Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow on my staff, Brian Clark, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on December 8, Donald Trump nominated Andrew Puzder to serve as Secretary of Labor. He was scheduled to come before the HELP Committee tomorrow for his confirmation hearing. There is some reporting suggesting that he is having some second thoughts, and I sincerely hope that is true. The reasons Mr. Puzder is a terrible choice for this job are literally too numerous to cover fully, but I will at least give it a start.

If you work for a living, the Labor Secretary is very important to you. This person is responsible for protecting the interests of 150 million American workers. He will be the person responsible for enforcing the law that ensures that employers actually pay workers for every hour they work and setting the standards to prevent workplace injuries and even deaths.

Unfortunately, Mr. Puzder is not the kind of person the American people can trust to stand up for workers. Since 2000, Mr. Puzder has served as the CEO of the billion-dollar company CKE Restaurant Holdings. You may know it better as the parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. These two fast-food chains are known for paying very low wages to workers. Mr. Puzder has a long record of cheating workers out of overtime. He has paid out millions of dollars to settle claims when he was caught cheating. We are not talking about isolated incidents. They reflect the kind of business Mr. Puzder built. Mr. Puzder is a frequent political pundit and commentator who has vocally opposed higher minimum wages. He has also strongly opposed new overtime protections that would give 4 million workers an estimated $1.5 billion raise in a single year.

Mr. Puzder also delights in expressing personal disdain for his workers. He bragged in his very first memo as CEO. He wrote that he wanted ``no more people behind the counter unless they have their teeth.'' Ha, ha. He said he would like to replace his workers with robots because ``they are always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or discrimination case.''

The Senate has an obligation to hear from those who are best qualified to

tell America about Mr. Puzder's suitability to be Labor Secretary and to stand up for American workers--his own workers. That is why many of us asked the chairman of the HELP Committee to include Mr. Puzder's workers in his confirmation hearing. When the chairman refused to do so, we just went ahead and convened our own forum to allow those workers a chance to speak.

Seventeen Senators attended. Those 17 Senators heard from Laura McDonald, who worked as a general manager at Carl's Jr. in Tucson, AZ, for 20 years. For years, she was forced to work extra hours without pay. Employees like Laura are the subject of a major lawsuit against Mr. Puzder's company, CKE, regarding unpaid overtime.

Those 17 Senators heard from Lupe Guzman, who is a single mother who has devoted the last 7 years of her life to Carl's Jr. in Las Vegas, NV. She has worked the graveyard shift for rock bottom wages. Seven years of loyalty, and Lupe is still paid so little that she is on food stamps to feed her kids. Lupe sat in front of the U.S. Senate and wept openly about her terrible treatment at the hands of Mr. Puzder's company.

The Senators also heard from Roberto Ramirez, who has worked in the fast food industry for over 20 years, mostly at Carl's Jr. in Los Angeles, CA. He worked regularly off the clock at Carl's Jr., meaning they didn't pay him. Roberto even had a full paycheck stolen by his manager.

For every Laura, Lupe, and Roberto, we found dozens of workers who were afraid to speak out about the terrible conditions at CKE. We compiled some stories from folks brave enough to speak up into a 20- page report detailing firsthand accounts of the men and women who work for Mr. Puzder. Those stories are horrifying, and I will read some of them later today.

Mr. Puzder's company has a truly atrocious record of treating his own workers terribly. Indeed, he has dripping disdain for people who work for a living. This alone disqualifies him to be Secretary of Labor.

But there is more. In recent weeks, it has come out that Mr. Puzder employed an undocumented immigrant in his household for years, and he didn't pay taxes on that employee. Yep, you heard that correctly. The Trump administration, which bellows about building a wall and pounds its chest about ripping millions of families apart with a deportation force, threatens millions of DREAM Act kids with deportation, has no problem putting a guy in charge of the Labor Department who cheats on his taxes and employs undocumented workers. The hypocrisy of that is pretty stunning, even for the Trump administration.

And then there is the controversy over alleged spousal abuse. Over 25 years ago, Mr. Puzder's first wife appeared on an episode of Oprah Winfrey in a show about spousal abuse. I have watched the episode in which she appeared, as I believe every Senator should. I found it extraordinarily troubling.

Alongside his company's poor record of treatment of female employees, his highly explicit and sexualized ads, and his snide comments about sex discrimination, there is ample evidence that Mr. Puzder is a terrible choice to head the agency charged with ensuring that women and men are treated fairly in the workplace.

I understand that no matter who President Trump picks to run the Labor Department, I am probably going to have a lot of issues with that person, but this is different. Andrew Puzder should not be the Labor Secretary. And if you ask the Senators in this body--Republicans and Democrats--if you ask them behind closed doors with the cameras turned off, you will have a hard time finding people who think this divisive nomination is good for the country.

It has been suggested that Mr. Puzder is ``tired of the abuse'' that he has received during this confirmation process. Well, I think the workers at his companies are pretty tired of the abuse they have received while being at the mercy of an employer who doesn't care about them at all and who goes out of his way to squeeze them out of every last dime. That is literally the opposite of what we need in a Labor Secretary.

I was prepared to question him on these issues tomorrow, but I hope it is true that he will withdraw his nomination before then.

Mr. President, I also rise today to express many concerns over the appointment of Congressman Mulvaney as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to urge my colleagues to seriously consider these issues before voting to confirm him.

One of the best ways to understand what a nation stands for is to look at its budget. It is all right there. The budget tells who counts, it tells who gets a chance, and it tells who gets cast aside.

The OMB Director prepares the President's budget. He safeguards the President's promises by turning them into real commitments backed by your tax dollars.

