelt's time, we have made a lot of progress in protecting 
our lands and waters, but still have a long way to go. That is why the 
next Interior Secretary needs to take a step forward in protecting more 
of our public lands, not backwards.
  Therefore, I have no choice but to oppose Congressman Zinke.
  Ms. HIRONO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Anti-Semitism

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, 20 is the number of bomb threats that were 
called into Jewish institutions in our communities across the country 
yesterday--in just 1 day. In Alabama, Delaware, Michigan, Maryland, 
Virginia, and in my home State of Hawaii, in my Temple Emanu-El, where 
I grew up and was bar mitzvahed. No one wants to be the parent who 
picks up the phone and finds out that they need to pick up their child 
from school because people are threatening violence--and all because of 
their faith.
  Since 2017 began, 100 bomb threats have been called into Jewish 
schools and Jewish community centers. It sounds like it is from another 
time, but this is what rising anti-Semitism looks like in our country. 
Granted, we knew weird stuff was happening: Pepe, David Dukes--this is 
not normal America. But now the threat of violence is real. It is 
coming through the phone lines of American schools every day, and it is 
loud and clear. This rising threat demands leadership. It demands that 
we regularly and quickly denounce anti-Semitism and do everything we 
can do to stop it from growing. But that is not what we have seen so 
far from this administration.
  Now, the baseline expectation of an unequivocal, quick and regular 
disavowal of rising anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim rhetoric from the 
leader of the free world is no longer being met. Instead, we have to 
extract it from the administration. We have to ask for it when it 
doesn't come. We have to ask when it is coming. What is even sadder is 
that this administration has avoided any opportunity--even the easy 
ones, even the most obvious ones--to stand against anti-Semitism.
  Just over a month ago, the world marked International Holocaust 
Remembrance Day. The White House put out a statement without a single 
mention of the 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Here is 
the crazy thing: The first draft mentioned Jews. The State Department 
drafted the initial statement which mentioned Jews, like every 
Holocaust Remembrance Day statement before it did. Then it went to the 
White House where someone thought: Let's make edits. Let's remove 
mention of Jews from a statement about International Holocaust 
Remembrance Day. This was someone's decision. It was an intentional 
decision. Who would decide that, and why would that be done?
  Why remove the mention of Jews? It is like mentioning slavery and not 
mentioning African Americans. It is like mentioning internment and not 
mentioning Japanese Americans. When you are talking about genocide, it 
is not irrelevant to talk about who did it and to whom. It is a 
requirement. But the White House didn't mention Jews, and it didn't 
apologize when people were rightfully confused. Only now that violence 
has been unleashed, that Jewish cemeteries are being desecrated, that 
people's children are being threatened on a daily basis are we seeing 
the minimum from the White House to recognize the rise of anti-Semitic 
sentiments and actions.
  I am worried.
  Local communities have taken it upon themselves to lead the way and 
stand up together. This is what leadership looks like. It looks like 
Muslim Americans showing up to cemeteries to help to restore Jewish 
headstones. It looks like local police raising money and people taking 
time to hold a vigil in solidarity with their Jewish neighbors. There 
have been far too many bystanders to the increasing anti-Semitism 
across the country. It is long past time to break the silence and to 
make it utterly clear that the United States is not a place for hate. 
It is un-American to hate Jews or Muslims or strangers in our midst. 
That is not who we are or what we stand for. That is not the United 
States of America.
  This week, as Jewish communities are reviewing bomb threat guidance 
and looking at best practices for security, it is up to all of us to 
take action and to do everything we can to beat back rising anti-
Semitism.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Russia

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has now been almost 5 months since our 
intelligence community first detailed how Russia launched a cyber act 
of war on America and our last Presidential election--5 months. In 
those 5 months, how many times have my Republican colleagues come to 
the floor of the Senate to discuss this national security threat, this 
cyber attack by Russia? How many times has the party of Ronald Reagan--
who so clearly understood the threat of the Soviet Union--spoken on the 
Senate floor about this Russian cyber attack on America? Zero. That is 
right--zero. They have found more than 35 occasions to talk about 
stripping health care from millions of Americans, and they made time to 
urgently rush votes dismantling environmental and anticorruption 
regulation, but to talk about how a former KGB official launched a 
cyber act of war against America aimed at eroding trust in our historic 
democracy and electing the candidate seen as more sympathetic to 
Russia--zero. Not once.

