Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, when he was running for President, Donald Trump laid out a pretty clear vision of how he would deal with Wall Street. He said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.'' He claimed he wasn't ``going to let Wall Street get away with murder,'' and he called out Goldman Sachs as the prime example of a big bank that has too much influence over the political process. That was really powerful stuff.

When Candidate Trump became President Trump, he seemed to forget every scrap of his tough-on-Wall Street talk. Within weeks of taking office, he turned over his administration's economic agenda to none other than Goldman Sachs. His senior strategist, Steve Bannon, spent half a decade at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker. His National Economic Council Director, Gary Cohn, came directly from Goldman Sachs, where he spent 25 years and rose to become President of the bank. His Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs before leaving to start his own hedge fund, which brings us to Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to run the Securities and Exchange Commission. To be fair, Mr. Clayton never worked at Goldman Sachs, he just worked for Goldman Sachs, taking their money and representing them for years as a lawyer at a major New York City law firm.

So here we are, just over 8 years after Wall Street triggered a financial crisis and brought the economy to its knees, and President Trump has put the Goldman Sachs gang in charge of holding Wall Street accountable. Trump's betrayal of his campaign promises on Wall Street is shameful, but it is also dangerous, especially when it comes to picking the person to lead the SEC. The SEC is supposed to be the cop on the beat for Wall Street. That is why Congress created it in the 1930s, after fraud and other misconduct on Wall Street led to an enormous stock market crash and the Great Depression. Congress gave the SEC the authority to oversee financial markets and to hold companies and individuals accountable when they defrauded investors.

When the SEC doesn't do its job, the consequences can be devastating. Look at what happened the last time the SEC was under Republican control in the years leading up to the 2008 crisis. The SEC was asleep at the switch. While Wall Street flooded the market with dangerous securities and lied to investors, the SEC heard nothing, saw nothing, stopped nothing. The Republican-led SEC did nothing. When the whole market blew up, it was ordinary

investors and working families who got asked to bail out Wall Street.

So what kind of SEC Chairman would Mr. Clayton be? Let's start by looking at how he would lead the SEC's enforcement efforts against Wall Street, how he would be as a cop on the beat. Under ethics rules, for the first half of his term, Mr. Clayton cannot participate in any enforcement action that involves one of his former clients. That means he cannot take part in any case against Goldman Sachs. OK. But there is more. Goldman Sachs is just one of his former big bank clients. Mr. Clayton also can't take action against Deutsche Bank or against UBS or against Barclays. These are some of Wall Street's biggest and most egregious repeat offenders, and Mr. Clayton would be barred from enforcing the law against them.

That is not all. Ethics rules also prevent Mr. Clayton from participating in any enforcement case against a party that is represented by his former law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Sullivan and Cromwell is a premier Wall Street firm, with a long client list that includes big banks like JPMorgan Chase and the credit rating agency Moody's. That means there will likely be even more cases against top Wall Street firms that Mr. Clayton can't work on.

Here is why that matters so much. For most enforcement actions, it takes a majority vote of the five SEC Commissioners. In other words, it takes three people to advance an enforcement action. In a number of recent cases, the two Democrats have voted for stronger enforcement and the two Republicans have voted against it. If the Chairman can't vote-- and Mr. Clayton can't vote if some of the biggest and most disreputable banks are involved--then the Commission is likely to come up short of the necessary three votes. You know what that means. It means the banks walk free. Confirming Mr. Clayton to run the SEC will almost certainly result in weaker enforcement against the major players on Wall Street.

Mr. Clayton is also likely to pursue a Wall Street-friendly agenda when it comes to the SEC's rulemaking responsibilities. When he testified before me and before other members of the Banking Committee, Mr. Clayton refused to commit to completing the rules that Congress asked the SEC to write all the way back in 2010 as part of its postcrisis financial reforms. Mr. Clayton even refused to commit to implementing and enforcing some of the postcrisis rules that the SEC has already finalized and put in place.

I don't have any faith that Mr. Clayton will be the kind of tough, independent leader we need at the SEC. His nomination is just one more broken promise, one more time that Donald Trump has put Wall Street ahead of the interests of the American people. The last time a Republican President led us down this path, it resulted in the worst financial crash of our lifetime. We can't go down that path again.

I will be voting against Mr. Clayton's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the nomination of Alexander Acosta for Labor Secretary.

The test of whether a nominee is qualified to be Labor Secretary is a pretty simple one: Will that person stand up for 150 million American workers and their families? Mr. Acosta has had multiple opportunities in more than 2 months since he was nominated for this position to demonstrate that he would stand up for workers, and time after time, he has refused.

Americans deserve to know where a nominee like Mr. Acosta stands on key policy matters that will have a powerful impact on the lives of working people.

At Mr. Acosta's confirmation hearing, I asked him where he stood on three policy issues that are important to working Americans and their families.

First, will you promise not to delay a rule that will protect 2.3 million Americans from being poisoned by lethal cancer-causing silica on the job?

Second, will you appeal a Texas court's injunction that has halted implementation of a new overtime rule that would give 4.2 million Americans a $1.5 billion raise in a single year?

And third, will you promise not to delay a rule that will stop investment advisers from cheating retirees out of an estimated $17 billion a year?

Now, these are not tough questions. For most people, these would have been total softballs: Will you keep workers from being poisoned, will you make sure that employers pay for overtime, and will you make sure that investment advisers aren't cheating retirees? Come on. This is the very least that a Labor Secretary can do--the very least.

Mr. Acosta refused to answer a single one of these questions. Instead, he bobbed and weaved, stalled and repeated my questions; he even insisted that these topics were so complex that he needed more time to study them. And it wasn't just my questions that Mr. Acosta refused to answer. He spent more than 2 hours ducking, hand-waving, and dodging basic questions from committee members--both Democrats and Republicans--questions about whether he would commit to stand up for workers on issues that profoundly affect their health, their safety, and their economic security.

Mr. Acosta has been so evasive about his views that we still have virtually no idea what he will do to help or harm workers if he is confirmed for this job.

The fact that Mr. Acosta isn't willing to step up on easy questions and tell us that he will be on the side of workers tells us a lot about him--and none of it is good.

That is particularly troubling, since Mr. Acosta is President Trump's nominee, and we can see how President Trump treats workers. In less than 100 days on the job, President Trump has managed to kill, weaken, or undermine an unprecedented number of protections for working people.

He signed a bill to make it easier for government contractors to steal wages from their employees.

He signed a bill to make it easier for employers to hide injuries and deaths that their workers suffer on the job.

He signed a bill to keep cities from offering retirement accounts to more than 2 million employees who don't have access to a retirement plan on the job.

He delayed a rule protecting workers from lethal, cancer-causing beryllium.

He delayed a rule protecting construction workers from deadly silica.

And he delayed a rule preventing investment advisers from cheating retirees--a rule that will save hard-working Americans about $17 billion a year.

That is a pretty long list, and it doesn't even include the devastating impact to workers of the President's proposed 20-percent cut to the Labor Department funding, which means fewer cops on the beat when employers steal wages or force people into unsafe working conditions.

During his campaign, President Trump talked a big game about standing up for workers and creating good, high-paying jobs. But if his first 100 days are any indication, his real plan is to keep corporate profits soaring by gutting the rules that American workers depend on to keep money in their pockets, food on their tables, and to keep them safe in the workplace.

Unlike President Trump's first failed nominee for this job, Mr. Acosta is not openly contemptuous of people who work hard for a living, and I suppose we should be thankful for that. But that is not the test for Labor Secretary. The test for Labor Secretary is whether this person will stand up for American workers.

Mr. Acosta won't make that commitment, and he has made it perfectly clear that he sure won't stand up to President Trump. That is just not good enough. Because of this ongoing evasiveness, I have no confidence that Mr. Acosta is the right choice for this position, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his confirmation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you to the Senator from Hawaii for calling us here together today.

Mr. President, it is clear that President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, does not have enough support in the Senate to be confirmed under our rules. When a Supreme Court nominee does not have enough support to be confirmed, the solution is to pick a new nominee, but Republicans in the Senate are threatening to pursue a different path. They are considering breaking the Senate rules to force the nominee onto the Supreme Court anyway.

I will be honest. I think it is crazy that we are considering confirming a lifetime Trump nominee to the Supreme Court at a moment when the President's campaign is under the cloud of an active, ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation that could result in indictments and appeals, that will go all the way to the Supreme Court, so that Trump's nominee could be the deciding vote on whether Trump or his supporters broke the law and will be held accountable. That is nuts. I believe we should tap the brakes on any nominee until this investigation is concluded.

But even if none of that were happening, I would still oppose the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. My objection is based on Judge Gorsuch's record, which I have reviewed in detail. Judge Gorsuch's nomination is the latest step in a long political campaign by rightwing groups and their billionaire backers to capture our courts.

Over the last 30 years, as the rich have gotten richer and working families have struggled to make ends meet, the scales of justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. Those powerful interests have invested vast sums of money into reshaping the judiciary, and their investment has paid off in spades. Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it easier for corporate giants that cheat their customers to avoid responsibility. Recent Supreme Court decisions have let those same corporations and their billionaire investors spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections and manipulate the political process. Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it easier for businesses to abuse and discriminate against their workers.

Giant corporations and rightwing groups have notched a lot of big wins in the Supreme Court lately, but they know their luck depends on two things--first, stacking the courts with their allies, and second, stopping the confirmation of judges who don't sufficiently cater to their interests. That is part of the reason they launched an all-out attack on fair-minded mainstream judges--judges like Merrick Garland, a thoughtful, intelligent, fair judge to fill the open vacancy on the Supreme Court.

These very same corporate and rightwing groups handed Donald Trump a list of acceptable people to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and as a Presidential candidate, he promised to pick a Justice from their list. Who made it onto that rightwing list? People who, unlike Judge Garland, displayed a sufficient allegiance to their corporate and rightwing interests. Judge Gorsuch was on that list, and his nomination is their reward.

Even before he became a Federal judge, Judge Gorsuch fully embraced rightwing, pro-corporate views. He argued that it should be harder, not easier, for shareholders who got cheated to bring fraud cases to court.

On the bench, Judge Gorsuch's extreme views meant giant corporations could run over their workers. In Hobby Lobby, when he had to choose between the rights of corporations and the rights of women, Judge Gorsuch chose corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the rights of corporations and the rights of the consumers they cheated, Judge Gorsuch chose corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the rights of corporations and the rights of employees who had been discriminated against, Judge Gorsuch chose corporations. Time after time, in case after case, Judge Gorsuch showed a remarkable talent for creatively interpreting the law in ways that benefited large corporations and that harmed working Americans, women, children, and consumers.

When it comes to the rules that prevent giant corporations from polluting our air and our water, from poisoning our food, from cheating hard-working families, Judge Gorsuch believes that it should be easier, not harder, for judges to overturn those rules--a view that is even more extreme than that of the late Justice Scalia.

Republicans assert that Judge Gorsuch is a fair, mainstream judge, but rightwing groups and their wealthy, anonymous funders picked him for one reason: because they know he will be their ally. And that is not how our court system is supposed to work. Judges should be neutral arbiters, dispensing equal justice under law. They should not be people handpicked by wealthy insiders and giant corporations.

For the working families struggling to make ends meet, for people desperately in need of healthcare, for everyone fighting for their right to vote, for disabled students fighting for access to a quality education, for anyone who cares about our justice system, there is only one question that should guide us in evaluating a nominee to sit on any court: whether that person will defend equal justice for every single one of us. Judge Gorsuch's record answers that question with a loud no.

Republicans have a choice. They can tell President Trump to send a new nominee--a mainstream nominee who can earn broad support--or they can jam through this nominee. If they do jam through Judge Gorsuch, the Republicans will own the Gorsuch Court and every extreme 5-to-4 decision that comes out of it. Republicans will own every attack on a woman's right to choose, on voting rights, on LGBTQ rights, on secret spending in our political system, and on freedom of speech and religion. Republicans will be responsible for every 5-to-4 decision that

throws millions of Americans under the bus in order to favor the powerful, moneyed few who helped put Judge Gorsuch on the bench.

Right now, the Presidency is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution, contempt for our independent judiciary, contempt for our free press, and contempt for our moral, democratic principles. If ever we needed a strong, independent Supreme Court with broad public support--a Supreme Court that will stand up for the Constitution--it is now.

If ever there were a time to say that our courts should not be handed over to the highest bidder, it is now. And that is why Judge Gorsuch should not be confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, since coming to Washington, I have observed something interesting about Republican politicians. Republicans talk a big game about respecting women, but when it comes time to vote on laws to help real, live, American women, a lot of Republicans turn their backs.

Take Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan was adamant that American women deserve respect. ``Women,'' he said, ``are to be championed and revered.''

``Championed and revered''--so what exactly does championing and revering women mean to Speaker Ryan? Does it mean he will promote policies that make us healthier, that he will help us access basic medical services, that he thinks we can make our own decisions about our bodies without government interference? No.

Over the past few months, Speaker Ryan has worked overtime on the American Health Care Act--a bill that would make it harder for millions of women to access healthcare. That miserable bill even included a special provision singling out certain health clinics and stripping them of the funding they use to provide women's health services.