During the campaign, President Trump promised over and over again that he would protect Medicare and Medicaid. He didn't imply it; he didn't drop hints about it. No, he made the clearest, plainest possible promise. He said: ``I am not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.''

But since the election, he has done a complete 180. He put up a transition team website that just dripped with code words for cuts, saying that he would modernize and maximize flexibility for these programs. Gone were the unambiguous promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid.

Then he started nominating people who have made it their life's work to gut Medicare and Medicaid. His Secretary of Health and Human Services has proposed cutting more than $1 trillion from these programs, and now his nominee for OMB Director is someone who wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid to the bone.

Congressman Mulvaney has voted to increase the retirement age for Medicare. Hey, you have paid into that program with decades of hard work? Too bad, just keep waiting.

He also wants to privatize Medicare, and he wants to slash and burn his way through Medicaid--a program that is a lifeline for millions of people--for parents of people in nursing homes, for people with disabilities, for premature babies.

In his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney was asked whether he would set aside his rightwing ideology to fulfill the President's campaign promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid. The Congressman could not have been clearer in his response: Forget all of that. Nope, not interested. Mulvaney is still a true believer in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and whenever he has the President's ear, he will continue to advance his own radical ideas for burning down these indispensable programs.

President Trump also promised that he would not cut Social Security. He guaranteed it. Here is his quote--many times: ``We're going to save your Social Security without making any cuts,'' he said.

Here was his closer on that: ``Mark my words.''

OK. Nice words. But he could have picked someone--anyone--to run his budget, and instead he picked Congressman Mulvaney--one of Congress's most partisan crusaders against the Social Security program. He wants to raise the retirement age to 70. Heck, this is a person who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and, boy, he is not messing around, either.

During his confirmation hearings, Congressman Mulvaney doubled down on his promise to rob American workers and retirees by gutting Social Security. When pressed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham about whether he would urge President Trump to reconsider his promise not to cut Social Security, hey, Mulvaney said that he absolutely would.

Is this just a mistake? Did President Trump just pick Congressman Mulvaney by accident? The Congressman certainly doesn't seem to think so.

At his hearing he said: ``I have to imagine that the President knew what he was getting when he asked me to fill that role.''

Yes, Mulvaney himself believes he is being brought in to push for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Trump reverses his promise, a second person determined to cut Medicare and Medicaid makes it into a key government role, and who will pay the price? America's seniors, that is who.

Apparently, Congressman Mulvaney isn't satisfied with cutting benefits for

Americans who have worked and paid into the program for their entire lives. When it comes to abandoning American workers and families, for him, that is just the beginning.

He has also called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ``a sick, sad joke.'' Maybe he should spend a little more time talking to his constituents and a little less time talking to bank lobbyists.

The CFPB has helped thousands of people in every State--including dozens of people in Congressman Mulvaney's own district--recover unauthorized fees on their credit cards and checking accounts. It has helped them to correct errors on their credit reports. These are students, seniors, servicemembers, and veterans, who may have spent months haggling with their bank or student loan servicer over a wrong charge, only to get quick and complete relief after they went to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In total--the agency has only been up for about 5\1/2\ years now--it has forced the largest banks across this country, many of those who have been out there cheating consumers, to return nearly $12 billion directly to the people they cheated. That is $12 billion that was stolen by big banks, by payday lenders, by debt collectors, and is now back in the pockets of the people who rightfully earned it.

The only sick, sad joke is that Congressman Mulvaney thinks we should turn the big banks loose to prey on American families once again.

Under Congressman Mulvaney's budget, Americans who have been cheated and scammed by huge financial institutions will just be cast aside. Families who work hard for every dollar, only to have some ruthless corporation steal their savings right out from underneath them, will be cast aside. And the millions of Americans who have worked for decades planning to collect Social Security or Medicare when they retire will be told to just wait four more years. They will be thrown straight to the curb. None of that--none of that--is what America stands for.

That is just the stuff that directly contradicts the President's campaign promises. The stuff that is totally in line with the President's campaign promises is genuinely scary too.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump stated that he ``may cut the Department of Education.'' Will Congressman Mulvaney stand up for students? Unlikely.

Congressman Mulvaney's record shows that he is fine building a Federal budget that crushes students who are trying to get a college education. Students already pay too much for student loans, and Congressman Mulvaney's solution is to force students to pay more. He supports forcing more college students to borrow more money from private banks that charge sky-high interest rates without any of the basic protections Federal student loans have. He clearly wants to let private banks and Wall Street squeeze as much cash out of hard-working students as humanly possible to build their profits. In fact, Congressman Mulvaney wants to help these giant banks out even more by taking a sledgehammer to the Federal student loan program and making Federal loan terms lousy for students. That is why he repeatedly voted to eliminate subsidized student loans for low-income students and why he helped block legislation to allow borrowers to lower their monthly payments by refinancing their student loans to lower interest rates. Not only has he voted to increase the interest rates the government charges students, he has also voted to cut Pell grants to poor college students. If Congressman Mulvaney had his way, millions more hard- working students would be shoved even deeper into debt at the start of their working lives just because they couldn't afford the high cost of college. Under his budget, students will just be cast aside.

In his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney also said he is ``in lockstep'' with Donald Trump's plans to grow military spending, but he said he would pay for that increase in funding with deep cuts to domestic programs that working men and women around the country depend on--programs that could easily include Head Start, which provides opportunities for low-income children; the disaster aid, which supports families in crisis after a hurricane or tornado; or resiliency programs to protect America as worldwide climate changes.