  Why would Russian dictator Vladimir Putin favor President Trump in 
the last election? Well, I just returned from a week visiting our 
allies in Eastern Europe. I can tell you, they are puzzled by this, 
too, and they are worried. They are worried that Donald Trump, the new 
President, is already advancing and will further advance policies 
sympathetic to Vladimir Putin's dangerous agenda, specifically 
weakening the Western transatlantic democratic alliance.
  Regardless of the partisan leanings of who was in government in the 
nations

[[Page S1468]]

I just visited--populist, social democrat, conservative, liberal--the 
concerns in each of these nations of Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine 
were the same. Is the United States' history of championing democracy 
and collective security in Europe ending? Are we backing away from 
those values and commitments just as Russia is more aggressively 
challenging them? Is the American President really using phrases like 
``enemy of the people'' to describe the free press in America?
  You see, the countries that I visited were once in the Eastern bloc, 
Warsaw Pact, or Soviet Union. They are familiar with that term, ``enemy 
of the people.'' That was a term used by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin 
that was so ominous that the Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, later 
demanded that the Communist Party stop using it because it eliminated 
the possibility of any kind of ideological fight.
  Think of that. Here was Khrushchev saying: Stop using the Stalin term 
``enemy of the people''; it is too divisive. Now it is being used to 
describe the media, a description that has been offered by the new 
President of the United States. Are the Trump administration's bizarre 
blinders to Vladimir Putin's aggression and true nature--and the 
silence of too many of his colleagues on this danger--a harbinger of 
some kind of Western retreat when it comes to Russian aggression?
  It is hard to believe this is happening in 2017. President Trump has 
called NATO obsolete. That is a stark and completely wrong statement, 
so bad that it required the Vice President of the United States to 
travel to Munich, Germany, last week and reassure our allies who have 
been part of our alliance since World War II that NATO was not 
obsolete.
  When has it happened in history that the President of the United 
States would make such a sweeping, erroneous, dangerous statement about 
the most important alliance in the world and then send his Vice 
President out on a repair job? The President has surrounded himself 
with people like Steve Bannon, who reportedly once called himself a 
Leninist and seems bizarrely sympathetic to Putin's dictatorial model 
and weakening the European alliance.
  It turns out that the just-resigned National Security Advisor, LTG 
Michael Flynn, the one who was fired by the previous administration, 
the one who led chants unworthy of a great democracy about locking up 
Hillary Clinton, was, in fact, speaking to Russian officials before he 
or Donald Trump had taken office and, suspiciously, just after 
President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its attack on our 
election.
  President Trump still refuses to release his tax returns to clarify 
what his son said in 2008 regarding Trump's businesses seeing ``a lot 
of money pouring in from Russia.'' President Trump even said yesterday: 
``I haven't called Russia in 10 years.'' That is hard to verify. He 
spoke to Vladimir Putin on the telephone just a month ago, which was 
followed, incidentally, a day later by renewed fighting by the Russian-
backed separatists in Ukraine.
  President Trump visited Russia in 2013. He tweeted at the time: ``I 
just got back from Russia--learned lots & lots.''
  Clearly, he did not learn enough about Vladimir Putin. As if that 
were not enough, this President still refuses to acknowledge Russia's 
attack or to criticize Vladimir Putin. You see, the President of the 
United States has trouble, a real habit of lashing out at everyone and 
anyone involved in a perceived slight, a dangerous and unbecoming 
behavior when granted the privilege to be President of this great 
Nation.
  In fact, the vast number and range of those attacked or insulted via 
Twitter is so significant that I need considerably more time here on 
the floor of the Senate to list all of the targets of President Trump's 
attacks on Twitter. So if you make any criticism or joke about 
President Trump, make any perceived slight, run a department store, 
lead a labor union, do just about anything, you may be a victim of one 
of his Twitter attacks, except, of course, if you happen to be a former 
Communist KGB official who now leads Russia, a nation that recently 
attacked our election.
  How is it possible? How is it sensible? How is this not an abdication 
of the President's responsibilities? Russian President Putin launched a 
cyber attack and war on the United States and its democracy. November 
8, 2016, is a day that will live in cyber infamy because of this 
Russian attack on the United States of America.
  President Putin interfered in our election and tried to influence the 
selection of the American people in choosing their leader. The evidence 
is overwhelming. It has been available in increasing amounts for almost 
5 months. The White House is silent, in denial.
  Republican Senators are largely silent, and not one of them has come 
to the Senate floor to even address this issue. Meanwhile, Vladimir 
Putin continues his aggressive military cyber disinformation campaign 
throughout Europe.
  Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the White House led 
an effort to discredit news stories that described contacts between the 
Trump campaign and Russian Government officials. The House Intelligence 
Committee chairman, Congressman Nunes of California, a Republican, went 
so far as to dismiss these claims of Russian interference in the 
campaign for the President of the United States and to condemn the 
leaks that have brought this information to the attention of the 
American people. Rather than doing their part to ensure an impartial, 
independent investigation of these chilling facts, the White House has 
tried to spin it out of existence. In fact, yesterday, it was reported 
that the White House Press Secretary asked CIA Director Michael Pompeo 
and the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to 
help discredit news articles about the Trump campaign aides' contacts 
with Russian officials.
  John Brennan, who was head of the Central Intelligence Agency under 
President Obama, was asked in an interview last night if he could 
imagine being contacted by the White House and asked to spin a story 
one way or the other. He said it was unthinkable. It just wasn't done 
under previous administrations. Here we are, not even 6 weeks into this 
Presidency, and it is already happening.
  Can anyone here--anyone--imagine what would happen if the situation 
had been reversed? I can just imagine the howls of ``treason'' and 
``impeachment.'' Not a single nominee would be confirmed until there 
were answers and accountability if this had happened and there was an 
effort by the Russians to influence an election in favor of the 
Democrats.
  What has happened to my friends on the other side of the aisle? When 
will they put the country that they are sworn to represent and to 
uphold above any partisan consideration? A Polish expert who I ran into 
during my journey summed all this up wisely when he said: If the United 
States does not respond to the Russian attack on its own election, 
Putin will feel he has a free hand to keep taking destabilizing actions 
in the West.
  There was a time in Washington when national security issues were 
bipartisan. Politics used to stop at the water's edge. The security of 
the Nation meant putting aside partisan agendas to face a common 
threat. It is time to return to that tradition. We need an independent, 
transparent investigation of this Russian involvement in our 
Presidential election.
  We know the voters list in my home State of Illinois was hacked. We 
know that some 17 different intelligence agencies have told us 
unequivocally that Russia did everything in its power to try to change 
the outcome of this last election. We are told that there could have 
been up to 1,000 Russian trolls sitting in headquarters in Moscow, 
trying to hack into the computers of people in the United States to 
influence the outcome of this election.
  We know that, coincidentally, some 2 hours after a very 
controversial, negative story came out against Donald Trump, the 
Russians released information that they had hacked from the campaign of 
Hillary Clinton.
  Two hours. A coincidence? Not likely. There is a lot of information 
that needs to be followed up on. No conclusions can be reached until 
there is a thorough, independent, credible investigation. I worry about 
using the Intelligence Committees for this purpose.