Last week, Paul Ryan failed to get that bill out of the House, but Republicans are back to take another shot at cutting women's access to healthcare. This time the plan is to undermine the title X family planning program. This plan, just like their healthcare bill, is incredibly unpopular, even with Republicans who had to rush Vice President Pence over from the White House this morning to cast a deciding vote to start this debate on attacking women's healthcare.

Title X is a bipartisan program started back in 1970. It is the only Federal grant program dedicated to providing Americans with high- quality, low-cost family planning services. Title X funded clinics provide birth control, cancer screening, STI testing, and counseling. Just so there is no confusion about this, title X dollars cannot be used to fund abortion services--none.

In 2015 alone, title X clinics helped 2.9 million women access birth control. They provided over 700,000 Pap smears, performed 1.1 million HIV tests, and gave over 1 million breast exams. And Paul Ryan's way of making sure that women are ``championed and revered'' is to try to reduce their access to these lifesaving services.

Last December, the Department of Health and Human Services passed a very simple rule to keep States from pulling political shenanigans to shut down women's health centers. The rule prevents States from blocking a healthcare provider from the program ``for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services.'' In other words, follow the law. If a provider is doing a bad job at delivering family planning services, by all means, kick them out of the program. But you don't get to kick someone out because you don't like the name of their organization or you don't like their politics or because of your politics or because of any other dumb reason that has nothing to do with their ability to deliver women's health services.

In February, House Republicans voted to overturn this rule. So Paul Ryan's version of championing and revering women is to let States close down women's health centers. Now Senate Republicans plan to do the same thing. Sure, Republicans give a bunch of reasons, but American women are not stupid. We know pretext when we see it. So let's just call it like it is. Republicans want to weaken the title X program because they want to make

it harder for women to access reproductive health clinics, like Planned Parenthood, that also provide safe, legal abortion services.

Just so we are clear, there are over 3,900 title X funded health centers. Only 10 percent of those health centers are affiliated with Planned Parenthood. The vast majority of centers getting title X money have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, and the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's activities have nothing to do with abortion. But women should be able to choose a reproductive health provider without the interference of Republican politicians, and millions of women choose Planned Parenthood every year. The Congress representing those women should stop demonizing Planned Parenthood and stand with Planned Parenthood.

Yes, as it stands, title X makes sure that if women's healthcare centers, including Planned Parenthood, offer first-rate care, then their work will be reimbursed. The Senate should reject any efforts to change that.

Women in this country work their tails off. They should be able to choose their own healthcare providers. They don't need a ``champion'' to choose for them. They don't need to be ``revered'' into passive silence. Women want the respect that they deserve and to be able to access medical care without Republican politicians getting in the way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Republicans are in charge of the Senate, and so far they haven't put up for a vote in this Congress a single piece of original legislation to help working families--not one. They haven't fixed a single piece of our crumbling infrastructure. They haven't put Americans back to work. They haven't brought down the soaring cost of prescription drugs. And they haven't done a thing to help the 55 million Americans who don't have access to a workplace retirement account to save for their retirement. But they have been busy.

Here is what they have done so far: They have made it easier for giant corporations to hide the payments they make to foreign countries. They have made it easier for companies to discharge filth into our rivers and streams. They have made it easier for Americans suffering from mental illness to buy guns. They have made it easier for hunters to shoot baby bears and wolf cubs from planes. They have made it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees. They have made it easier for employers to hide injuries their workers suffer on the job. They have made it easier for States to divert Federal education dollars away from struggling schools and students. They have made it easier for States to block people who are out of work from getting unemployment insurance payments that they are entitled to by law. And they have made it easier to keep local residents from having a say in how Federal lands are managed.

Now they are back at it again, this time to overturn a rule that will help millions of Americans start saving for their retirement. For years, the Republican-controlled Congress has done nothing to help the 55 million Americans who don't have an employer-provided retirement plan save for their retirement. Nothing. Because of this Federal inaction, 7 States have passed legislation to provide retirement accounts to their constituents, and 23 others are considering proposals. The efforts of just those 7 States could expand coverage to 15 of the 55 million Americans who don't currently have an employer- sponsored retirement account.

In addition to these State efforts, three cities are actively considering proposals to curb the retirement savings gap, potentially covering another 2 million Americans. Extending coverage to 17 million Americans would go a long way toward starting to chip away at the retirement crisis in this country.

Today, among working families on the verge of retirement, about one- third have no retirement savings of any kind, and another one-third have total savings that are less than 1 year's income. This is a real problem, and Senate Republicans should be working hard to come up with solutions to fix it. But if they don't have any ideas of their own, the least they can do is step aside and let the hard-working Governors, mayors, State treasurers, city councils, and State legislatures continue their important efforts to try to solve our retirement crisis.

Every single time the Senate has come to the floor of this Congress to overturn an Obama administration rule, Republican Senators have said they were voting to remove burdensome Federal regulations that ``severely limit the role of State and local governments,'' when local governments ``could do a much better job of providing for the people of our State.'' So why on earth are they now voting to make it harder for cities and States to help their own citizens save for retirement? Why? Three words: chamber of commerce.

The chamber of commerce and the trade associations for the giant financial firms have been fighting tooth and nail to kill these retirement initiatives. Their armies of lobbyists have been deployed to peddle misinformation about what these plans do, all because the giant financial firms that the chamber of commerce and the trade associations represent are worried that the city and State plans might actually offer better investment products with lower fees.

The American people are not calling their Senators asking us to work day in and day out to overturn rules to help them save for their retirement; 72 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats support these initiatives. They aren't calling us and asking us to make their water dirty or to let their employer put their lives at risk by cutting corners on safety either.

The American voters didn't send us to Washington to work for the lawyers and the lobbyists and the giant corporations that keep corporate profits soaring by skirting basic regulations.

This vote may be really good for filling the campaign coffers of Senate Republicans, and a few of them may pop champagne corks with their buddies at the chamber of commerce after this vote tonight, but Americans are watching, and they will be ready to fight back.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last week Republicans in Congress came within an inch of ripping health insurance away from 24 million people in order to give tax breaks to rich people. That collapsed, and it collapsed because the American people stood up and said no--no to kicking seniors out of nursing homes, no to booting kids with rare diseases off of their treatments, no to gutting funding for opioid addiction.

All across this country--in every corner of this country--for months people spoke up about how the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid are saving their lives and saving their families from financial ruin. They poured their hearts out, they raised their voices, and they demanded to be heard. Last week they won.

The collapse of the Republicans' cruel scheme is a huge relief to millions of people in this country, but I am not here to celebrate. I am here to warn the American people about what is coming next, because instead of listening to the American people about what they want, the President of the United States has threatened to sabotage healthcare in America. It isn't subtle. One hour after the Republicans admitted they didn't have the votes in Congress to destroy the Affordable Care Act, President Trump sat behind his desk in the Oval Office and told the entire Nation that he wants to trigger a meltdown of our healthcare system because he thinks that would be helpful to him politically.

Just so there is no confusion, I want to quote him word for word. He said: ``The best thing we can do, politically speaking, is let ObamaCare explode.''

Now let's be clear. It is deeply wrong for the President of the United States--whose one and only job is to look out for the American people--to root for the failure of our country's healthcare system. It is deeply wrong for the President of the United States to announce that he is going to drag down our entire healthcare sector--a sector that accounts for more than one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy--just so he can stand on top of the wreckage and waggle his fingers and say: I told you so.

Healthcare for millions of Americans is not a game. It is not entertainment. It is not a reality TV show. Healthcare is literally life and death, and it touches everyone in this country from elderly grandparents to tiny babies.

President Trump is responsible for making healthcare in this country work. It is his job. He is President of the United States. His party controls both Houses of Congress. A legitimate President doesn't clap and cheer when things get worse for the American people. A legitimate President doesn't pound his chest about sabotaging the health and security of the American people because it is politically expedient. A legitimate President does his job.

The President's admission that he wants our healthcare system to collapse is a dangerous sign of where things are headed. For 7 years Republicans in Congress have rooted against healthcare in this country, cheering every stumble and working at every turn to hobble the law and make it harder for people to get affordable insurance. President Trump cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act on his own, but he can strip healthcare from millions of Americans and make it too expensive for millions more. He can do that all on his own. In fact, he is already working on it.

A few days after he took office, President Trump signed an Executive order directing his agency to use every tool at their disposal to try to disrupt the Affordable Care Act. In January, he also pulled down government's efforts to get more people signed up for health insurance. Why? So fewer people would use the health exchanges, fewer would get insurance, and premiums would go up for those who did sign up--all in an effort to make ObamaCare fail.

Senator Patty Murray and I asked the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate this reckless move, and now an independent investigation has been launched into this despicable incident. But the President has more tools at his disposal to undercut the Affordable Care Act all by himself. The President can redefine what insurance plans have to cover, stripping out critical benefits like birth control coverage. The President can withhold payments that insurers rely on to keep private health plans affordable. The President can allow States to put new conditions on Medicaid, conditions like taking away healthcare coverage if a woman doesn't get back to work soon enough after giving birth.

If the President decides to launch an all-out effort to sabotage American healthcare so he can manufacture a crisis to score political points, he can hurt a lot of people.

But there is a better way. If Republicans want to work on ideas to actually improve healthcare in America, to expand coverage, to expand access, or to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs, I am eager to throw up my sleeves and go to work. For years, Massachusetts has led the Nation in bipartisan health reform. We have lots to contribute on this, and lots of other Democrats are ready to get to work, too.

The American people aren't stupid. They know the difference between a bill that kicks 24 million people off of their health insurance and a bill that actually improves care. They know the difference between a President who fights to make health care better and a President who plans to sabotage healthcare. They know the difference between a fireman and an arsonist. If this President and this Congress continue to play politics with the lives of millions of people, I promise you that the American people will see it, they will know it, and they will rise up once again to fight it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, during his campaign, President Trump talked a big game about standing up for workers and creating good, high-paying jobs, but so far, the Republicans haven't voted on a single piece of legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy, or to increase wages for middle-class families--not one single piece, no votes to create jobs, grow the economy, or increase wages for middle- class families--but they have been voting.

Two weeks ago, Senate Republicans voted along party lines, 49 to 48, to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees. They also made it easier for those companies to injure their workers without admitting liability. Today, we are voting to make it easier for employers in the most dangerous industries to hide the most serious injuries and illnesses their workers suffer on the job.

This isn't some burdensome new regulation. Large employers in the most dangerous industries have been required to record serious illnesses and injuries their employees suffer on the job since 1972, a few years after the Occupational Health and Safety Act was first passed in 1970.

The rule Republicans are trying to overturn today simply clarifies an employer's obligation to maintain accurate, up-to-date records on workplace illnesses and injuries for 5 years. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration--or OSHA, as most of us call it--at the Labor Department has been enforcing this requirement in every administration since 1972, Democratic and Republican. OSHA uses these data to determine how best to prioritize workplace inspections. Since OSHA resources are so scarce, they have only enough money to inspect each workplace once every 140 years. So they kind of pick and choose where to focus these days to make sure they are targeting their inspections at industries and in occupations where workers are at the highest risk of injury. The Department also uses these reports to publish yearly statistics on the workplace hazards that kill 4,800 people and injure another 3 million people--American workers hurt and killed every year.

Data show employers already vastly underreport workplace injuries and illnesses, and without this rule, underreporting will skyrocket. It will get harder for OSHA to hold employers accountable when they cut corners and endanger worker safety.

Today's vote is great news for the Republicans who will rake in campaign contributions from their buddies at the Chamber of Commerce. It is great news for giant corporations that are lobbying hard against this rule, but it is not great news for hard-working Americans. The people did not send us to Washington to work for companies that plump up their profits by skirting safety regulations.

The problem? This is just the beginning. Last week, President Trump proposed cutting the Department of Labor's budget by more than 20 percent. These cuts will take cops off the beat and send a clear signal to employers that they can cut corners on safety with impunity.

President Trump also proposed eliminating a 1970 program at OSHA that gives grants to nonprofits and community organizations that provide free training for workers on how to identify and prevent job hazards that could injure or kill them. These programs work, and now President Trump wants to cut them. That would mean the end of successful worker training programs like the Brazilian Worker Center's program in Allston, MA, that provides residential construction workers with lifesaving fall protection training. It also would cut funding for a Massachusetts Coalition on Occupational Health and Safety program in Dorchester that gives teens working in the retail sector training on how to prevent workplace violence, including sexual assault. Please note how important this is--200,000 young workers are the victims of workplace sexual assault every single year. This is a training program that was so successful that since it has been implemented, it has been replicated now nationwide. Yet the Trump administration wants to defund it.

Just yesterday, the Trump administration finalized a 60-day delay of a rule to protect 60,000 workers who are exposed to lethal, cancer- causing beryllium at work. This regulation saves about 100 lives every single year. Because the beryllium standards haven't been updated in 40 years, tens of thousands of workers are putting their lives at risk every single day. Americans who are exposed to beryllium on the job shouldn't have to wait another 60 days before they can get some protection so their jobs will not cause them lung cancer.

The pattern emerging is pretty clear. Republicans have no plans to improve the lives of American workers. Quite the opposite. Republicans are increasing the odds that workers will be injured or even killed.