Listen to that again. The children who attend Head Start can stay home so Donald Trump can divert more money to military spending. The people who get buried in a 100-year snowstorm can stay buried so Donald Trump can divert more money to military spending. The people who live near coasts and rivers and streams can be washed away by rising oceans and other waterways so Donald Trump can divert money to military spending--and this nominee, Congressman Mulvaney, is in lockstep to make it happen.

Under President Trump's new one-in, two-out Executive order, it is Mr. Mulvaney who would have discretion to give each agency a regulatory budget and to approve any proposed regulations that increase that budget. The order is supposedly designed to make life easier and to make government work better, but Congressman Mulvaney isn't interested in making government work better, and he is certainly not interested in making life easier. In fact, he has spent his entire political career working to cripple the agencies that protect American families-- American workers, American consumers, and American small businesses. Nowhere is this clearer than in his attacks on the Federal agencies that protect consumers, that preserve our environment, and that help keep our country safe. He has worked to starve agencies of the resources they need to do their jobs, voting to cut funding to law enforcement, voting to gut the Social Security Program, and voting to completely defund the organization that provides critical legal services to low-income American children, families, seniors, and veterans.

But it is not enough for him to starve agencies to the breaking point. He has also supported radical bills to stop agencies from issuing regulations that keep our air clean, our food safe, and our economy from suffering another devastating financial crisis. Congressman Mulvaney wants to require agencies to adopt a bill that imposes the least costs on big businesses, even when those costs are about making sure companies don't cut corners by cheating, poisoning, and killing people. Look, if it is cheaper for a corporation to kill you than it is for the corporation to redesign the product or clean up their mess, Congressman Mulvaney stands with the corporation. I am sure he would be willing to say something nice at your funeral about how your contribution helped give the corporation record profits.

If all that wasn't bad enough, Congressman Mulvaney is ready to rock and roll on secret money in politics. Washington is already awash in dark money, but that is not enough for Congressman Mulvaney. He has worked to open the doors even wider to secret spending in politics. Over and over, he has voted to shield the identity of political donors, keep them secret. For example, he opposed a rule that required corporations applying for government contracts to disclose their political contributions. Again, just think about that one for a minute. He doesn't want corporations that bid for government contracts to be forced to tell when they give money to help targeted government officials. We already have a problem with money in politics. Mulvaney just wants to make it worse.

Congressman Mulvaney's record shows one thing. He will make sure our Federal Government works well for giant corporations and billionaires who don't like to play by the rules, and he will cast aside the rest of the public to do that. That is definitely not what our Nation stands for.

I understand Democrats and Republicans have different priorities when it comes to the Federal budget. I get that, but when one person wants to slash Social Security for American retirees, to cut Medicare for senior citizens, to gut health benefits for low-income families, to drive up the cost of paying for college, and to gut programs that help families in crisis and low-income children, all in the name of making life even easier for giant corporations and billionaires--well, I think it is clear that his priorities do not include the safety and security of millions of Americans. That is a priority that should be at the top of all of our

lists in the Senate, Republican and Democratic.

I will stand with the Americans whom Congressman Mulvaney will cast aside as Budget Director, and I will vote no on his nomination.

Mick Mulvaney wants to slash benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and countless other programs. These are just numbers to him, but behind those numbers are real people. Real lives are at risk with every decision he will make as the Budget Director. So what I want to do is take the time I have remaining and share the stories of just a few of the people who would be affected.

Lea from Plymouth wrote to me, worried that Congressman Mulvaney would cut Social Security for her and for others in Massachusetts. Lea had an interesting suggestion. Here is what she wrote:

I have just sent off an email message to Representative

Mulvaney regarding his spearheading of the cutting of Social

Security benefits.

I challenged him and many of his colleagues to do this:

Live on an income like mine--of $1,219.80--for one month.

Having received my first increase of $2.50 in several

years, it was offset by a Medicare cost increase of $11.50.

Do the math.

I hope you and the other Democratic members of both houses

fight like hell to raise our benefits.

We are definitely in for a bumpy ride for the next 4 years.

As the saying goes . . . ``it ain't going to be pretty!''

Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Lea. Thank you for writing.

I also heard from Janneke from Williamstown, who is worried about several nominees working to cut Social Security. Here is what Janneke had to say:

It is terrifying to consider either of these nominees,

Price or Mulvaney, being confirmed for the position to which

they have been nominated. They will work to undo, not to

strengthen, social security. This is a profoundly disturbing

possibility.

I urge you to do everything you can to oppose their

confirmation!

Thank you, Janneke. I will. I will keep fighting for your hard-earned benefits.

Janet from Florence also reached out to me. She shared the inspiring stories of her and her husband, and then she told me how worried she is that cuts to Social Security and Medicare could be coming under Congressman Mulvaney's watch. Here is what she wrote:

I am 60 years old and have always been employed--in higher

education jobs where I worked hard and long for modest wages,

frequently the case in women-dominated professions.

My husband is a childcare worker who works with infants and

toddlers. The work we do is meaningful and makes a societal

contribution.

At 60 and 64, we have always lived like graduate students.

We shop at the Goodwill, cook from scratch, bring our lunch,

and drive old cars--and bike and walk. We will each be

working until age 70, or longer, if our health permits. This

is fine. We are fortunate to live as we do. But with market-

based retirement funds and with family members needing our

support, we need Social Security, which is NOT BROKEN, to

remain, and be strengthened. And we need access to health

care, for ourselves, children, and grandchildren.

This is a plea from the fading middle class to oppose the

Price and Mulvaney nominations. We--and people far less

fortunate than we are--need your stout support.

Thank you, Janet. Thank you and your husband for all you do for your community. I promise I will do my best to protect your benefits.