[[Page S1469]]

These committees and their activities are important, critical, but they 
are largely invisible and their deliberations are interminable. We are 
waiting, hoping that they will come up with information to help us 
spare the United States from a future attack by Russia or any other 
country on the sovereignty of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


               Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act, which I have 
introduced with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. 
Our legislation aims to help ensure that our seniors and disabled 
citizens have timely access to home health services available under the 
Medicare program.
  Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, 
and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important 
roles in the delivery of healthcare services, particularly in rural and 
medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in 
scarce supply.
  In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized 
Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by those 
health professionals as long as those services are within their scope 
of practice under State law.
  Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered 
nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home 
healthcare services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, 
only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home healthcare for 
Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the 
patient's case as the nonphysician provider.
  In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a 
relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse 
practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist, or 
certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home 
healthcare. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number 
of unnecessary steps to the process before home healthcare can be 
provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare 
patients the home care that they need simply because a doctor is not 
readily available to sign the requisite form. The inability of these 
advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order 
home health care is particularly burdensome for our seniors in 
medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only 
healthcare professionals who are readily available.

  For example, needed home healthcare can be delayed for up to days at 
a time for Medicare patients in some rural towns in my State of Maine, 
where nurse practitioners are the only healthcare professionals and the 
supervising physicians are far away. A nurse practitioner told me about 
one of her cases in which her collaborating physician had just lost her 
father and, therefore, understandably, was not available. But here is 
what the consequence was. This nurse practitioner's patients 
experienced a 2-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to 
get the paperwork signed by another doctor.
  Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ludicrous that she 
can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but 
cannot order home healthcare. How does that make sense?
  One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before 
his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the 
home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the 
continuation of the very same therapy that the nurse practitioner had 
been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.
  Think about that. Here we have a patient who is in a rehab facility, 
for example, or a subacute facility or a nursing home--a skilled 
nursing home--and that patient is ready to go home, but the chances of 
successful treatment of that patient--of that patient regaining 
function--is going to be diminished if there is a gap between the 
physical and occupational therapy and the home healthcare nursing that 
the patient would receive at home if there is no physician available to 
do the paperwork.
  So that simply does not make sense. I would wager that it leads to 
additional cost for our healthcare system because, if that essential 
home healthcare is not available in the patient's home, the tendency is 
going to be to keep the patient in the facility for a longer period of 
time to avoid the gap in treatment. Yet we know that it is much more 
cost effective to treat the patient in his or her home. We also know 
that for many patients, that is their preference as well. They would 
rather be in the comfort, security, and privacy of their own home.
  The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act would help ensure that 
our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need and when 
they need it, by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, 
clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse midwives to order home 
health services.
  It only makes sense. They can order it when the patient is in certain 
facilities, but then they lose the right to order it when the patient 
goes home? That just doesn't make sense. These are skilled 
professionals who know what the patients need, and we should not be 
burdening the system with unnecessary paperwork.
  Our bipartisan legislation is supported by the National Association 
for Home Care & Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American 
Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse 
Midwives, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the 
Visiting Nurse Associations of America.
  A lot of times we deal with healthcare issues that are 
extraordinarily complex, and it is difficult for us to figure out what 
the answer is. This is not one of those cases. This is a commonsense 
reform that will improve and expedite services to Medicare 
beneficiaries, whether they are our disabled citizens or our seniors. 
It will help them get the home health care they need without undue 
delay.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this 
commonsense bill.
  Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Foreign Aid