When I came to the Senate floor 2 weeks ago to speak out against the repeal of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Act, I said the debate on this vote was about whom Congress works for. Today's debate is no different. The Republicans are working for giant employers that don't want to follow the basic rules to keep their employees safe. This is shameful. This Congress should be working for the Americans who work for a living and just want to be able to do that without putting their lives at risk.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last week Republicans in the House released a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid to the bone. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office--those are the independent budget experts who analyze policies under consideration here in Congress--estimated that the plan would rip health insurance coverage away from 24 million Americans and cut $880 billion in the Medicaid program. And as a bonus, the plan provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the rich. Who comes up with a plan like this? What kind of healthcare bill has, as its central feature, ripping away health insurance from tens of millions of American citizens?

What kind of politician thinks they were sent to Congress to destroy the financial stability of millions of middle-class families and give wealthy donors a tax break that they certainly don't need? Who thinks that the central problem in America is that middle-class families have too much healthcare coverage and that the richest people in America need government to hand them more money? There is no other way to say it: This bill is just part of a Republican plan to help the rich get richer and kick dirt in everyone else's face.

This bill is an economic disaster, and at its center, it is cruel-- cancer survivors losing coverage, seniors facing premium increases of $12,000 a year, people with disabilities forced into nursing homes. And one of the cruelest things is what this bill will do to individuals, to families, and to communities struggling with the opioid crisis.

Last year in Massachusetts, nearly 2,000 people died from opioid use. That is more than double the number who died in 2013. That is right, double. Between 2014 and 2015, Massachusetts had a bigger jump in its death rate from drug overdoses than any other State except North Dakota.

Last week, I was on the front lines in Lynn Community Health Center, where dedicated staffers are trying to meet this opioid epidemic head on. This week, I went to Manet Community Health Center, where a coordinated team in Quincy is battling the opioid crisis. While I was there, I not only met with the professionals, I saw the mamas and the babies, the people who are in recovery, and people who reach out to those who are still in the grip of drugs. The opioid crisis isn't happening to someone else's family or in someone else's community. It is happening to our families in our communities, and we need to do more to stop this plague before it takes another of our loved ones.

We need to do more; what we absolutely cannot do is less. We cannot take away the resources already committed to fighting the opioid crisis so that some millionaire can get a tax break. Current law, the ACA, requires all insurance plans to cover substance use disorder treatment and prevention as an essential health benefit. That means that your insurance company can't turn off the access to treatment just when you need it most by saying: Sorry, we just don't cover that. Current law, the ACA, gave people the chance to get that insurance through health exchanges and subsidies. Millions more people got private insurance. And through Medicaid expansion, millions more were covered by Medicaid. So there it is, our first line of defense in the war on opioid addiction.

The ACA currently means that more people are covered, and that coverage includes substance abuse treatment. What does the Republican plan do? It

takes away coverage for 24 million people. That is 24 million people who no longer have any access to substance use disorder treatment and prevention services. And then they want to let insurance companies jack up the out-of-pocket costs for substance abuse programs and mental health programs. In fact, some Medicaid plans would be able to drop this coverage altogether. So millions more people would lose their one lifeline if someone in their family is taken by drugs.

Don't get me wrong. What we are doing right now is not enough. Even now, only 10 percent of those who need treatment for substance use disorder receive it and 90 percent can't get help, but that means we need more, not less help.

Repealing the protections for mental health and substance use disorders in the ACA would yank more than $5 billion in actual funding that is currently going to mental health and treatment services. That is the Republican plan to deal with the opioid crisis. Ask any family trying to get treatment for a loved one who is addicted to drugs. We already have an opioid treatment gap. Gutting the ACA is like shoving a stick of dynamite into the treatment gap and then lighting the fuse. And if the Republicans get their way, people will lose health coverage. People will lose access to recovery services. People will die.

Now is the time to stop this cruel bill in its tracks before it hurts real people. Now is the time to speak out about the importance of the ACA and Medicaid to you and to your family.

If you or someone you know has been touched by the opioid epidemic, you know how much this matters. Maybe you have a sister, a child, a church member, or a high school friend who has struggled with substance use disorder. Maybe you know someone who has fought on the frontlines of this crisis as a healthcare provider, community advocate, as a first responder.

If you do, then you know the stakes in this debate over the ACA and Medicaid. Now is the time to act. Don't wait. If the Republicans end up destroying help for millions of people, don't wake up the next morning and wonder if you could have said more or if you could have raised your voice back when it mattered. No, the Republicans are trying to pass this terrible healthcare bill now, now is the time to speak out. It is time to stand up and to tell Republicans to end their cruel healthcare plan. Our families and our communities are counting on us and we cannot let them down. Please, speak out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject this resolution to roll back accountability for the billions of dollars that are sent to States to help educate children.

When Congress updated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2015, it was a bipartisan achievement. Republicans and Democrats came together on the 50th anniversary of that landmark civil rights law to rewrite it into what became the Every Student Succeeds Act.

When President Obama signed this K-12 legislation into law in December of that year, he called it a ``Christmas miracle.'' It received 85 votes in the Senate. It was one of the most important pieces of bipartisan legislation passed in the last Congress.

It wasn't the bill I would have written, but it was a bipartisan compromise. It gave States and districts far more flexibility when it comes to improving their struggling public schools. At the same time, it also maintained critical civil rights and accountability protections to ensure that when the Federal Government gives States billions of dollars to improve the education of their students, that money goes to the schools and students that need those Federal resources the most. It was a critical step toward making sure we are building a future not just for some of our kids but for all of our kids.

When Congress passes big, complex laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act, it always leaves some of the implementation details to the agency that has to enforce the law. That is why I fought hard to make sure the Department of Education had the tools it needs to write clarifying rules and guidelines to enforce the Every Student Succeeds Act. That was a condition of my vote and the votes of lots of other people. We won that fight. The authority to enforce the rules is right there in the law. It was debated in public, and it was part of the bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats.

Last November, the Department of Education--after careful consultation with teachers, school leaders, State education leaders, and parents--issued new rules to enforce this law. Today, congressional Republicans are trying to take a sledgehammer to these new rules.

When these new rules were issued, everyone who works in education agreed that they were critical and necessary. Teachers were fine with the new rules. State education leaders were fine with the new rules. Civil rights leaders were fine with the new rules. Everyone was ready to get to work. Apparently, congressional Republicans do not care. Instead, they want to blow up these critically important accountability rules even though the people who work in or around public education did not ask them to do so. This makes no sense.

Groups that often disagree with each other over public education policies are united in their belief that this resolution is a dumb idea. It is opposed by teachers; civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza; and organizations representing students with disabilities, such as the National Center for Learning Disabilities. It is even opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they know this resolution will only make it more difficult for States as they try to implement the new education law. And this resolution will undermine the work States are currently doing right now to improve their public schools with the new law.

Last week, many of these groups signed on to a letter that states: ``This action will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the work in states and wasting time that we cannot afford to waste.''

In fact, even conservative education policy experts at the Fordham Institute--a right-leaning educational policy think tank--argue that congressional Republicans should not swing a wrecking ball to these guidelines.

They identified over 20 provisions in these rules that actually provide more flexibility to States by clarifying ambiguous sections in the law, and they concluded: ``Senate Republicans, then, should scrap their plan to use the Congressional Review Act to kill all of the accountability regulations outright.''

Killing these new rules now would lead to chaos and confusion just when States, districts, and school leaders are beginning to implement this new K-12 education law. States have already spent months drafting their plans for complying. Eighteen States, including Massachusetts, intended to submit their implementation plans to the Department of Education next month. If this resolution passes, all of that work will be thrown into limbo.

These clarifying rules include important provisions that allow States to send additional Federal resources to struggling schools, whether or not those schools already receive Federal dollars; provisions that give States more flexibility in educating their English learners in the manner that best meets the needs of each individual student; provisions that ensure that parents have more information about how their child's public school is doing and sets clear guidelines with what States and districts must disclose to parents and when they must disclose it; and provisions that promote transparency by preventing States from manipulating their graduation rates or data on how much money they are investing in each student. These regulations were carefully crafted over the course of 1 year of input from teachers, school system leaders, and student advocates. Both Republicans and Democrats should support these provisions.

I think we all know what is going on here. Betsy DeVos is the new Secretary of Education. Congressional Republicans have decided they want to hand over the keys to her with no restrictions whatsoever. The resolutions we are debating today would give Secretary DeVos more freedom to push States in whatever direction she felt like. If you are a teacher in Tennessee or a principal in Massachusetts, you should be furious about that. Congress is about to scrap a year of hard work and a year of careful compromise in order to give Secretary DeVos a blank check.

It is a blank check for Betsy DeVos. This is the same Secretary of Education who has never attended a public school, never taught in a public school, and never led a public school. This is the same Secretary of Education who proved to the world, during her confirmation hearing, that she doesn't have a clue about public schools. This is the same Secretary of Education who still holds shady investments that could be hiding conflicts of interest. This is the same Secretary of Education who has used her vast fortune to advance her extreme privatization agenda. This is the same Secretary of Education whom Jeff Sessions and the Vice President of the United States had to drag across the finish line in an unprecedented tie-breaking confirmation vote. She is the one to whom Senate Republicans want to give a blank check to figure out where she wants to drive public education--a blank check to push her radical privatization agenda.

States and school districts are planning for the next school year right now. They are figuring out how to implement this law and improve the education of kids as I speak. They are doing hero's work every day while Congress wastes time and creates more confusion.

Handing this law over to an Education Secretary with no experience in public education without any accountability rules to guide its implementation is an insult. It is an insult to teachers, an insult to school leaders, and an insult to families everywhere.

This is not a game. Congress should not be playing politics with the education of our children. Instead of disrupting the important work that States and districts are doing to educate our kids, Congress should get out of the way and let States finish what they have already started. Let them get to work. That is why I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the confirmation of Seema Verma to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

CMS oversees the administration of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. These programs provide healthcare coverage to grandparents, people with disabilities, foster kids, seniors living in nursing homes, single mothers, and babies. CMS is also in charge of implementing many parts of the Affordable Care Act and making sure that the protections guaranteed in the law are enforced.

In other words, CMS is the part of government that we entrust with carrying out the commitments we have made to protect our health and our access to healthcare. We need someone to run these programs who is a champion for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act and someone who can stand up to Republicans in Congress and stand up to the Trump administration when they try to burn these promises and turn their backs on the people who need help.

On Monday night, the Republicans finally revealed their latest plan to rip health insurance away from millions of Americans. After years of railing about how the ACA was too long and too complicated, the Republicans spent weeks working on a secret plan--locked in a room, hidden somewhere in the United States Capitol. They didn't want anyone to see it. Here is a news flash: If you have to hide your plans from the American public, that is a pretty good sign that you are headed in the wrong direction.

Now we know why they were so afraid to let anyone else take a look at the plan. The plan is ugly--really, really, ugly. The Republicans' plan would rip health insurance away from millions of Americans.

Right off the top, the bill will end the Medicaid expansion established in the ACA. Right now, 11 million adults are covered by that expansion, and the Republican plan will end it. That is right--end it. Millions more Americans are using ACA subsidies to buy their health insurance. For the families who need it most, those subsidies will be cut. For seniors, prices will rise, and that means millions more people will not be able to afford health insurance.

The Republican bill promises tax credits to help people pay for their insurance, but this is an empty promise because the tax credits are designed to be too small to actually cover the costs of paying for healthcare. If you have a 2-month break in your health insurance coverage, no matter the reason, the Republican bill would let insurance companies charge you a 30-percent penalty on top of your premium for an entire year. That is right. If you lose your job and scramble to find a new plan, you have exactly 62 days to lock down that plan because 1 day longer than that, and you are slapped with a 30-percent penalty.

By the way, it is not a penalty paid to the government to help finance healthcare. No. It is a penalty paid to a $1 billion insurance company. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

Too bad if being able to buy affordable coverage on the ACA exchange has given you access to health insurance while you start your small business. Too bad if your healthcare has given you free cancer screening. Too bad if your healthcare has given you access to treatment for substance abuse disorder. All that is gone under the Republican plan.

So there it is--the Republicans' plan to take away health insurance for millions and millions of Americans. The Republican plan is cruel, and it gets worse.

The Republican healthcare plan gets worse because it also delivers a gut punch to the rest of the Medicaid Program--the part that predates the ACA by decades. It does so by putting a cap on overall funding that States can receive and then strictly limiting the growth in that cap. This growth rate is deliberately set lower than the actual growth rate in medical costs for Medicaid beneficiaries. Why? So Republicans can cut the Federal Government's commitment to Medicaid without using the word ``cut.''

I don't know if they think we are just too dumb to notice, but they are cutting Medicaid. Of course, people will still get sick and will still need medical care, so what the Republicans are doing is shifting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid costs to State governments, which will struggle to pick up the tab, or shifting those costs to hospitals and doctors, who will not get paid, or shifting it to the families themselves, who will try to manage those bills.

Understand what that means. Right now, if you qualify for Medicaid coverage, you get Medicaid coverage. That has been the law for decades, but the Republicans want to change that. With the cap, if you qualify for Medicaid coverage, you will get something. Nobody is really sure what. All we know is that it will not cover your expected costs of care. Think about the impact of that.

The reckless Republican plan will blow huge holes in State budgets. The Republican plan will blow huge holes in rural hospitals' budgets and in the budgets of opioid treatment centers and community health centers all across this country.