I have received hundreds of these types of letters--letters from constituents who are scared that cuts to Medicaid and Medicare could endanger their basic ability to survive, letters from constituents who have seen how important these services are to thousands across the State and millions across the country, constituents who aren't sure where to turn and whom to blame. They just know they cannot afford to lose these benefits, like a woman from Somerville, who wrote to me about the work she does as an intensive care coordinator. Here is what she had to say:

I am an Intensive Care Coordinator through Riverside

Community Care, a statewide human service agency that

delivers crucial mental health services to at-risk youth. In

my program, the Guidance Center Community Service Agency, we

specifically provide Child Behavioral Health Initiatives

(CBHI) services to youth in Cambridge, Somerville, Medford,

Malden, Waltham, Woburn, Wilmington, and other northern

towns.

I am extremely nervous that the new presidential

administration will attack Medicaid and put our programs in

jeopardy.

If you're not familiar with the CBHI wraparound model, I

can briefly explain why these services are so important. One:

we serve youth in poverty. Two: our services are community

based, so we go to the homes of the families we're serving,

so they don't need to rely on transportation. Three: we are a

form of outpatient care that prevents youth who are suicidal/

homicidal from needing hospitalization. Or, if they are

hospitalized, helping the family develop a plan for when

they're discharged. Four: Although the child with mental

health diagnosis is our identified client, the services

benefit the whole family. We understand that taking care of

children with special needs is taxing, so we identify

resources and services for parents as well. Five: we work

with state departments like Department of Children and

Families, Department of Health, and Department of

Developmental Disabilities. Six: our model works. I myself

rarely close a case without having had at least one goal

(identified by the family) met and there are growing

statistics about the benefit of having us in place.

I hope you can bring this argument where it needs to go to

ensure that we have a future here in Massachusetts.

I want to say on this one: Thank you. Thank you for writing, and thank you for the work you do.

I am doing my best to bring this story. This is a story everybody in the Senate should listen to. It is a story about how we reach out to those who most need us and provide the kind of care they need.

Thank you. Thank you for your work, and thank you for writing.

I also received a letter from an occupational therapist from Massachusetts. She told me all about the important work she has been doing and how Medicaid has been crucial to that work. Here is what she had to say:

As a constituent and occupational therapy practitioner, I

am writing to you to express my concerns about a major

restructuring of the Medicaid program.

Medicaid is an essential safety net program for the most

vulnerable in our society. In 2015, 39% of children received

health insurance either through the Childrens Health

Insurance Program or through Medicaid. More than 60 percent

of nursing home residents are supported primarily through

Medicaid. Additionally, Medicaid provides health care

services and long-term services and supports to more than 10

million people living with disabilities, and 1 in 5 Medicaid

recipients receive behavioral health services.

Restructuring of the Medicaid program through per capita

caps or block granting and significant cuts to the Medicaid

program would jeopardize the long-term health and

independence of current Medicaid beneficiaries. Thus I urge

extreme care and caution when considering a major

restructuring of the program or other significant changes,

waiver of mandatory services, or dramatic cuts.

Thank you for all the work you do, and thank you for writing and making this important point about who uses Medicaid and how critical it is to the basic support services that we provide.

Another constituent wrote to me about the amazing work that she does in the Boston area for those with severe mental illness and how Medicaid and Medicare help these people. Here is what she had to say:

I work with people with severe Mental Illness in the

greater Boston area. A majority of my patients receive their

therapy and medication through Medicaid and Medicare. Even

the thought of losing coverage heightens their anxiety. If

coverage is reduced or co-pays raised, they stand to lose not

only therapy and group interventions but also the medication

which is essential to avoiding higher levels of care. Given

the high rate of co-occurring physical and mental health

issues, the general health of my patients will be severely

compromised with any reduction in access to care.

Nearly 1 out of 3 people covered by Medicaid expansion live

with a mental health or substance use condition and people

with marketplace insurance plans have fair and equal mental

health coverage. With this coverage, people have access to

mental health services that support recovery.

As a constituent, I would like you to keep in mind that

Medicaid or insurance marketplace plans are helping all of

those who struggle with mental illness who, with accessible

supports, can lead healthier lives.

Again, thank you for the work you do, and thank you for writing. It is a powerfully important point.

Congressman Mulvaney wants to slash these programs. That is why I will be voting against his nomination.

I also received more personal stories from people like Michael from Acton, who told me about his son. Here is what he wrote:

My particular concern is the attack on the ACA and Medicaid

and Medicare.

My biggest worry is my 27 year old son, Adam, who was born

with microcephaly. He

is a very loving person with a great smile, but functions

roughly at the level of a 12 month old. He currently lives in

a group residence and goes to a day habilitation program

during the week. Both of these programs are funded in part by

Medicaid. If Medicaid funds are cut, I worry that the day-hab

program will not be able to continue or, at the least, will

operate at a much reduced level. This would seriously degrade

the quality of Adam's life. I worry what will happen at his

already understaffed residence.

As it is, the staff at Adam's residence and day-

habilitation programs are paid very little wages to do very

tough jobs. Because of this, there is already a constant

problem of finding enough people to staff these. . . . jobs

if they are paid less or have to do even more work because of

lower staffing levels[.]

The prospect of what is coming scares me. What will my

son's life be like?

Thank you for writing, Michael. I appreciate it. I will be out there fighting for Adam. I hope we can get a lot of people in the Senate to do that as well. Thank you.

We also heard from Daniel Mumbauer, who is president of the High Point Treatment Center in Massachusetts. Daniel has experienced firsthand how Medicaid funds can change the lives of thousands of people in Massachusetts alone. This is what Daniel wrote:

On behalf of High Point Treatment Center, I am writing to

urge and request your support in protecting the Affordable

Care Act and preserving Medicaid expansion in the 115th

Congress.