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I know we are working through these 
nominations, and there is an important one before us now, but as we 
continue to debate it, I thought it would be a good time to talk about 
the overall function of the Federal Government and some of the 
important things it does.
  Today I had occasion to meet with individuals on behalf of the ONE 
organization. It is a fantastic group I learned about for the first 
time in 2010. I was running for the U.S. Senate, and a group of 
activists in black shirts with a round white symbol on the shirt that 
said ``ONE''--and I didn't know what it was. I thought it was maybe a 
protester or someone of that nature. They were very polite, and in the 
end they approached me and started talking about it. They are a group 
of supporters of global engagement on behalf of the United States, 
cofounded by Bono, the front man for the band U2, which I think is 
familiar to most people at this point. So they are here again today, 
and we had an opportunity to meet with them early this morning. Many of 
the Members around here perhaps have seen them visit around the 
Capitol.
  That brought to mind something I want to talk about today, and that 
is the broader issue of U.S. foreign aid, the State Department, and 
engagement in the world. Let me back up and tell you what I think I 
hear--that most people hear around here as well from a lot of people. 
This has been going on for a long time. I don't blame people because 
people have real lives, businesses to run, and families to raise so 
they are not watching the Federal budget, line by line, on a regular 
basis.
  There is a perception out there that the U.S. Government spends an 
extraordinary percentage of our overall

[[Page S1470]]

budget on foreign aid. I saw a poll recently, a legitimate poll 
conducted, and it asked people: How much of the Federal budget do you 
think goes out of the country? And the average was 26 percent. That is 
what people thought. Of course the truth is, it is nothing even close 
to that.
  I want to begin by saying that today foreign aid as a part of our 
overall budget is less than 1 percent of the total amount the U.S. 
Government spends--less than 1 percent. The second thing people bring 
up is: Well, but we have so many problems in America. We do. We have 
real issues we need to confront. Why do we spend so much money on these 
other countries when we have so many problems here at home? That is a 
legitimate question. People should ask that. I think it is important 
for those of us who believe in global engagement and believe in the 
function of foreign aid to justify it, to never take it for granted, 
and to constantly examine it to make sure the money is being spent well 
and that it is worth spending at all. That is what I wanted to come to 
the floor to do today for a few minutes.
  I know we are soon going to end a budget cycle. There will be debate, 
and every dollar in the budget should justify itself. I want to explain 
for a moment why I believe global engagement and foreign aid are so 
critical.
  Here is the first reason. The world has always been interconnected, 
especially for America. We are not a small, obscure nation. We are the 
most influential, the most consequential nation on the planet. I can 
tell you that almost without exception, if there is a major crisis 
anywhere on this planet, it will eventually have a nexus to life in 
America in one way or another.
  You think about one of the controversial issues that has been debated 
in Washington and being discussed politically is the Syrian refugees. I 
remember a couple of years ago that people would tell me: Well, it is 
very sad what is happening in Syria, but what does that have to do with 
us? Well, 2 or 3 years later, I think we all know the answer; that is, 
when refugees are created anywhere in the world, it is natural that a 
significant percentage of them want to come to the richest, freest, 
safest nation in the world, and that is the United States of America.
  It also impacts our allies. We have seen it in Europe where a 
tremendous strain has been placed upon our allies in Europe. A 
significant amount of the budget in Germany, where I was recently just 
visiting, is being spent on dealing with the refugee crisis and the 
impact it is having on them. I would tell you that what happens in the 
world has a direct consequence to the United States.
  Here is another fact for why it matters to America. This is a key 
fact that I was able to pull up today--or my staff was. Twelve of the 
fifteen top trading partners of the United States were once recipients 
of U.S. foreign assistance.
  I think the best way to justify foreign assistance is to understand 
the history of it. Let's go back in time. Let's go to the end of the 
Second World War. Europe was in ruins. Japan was in ruins. The United 
States, had it behaved like most great powers in history, would have 
either abandoned those nations itself or the United States would have 
conquered them and made Japan a colony or made Germany a dependent on 
the United States. Instead, through the Marshall Plan the United States 
rebuilt Western Europe and in particular Germany. Through additional 
assistance, the United States provided aid to rebuild post-war Japan. 
For the Japanese, between 1946 and 1952, the United States invested 
$2.2 billion--or $18 billion in today's dollars--in Japan's 
reconstruction efforts. That amounts to more than one-third of the $65 
billion in goods the United States exported to Japan just last year, in 
1 year alone.
  What is the result of this aid? Here is the result. Today we have a 
prosperous, unified Germany, which is a strong member of NATO and a 
strong ally of the United States. We have in Japan the world's third 
largest economy and one of the most important allies of this great 
country of ours in the Asia-Pacific region. This would not have been 
possible without U.S. assistance. Did it help the people of Japan and 
the people of Germany? Absolutely. Did it help the people of the United 
States? Without question.
  Is the world a better place today because Germany is a free 
democratic nation involved in trade, involved in alliances with us, 
deploying troops around the world for NATO missions? Without a doubt. 
Is the world a better place because Japan is the third largest economy 
and a strong ally of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region? 
Without a doubt. That is an example of the fruit of U.S. engagement.
  Some would say to me: Well, that was after the Second World War. That 
was a catastrophic event, but as a matter of course, what else has 
borne fruit? Isn't this just money we throw down a hole and never see 
results of? I would tell you that is not the case.
  I would point to South Korea. It is hard to believe, but just a few 
decades ago South Korea was poorer than North Korea. South Korea had 
less money, less of an economy, less prosperity than North Korea. 
Today, South Korea is an industrialized, fully developed economy--one 
of the largest economies in the world. A nation that not long ago was a 
military dictatorship is now a vibrant, functioning democracy and a 
strong American ally.