Massachusetts is using some of its Medicaid funding right now to fight the opioid crisis, but the Republican plan makes it harder to wage that fight in Massachusetts and in every other State that is battling this terrible epidemic.

The Republican plan will leave millions of people who have decent Medicaid coverage holding the bag when they get sick. That is not healthcare; that is a con job.

But it gets even worse. The bill cuts funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides maternity care and birth control. It gives insurance companies the green light to jack up costs for people over 50, blowing up the limits that were established in the ACA to make sure seniors could afford healthcare.

But there is one more very, very ugly reason the Republicans should be ashamed, and that is because while they are gutting Medicaid, slashing health coverage for sick Americans, and slapping penalties on people who lose insurance through no fault of their own, Republicans are also handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts to rich people and giving a special gift to insurance company CEOs.

The Republican plan repeals two Medicare taxes that apply only to high-income taxpayers. Who benefits most from this repeal? Millionaires. They get a full 80-percent of the tax cut. It is a benefit that is worth an average of $50,000 each. That is right. The tax cut that millionaires will get from the Republican plan to rip up healthcare is more than many families make in a year.

The Republican plan also hurts Medicare by taking money away from the Medicare trust fund, where it really belongs.

Right now, the law says insurance companies can deduct only $500,000 in executive compensation, but the Republicans think that is too hard on insurance companies and their CEOs. So sad. So they have lifted the cap to a full $1 million. The Republicans are determined to help boost the pay of insurance company CEOs. No wonder the Republicans didn't want to let anyone see this plan.

This is literally a backroom deal to strip away lifesaving healthcare from babies, to drive the costs out of sight for seniors, to deny help for people with disabilities, and to make insurance more expensive for hard-working entrepreneurs. In exchange, insurance company CEOs and millionaires get giant tax deductions. Unbelievable. Less health insurance for people who need it; more tax cuts for wealthy insurance company CEOs. This is the deal it took Republicans years to come up with? They should be ashamed.

I have received letters and emails and calls from families in Massachusetts who depend on Medicaid and the ACA. These families are shouting as loudly as they can about how important Medicaid and the ACA are to them. We need someone running the CMS who is listening and someone who has their backs, who will tell Republican politicians that their secret deals are terrible, who will tell them that their plans to take away coverage will hurt people, who will tell them that their recklessness will blow up State budgets.

Seema Verma has a deep knowledge of the Medicaid Program, having worked at the State level to design and implement Medicaid waivers. Ms. Verma says she wants to help States like Massachusetts invest in innovative ways to improve care for Medicaid beneficiaries while lowering costs--improve care and lower costs. That sounds great, but she has also advocated for changes to Medicaid that violate the fundamental principles of the program. She has designed Medicaid plans that impose work requirements as a condition of receiving Medicaid coverage even when they make no sense. She has sought to increase the out-of-pocket costs that Medicaid beneficiaries must pay and has put in place rules that lock people out of the program just at the moment they most need coverage.

We need a CMS Administrator who will stand up to the backroom bullies who are plotting to gut Medicaid, not one who wants to sneak cuts into the very programs that need to be defended. For that reason, I oppose Ms. Verma's nomination.

One of my constituents who receives Medicaid coverage in Massachusetts, Lee from Holliston, wrote me to say: ``I just need to know it is going to be okay.''

Lee, I wish I could tell you that it is going to be OK, but I cannot tell you that. What I can tell you is that you are not alone. Americans depend on the ACA and Medicaid to provide healthcare coverage. They depend on it when they get sick, and they depend on it to stay alive. Now that the Republican politicians have finally emerged from their secret basement room and unveiled their ugly plans, I promise you I am in this fight all the way. We need millions of people like you all across this Nation to make their voices heard so that Republican politicians do not destroy your healthcare.

In January, Senator Stabenow and I held a forum for the then-nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price. At this forum, we heard from individuals who were concerned about the impact that cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would have on their lives. I would like to share some of my interactions with a few of these individuals back in January by reading from the transcript Senator Stabenow introduced into the record at Congressman Price's hearing before the Finance Committee.

I started by thanking everyone for being there and said this about where we were:

Yesterday at the hearing for Congressman Price to be

Secretary of HHS, I asked him about the cuts that he has

proposed to Medicare and Medicaid. He's already proposed $449

billion in cuts to Medicare and over $1 trillion in cuts to

the Medicaid program. And so I asked him if he would commit

to follow through on Donald Trump's promise, ``I won't cut

Medicare or Medicaid.''

There was a lot of dancing back and forth, but the bottom line is that no, he would not make that commitment, which I suppose should not have been a surprise.

What I want to do as briefly as I can is to focus just a little bit on down the line and put a face on that, what it means to put those kinds of cuts into the system.

I started with Ms. Fleming, and here is what I asked her.

I said: ``You used to work at United Airlines. . . . How many years did you pay into the Medicare system?''

Ms. Fleming said: ``Thirty-nine years.''

I asked: ``How long have you worked there?''

Ms. Fleming said: ``Thirty-nine years.''

I said: ``Thirty-nine years that you paid into the Medicare system. Where else is it we need to spend $449 billion so that you can spend more out-of-pocket? So that money can go somewhere else--like tax cuts for rich people?''

I asked Ms. Jensen:

Just because I want to be clear about this, one of the

things that Medicaid does is make sure you get access to

mental health services. If you lose that access, what happens

in your life?

So I had asked Ms. Fleming about the Medicare cuts. Here is what Ms. Jensen told me about the Medicaid cuts:

That would entirely change my life. I wouldn't be able to

afford the services I need. My medications alone, right now,

run about as much as my rent. And I know that weekly

counseling or therapy sessions would really be out of reach.

It would threaten not only the growth of my business but the

existence of my business.

She runs her own small business.

She said:

Basically: no Medicaid, no business. That would kind of be

the end of one of my dreams. And untreated disorders--my

untreated disorder--I know I would retreat from society. I

would retreat from my loved ones. I would not be a productive

citizen. I would probably get into trouble and cost the

taxpayers some money. Mental and behavioral health is no

joke. There are fatal consequences, and it's a matter of life

and death for a lot of people, including me.

Then I turned to the third of our witnesses, Ms. Serafin. She has dealt with both systems--both Medicare and Medicaid--and I asked her to focus just for a minute on the Medicaid part of that. She was taking care of her elderly mother.

I said:

Your mother--after your father passed--your mother

declined, needed full time care. And she was supported by

Medicaid during that period of time. She was able to be in a

facility that could take care of her.

If Medicaid had not been available to you, if there had

been a trillion-dollar cut to Medicaid, what would have

happened to you and your husband?

Here is what Ms. Serafin said:

Well, physically, I could not take care of anyone else.

She had her own disabling medical problems. She said:

I can hardly take care of myself. So, we would have had to

hire someone, or we would have had to move because our home

was not accommodating for another person with a disability.

Secondly, the care my mother received in the nursing home

was so personally gratifying. I could sleep at night. My

mother was a really strong woman. She could have been a CEO.

She was born in the wrong era. But as a daughter--as mothers

and daughters often do--we didn't always see eye to eye on

everything!

The people in the nursing home loved her--they loved her

feisty manner, they loved the things she would say. And I

would think, ``Oh, God, I would never say that!'' But they

thought she was wonderful.

I made the point that my mother was a little like that too.

Ms. Serafin said:

I would sleep at night. I could feel good. Because I cannot

do things as it is for myself, and there were loving people

who would go to her and say, ``I love you, Anita,'' and it

just made my heart feel that wonderful feeling.

So that is the face of Medicaid.

We had one more witness, and this witness was Ms. Ornella, who had her son Sam with her.

I said:

Sam is the happy face of Medicaid. Sam is a little boy who

was born with multiple difficulties and who flourishes and

who receives support from Medicaid.

So I asked:

If there's a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, and Sam

is not able to get the help he needs through Medicaid, what

happens to Sam?

Ms. Ornella said:

We barely qualified for Medicaid as it was, so if there

were any cuts to it, we would have been in that group of

people who I believe wouldn't have qualified. Medicaid has

provided him to be able to go to his kidney doctors and keep

his status check on his kidneys, which is what we think his

long-term issues are going to be.

Medicaid has been there to cover tests for swallowing, for

swallowing functions, for all the different parts of his body

that are affected by his disorder. So my fear is, that if we

do get employer-based coverage, anything can happen in life--

what if my husband lost his job and then we didn't qualify

for Sam to get Medicaid anymore? How would we deal with that

double whammy of losing employer coverage and then not

qualifying for Medicaid for a medically complex child?

We heard from four people at this forum, and I am very grateful to all four of them for putting a face on what Medicare and Medicaid means. I suggested to Congressman Price that if he is confirmed to be the head of HHS, that he cut out the statement that Donald Trump had made, ``I will not cut Medicare or Medicaid,'' and that he tape it above his desk and look at it every single day. Because that is what the people at that hearing were all about.

They are the reason we must not cut Medicare and we must not cut Medicaid, and I thanked them all for being with us.

Alice, Sam, Diane, and Ann really put a face on the importance of Medicare and Medicaid at that forum.

I have heard from a number of hospitals, community health centers, and behavioral health organizations in Massachusetts about the importance of Medicaid to them for being able to provide essential services to the people who need it most, and I want to share some of the comments they have given to me.

John Nash, the CEO of Franciscan Children's Hospital, highlighted the importance of Medicaid in providing healthcare coverage for our children. Here is what he wrote to me:

Dear Senator Warren, at Franciscan Children's, our mission

is to provide a compassionate and positive environment where

children with complex medical, mental health, and educational

needs receive specialized care for people who are committed

to excellence, innovation, and family support, so that these

children can reach their fullest potential and live their

best lives. Located in the Boston metropolitan area, we are

one of four institutions in the country offering this unique

array of services to children with complex needs.

In Massachusetts, we are the only pediatric, post-acute

care provider that offers hospital-level care for children

with complex medical conditions. We are also one of the

largest pediatric mental health providers in Massachusetts,

offering a complete continuum of inpatient, residential, and

outpatient programming to ensure that children have access to

the services they desperately need.

Franciscan Children's is proud to be an independent,

unaffiliated provider that coordinates across the healthcare

system to deliver high-quality, low-cost, specialty services

to children who come to us from every major health system and

intensive care unit from across the State. Collectively

across our programs, we serve more than 12,000 children a

year.

Families who have had a child or children with special

needs often face tremendous financial burdens. Many

view hospitals like ours as a second home. Almost 60

percent of the families that we serve in our inpatient

medical program are on Medicaid.

In federal discussions about the Affordable Care Act, it is

crucial to realize that Medicaid is the most important health

coverage program for children. As many as 30 million children

nationally and 355,000 children in Massachusetts (29.6% of

the state population of children) are covered. Children

covered by Medicaid--compared with those who are uninsured--

generally go on to enjoy better health, lower rates of

mortality, and higher educational and economic outcomes as

they become adults.

Massachusetts is seeing the returns on investments made in

Medicaid. Our rate of uninsured children is at the lowest on

record. Cuts to Medicaid will have a negative impact on

children and may increase healthcare costs. Furthermore, any

cuts to the Medicaid program will threaten our institution's

long-term ability to serve children and their families who

may not receive care otherwise. As the population of children

with complex needs continues to grow at the rate of 5 percent

annually, these funds will be vital to our future and to

theirs.

We support the belief that access to affordable care is

essential for all individuals. Our families, whose resilience

and strength continues to inspire us every day, depend on

this principle being upheld. Our children deserve every

opportunity to reach their fullest potential and live their

best life.

This letter is just a reminder of who gets Medicaid and how Medicaid changes the lives of the children who need it most and of their families. We cannot cut this program without taking away the futures of these children. This is an economic issue, but it is also a moral issue.

I heard from the Behavioral and Health Network, a nonprofit community behavioral health agency in Western Massachusetts, and they shared with me an individual story they wanted to tell me about Tasha.

Tasha went from homelessness to addiction and then to recovery-- highlighting the importance of Medicaid funds in supporting individuals who are dealing with substance abuse disorder. The behavioral health network shared a story, and this is how they tell it:

Tasha M. recalls how her addiction started. She never

envisioned how and where it would end. As a teenager, she

remembers being homeless, her mom surrendering her to foster

care twice and living a dysfunctional life, leading to the

development of an eating disorder and hospitalization.

It was during that hospital stay where she was also

receiving treatment for an injured back, that she was

prescribed a bottle of painkillers. That started Tasha on the

road to addiction, and ultimately to BHN's, ``My Sister's

House''--and her eventual recovery.

Once addicted to pain pills she remembers ``hospital

hopping'' to feed the addiction. ``I felt so alone,'' she

said. Moving in with an aunt brought the prospect of turning

the page and leaving her addiction behind. Instead, Tasha

started to work as a bartender, ultimately succumbing to

alcohol and hitting bottom. Tasha says, ``I lost

everything.''

Moving back to Massachusetts, she ``tried to start anew.''

But instead she found herself back in the clubs and around

alcohol and, eventually, in a detox program through BHN's

Carlson Center. After that one-week stay, she entered Hope

Center, a BHN 30-day recovery addiction treatment program in

Springfield. Once released, the grip of addiction surfaced

again. ``I remember getting ready to go clubbing with my

boyfriend. We were in line to go into a club and I realized I

didn't have my ID. I went home and I found my ID lying on top

of my AA book. I thought, `wow, that's a sign'--and I need to

get back in the program.''