High Point served over 30,000 individuals last year. We

provide substance use disorder and mental health services to

adolescents and adults.

Recent health insurance data show that Americans with

mental health and substance use disorders are the single

largest beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid

expansion. Nearly one in three who receives health insurance

coverage through Medicaid expansion either has a mental

illness, a substance abuse disorder, or both. By repealing

the Medicaid expansion, this population of vulnerable

Americans would be left without access to lifesaving

treatment, driving up costs in emergency department visits

and hospital stays.

I am also writing to urge your support for the protection

of the Medicaid program from proposals to restructure

Medicaid as a block grant or capped program. These proposals

would reduce federal investment in Medicaid and leave

millions of Americans without access to needed mental health

and addictions treatment in our communities. Please work with

your colleagues to protect our nation's most vulnerable

patient population and preserve their access to treatment.

Thank you, Daniel. Thank you very much for writing, and thank you for the work you do.

Congressman Mulvaney wants to eviscerate health programs that would help Michael's son and the thousands who are treated at the High Point Treatment Center. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

I have also heard from many constituents worried about losing their Social Security benefits under the new administration, like Kensington from Hatfield, who is terrified that his mother, who depends on Social Security, will lose her benefits. Here is what he wrote:

Last night scared me for the first time. My mother is 69

and depends on Social Security for her income and has severe

COPD and relies on medicare and medicaid for prescriptions

and medical supplies to help her breath[e]. She was crying

and is afraid of losing everything and that she will die. I

know it's extreme thinking, but without her medicine and

income it is unfortunately the truth. I didn't know what to

say to comfort her and that scared me! What can I say to ease

her mind and let her know that she will be OK. Will she be

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

Madam President, out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump talked a big game about Wall Street. He said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.'' He claimed that he was not going to let Wall Street get away with murder.

His closing ad expressed outrage at Wall Street ``controlling the levers of power in Washington.'' It pictured Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as part of ``the global special interests that were rigging the economy against working families.''

Then Trump won, and within days he hired and nominated enough Goldman Sachs alumni to open a new bank branch in the White House. 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 be second in command at the bank. His Senior Counsel for Economic Initiatives, Dina Powell, came directly from Goldman Sachs, where she has been a partner since 2010.

Finally, Donald Trump nominated Steve Mnuchin to serve as his Secretary of Treasury. Mr. Mnuchin spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs, much of it in the distribution that created and peddled the kinds of mortgage-backed securities that would later blow up the financial system.

Personnel is policy. The selection of all of these Goldman Sachs executives to serve as core members of Trump's economic team shows that the President has no interest in reducing Wall Street's influence in Washington and leveling the playing field for working families. Instead, it will be the same Republican playbook--gutting the rules for big banks, firing the cops on Wall Street--the same playbook that paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis.

But even among the group of Goldman Sachs bankers surrounding the President, the selection of Mr. Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary stands out. The Treasury Secretary leads the Council responsible for making sure Wall Street doesn't blow up our economy again.

The Council cannot do anything without the support of the Treasury Secretary. No other official has greater responsibility to stand up to Wall Street if they threaten the economy again. Yet there is nothing-- nothing--in Mr. Mnuchin's record to suggest that he could stand up to Wall Street. In fact, there is nothing in Mr. Mnuchin's record to suggest that he would even want to stand up to Wall Street, that he has even thought of standing up to Wall Street.

Mr. Mnuchin is the ultimate Wall Street insider. From the moment he graduated from college until today, he has worked at a big bank or a hedge fund. If Wall Street threatens to blow up the economy again, does anyone seriously expect Mr. Mnuchin to get tough with his old buddies and tell them to knock it off?

In fact, you can expect just the opposite. Mr. Mnuchin pretty much laps the field when it comes to personal experience in tilting the playing field in favor of financial interests and against working families. In late 2008, as the financial crisis was sweeping across the country, Mr. Mnuchin lead a team of millionaires to purchase IndyMac Bank out of Federal receivership. He rebranded the bank as OneWest and put himself in charge as CEO. Then, Mr. Mnuchin and OneWest acted swiftly and decisively to boot more than 60,000 families out of their homes across the country.

Look, I get it. Foreclosures happen in an economic crisis. But OneWest, Mr. Mnuchin's bank, was different. It quickly gained a reputation as a foreclosure machine, both because it was so aggressive at foreclosing on families and because the bank hardly did anything else.

Countless homeowners who were trapped by a OneWest mortgage had their lives turned upside down. Some ended up homeless.

How sleazy and out of line was Mr. Mnuchin's bank? Well, the bank paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits for predatory foreclosure practices. They were so sleazy that they even got hit with almost $3 million in fines for violating the rights of dozens of Active-Duty servicemembers.

You really have to ask: What kind of a man does something like that-- cheats our soldiers while they are on Active Duty? The model Mr. Mnuchin developed for OneWest was terrible for homeowners, but it was fabulous for him. Six years after buying the bank, he sold it and reportedly pocketed as much as $200 million in personal profit--$200 million for 6 years of throwing families out of their homes--wow, only on Wall Street.

Mr. Mnuchin's leadership of OneWest is critical to evaluating his fitness to serve as Treasury Secretary. That is why I joined 24 other Democratic Senators in asking Chairman Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee to include some of Mr. Mnuchin's foreclosure victims as witnesses at Mr. Mnuchin's hearing.

The chairman refused. So Democrats invited some of those homeowners to come to the Senate anyway to share their stories at a forum. We invited every Senator--Democrat or Republican--to attend the forum. We also invited Mr. Mnuchin to attend. Not one single Republican showed up--not one. Mr. Mnuchin refused to attend. But Senate Democrats turned out to listen. The stories that we heard will break your heart.