  Again, another example--do you want one in our own hemisphere? Look 
at the country of Colombia. Not long ago, Colombia was basically a 
failed state. That country had been overrun by drug gangs, the 
cartels--the Medellin Cartel, the Cali Cartel. The government was on 
the verge of collapse. Presidential candidates were being 
assassinated--an extraordinary source of instability in the Western 
Hemisphere. Colombia still has challenges, but in helping them move 
forward with Plan Colombia, today trade between the United States and 
Colombia is at $14 billion, and as of last year, it actually was a 
surplus.
  What is more, Colombia is now a force multiplier for our cousins. For 
example, if you visit Honduras, as I did during the summer, and you see 
the Honduran police and the Honduran special forces being trained to 
take on the criminal elements and cartels in that country, do you know 
who is there training them alongside of our people? The Colombians--the 
Colombian military units who have the same uniform, the same training, 
the same weaponry, and the same practices as the Green Berets of the 
United States, and they are a force multiplier. Today, Colombia is 
doing the things America once had to do because of the aid we provided 
them, and they are perhaps our strongest ally in the Western 
Hemisphere.
  It goes on and on from a human perspective. You think about America 
and America's Feed the Future Initiative. It is an initiative that has 
trained thousands of farmers in Tanzania over the last decade. Now our 
country exports to them, and exports to Tanzania from the United States 
have increased by 500 percent.
  An important point, by the way, is that there have been reductions in 
foreign aid over the last few decades. Today, we spend 50 percent less 
on foreign aid than we did as a percentage of our gross domestic 
product when President Reagan was in office, which was near the end of 
the Cold War. There is rationale for this, as well, for our economy and 
for our national security.
  From an economic perspective, 95 percent of the consumers in the 
world--95 percent of the people on this planet who buy things--live 
outside of the United States. Seven of the ten fastest growing 
economies happen to be in the developing world. So if you are an 
American company that makes things--and I know we want to make things 
in America again--you have to sell them to someone. If you can only 
sell them to 5 percent of the world's population that happens to live 
in the United States of America, that is one thing, but imagine how 
much more you could sell, how much more money you could make, how much 
more value you would have for your shareholders, how many more 
employees and jobs you would create if you could sell to more of that 
95 percent of the people around the world. You cannot sell to people 
and people cannot be consumers if they are starving. They cannot be 
consumers if they are dying of HIV/AIDS. They cannot be consumers if 
they are dying of malaria. They cannot be consumers if they live in an 
unstable country.
  So there is an economic rationale for our investment around the 
world. We

[[Page S1471]]

are helping people to emerge from poverty and to ultimately become 
members of a global consumer class that buys American goods and 
services. We are, in essence, planting the seeds for markets to develop 
that we can trade with and that we can sell to. That is one of the 
reasons it is so important. That is one of the reasons that today one 
out of five American jobs is tied to international trade and that one 
in three manufacturing jobs in America is tied to exports. You cannot 
export unless there are people on the other end of the deal to buy it 
from you, and we want as many people in the world as possible to be 
able to afford to buy things from us. In many places around the world, 
it begins by ensuring that they are alive and then by ensuring that 
they have the education they need to develop an economy so that their 
people can become consumers and trade partners with us.
  The list goes on and on in terms of the accomplishments it has had.
  Our global anti-malaria program has saved over 6 million lives, 
primarily those of children under the age of 5. PEPFAR, which is the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has saved more than 11 
million people and has prevented 2 million babies from being born with 
HIV. The number of school-age children worldwide who are not going to 
primary school dropped to 57 million children in the year 2015. That is 
still too many, but the number was nearly twice that--100 million--just 
7 years ago. There has been a 99-percent reduction in polio cases 
thanks to the efforts we have led in the vaccination program. The list 
goes on and on.
  There is a national security component to this, and here it is: 
Imagine for a moment that you are a child born in Africa, that your 
parents had HIV, and that they survived because of American assistance. 
Imagine if you yourself were someone who survived HIV or malaria 
because of American assistance or that you got to go to school because 
of American help or that because of American assistance you didn't 
contract polio the way your relatives used to. Imagine if you were one 
of these young people around the world whose lives are better because 
of the help of the American taxpayer. This is never going to be 100 
percent for sure, but I promise you it is going to be a lot harder to 
recruit someone to anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism if the 
United States of America is the reason one is even alive today. That is 
the national security component, apart from allowing countries to 
become more stable and provide for their people and for themselves.
  By the way, when we talk about the international affairs budget, it 
is not just foreign aid; it is everything--diplomatic relationships 
with the global community, security assistance with key allies--Israel. 
As an example, it provides them $3 billion in military assistance as 
they are a key ally in a strategic part of the world.