BHN assisted with entry into My Sister's House, a BHN

community-based program for women in recovery, where its

residents have daily therapy and support, peer meetings and

are connected to community resources.

It is also where Tasha met an intern who inspired her. ``I

remember I was one of her first clients. She said I couldn't

go back to my old ways . . . she really believed in me.''

Tasha's recovery has come full circle. After successful re-

entry into the community, she acquired a job as an

administrative assistant at a daycare center, and eventually

became a social worker helping mothers of children navigate

the complexities of parenting.

Tasha's story doesn't end there. Tasha was offered a

position at My Sister's House, where she assists other young

women who find themselves on the sometimes bumpy road to

recovery. ``For me, it's about giving back . . . I'm grateful

to them.''

About the new opportunity to help others at My Sister's

House, Tasha said: ``I always said to myself I was going to

come back to this House . . . this is my second home.''

Tasha's journey was supported by an organization whose

funding is 56 percent State and Federal contracts and 42

percent fees from Medicaid, Medicare and a small percentage

of private insurances. Clearly, the impact of affordable

insurance and funds from CMS and the State creates needed

access and opportunities for changing lives [like

Tasha's]. Individuals can embrace help, move beyond

despair and hardship, and establish meaningful life

experiences, employment and self-sufficiency. Without

affordable insurance, Medicaid and Federal and State

funds, that could not happen.

Thank you, Tasha, for telling your story. Thank you to the Behavioral Network for sharing your story. Thank you for all of the amazing work that you do every single day.

The Boston Medical Center, the State's largest safety net hospital, also shared their perspective on how changes and cuts to Medicaid would seriously impact the progress they have made in working to provide high-quality, cost-effective care to their patients. Here is what Boston Medical Center said:

At Boston Medical Center (BMC), our mission is to provide

Exceptional Care without Exception to all of our patients. As

the largest health safety net system in Massachusetts and in

New England, BMC and the patients we serve would be severely

impacted by major changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Massachusetts health care reform in 2008, and subsequently

the Affordable Care Act, supported our efforts to provide

high-quality, cost effective care to the many, formerly

uninsured, patients who became insured through Medicaid and

subsidized products. BMC has worked diligently with the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Center for Medicare and

Medicaid Services (CMS) to transition the payment and

delivery of Medicaid services in a more cost effective

manner. With a strong understanding of the need to ensure

that the future of Medicaid is sustainable, our collective

efforts have begun to produce encouraging results.

Medicaid--and access to affordable, subsidized health care

insurance--is an important federal/state partnership that

allows the most vulnerable in our population to receive the

health care they need. At BMC, we see firsthand how it

affects the lives of our patients. In addition to providing

funding for important primary care services, it is a lifeline

for those with chronic diseases and mental health and

substance abuse needs.

BMC has used Medicaid funding to develop and implement a

number of very promising programs aimed at improving the

quality of care for our low-income population and doing it in

a manner that is the most cost effective. We aim to keep our

patients out of the hospital while giving them the care

necessary to lead fulfilling lives.

Some of these efforts include innovative programs for

pregnant women and babies both before and after delivery.

Post-partum depression is an all-too-common issue for new

mothers. BMC has designed a program that embeds necessary

behavioral health services into the OB/GYN visit setting,

thereby allowing them to receive the necessary mental health

care along with their medical visit.

At the same time, we have several successful programs

focusing on newborn infants--ranging from babies born

prematurely to those born addicted to drugs. As New England's

largest trauma center, we routinely treat large numbers of

patients who have been victims of violence. In an effort to

help break the trend of violence in the inner city, BMC

offers many programs that help those victims break that cycle

through counseling, education and support.

Boston, like many cities across the country, has seen an

unacceptable level of opioid related deaths. Probably our

most critical efforts today include programs that

successfully treat opioid and other drug addictions while

guiding patients toward prevention of future drug abuse and a

life where they can hold a job and maintain their

relationships with their families.

Working with the Commonwealth, BMC has also used Medicaid

funding to redesign how health care is provided in a manner

that ensures the highest quality patient care in the most

affordable, patient-centric manner. The groundwork has been

laid over the last several years with Medicaid waiver

funding. As we prepare for implementation of the Medicaid

waiver extension, we have just begun to roll-out our Medicaid

Accountable Care Organization, (ACO). The ACO structure

requires that we will be accountable for the full cost of

each Medicaid patient's health care, while it will allow the

flexibility to provide the right care that might not have

previously been covered (e.g. purchase of humidifier for an

asthmatic child that will help prevent hospitalizations).

Patients will benefit through further integration of care

across the delivery system continuum,

while reimbursement for the cost of treating those patients

will be contained in a defined agreement.

These important Massachusetts efforts of transforming the

delivery and payment system for Medicaid will be dealt a

serious blow if the underlying Medicaid funding is changed.

Additionally, if Medicaid and subsidized healthcare

eligibility changes result in our patients losing access to

affordable health care, not only will the patient's quality

of life suffer, but the lack of funding will not allow [us]

to continue to provide those patients with many of these

critical services.

BMC is committed to maintaining the provision of

exceptional care without exception and it will require the

financial partnership with the federal and state government

to ensure that our low-income patients have access to that

care.

Boston Medical Center absolutely provides ``Exceptional Care without Exception,'' and Medicaid helps them carry out that critical work.

The Boston Center for Independent Living shared with me a story from a constituent named Ty who receives healthcare from One Care, a program in Massachusetts that integrates care for beneficiaries who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. So I will tell a little bit about Ty's story.

Ty Muto, a 39-year-old transgender man, was recovering from

colon surgery in 2014 when he stopped outside of his work and

was assaulted by three men yelling homophobic slurs. He

survived the attack with a traumatic brain injury and spinal

cord injury and is only alive thanks to several necessary,

timely medical interventions. A former mediator and American

Friends Service Committee volunteer, Ty is enrolled in One

Care with the Commonwealth Care Alliance. They provide

medical care, visiting nurse support, physical therapy, and

medical rides. His Care Manager helped him apply for Social

Security and find housing, which really improved his life! On

several occasions his visiting nurse has identified urgent

medical conditions and he has been able to take a medical

ride to the hospital where he receives care--avoiding lengthy

and expensive emergency room visits at local hospitals that

aren't equipped to care for his specific condition. Ty says

the only reason he's alive today is because of all of the

services and care he gets through One Care.

That is the work being done at the Boston Center for Independent Living, and it can only be done because they receive the support of Medicare and Medicaid.

The Boston Center for Independent Living also shared with me a story from another constituent named Olivia.

Olivia Richards is a 33-year-old woman on One Care and, as

she emphasizes, a lifelong Bruins fan! Her plan with CCA

allows her to be an active member of the community and her

care coordinator assists her in managing her seizure

disorder, paraplegia, PTSD, and ADHD. Olivia grew up in the

foster care system and, after college, rather than move in

with an abusive family member, she tried to make it on her

own and she ended up homeless. Left without insurance--and

trying to keep up with her di-lanthin, ADHD and asthma

medications from seven- to fourteen-day sample packs from a

free clinic--she went on and off medication and eventually

ended up in a psychiatric hospital for a month.

If she had been making that transition in the post-

Romneycare age, she would have maintained her health

insurance and been able to stay on MassHealth. Olivia raves

about her coordinated care manager (CCA) and how she's helped

stabilize Olivia's health--recognizing issues before they

become emergencies. Prior to One Care, Olivia went to the

emergency room every few months with a severe UTI that landed

her in the hospital. Her care coordinator recommended she see

an infectious disease doctor, who prescribed a preventive

antibiotic--something none of the many doctors she'd seen had

put together. Olivia hasn't been to the hospital for a UTI

since.

This time around, when Olivia needed emergency care, her

care coordinator sent community medics to her apartment--

providing her with better care and avoiding an expensive

emergency room visit and other complications. Before One

Care, Olivia was using a third-hand wheelchair with a bent

frame and a wheel that she had to weld back together every

few months. Medicare and Medicaid kept dodging responsibility

for wheelchair repairs. Olivia's care coordinator helped her

get a new chair.

That is a real quality-of-life improvement for Olivia.

I want to say a special thank you to both Ty and to Olivia for sharing their stories, for letting us make them public, and a very big thanks to the Boston Center for Independent Living for all that you are doing every single day to help the people of Massachusetts. We are all deeply grateful for your work, and we want to continue to support it here in Congress.

Many of my constituents have written to me, fearful of what changes to Medicare or Medicaid might actually mean to them. Jeffrey, who is from Gardner, wrote to me to share his constant worries about health insurance coverage. This is what he wrote:

Dear Senator Warren,

I hope this message finds you well, and I want to thank you

for your continued fight for the rights of everyone in

Massachusetts & the nation.

Unfortunately, this election has left me with some constant

worry, as I'm sure it has many. I'm a graduate student and

have a year and a half left until I complete my masters

degree in counseling psychology.

Obviously because of this, I work part-time, and am not

offered health insurance through my employer. I have been on

MassHealth (Tufts Network Health, to be exact) since 2013

when I decided to make a career change.

I have some issues that require prescriptions and doctors

visits monthly. I'm not sure if they can be deemed as

preexisting conditions, but these are prescriptions I can

certainly not go without, nor could I go without insurance

for a year and a half.

Obviously I don't enjoy being on MassHealth, but for right

now it's what is necessary. My question may be a difficult

one to answer, due to the fact that no one truly knows what

will happen after inauguration day. I do know Massachusetts

is better protected than other states to keep its citizens

insured, and I know that you and Governor Baker have vowed to

fight for this right, as well as for many others--which I

could not be more thankful for!

If the new establishment has their way and repeals federal

funding to Medicaid, will people in Massachusetts such as

myself be thrown off their insurance? I know we rely heavily

on a waiver that was signed recently, and it's a ``wait and

see matter,'' but I suppose my question is, will I be

protected since I have documented needs for insurance already

in place? Or are my conditions going to be deemed ``not

severe enough?''

All I can say, Jeffrey, is we don't know yet, but I can promise you that I am fighting to make sure you remain protected.

Elise from Scituate wrote to me about the importance of Medicare and Medicaid funds in supporting nursing homes, adult day health programs, and other needs of older adults. Here is what Elise had to say:

Dear Senator Warren,

I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the

direction of the incoming administration, President-Elect

Trump, and his cabinet choices. It was certainly a difficult

election period. The policies and direction of these

individuals is particularly troubling for those who are

older, or who may have mental illness, disabilities, or

developmental challenges.

As many are not aware, the federal rules, regulations, and

budget do affect the management of services in the states. As

a consultant in Massachusetts in both nursing homes and

adult day health programs, I see the strong need for

cooperative and supportive federal and state funding as

well as regulatory processes for ongoing care. Very few of

the individuals in these settings are paying privately.

Medicare and Medicaid--as well as the VA--are the major

funders for these programs.

In Massachusetts, we have 45,000 nursing home beds, or

approximately 400 skilled nursing facilities. Home care

incorporates adult day health, and we have roughly 14,600

participants in Massachusetts alone. Our population is aging,

and access to good services are critical to good care and

quality of life.

In addition, there are many programs that continue to need

commitment and funding to manage necessary services to

individuals. These include: housing (Section 8), elder and

those with disabilities home care, services to the blind, and

community mental health care--to name a few.

Changes in these benefits would jeopardize the delicate

balance of home and community care, rehabilitation, and

perhaps ultimately end up costing more for care. For example,

if we don't have resources to assist people to return to the

community, institutional care may be the only answer--and a

costly one.

The notion of having poor individuals pay for their

Medicaid benefits, and/or privatizing this to an insurance

base is ill-founded and often becomes costly to manage, as

well as lowers benefits. Aside from providing services to our

citizens, the reduction in these programs will drag the

overall economy down.

The healthcare industry (private enterprise) is dependent

upon a multitude of programs to generate profit. For example,

if Mr. X needs a wheel chair and Medicare does not pay for

one, Mr. X will not pay for a new wheel chair. He will either

borrow one, or purchase one used, or perhaps ``do without.''

This scenario, regardless of the product, will duplicate

itself throughout health care and service provision.

Companies that have dependency upon Medicare funds may have

to close or cut back. Service providers, such as Visiting

Nurses, will be facing similar results.

I have been in the older adult/health care/medical field

since 1969. I have seen changes over time to services from

government provisions to privatization. Privatization is the

one of the poor outcomes when government monies are used to

pay for services rendered. I remain a very strong advocate

for individuals and their families as they try to meet

the challenges of obtaining just and fair services.

Thank you, Elise. I appreciate your writing. Medicare and Medicaid provide critical funds to support nursing homes and senior citizens in Massachusetts. I agree that we must fight to protect these programs.

I have many constituents writing in. My constituents are shouting as loudly as they can about the need to protect Medicare and Medicaid. We need a CMS Administrator who will stand up for Tasha and for other individuals who are struggling with addiction, who will stand up for those who are relying on Medicare to help with Parkinson's, who will stand up for our hospitals and healthcare providers to ensure that they have the resources they need to adequately serve their patients. I am listening. I am fighting.