We heard from Colleen Ison-Hodroff, from Minneapolis, MN. Colleen is 84 years old. She and her husband Monroe got a reverse mortgage on their fully paid-off home from Financial Freedom, which is a OneWest subsidiary. At the time, the broker assured them that Colleen could keep living in her home even if her husband passed away before she did. But just days--just days--after Monroe's funeral, Mr. Mnuchin's bank told her she needed to pay off the entire loan or face foreclosure. She has been fighting them off for 2 years now, but the threat hangs over her and her family.

Sylvia Oliver from Scotch Plains, NJ, also told us her story. She had been trying for years to get a loan modification from OneWest. For years, the bank refused to work with her in good faith. Sylvia choked up as she described how she felt when her young daughter told her: Mom, I love our home. She had to smile and look her daughter in the eye, not knowing whether they could keep that home for more than even a few more weeks.

We heard from Cristina Clifford, from Carlsbad, CA. Cristina is a real go-getter, a self-employed small business owner who saved up enough money to buy her first home soon after she turned 20. When the financial crisis hit, the income from her business dried up, and she reached out to Mr. Mnuchin's bank for a modification. But when she sent in her modification paperwork, along with the check for her first new payment, she sent them in a single envelope, and Mr. Mnuchin's bank claimed they had never received the paperwork even though they cashed the check that was in the same envelope.

Ultimately, Mr. Mnuchin's bank foreclosed on Cristina, just days after an employee personally had assured her that she could still work out a modification to keep her home. But she lost her home.

We also heard from Heather McCreary, a mother of twin boys from Sparks, NV. Like a lot of families, Heather and her husband Jack were hit hard in the financial crisis. She lost her job as a home health aide, and Jack, who worked construction, got fewer hours and lower wages. Heather and Jack applied to OneWest for a modification. They did everything they were told. But it did not matter to Mr. Mnuchin and his friends at OneWest.

The bank strung them along for years and then, in the blink of an eye, foreclosed so abruptly that it literally put Heather, her husband Jack, and their twin boys out on the street.

All four of these women begged the Senate to reject Mr. Mnuchin's nomination. Heather said:

Putting Steve Mnuchin in charge of the country's financial

system is an insult to families like mine, families who

worked hard and did everything they could to get by after the

economy collapsed. Take it from my experience, I know he will

not be looking out for working people. Instead, he will use

his position to make the economy work better for people like

himself.

No track record of independence from Wall Street, a history of profiting off the financial crisis by squeezing working families to the breaking point--each one of those should be disqualifying to serve as Treasury Secretary. That should be the end of his nomination. We should be done with this. But there is more.

During Mr. Mnuchin's nomination process, he flat-out lied to the Senate. Senator Casey from Pennsylvania asked Mr. Mnuchin a straightforward factual question about foreclosure abuses at OneWest. Mr. Mnuchin claimed they did not happen. That is not even a good lie. Within days, reporters found court documents contradicting Mr. Mnuchin's claim. You know, something like that should not be a partisan issue. A person who lies to Congress should not be the country's top economic official--period, done.

But when Senate Democrats demanded that Mr. Mnuchin come before the Finance Committee again to account for his statement, Republicans on the committee unilaterally changed the rules and rammed Mr. Mnuchin's nomination through without a single Democrat present.

Do Senate Republicans care about Mr. Mnuchin's lies?

The American people should.

If Mr. Mnuchin is willing to lie about something that is so easily disproved by public court documents, what else is he willing to lie about? How can Congress or the American people believe him ever again?

We know Mr. Mnuchin has the full support of Wall Street. The big bank lobbyists, Mr. Mnuchin's hedge fund pals, man, they want to see him confirmed. They are lobbying hard. They know he will help out his old buddies and give them all the financial rule rollbacks and sweetheart deals that they want. What we know is that is usually enough to carry the day around here.

But me? I am going with Colleen and Heather and Sylvia and Cristina. I heard what Mr. Mnuchin and his bank did to them and to thousands more like them in Massachusetts and all across the country. The U.S. Senate should not reward that kind of sleazy, cruel, and sometimes illegal conduct by making him the Secretary of Treasury.

We cannot say to the millions of people who lost their homes, who lost their jobs, who lost their savings during the financial crisis, that a man like Mr. Mnuchin will be entrusted with the keys to our Treasury. We cannot say to the American people that someone who lied to Congress--who lied and didn't even have to come back and explain his lie--can become a senior Cabinet official.

A lot of people believed Donald Trump when he said he would be tough on Wall Street. A lot of people voted for him because of that promise. By hiring half of Goldman Sachs to run the economy, Donald Trump has made clear he has no intention of keeping his promise. And now, with the vote on Mr. Mnuchin, the American public will have the chance to see whether Senate Republicans are serious about keeping Wall Street in line too.

Don't hold your breath, America. I will be voting no on Mr. Mnuchin's nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I want to read some of the stories that we have about Mr. Mnuchin's time at OneWest. You know, you don't have to take this just from me. I may be the one speaking here today, but it is the voices of Colleen and Heather and Sylvia and Cristina and thousands of others whose lives were ruined by Steve Mnuchin's aggressive foreclosure tactics that really deserve to be heard.

I have already told you about Colleen Ison-Hodroff, the 84-year-old woman who is getting cheated out of her home, her home that she lived in for over 50 years and that was fully paid off. She is getting cheated out of that home by Steve Mnuchin's bank.