  We have talked about the health clinics in the schools and the 
humanitarian relief efforts. I remember going to the Philippines about 
3 or 4 years ago. One of the first things people mentioned to me was 
that after that horrible storm that killed and hurt so many people, 
they woke up one morning and saw a U.S. aircraft carrier off the 
horizon, and they knew things were going to be better because America 
was on the case. Think about the power and what that means for our 
Nation and the impact it has on people around the world. This is part 
of it.
  By the way, when we travel abroad--when you are an American and you 
are in another country and you lose your passport or your wallet gets 
stolen or you have any sort of an issue--you have to work abroad, as do 
many people whom I know, and we get the calls in our office from people 
who have kids who are studying abroad and have an issue and have to go 
to the consulate or the Embassy--this is the budget that pays for that 
stuff. This is the budget that pays for that.
  If you are a company that decides ``I want to do business in this new 
country. I want to fly to this country and find some customers and 
maybe come back to America and hire 20 more people so that we can build 
products to sell. I want to expand our reach,'' it is our U.S. 
Embassies and the agencies working within them that are helping to make 
those connections for American businesses. That is part of this budget.
  When we talk about this, I think it is critical for us as leaders to 
explain to the American people just exactly what it is we are talking 
about. We always want to put America first. We always want to think 
about the American people first. That is our obligation. But I think 
this is part of that. If you really want to help the American people, 
you have to ensure that the world we live in is a more stable place.
  I close by saying that this always gets back to the argument that 
some make: Why does it have to be us? We have been doing this for so 
long. We have been involved in this for so long, and we have spent so 
much money and so much blood and treasure around the world for the 
cause of freedom, democracy, humanitarianism, and the like. Why does it 
have to be America?
  I think that gets to the fundamental question of, what kind of 
country do we want to be? The choice before us is that it has to be 
America because there is no alternative. That is the point I hope 
people remember and understand. There is no alternative for America in 
the world today. If America decides to withdraw from the world, if 
America decides to step back, if America declines and our influence 
around the world becomes less palpable, what will replace it?
  There are only two things that can replace it--not the U.N. There are 
only two things that can step into whatever America leaves if it steps 
back. No. 1 is totalitarianism. For the growing movement around the 
world led by China and Russia and North Korea and Iran, it is the 
totalitarian regimes. That is the first thing that can step in and fill 
the vacuum. The other is nothing. The other alternative to America is 
nothing. It is a vacuum, and that vacuum leads to instability, and that 
instability will lead to violence, and that violence will lead to war. 
That will ultimately come back and impact us whether we want it to or 
not. This is the choice before us.
  Without a doubt, I am the sponsor of a law that we passed last year, 
foreign aid accountability. I want to make sure that every dollar of 
American taxpayer money that is invested abroad for these purposes is 
spent well and is not going to line the pockets of corrupt dictators. I 
100 percent agree with that. Yet this idea that somehow we can just 
retreat from our engagement in the world is bad for national security, 
it is bad for our economy, and it isn't good for policymakers who want 
to put the American people first. By the way, it doesn't live up to the 
standards of who we are as a people.
  I have said this many times before, and in this I am guided by my 
faith. I believe that to whom much is given, much is expected. That is 
what the ancient words and Scripture teach us. I think that principle 
is true for people, and I think that principle is true for nations. I 
believe in the depth of my heart that our Creator has honored America's 
willingness to step forward and help those around the world, and I 
believe He will continue to do so as long as we use our blessings not 
just for our good but for the good of mankind.
  I hope that in the weeks to come, as we debate the proper role of 
government and the proper way to fund it, we understand what a critical 
component foreign aid and the international affairs budget is to our 
national security, our economic interests, and our very identity as a 
people and as a nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have the nomination of 
Representative Ryan Zinke to be the Secretary of the Interior as the 
business before the body today, and I wish to spend a few moments this 
afternoon speaking about him, his qualifications, and why I believe he 
will be a strong Secretary of the Interior.
  Of all the Cabinet-level nominations that have an impact on my home 
State of Alaska, the Secretary of the Interior is almost certainly the 
most important and the most consequential. Two-

[[Page S1472]]