Republicans are trying to cut backroom deals to end these protections. I promise you, I will do everything in my power to prevent them from destroying your healthcare. That is why I am here.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Madam President, the 115th Congress has now been in session for 2 months. Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. So what have they done so far with that power? Have they passed legislation to create jobs or increase wages for middle-class families? No. Have they proposed any plan to put Americans back to work fixing our roads, bridges, and other crumbling infrastructure? No. Have they done anything at all to help seniors who are struggling with high drug prices and other expenses? Not even close.

During his campaign, President Trump said over and over that he would stand up for workers. But so far, Republicans haven't voted on a single piece of legislation to help working families put food on the table, send their kids to college, or save a little money for retirement. No, they haven't helped families, but they have been busy.

With no hearings and barely any debate, Republicans have found a new tool, one that has been used successfully only once before in history, under the Congressional Review Act. They have used it to kill basic protections for workers. No wonder they haven't wanted any headlines about the actual work they are getting done.

Senate Republicans want to repeal the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. So instead of creating jobs or raising wages, they are trying to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer- funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees and injure their workers without admitting responsibility.

The American people spend around $500 billion every year on private companies that provide goods and services to the government. Those companies do everything from building battleships and fighter jets to serving snacks at national parks. It is big business. It is estimated that as many as one in five American workers works for a company with at least one Federal contract.

With so much taxpayer money on the line, it really matters that contractors are using it responsibly. While many contractors are good employers, others cut corners on safety or squeeze their workers on wages and benefits just to keep their corporate profits going up, and they break Federal labor laws to do so. Here are just two examples.

VT Halter Marine is a company that builds ships for the Navy. They have received $680 million in Federal contracts since 2009--taxpayer dollars that were supposed to be used to create good, safe jobs. Instead, VT Halter took a lot of shortcuts on worker safety, and now they have killed or injured multiple workers at their shipyards in Mississippi.

In 2012, a worker died after the lid of a 20-pound cast iron pot containing abrasive ship-cleaning liquid came loose and sheared away his face. Investigations showed that VT Halter had ignored safety requirements to show employees how to safely handle these pots.

In 2014, a crane collapsed at VT Halter, injuring five workers, including a crane operator, who lost part of his skull, is now blind, and requires 24-hour nursing care. That employee had repeatedly told his supervisors that the sensors on his crane were broken, but VT Halter kept him working, and now he is blind and needs full-time nursing care.

The list goes on and on. Each time, VT Halter ignored the law, workers got hurt or killed, and the company got a slap on the wrist and another top-dollar defense contract courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Contractors that cannot meet basic safety standards should not get a single dollar of taxpayer money, and the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order was the first step in making sure that this was the case.

Other Federal contractors have found other ways to take advantage of their workers and to boost profits. Federal contractors have been caught stealing wages from hundreds of thousands of workers. Right here in the Senate, the men and women who prepare the food in the cafeteria have had their wages stolen by the contractor that employs them. The Department of Labor just found out that hundreds of these hard-working employees together were owed more than $1 million in back wages. This case was right under our noses. There are countless more all across the country where the very companies that receive taxpayer money from the government are taking shortcuts, breaking the law, cheating their employees out of hard-earned wages, and driving working families into poverty.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have called this rule ``a solution in search of a problem,'' saying it would ``only hurt workers and small businesses,'' as if the deaths of those working for Federal contractors or the thefts of their wages was just business as usual and they didn't care. That position is parroted by the chamber of commerce, which calls the rule ``burdensome'' and ``unwarranted.''

My Republican colleagues and their buddies in the giant corporations that rely on huge Federal contracts to keep profits high want the American people to believe that by making it easier for companies that mistreat their workers to profit off of taxpayer dollars, somehow they are helping workers. That is just nuts.

Here is what the rule does: When a company wants a contract from the government that is worth more than $500,000, it has to disclose any judgments against it for violating labor laws for the preceding 3 years. The order also asks the Secretary of Labor to work with other agencies to come up with standards for assessing whether labor violations are serious, repeated, or willful.

If you are a company that does right by your workers, this rule will not affect you--not one bit. If you pay your workers fairly and keep them safe on the job, you won't even notice the new rule. It also does not stop companies from getting contracts if they have had just a few violations but have taken steps to remedy the problem, and it does not add one bit to the burden on smaller companies that bid on smaller contracts--again, not one bit.

So who gets hit by this rule? Who is it who is complaining? Who are the Republicans trying to protect? Massive corporations that repeatedly cut corners that put their employees' lives at risk or that steal their wages. This rule keeps the big corporations that are the biggest labor violators from getting the biggest contracts.

Once again, this debate is about whom Congress actually works for. Does Washington work for the taxpayers, who want to see their hard- earned money spent responsibly? Do we work for the hard-working Americans, who want to be paid what they are promised and not have to put their lives at risk for a paycheck? Do we work for giant contractors that rake in enormous tax dollars and cannot even follow basic safety rules for American workers?

I came to Washington to stand with the men and women who go to work every day to build roads and bridges, to help communities recover from natural disasters, and to provide healthcare to our veterans. I think that is what we are here for. But the Republican majority wants to stand up for giant corporations that put workers at risk. They want to stand up against good, safe, well-paying jobs. That is their priority in the new Congress. If they succeed, it will be the American taxpayers and the American workers who quite literally pay the price.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose President Trump's nomination of Wilbur Ross for Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Ross is a Wall Street billionaire with a long history of profiting from the suffering of others. He also has shady ties to Vladimir Putin's Russia. That is just his record. Because of that record, I do not have confidence that he will protect the interests of the American people as Secretary of Commerce.

This administration's disturbing ties to Russia have been all over the news. Here is what has been publicly reported as of today.

Our intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government conducted a successful series of cyber attacks against the United States designed to help Donald Trump get elected President. Our intelligence agencies are actively examining a dossier alleging that the Russian Government has collected compromising information on President Trump, and numerous press reports indicate that investigators have already corroborated some of that dossier's contents.

The President's National Security Advisor resigned in disgrace and is the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation for his conversations with the Russian Government before the inauguration, conversations that may have been illegal and conversations that he has apparently lied about in public.

Knowingly or unknowingly, the Vice President of the United States has repeated these lies on national television. According to CNN, high- level advisers close to then-Presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to U.S. intelligence.

CNN confirmed the New York Times' original investigation with ``multiple current and former intelligence law enforcement and administration officials.'' Our allies documented regular calls between the Trump campaign and the Russians, confirming the reports of U.S. intelligence agencies. According to reports published in Newsweek, ``the British government obtained information that people acting on behalf of Russia were in contact with members of the Trump campaign.''

Many news outlets have reported on U.S. intelligence worries that NATO allies will no longer share sensitive information because they fear the new administration could share it with Russia. When asked about the regular points of contact between Russian intelligence operatives and his most senior campaign staff, President Trump refused to take the question seriously. He claimed the multiple reports of staff communications with Russian were ``fake news.''

Behind the scenes, Trump's chief of staff was pressuring the FBI to help cover up the links between Russia and the Trump campaign. We are 1 month into the Trump Presidency. I wish this were not happening. I wish things were normal, but this is not normal. It is shameful if we ignore all of it as we evaluate the President's nominees to critical foreign policy and national security jobs.

In this context, Mr. Ross's connections to Russia raise dangerous issues. We know that Ross installed a former KGB official and close associate of Vladimir Putin as the vice chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, a bank that Mr. Ross controlled and a bank that was flooded with Russian money. Now, how closely connected was this former KGB official to Vladimir Putin? Here is one hint. He was so closely connected to Putin that he was given a $100 million payout by a Russian-controlled mining company as a golden parachute. He wasn't even the only Putin pal on Mr. Ross's board. That is right. Mr. Ross wanted the bank he controlled to have multiple board members from Putin's inner circle.

Mr. Ross surrounds himself with Russian oligarchs, and he has invested financially in their success. As he explained during his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. Ross has no intention of divesting from Diamond Shipping, a company that operates 33 oil tankers and jointly charters with even more. So a man who personally selected multiple Vladimir Putin associates to serve with him on the board of the bank he controls has been totally open about his plan to continue profiting from oil tankers shuttling over $1 billion worth of crude oil through international waters while serving as Commerce Secretary.

It is not just one shipping company. Mr. Ross is retaining his investments in 11--11 separate entities, mostly private companies registered in the Cayman Islands. Among his retained interests, the state-owned China Investment Company will be one of Mr. Ross's largest fellow investors.

We have never seen a Cabinet like this in history. Like many of President Trump's other nominees and like President Trump himself, this nominee seems to see his time in public service as a chance to increase his own wealth. In other words, on any given deal, he might be working for the American people or he might just be working for himself. We will have no way to know.

President Trump has apparently asked Mr. Ross to lead American trade policy. He claims to want aggressive enforcement of antidumping and currency manipulation rules, which sounds great, but when Ross actually has this job, is he really going to be thinking about American workers or will he be thinking about how to make his KGB buddy from the Bank of Cyprus just a little richer or will he be thinking about how to help out his own oil tankers circling the globe or will he be thinking about his offshore companies and his coinvestors from China or will he be thinking about the next billion dollars he plans to make?

The American people should not be left guessing about who Mr. Ross will be working to protect. There is significant reason to believe the President of the United States has substantial financial ties with Russia, but nobody actually knows any of the details because he has failed to reveal his tax returns.

Now President Trump expects the Senate to rubberstamp his nomination of a top banker to Vladimir Putin's buddies to run the Commerce Department of the United States. This is dangerous and I will vote no. Mr. Ross's financial ties with Russians and his worldwide business deals are not the only problem with this nomination. He is practically a cartoon stereotype of a Wall Street fat cat with no interest in anyone but himself. Ross ran a secret club of top Wall Street tycoons called Kappa Beta Phi. I am not making this up. It is actually true.

So he runs this secret club, which apparently gathers every year to get drunk and entertain themselves by putting on off-color skits that make fun of the millions of Americans they have swindled over the years. That certainly reflects Mr. Ross's world view. This is a man who made a fortune from the housing crisis at the expense of working families. After buying the servicing rights to over $100 billion in subprime loans, Mr. Ross swiftly got to work cheating borrowers out of their homes.

Here are just a few of the examples of Mr. Ross's approach to business: lying to borrowers about loan modifications; charging borrowers fees that were not authorized; taking payments from borrowers, then not applying those payments to their loans; forcing homeowners insurance on borrowers who already had homeowners insurance; robo-signing fraudulent foreclosure documents.

The violations were so widespread, his company had to settle with 49

States. Let me repeat that--49 States. A man who builds a fortune off illegally cheating people out of their homes has no business running our Commerce Department.

So let's summarize. Mr. Ross has extensive ties to Russia. He plans to keep making money from his major oil shipping companies while working as Commerce Secretary. He has made billions off the backs of struggling homeowners, and in his free time he hangs out with Wall Street tycoons who sit around and make fun of everyone else. This is disgusting. For all of these reasons--for any of them, really--I urge my colleagues to reject this nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to President Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the next Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.

The reason is simple. In a choice between corporate polluters and people who want to breathe air and drink water, Scott Pruitt sides with the corporate polluters. He has no business being the head of the EPA.

During his nomination hearing, Mr. Pruitt had countless opportunities to answer for his record. His responses were flippant, evasive, and outright misleading. He has been asked repeatedly to provide records from his office concerning dealings with big oil companies, but he told the Senators that, hey, they should submit an open records request, hoping that his confirmation would be over long before those documents would see the light of day.

Just a few hours ago, an Oklahoma district court judge ordered a dose of sunshine for Mr. Pruitt's dirty dealings from his perch as attorney general of Oklahoma. The judge has demanded that Mr. Pruitt cough up more than thousands of emails pertaining to his cozy relationship with Big Oil--emails he has been hiding from Oklahoma open records requests for over 2 years, but the Republican leadership is not interested in waiting. Its plan is to jam this nomination through tomorrow--4 days before the emails are slated to become public.

Are you kidding me?

If those emails show corruption, every Senator should have that information before--not after--they vote to put someone in charge of the EPA who may be there for years.

Clean air and clean water used to be a nonpartisan issue. In earlier decades, leaders in both parties had the courage to say no to suffocating smog and towering plumes of toxic chemicals poisoning our children. Republicans and Democrats came together, and together they declared that access to clean air and clean water was a basic right for all Americans. We passed the Clean Air Act, and we passed the Clean Water Act. We updated those laws when necessary, and we did those things together.

Together, we depend on the Environmental Protection Agency for three critical reasons: The EPA is the cop on the beat, protecting American families from corporate polluters that would put profit ahead of safety. It watches out for us and for our children; the EPA exists because pollution knows no State borders. What is burned at the powerplant in Ohio is breathed by children across Massachusetts; and the EPA takes on the ever-changing task of researching, monitoring, and regulating toxic emissions because the job is far too great for any one State to tackle.

To do all of this, the EPA routinely turns to local governments, businesses, and innovative workers for local solutions; the EPA turned to the University of Massachusetts to create a research center to assist smalltown water systems; the EPA turned to towns along Cape Cod and on Martha's Vineyard to pursue innovative solutions to increase coastal resiliency as sea levels have risen; and the EPA recently recognized New Bedford's exceptional work in monitoring industrial waste discharge in the city's collection system.