Now what I would like to do is to share her full story in her own words. This is what she had to say:

My name is Colleen Ison-Hodroff. I am 84 years old. I am a

resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. My husband Monroe Hodroff

and I purchased our home located at 2753 Ewing Avenue in 1963

as a home for our family of six children. They called us the

Brady Bunch of Ewing Avenue. Our house was the heart and soul

of our family. Monroe and I were married for 55 years, and we

successfully ran four small grocery stores. I would like to

thank you all very much for allowing me to share my story.

I am here today because Financial Freedom, my reverse

mortgage servicer, is trying to foreclose on my home. This is

despite the fact that when my husband Monroe and I took out

this loan, they told us that I could

remain in the home if Monroe should die before me.

In July of 2006, my husband and I decided to take out a

reverse mortgage loan with Financial Freedom. It was a very

complicated process. Someone came to our house and I was

asked to sign a number of papers. Usually, Monroe handled the

financial matters for our household. We were told that I

could live in the house if Monroe passed away. It was never

Monroe's or my intention that the survivor of the two of us

would have to sell the house or leave if one of us died. We

would not have signed for the loan if we thought that was the

case.

My husband Monroe passed on September 12, 2014. A mere 10

days later, despite what we had been told, Financial Freedom

contacted me and told me that I needed to pay off the loan

immediately. This was news to me. I was in no financial

position to do so. Since then, Financial Freedom has been

trying to foreclose on me. I think this is an injustice in

that an elderly woman was deceived, and now Financial Freedom

is trying to take my home. Why would Financial Freedom do

this to me? I relied on what I was told, and now they are

trying to kick me out of our family home.

How was I supposed to know if what I was told wasn't true?

What am I supposed to do now?

My understanding is that in such circumstances, Financial

Freedom blames HUD for it kicking out Non-Borrowing Spouses.

Experts who have reviewed my paperwork have told me that this

isn't even a HUD-backed loan, so Financial Freedom has no one

to blame but themselves. It seems Financial Freedom should be

working to keep people like me in their homes, and not

fighting to kick us out.

I hear that Steve Mnuchin was a leader of the bank that is

doing this to me and other seniors. I do not think a man like

that should be the Treasury Secretary and in charge of our

economy. We can't let that happen. Thank you again for

allowing me to tell my story on behalf of those who have had

bad dealings with Financial Freedom and OneWest.

Thank you, Colleen. I appreciate you telling your story.

I also talked about Heather McCreary, her husband, and her twin boys, and how her family was left out on the street because of the greed of Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank.

Heather courageously shared her story with us, and here is what she said:

My name is Heather McCreary. My husband Jack, my two kids

Jaden and Clara, and I are from Sparks, Nevada. This is my

story about how my family's American Dream turned into a

nightmare. I'm sharing my story with the hope of explaining

why we cannot let Steve Mnuchin become Secretary of the

Treasury. Putting Steve Mnuchin in charge of the Treasury

Department would mean that a man who profited off the

struggles of families like mine would be one of the most

powerful people in the U.S. economy.

For a while, it was looking like our shot at the American

Dream was going pretty well. In 2006, Jack and I bought our

dream home in Sparks--just a mile away from my parents, and a

short walk to Jaden and Clara's school and to parks the kids

could play in. I was working as a home health care worker and

Jack was working in construction, and together we were

managing just fine.

Then, in 2008, when the economy started to get worse, I was

laid off. The following year in 2009, Jack was laid off too.

Though Jack was able to find another job pretty fast, he had

to take a big pay cut--from about $25 an hour to $8.50 an

hour. Between the cut in Jack's pay and the loss in income I

experienced when going on unemployment insurance benefits

after I got laid off, we were pinched and we were drowning

financially. However, we were determined to keep our dream

home, so Jack and I were tenacious about doing whatever we

could to get help. We sought help from the Hope Now Alliance,

which is an alliance of HUD-approved counselors who provide

free foreclosure help, and from the Washoe County Senior Law

Project. We worked side-by-side with both organizations to do

everything required of us by our mortgage servicer IndyMac,

which later became OneWest.

When we first asked for help, OneWest gave us a short

forbearance and allowed us to make a smaller payment for

several months with the goal of a reduction in our monthly

mortgage payments through the Home Affordable Modification

Program (or HAMP). By applying for the HAMP program, we

thought we were back on the road to keeping our home. We

complied 100 percent with OneWest's requirements for HAMP--we

were incredibly nervous about being able to keep our house,

so we were extremely careful to make sure we did everything

we could to keep the process going forward. Our application

for HAMP was processed and we were approved for a

modification. I sent in the signed paperwork and the first

payment under the modified payment amount.

But then the process started to fall apart.

After a whole 30 days, OneWest returned our personal check

and told us that only certified checks would be accepted, so

they were now voiding the modification offer. We had followed

the instructions to the letter on OneWest's paperwork,

crossing our ``T''s and dotting our ``I''s. But in the end,

this didn't matter--and OneWest's rejection of our HAMP

application put us on the road to foreclosure.

We applied two more times for loan modifications over the

next six months because we were given assurances by people at

OneWest that they would approve our application. We again

complied with every request OneWest made of us, taking care

to send in extra documents whenever OneWest requested them.

But as far as I can tell, OneWest never attempted to process

the loan modification.

The foreclosure went through and we lost our home on

September 10, 2010. The foreclosure left us without a home,

and finding a new rental was extremely difficult because of

our credit. Juggling the demands of raising our twins and

this was so hard--the foreclosure even meant that our kids

had to miss school. Eventually we did find a new place, but

we had to pay an outrageous rent--even though it was not a

good home for us at all. It's hard to explain the shame,

embarrassment, and grief that Jack and I felt.