thirds of Alaska--nearly 224 million acres--is under Federal 
management. To put that into perspective, that is more land than is 
occupied by the entire State of Texas, and it is an area about 177 
times larger than the State of Delaware. The vast majority of that land 
is controlled by agencies within the Department of the Interior, from 
the Bureau of Land Management, to the National Park Service, to the 
Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, significant parts of Alaska--more 
land than is occupied by the State of Texas--are held under Federal 
management. It is for this reason we in Alaska call the Interior 
Secretary our ``landlord.'' He might not necessarily like that fact, 
but that is what he is effectively.
  While it might sound strange if you are from an Eastern State such as 
Massachusetts or New York, which have hardly any Federal lands within 
their borders, the decisions that are made by the Department of the 
Interior literally determine the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans, 
as well as the stability and the success of our State. When the 
Department of the Interior chooses to work with us, Alaska is able to 
grow and prosper, even as our lands and our waters remain protected 
under the most stringent environmental standards in the world. When the 
Department chooses not to work with us, as was all too often the case 
in the last administration, the people of Alaska suffered. Our State's 
economy, our budget, and our future are all threatened at the same 
time. I start with that context to help the Senate understand why I 
take this confirmation process so seriously whenever a new Interior 
Secretary is nominated.
  I consider whether the nominee is right for the job and whether he or 
she will do right by the people of Alaska, as well as other western 
states. I talk with the nominee and ask him or her questions about 
everything from ANCSA and ANILCA to wilderness and wildlife management. 
When I make a decision, I am making it as a Senator for Alaska and as 
the chairman of both the authorizing committee and the Appropriations 
subcommittee for the Department of Interior.
  Today, after a great deal of review and careful consideration, I am 
very pleased to be here to speak in strong support of our new 
President's nominee for this position, Representative Ryan Zinke. I 
believe Representative Zinke is an excellent choice to be our next 
Secretary of the Interior. Maybe I am a little bit partial here, but 
the fact that he is a fellow westerner, hailing from the Treasure State 
of Montana--that helps with my decision. He is a lifelong sportsman. He 
loves to hunt and fish. That also resonates with me. I also understand 
he is a pretty good downhill skier, and I like that too. He is a 
trained geologist. He has worked as an energy consultant. Even more 
notably, he has dedicated his life to the service of our Nation, 
including more than two decades as a Navy SEAL, a term in the Montana 
Senate, and most recently as the sole U.S. Congressman for his home 
State.
  Representative Zinke's life and career have prepared him well to 
serve as Secretary of the Interior. He was born in the West. He lives 
in the West. He understands it. He understands its people. He has 
substantive knowledge of the challenges facing the Department and truly 
a firsthand experience in trying to solve them. He has also shown that 
he understands the need for the Department to be a partner for Alaska 
and other western states, which contain the vast majority of our 
nation's Federal lands.
  We had an opportunity in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
to hold a hearing to consider Representative Zinke's nomination on 
January 17. It seems like an eternity ago now, but what I remember very 
clearly from that morning is the positive and very compelling vision he 
shared with us.
  Representative Zinke told us he grew up in a ``small timber and 
railroad town next to Glacier National Park.'' He explained that he 
believes the Secretary is responsible for being ``the steward of 
majestic public lands, the champion of our great Indian nations, and 
the manager and voice of our diverse wildlife.'' He did show us--and 
spoke to it in the committee hearing--that he understands the purpose 
and the value of Federal lands, invoking Teddy Roosevelt and pledging 
to follow the multiple-use doctrine.
  As other colleagues have come to the floor today to speak about 
Representative Zinke's nomination, several have spoken to the issue of 
the Antiquities Act, speaking more directly than to the issue of 
multiple-use as it relates to our public lands. Yet, in outlining the 
concept of multiple-use that Representative Zinke believes and follows, 
it is probably best to look to his own words that he said when he was 
before us in the committee. On multiple-use, Representative Zinke said 
the following:

       In multiple-use, in the spirit of Roosevelt, it means you 
     can use it for multiple purposes. I am particularly concerned 
     about public access. I am a hunter, a fisherman. But multiple 
     uses are also making sure what you're going to do, you know, 
     and you go in with both eyes open, that means sustainability. 
     That means that it doesn't have to be in conflict if you have 
     recreation over mining.
       You just have to make sure that you understand what the 
     consequences of each of those uses are. It's our public land. 
     What I have seen most recently is our access is being shut 
     off, roads are being shut off, and we're all getting older. 
     And when you don't have access to hunting areas, traditional 
     fishing areas, it makes it an elite sport.
       And I'm particularly concerned about the elitism of our 
     traditional hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling. Making our 
     public lands accessible in the spirit of multiple-use. Single 
     use, if you look at the Muir model of some of our national 
     parks and some of our areas, I agree. There are some areas 
     that need to be set aside that are absolutely appropriate for 
     man to be an observer.
       There are special places in our country that deserve that 
     recognition. But a lot of it is traditional uses of what we 
     find in North Dakota and Montana where you can hunt and 
     fish, you can drill an oil well. Make sure there is a 
     reclamation project. Make sure there is a permit, make 
     sure there's NEPA. If you are doing something that's more 
     intrusive, make sure you monitor the water. Everyone 
     enjoys clean water and we should. I don't think 
     necessarily they are in conflict. I think you have to do 
     it right.