Across Massachusetts and across the Nation, the EPA sets big national goals that help inspire ingenious local solutions. The EPA is one of our great successes as a nation, but that success has not come without a fight. Each time the EPA has taken a step to clean our air, industry has poured more and more money into the debate, yelling that regulation is just too costly and that companies can never survive if they have to clean up their act.

In the 40 years following the Clean Air Act, emissions of common air pollutants fell nearly 70 percent while the number of private sector jobs doubled. Industry talks about the costs of pollution controls because dirty is cheap. Clean air saves more than 160,000 lives each year. Clean air saves more than 3 million schooldays our children would have collectively lost. Clean air saves 13 million workdays the hard- working, healthy Americans simply can't afford to miss.

Scott Pruitt doesn't measure success by this yardstick. No. He measures success by how happy his corporate donors are. As Big Oil's go-to attorney general from Oklahoma, Pruitt has spent the last 6 years trying to silence the lifesaving, data-driven work of dedicated EPA employees and scientists. And now, those big polluters have their fantasy EPA nominee--someone who will work on their side and not on the side of the American people.

How about a couple of examples. When EPA issued a rule to limit mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemical emissions from coal powerplants, Mr. Pruitt questioned whether mercury poses a health hazard. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It means that it poisons the nervous system. And Scott Pruitt thinks he should question whether it poses any health hazard. Wow.

Or maybe it is this example. When the EPA moved to reduce leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30 times more potent than CO2, he turned the Oklahoma AG's office into a clearinghouse for big oil to pursue lawsuits attacking the EPA. Scott Pruitt has spent so much time with his campaign donors that he honestly appears incapable of understanding the difference between the financial interests of millionaires who run giant oil companies and the health and well-being of the 4

million human beings who actually live in Oklahoma.

The people need a voice more than ever. For generations, Oklahoma has had very few earthquakes. Then, oil companies decided to up production, to pull every last drop of oil out of the ground. But with every drop of oil came useless, toxic radioactive salt water waste, and it has to go somewhere. So they took the cheapest option available: Pump billions of barrels of wastewater deep underground, under immense pressure, and that is when the problems started. Suddenly, earthquakes--big earthquakes with a magnitude of 3.0 and above, started occurring every day across Oklahoma.

Here was Mr. Pruitt, the State attorney general, the people's lawyer. What did he do? Did he seek relief for the families that were stiffed by insurance companies? Did he join residents who were suing to stop the drilling while their homes crumbled? Did he even pretend to do something--you know, like maybe issue a strongly worded press release supporting frightened citizens? No, not Mr. Pruitt. No, Mr. Pruitt stood by his friends in the oil industry, and the heck with everybody else.

Mr. Pruitt has been consistent in his work for big oil. As attorney general, he dismantled the environmental protection unit in his office--dismantled the environmental protection unit. He appointed a billionaire oil man to be his 2014 campaign chair, and he ignored the citizens he was sworn to protect. That is the measure of Mr. Pruitt as a public servant.

A State attorney general is supposed to serve the people. Right now, Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey is leading the case to prove that ExxonMobil deliberately deceived the public about the impact of climate change on our economy, our environment, our health, and our future. Good for Maura. Did Scott Pruitt join that suit? Of course not. Pruitt ran to the defense of one of the world's largest corporations, whining about how that corporation felt bullied. Instead of working as the attorney general for Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has served as the attorney general for Exxon.

Finally, Scott Pruitt has the nerve to say that the cause of climate change is ``subject to more debate.'' More debate? We had that debate in the 1980s, in the 1990s, in the 2000s. Maybe Mr. Pruitt missed it, buried under a pile of big oil money.

So let me just offer a summary. For well over a century, we spewed fossil fuel filth into our atmosphere. And, yes, this allowed us to fuel the thirsty appetite of our 20th century economy. But that blistering pace came at a price.

Our planet is getting hotter. Our coasts are threatened by furious storm surges that sweep away homes and devastate our largest cities. Our poorest neighborhoods are one bad storm away from being under water. Our naval bases are under attack--not by enemy ships but by rising seas; droughts and wildfires are all too familiar across the country. Refugees are fleeing homes that are no longer livable. And the risk of rapidly spreading diseases like malaria and Zika is on the rise.

Our coastal communities don't have time for politicians who deny science. Our farmers don't have time for more debate. Our children don't have time for more cowards who will not stand up to big oil companies defrauding the American people.

Scott Pruitt has been working hard for big oil to dismantle the EPA, and now, President Trump wants to give him that chance.

Where are the Senators who will stand up for the health, the welfare, and the safety of their citizens? Where are the Senators who will stand up for the people's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water? Where are the Senators who will have the courage to demand action on climate change so that our children will have a chance to inherent a livable Earth?

In the end, despite this despicable record, if the Republicans link arms again, there will not be enough of us to stop this nomination. But make no mistake, if President Trump wants a fight over the health of our children, a fight over the creation of clean energy jobs, a fight over the very future of our planet, then we will fight every step of the way.

We will fight alongside moms and dads who know the terror of a childhood asthma attack. We will fight alongside the cancer victims. We will fight alongside the fishermen and the hunters. We will fight alongside the families of Flint, MI, and everywhere else in America where families cannot safely turn on their water taps or step outside and take a deep breath.

We are all in this together.

People in Massachusetts care deeply about preserving a safe and healthy environment for our kids and our grandkids. We see it as a moral question. And I receive letters from people all across the State, describing how important clean air and clean water are to them and how worried they are about what Scott Pruitt leading the EPA will mean for our most vital natural resources. I hear those concerns and I share those concerns.

I would like to read just a few of the many letters that I have received about this nomination.

Edward from Dennis wrote to me on behalf of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod about the importance of the EPA to coastal communities in Massachusetts. Here is Edward's letter:

The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the Cape Cod

region's leading nonprofit environmental education and

advocacy organization, writes to state our strong opposition

to the appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt

for the position of Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency. We urge you to vote against his

nomination.

APCC is deeply concerned that Mr. Pruitt's record of

vigorously opposing the efforts of the EPA to protect the

nation's water and air quality is in direct conflict with his

responsibilities as EPA Administrator to ensure that the

agency's important work continues. In fact, his record

clearly shows that his loyalties side with polluters

instead of with the environment and the welfare of the

American people. Of particular concern is Mr. Pruitt's

refusal to accept the science of climate change and the

implications this has for EPA's ongoing efforts to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the EPA has most recently played a vital role

in furthering efforts to protect and restore water quality

through its Southeast New England Program (SNEP) for

Watershed Restoration, a program that has greatly benefited

coastal communities in Rhode Island and southeastern

Massachusetts. We worry that important initiatives such as

the SNEP program, which was originally proposed by Senator

Reed with the strong support from each of you, will be in

jeopardy under the oversight of Mr. Pruitt, should he be

confirmed as EPA Administrator.

The New England states, as well as the entire nation, have

made significant strides forward in addressing the protection

of our air and water. However, much more needs to be

accomplished. With so much at stake, we cannot afford to step

backward in our effort to protect the environment. We,

therefore, urge you to oppose the nomination of Mr. Pruitt

for EPA Administrator.

Thanks, Edward, for writing, and thanks to all of you at the Association to Preserve Cape Cod for the work you are doing every single day. It makes a real difference.

While all sorts of people have written to my office about Mr. Pruitt, I have noticed that a lot of people are writing in about kids--their kids, kids they work with, or just kids in general. My constituents are concerned about Scott Pruitt's commitment to protecting the air our kids breathe and the water they drink, and I share those concerns.

I heard from Mary in Worcester, who is concerned about the effects of environmental toxins like lead on children. She is concerned both as a parent and as a family doctor. Here is what Mary had to say:

With so much focus in Washington on ensuring politicians

are held to a strong ethical standard, I ask you to oppose

the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. I wrote

to you yesterday asking the same, but after the hearing

yesterday, it is increasingly clear that Mr. Pruitt is unfit.

In addition to being a parent, I am also a Family Medicine

physician. Rarely, I see children who are exposed to lead

through environmental sources. This is rare because lead has

been regulated, and as such rates of lead poisoning, and the

accompanying irreversible brain damage, have plummeted.

But yesterday Mr. Pruitt revealed that he knows nothing

about this issue, responding to Senator Cardin, ``Senator,

that is something I have not reviewed nor know about.''

I continue to ask you to oppose him and to encourage

colleagues to do the same.

Thank you for writing, Mary. That is why I am here tonight--to encourage my colleagues to oppose him.

I heard from Elizabeth in Belchertown, as well. Here is what she wrote:

As a resident of MA and a teacher of AP Environmental

Science in a public high

school in western MA, I am writing to express my concern

about the appointment of Scott Pruitt as director of the EPA.

He appears to be the exact opposite of the qualifications and

perspective of a person who should have that position. As you

know, he has close ties to fossil fuels, has repeatedly sued

the EPA, avoided mercury legislation, and espoused the belief

that the EPA is too powerful. I urge you to work with other

Senators to block this appointment.

Thank you, Elizabeth. The work that you are doing, that teachers are doing, is more vital than ever now, and I share your concerns. Thank you.

A man from Boston wrote to me with concerns about Scott Pruitt's ties to fossil fuel companies, and here is what he said:

As a constituent who cares about our environment, I want

you to know I am deeply concerned about the nomination of

Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Scott Pruitt is firmly in the pocket of the oil and gas

industry. He is not concerned with the world we leave for our

children. As a father and an educator, I am fighting his

nomination because I have a responsibility to care about the

world I leave children and not merely the wealth my cronies

accumulate.

Pruitt has actively worked to dismantle protections for

clean air and clean water that people and birds need to

thrive. The EPA must adhere to science and support common-

sense solutions for ensuring a healthy environment and stable

climate for people and wildlife.

Please oppose confirming Scott Pruitt and demand a nominee

instead who will represent the vast majority of Americans--

regardless of party affiliation--who support strong action

and safeguards for our air, water, and climate.

I couldn't agree more with what he said.

Wendy from Newton wrote to me about the concerns as well. Here is what she had to say:

Dear Senator, I am appalled and scared by the possibility

of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. It will be disgraceful if he

is confirmed. To appoint someone who stands against

everything that agency is for is cynical, disrespectful and

dangerous in this urgent time of climate change. Now more

than ever we need a strong EPA that believes in science and

will protect us from environmental disaster. I hope you will

do everything you possibly can to fight against Pruitt

getting confirmed.

Thank you for writing.

I also heard from Arlene in Wayland, who is worried about what the future of the EPA means for her two grandchildren. Here is what she had to say:

Senator Warren, please assure your constituents that you

will not support Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the EPA.

Mr. Pruitt is an enemy of the agency and of the future of our

environment. He has stood in the way of the agency's purpose

to protect our air and water. He is ignorant of the findings

of climate science and medical studies on toxicity, has dealt

dishonestly with Congress, and is so obviously in the pocket

of the fossil fuel industry. Please use your considerable

persuasiveness and rigor to convince your colleagues in the

Senate to ditch his nomination. The future of my two

grandchildren depends on it. Thank you.

Thank you for your note, Arlene. I am doing my best, and so are the rest of the Democrats. We just need some Republicans to help us out here.

Joan from Maynard reached out to me about her experience working with children who have suffered from lead poisoning. Here is what Joan wrote:

I have been an Educational Advocate for children with

disabilities for 24 years. I've worked with children who

suffer from lead poisoning, and they are heartbreaking. Even

the smallest exposure has life-long profound consequences. I

haven't personally seen anything the level of what has

happened in Flint, MI, but I know that it's a tragedy for a

generation of children in Flint.

Pollution of our waters is just one of the risks we face if

Scott Pruitt is approved. There are countless more, many

evident and others not readily apparent, but ready to unfold.

Please, please fight this appointment in every way you can.

Thank you, Joan, for writing and for the important work you do. Believe me, I am fighting in every way I can.

A man from North Falmouth wrote to me, worried that the progress we have made on protecting public health and the future of our planet is in danger. Here is what he said:

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a lifelong ally

of corporate polluters. Pruitt's nomination is a clear threat

to the nation's public health and the progress made on

common-sense pollution standards. I cannot tolerate the

appointment of a fossil fuel cheerleader to lead the nation's

environmental protection efforts. In 2014, Pruitt literally

acted as a messenger between Devon Energy and the EPA in an

attempt to stifle public health protections.

Please continue to defend the Clean Power Plan and methane

pollution standards against the influence of the fossil fuel

industry. 64% of Americans are concerned about climate

change, we deserve a leader who will take action to protect

air quality.

Thanks for writing. I really appreciate it.

Since President Trump nominated Mr. Pruitt, I have received hundreds of letters like these from people in Massachusetts who are worried about what he will mean for the environment and for the future of our planet, but I have also heard from the experts, people who understand the ins and outs of the EPA and its mission. Hundreds of former EPA employees who have serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's record on the environment sent a letter to me and my colleagues here in the Senate. Here is what they wrote:

We write as former employees of the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to share our concerns about Oklahoma

Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications to serve as

the next EPA Administrator in light of his record in

Oklahoma. Our perspective is not partisan. Having served

under both Republican and Democratic presidents, we recognize

each new Administration's right to pursue different policies

within the parameters of existing law and to ask Congress to

change the laws that protect public health and the

environment as it sees fit.