  I think it is important to put those comments of Representative Zinke 
on the record because it is clear that, again, he recognizes the 
multiple uses of our public lands--recognizing there are certain places 
that are special but ensuring, again, that the doctrine of multiple-use 
is respected as initially intended.
  Representative Zinke also told us that he would have three main tasks 
if he is confirmed as Secretary of the Interior. The first, he said, is 
to ``restore trust by working with rather than against local 
communities and states.'' The second is to address the multibillion 
dollar maintenance backlog at the National Park Service so that we 
preserve the crown jewels of our public lands for future generations. 
And the third is to ``ensure the professionals on the front line, our 
rangers and field managers, have the right tools, right resources, and 
flexibility to make the right decisions that give a voice to the people 
they serve.''
  So those were the three priorities as outlined by Representative 
Zinke, and I believe all three of those missions are necessary. I am 
hardly alone in supporting Representative Zinke as the right choice to 
fulfill them. Within the committee, he drew bipartisan support when we 
reported his nomination to the full Senate on January 31. He has drawn 
widespread support from dozens and dozens of stakeholder groups all 
across the country: from the Alaska Federation of Natives, the 
Blackfeet Tribe, the Choctaw Nation, the National Congress of American 
Indians, Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Public 
Lands Council, and the American Exploration & Mining Association. These 
are just a few of the many stakeholders that have praised or endorsed 
Representative Zinke to be our next Secretary of the Interior.
  I am glad we are finally here today on the verge of confirming 
Representative Zinke to this position. I would remind the Senate that 
despite many substantive differences, we confirmed President Obama's 
first nominee for Interior Secretary on inauguration day back in 2009--
not so with Representative Zinke. It has now been 6 weeks since we held 
his nomination hearing and almost a full month since we reported his 
nomination from our committee--again on a strong bipartisan basis. I am 
disappointed, of course, that it has taken this long to get to this 
point, particularly with regard to a nominee who I think, by all 
accounts, is not controversial or unqualified.
  Now we need to confirm Representative Zinke without any further 
delay,

[[Page S1473]]

so that he can select his team and get to work addressing the range of 
issues that he will inherit. From the maintenance backlog of the Nation 
Park Service, to the need for greater balance in Federal land 
management, to life-and-death issues in remote Alaska communities, and 
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to U.S.-affiliated islands, 
Representative Zinke really has his work cut out for him, and he needs 
to be allowed to get started as soon as he can.
  Again, I will repeat that I believe Representative Zinke is a solid 
choice for this demanding and critical position. While we may not agree 
on every issue, I believe he will work with us in a thoughtful manner 
that is reflective of a true partnership. I believe he understands what 
the job requires, he has the experience necessary to succeed in it, and 
he will show that the Department of the Interior can still work with 
local stakeholders to achieve positive results.
  I thank Representative Zinke for his willingness to continue his 
service to our Nation and for his patience during this process. On 
behalf of Alaskans, I look forward to working with him after he is 
confirmed with bipartisan support, and I urge every Member of the 
Senate to support his nomination.
  With that, I see the other Senator from the great State of Alaska is 
here with us today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, like my colleague from the great State 
of Alaska, I also rise in support of the confirmation of Congressman 
Ryan Zinke to be our Nation's next Secretary of the Interior.
  There has been a lot of discussion about Congressman Zinke, and he 
comes to this job with great qualifications. He is a patriotic and 
ethical man, from a patriotic and ethical part of America: the American 
West. He is a Navy SEAL who has dedicated decades of his life to 
protecting our great Nation. He is a lifelong sportsman. He is a 
trained geologist. He is a strong advocate for energy independence. He 
has a keen interest in protecting our environment, while not stymying 
much needed economic growth.
  There is probably no position more important to the future of our 
great State of Alaska than the Secretary of the Interior, and I think 
it is great that we will have a new Secretary--in addition to the 
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my colleague 
Senator Murkowski, from our great State. There are no more important 
positions than those positions. The Federal government owns more than 
60 percent of Alaska, and we are a big State. I don't have to come here 
and talk about how big we are, but we are the biggest by far. Sorry, 
Texas.
  In my State, as with many States in the West, our land is our 
lifeblood. It feeds us. It is what drives our economy and our culture. 
Congressman Zinke understands this. He hails from Montana, which has a 
similar view of how important the land is. He understands that 
responsible energy development goes hand in hand with robust 
environmental protections, and he understands the very important point 
that we as Americans can do both. We can responsibly develop our 
resources and protect the environment. No country has a better record 
of doing that than the United States of America.
  Congressman Zinke has committed to working with Alaska as a partner 
in opportunity, rather than acting as a roadblock to success. Why is 
this so important? This would be an enormously welcome change from the 
past administration. I served as Alaska's attorney general, as 
commissioner of natural resources in my great State, and now as a U.S. 
Senator, and I witnessed, unfortunately, how the former Obama 
administration tried to stop, stymie, and slow roll literally every 
economic project in Alaska--every one.
  Alaska and so many States across our country have tremendous 
resources to be developed right now. America is undergoing an energy 
renaissance. We are once again the world's energy superpower, yet our 
Federal Government was not helpful in that renaissance at all. It can 
be now, and we are looking toward a bright future when we have a 
Federal Government that is going to be a partner in opportunity, not an 
obstacle. I am hopeful that we are going to see a new renaissance of 
economic growth and job creation in Alaska and across the country, 
buoyed by Federal agencies like the Department of the Interior under 
Congressman Zinke's leadership that want to help us seize 
opportunities, not undermine them.
  Like my colleague Senator Murkowski, I encourage all of my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to vote for Congressman Zinke to be our next 
Secretary of the Interior. He is a man of integrity, a man of 
patriotism, a man of experience, who in my view, is going to make a 
great Secretary of the Interior.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________