However, every EPA Administrator has a fundamental

obligation to act in the public's interest based on current

law and the best available science. Mr. Pruitt's record

raises serious concerns about whose interests he has served

to date and whether he agrees with the longstanding tenets of

U.S. environmental law.

Our nation has made tremendous progress in ensuring that

every American has clean air to breathe, clean water to drink

and uncontaminated land on which to live, work and play.

Anyone who visits Beijing is reminded of what some cities in

the U.S. once looked like before we went to work as a people

to combat pollution. Much of the EPA's work involves

preserving those gains, which should not be taken for

granted. There are also emerging new threats as well as

serious gaps in our environmental safety net, as the

drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, painfully

demonstrates.

Our environmental laws are based on a partnership that

requires EPA to set national standards and give states

latitude when implementing them so long as certain minimum

criteria are satisfied. This approach recognizes that

Americans have an equal right to clean air and water, no

matter where they live, and allows states to compete for

business without having to sacrifice public health or

environmental quality.

Our environmental laws include provisions directing EPA to

allow for a ``margin of safety'' when assessing risks, which

is intended to limit exposure to pollutants when it is

reasonable to expect they may harm the public health, even

when all the scientific evidence is not yet in. For example,

EPA's first Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus, chose to limit

the amount of lead in gasoline before all doubt about its

harmfulness to public health was erased. His actions spared

much of the harm that some countries still face as a result

of the devastating effects of lead on human health.

Similarly, early action to reduce exposure to fine particle

pollution helped avoid thousands of premature deaths from

heart and lung disease. The magnitude and severity of those

risks did not become apparent until much later.

Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest

that he does not share the vision or agree with the

underlying principles of our environmental statutes. Mr.

Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a

critically important function for EPA. While serving as

Oklahoma's top law enforcement officer, Mr. Pruitt issued

more than 50 press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn

EPA standards to limit mercury emissions from power plants,

reduce smog levels in cities and regional haze in parks,

clean up the Chesapeake Bay and control greenhouse emissions.

In contrast, none of Mr. Pruitt's many press releases refer

to any action he has taken to enforce environmental laws or

to actually reduce pollution. This track record likely

reflects his disturbing decision to close the environmental

enforcement unit in his office while establishing a new

litigation team to challenge EPA and other federal agencies.

He has claimed credit for an agreement to protect the

Illinois River that did little more than confirm phosphorus

limits established much earlier, while delaying their

enforcement another three years.

In a similar vein, Mr. Pruitt has gone to disturbing

lengths to advance the views and interests of business. For

example, he signed and sent a letter as Oklahoma Attorney

General criticizing EPA estimates of emissions from oil and

gas wells, without disclosing that it had been drafted in its

entirety by Devon Energy. He filed suit on behalf of Oklahoma

to block a California law requiring humane treatment of

poultry. The federal court dismissed the case after finding

that the lawsuit was brought not to benefit the citizens of

Oklahoma but a handful of large egg producers perfectly

capable of representing their own interests. To mount his

challenge to EPA's rules to reduce carbon pollution from

power plants, he took the unusual step of accepting free help

from a private law firm. In contrast, there is little or

no evidence of Mr. Pruitt taking initiative to protect and

advance public health and environmental protection in his

state.

Mr. Pruitt's office has apparently acknowledged 3,000

emails and other documents reflecting communications with

certain oil and gas companies, but has yet to make any of

these available in response to a Freedom of Information Act

request filed more than two years ago.

Contrary to the cooperative federalism that he promotes,

Mr. Pruitt has suggested that EPA should refrain from trying

to control pollution that crosses state lines. For example,

he intervened to support a Farm Bureau lawsuit that would

have overturned a cooperative agreement between five states

and EPA to clean up the Chesapeake Bay (the court rejected

the challenge). When asked how a state can protect its

citizens from pollution that originates outside its borders,

Mr. Pruitt said in his Senate testimony that states should

resolve these disputes on their own, with EPA providing

``informational'' support once an agreement is reached. But

the 1972 Clean Water Act directs EPA to review state water

quality plans, require any improvements needed to make waters

``fishable and swimmable,'' and to review and approve plans

to limit pollutant loads to protect water quality. EPA's

power to set standards and limit pollution that crosses state

lines is exactly what ensures every American clean air and

water, and gives states the incentive to negotiate and

resolve transboundary disputes.

We are most concerned about Mr. Pruitt's reluctance to

accept and to act on the strong scientific consensus on

climate change and act accordingly. Our country's own

National Research Council, the principal operating arm of the

National Academies of Science and Engineering, concluded in a

2010 report requested by Congress that human activity is

altering the climate to an extent that poses grave risks to

Americans' health and welfare. More recent scientific data

and analyses have only confirmed the Council's conclusion

and added to the urgency of addressing the problem.

Despite this and other authoritative warnings about the

dangers of climate change, Mr. Pruitt persists in pointing to

uncertainty about the precise extent of humanity's

contribution to the problem as a basis for resisting taking

any regulatory action to help solve it. At his Senate

confirmation hearing, he stated that ``science tells us that

the climate is changing, and that human activity in some

manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with

precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to

do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue,

and well it should be.'' This is a familiar dodge--

emphasizing uncertainty about the precise amount of

humanity's contribution while ignoring the broad scientific

consensus that human activities are largely responsible for

dangerous warming of our planet and that action is urgently

needed before it is too late.

Mr. Pruitt's indulgence in this dodge raises the

fundamental question of whether he agrees with the

precautionary principle reflected in our nation's

environmental statutes. Faithful execution of our

environmental laws requires effectively combating climate

change to minimize its potentially catastrophic impacts

before it is too late.

The American people have been served by EPA Administrators,

Republicans and Democrats, who have embraced their

responsibility to protect public health and the environment.

Different administrators have come to different conclusions

about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and

many of their decisions have been challenged in court,

sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far

enough. But in the large majority of cases it was evident to

us that they put the public's welfare ahead of private

interests. Scott Pruitt has not demonstrated this same

commitment.

Thank you for considering our views.

Thank you to all who signed that letter and for the incredibly important work that you have done to protect our environment. I am with you all the way.

Next, I wish to read an article published by The Atlantic that uses Scott Pruitt's actions to critique his appointment to head the EPA. Actions speak volumes louder than words, and his tell a pretty compelling story of exactly how he will lead the Agency. Here is what it says:

While broad strokes of Trump's policies were never in

doubt, there was often enough bizarreness to wonder what he

would do with the powers of the Environmental Protection

Agency.

On Wednesday, those questions were all but settled. Trump

has chosen E. Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma,

to lead the EPA. . . .

In a certain light, Pruitt is an inspired choice to lead

the EPA, as he has made fighting the agency a hallmark of his

career. His own website calls him ``a leading advocate

against the EPA's activist agenda.'' The significance could

not be more clear: As he promised on the trail, Trump will

likely use the powers of the presidency and the legal

expertise of Pruitt to block or weaken the Obama

administration's attempts to fight climate change.

And Trump will be able to try for more than that. For what

distinguishes Pruitt's career is not just his opposition to

using regulations to tackle climate change, but his

opposition to using regulation to tackle any environmental

problem at all. Since he was elected Oklahoma's attorney

general, in 2010, Pruitt has racked up a sizable record--

impressive in its number of lawsuits if not in its number of

victories--of suing the EPA.

Many of these suits did not target climate-related

policies. Instead, they singled out anti-pollution measures,

initiated under presidential administrations, that tend to be

popular with the public.

In 2014, for instance, Pruitt sued to block the EPA's

Regional Haze Rule. The rule is built on a 15-year old

program meant to ensure that air around national parks is

especially clear. Pruitt lost his case.

Last year, he sued to block a rule restricting how much

mercury could be emitted into the air by coal plants. He lost

that, too.

And early in his tenure, he sued to keep the EPA from

settling lawsuits brought by environmental groups like the

Sierra Club. That one was dismissed.

He has brought other suits against EPA anti-pollution

programs--like one against new rules meant to reduce the

amount of ozone in the air--that haven't been heard in court

yet. While ozone is beneficial to humans high in the

atmosphere, it can be intensely damaging when it accumulates

at ground level, worsening asthma and inducing premature

deaths. The American Lung Association calls it ``one of the

most dangerous'' pollutants in the United States.

All this is not to say that Pruitt has omitted climate

regulations from his litigation. His most common target has

been the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's set of

Clean Air Act rules meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

from power plants. The Clean Power Plan is Obama's main

mechanism for pushing the United States to meet its pledge

under the Paris Agreement.

Pruitt began suing the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan

more than two years ago. Now, Oklahoma is one of the 28

states challenging the agency in court, and it helped succeed

in getting the Supreme Court to block the rules in February.

But Pruitt's understanding of the bill seems not entirely

legally minded in two significant ways. First, Pruitt's

knowledge of global warming appears to be lacking, at best.

Earlier this year, for instance, he wrote in the National

Review that ``scientists continue to disagree about the

degree and the extent of global warming and its connection to

the actions of mankind.''

While this sounds reasonable, it is not true. The

overwhelming consensus among scientists who study the Earth

is that humans are largely to blame for the planet's warming.

Climate scientists understood this to be the case since at

least the early 1990s, and since then, scholarly consensus on

the issue has only strengthened. The majority of scientists

also believe that global warming will be quite harmful; the

scientific debate about its ``degree and extent'' is only

about how bad it will be and how soon its consequences will

kick in.

Second, Pruitt has worked extremely closely with oil and

gas companies in opposing the plan. In one case, a New York

Times investigation revealed that Pruitt sent an official

letter to the EPA, bearing his signature and letterhead, that

had been almost completely written by lawyers at Devon

Energy, a major oil and gas company. It was delivered to

Pruitt's office by Devon's chief lobbyist.

Energy firms and lobbyists, including Devon, have donated

generously to the Republican Attorneys General Association,

which Pruitt has led. In interviews after the Times report,

Pruitt described the collaboration as a kind of constituent

service, saying that Devon is based in Oklahoma City. He

agreed with the letter's legal reasoning, he said, so he

signed it.

``I don't think there is anything secretive in what we've

done,'' Pruitt told The Oklahoman. ``We've been very open

about the efforts of my office in responding to federal

overreach.''

Now Pruitt could be the one doing the federal reaching.

Environmental groups immediately condemned Trump's selection

of him. ``The EPA plays an absolutely vital role in enforcing

long-standing policies that protect the health and safety of

Americans, based on the best available science,'' said Ken

Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a

statement. ``Pruitt has a clear record of hostility to the

EPA's mission, and he is a completely inappropriate choice to

lead it.''

Once, it had seemed like perhaps Trump--who speaks often of

his adoration for clean air and clean water--would bypass

those old fights and only target Obama's new climate rules.

But with Pruitt leading his EPA, it seems that Trump's

administration will act like its GOP predecessors. Whether it

is successful depends on the Senate, on the courts, and on

how well environmental advocates make their case to the

public.

Finally, I wish to share a few excerpts from an in-depth New York Times article that uncovered Scott Pruitt's extensive ties to energy companies. The article clearly explains the massive conflicts of interest that Mr. Pruitt would face as Administrator of the EPA. Here is what it says:

The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from

Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt

accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating

the amount of air pollution

caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in

his state.

But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page

letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of

Oklahoma's biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered

to him by Devon's chief of lobbying.

``Outstanding!'' William F. Whitsitt, who at the time

directed the government relations at the company, said in a

note to Mr. Pruitt's office. The attorney general's staff had

taken Devon's draft, copied it onto state government

stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to

Washington with the attorney general's signature. ``The

timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday

with both the E.P.A. and the White House.''

Mr. Whitsitt then added, ``Please pass along Devon's thanks

to Attorney General Pruitt.''

The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an

open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented,

secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican

attorneys general have formed with some of the nation's top

energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory

agenda, an investigation by the New York Times has found.

Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys

general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to

fight federal regulations, according to a review of thousands

of emails and court documents and dozens of interviews.

For Mr. Pruitt, the benefits have been clear. Lobbyists and

company officials have been notably solicitous, helping him

raise his profile as president for two years of the

Republican Attorneys General Association, a post he used to

help start what he and his allies called the Rule of Law

Campaign, which was intended to push back against Washington.

``We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis,''

Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative

state legislators at a conference in Dallas in July, after

being welcomed with a standing ovation. ``The trajectory of

our nation is at risk and at stake as we respond to what is

going on.''

Mr. Pruitt has responded aggressively and with a lot of

helping hands. Energy industry lobbyists drafted letters for

him to send to the EPA, the Interior Department, the

Office of Management and Budget, and even President Obama,

the Times found.

Industries that he regulates have joined him as plaintiffs

in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of a

state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to

force compliance with state law.

Energy industry lobbyists have also distributed draft

legislation to attorneys general and asked them to help push

it through state legislatures to give the attorneys general

clearer authority to challenge the Obama regulatory agenda,

the documents show. And it is an emerging practice that

several attorneys general say threatens the integrity of the

office.

The message is clear across Massachusetts and across the Nation: Big Oil's go-to attorney general is Scott Pruitt, and he has no business running the EPA. He has proven over and over again that he will put short-term industry profits ahead of the health of our children. This nominee has no interest in protecting every American's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. We cannot put someone so opposed to the goals of the EPA in charge of that very Agency.

For these reasons, I will be voting no on Scott Pruitt. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.