I've cried a river of tears over this. I really didn't

think we were asking too much: we wanted to hang onto our

home for the sake of our kids, and we did everything we could

to stay in our home. And while I will probably never know

exactly what OneWest did, the outcome of my story proves that

Steve Mnuchin's company had no interest in helping us. They

wanted to foreclose because they were focused on their

profits. Putting Steve Mnuchin in charge of the country's

financial system is an insult to families like mine: families

who worked hard and did everything they could to get by after

the economy collapsed.

Take it from my experience--I know he will not be looking

out for working people. Instead, he will use his position to

make the economy work better for people like himself. On

behalf of my family and others like it, I ask you to please

reject Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary.

Thank you, Heather, for sending in your letter. I appreciate it.

And remember Sylvia? She and her family are facing foreclosure later this month, yet she still came all the way to Washington to stop the Senate from putting Steve Mnuchin in a position to harm millions of others.

Sylvia told us her story, and this is what she said:

My name is Sylvia Oliver, I am a homeowner from Scotch

Plains, New Jersey. I got my mortgage from IndyMac in May

2008, and about a month later, IndyMac failed. I want to

share my story because it is more than a house--it is a home

for me, my husband, and my three children and my

grandchildren.

In early 2009, my husband and I were facing financial

difficulties. Because of the economy being in bad shape, my

husband was between jobs. We reached out to OneWest to

request a modification. We were told that we had to make

three payments in order to move forward on a permanent

modification, and so we made those three payments. After

making those payments, I reached back out to OneWest to find

out what the next steps were. But I couldn't get a straight

answer from them, so we continued making partial payments,

even though it was a challenge for us financially.

In February 2010, I submitted a modification application to

OneWest Bank. About six weeks later I received a Notice of

Intent to Foreclose. However, the person I had been talking

to at OneWest, a man named Albert, told me not to worry, and

encouraged me to continue submitting updated documents to the

bank. So, for the next year, I would submit new documents to

the bank, through FedEx and through faxes. And, every week, I

would call Albert and ask if he had an update on my

situation, and every week I was told there was no answer and

to call back the next week.

After a year of my weekly phone calls, I finally a received

a denial letter from OneWest in February 2011, when they said

they couldn't modify my loan.

Albert at OneWest told me I could reapply for a

modification, which I did, because I really wanted to keep

our home.

For the next several months, the cycle would repeat with

the bank telling me to reapply for a modification, me

believing that they were sincere, and then a few months later

being told that we had been declined again. This was

surprising, because during this time we were back on our feet

and our incomes were both increasing, which meant we were in

a better position to pay for our mortgage.

At the end of 2015, I received another notice of

foreclosure from the bank. At this point it became clear to

me that OneWest never had any intention of modifying the loan

in such a way that they would still get paid back and we

would be able to keep our home.

In March of 2016, I hired a lawyer because I thought they

might have more success in working with the bank than I did.

At my attorney's advice, I filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy as

part of another modification application. That process went

on for about five or six months, with the same cycle of me

sending paperwork over and over to the bank, and the same

answer again.

Last year I was facing foreclosure three weeks before

Christmas. However, that was then postponed until this month.

In fact, I was supposed to be foreclosed on by OneWest

today--

That is the day she came to Washington--

however, after Senator Menendez's office called OneWest, I

learned that my sale had been postponed at least until next

month.

Earlier this month, I sought help from a HUD approved

housing counselor. She worked with me and my husband to

document our income and to submit a modification application.

After analyzing the situation, she was surprised to hear that

we had not qualified for a modification earlier, especially

since my husband and I both had good incomes.

As of right now, I am still facing foreclosure next month--

That would be February--

and I know in my heart this is because OneWest's only intent

was to foreclose on my home.

This bank has had ample opportunities to modify my loan. In

fact, they told me that they own the loan, so I know they

can't blame the situation on an investor not allowing them to

modify my loan. Nobody should have to go through the

experience that I have gone through during the past several

years with OneWest Bank. It has been very painful and

stressful not knowing if my kids and my family were going to

have a home to live in or if it is going to be foreclosed on.

I would ask you to remember my experience when you consider

whether Mr. Mnuchin is qualified to lead the Department of

the Treasury. As the CEO and Chair of OneWest Bank, Mr.

Mnuchin had the opportunity to help families like mine with

responsible loan modification, and he didn't. I don't think

this is a track record that anybody should be proud of.

Thank you, Sylvia for telling your story.

Then there is Cristina, a small business owner who owned her own home at the age of 20. I already told you about how Steve Mnuchin's bank ran her in circles until they could foreclose on her house. But now I want you to hear the full story from Cristina. Here is what she said:

Good afternoon. My name is Cristina Clifford. I'm hoping

that by sharing my story today I can explain why I believe

confirming Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary would be a

serious mistake for our country. I experienced firsthand what

it was like to be subject to OneWest's greed, and I can tell

you that the person who ran OneWest Bank should not be the

person responsible for oversight of the U.S. economy.

In 2001, when I was 20, I bought my first home--a great

condo in Whittier, California, just outside Los Angeles. I

was young, but I've always been a motivated self-starter. I'm

also a self-employed, small business owner--my primary source

of income. Things were going just fine, and I was never, ever

late on my mortgage payments.

However, that changed in 2008--like it did for so many of

us--when the economy took a turn for the worse. My business

struggled, and I started relying on credit cards to stay

afloat. In March of 2009, I was unable to make my mortgage

payment for the first time in eight years as a homeowner. I

called OneWest directly to see what options I would have for

keeping my home. They told me flat out that because I had

never been delinquent, they had no way of helping me.

In order to get help, they said, I would have to fall

behind on my payments. Of course this was misleading--and,

I've since found out, a common tactic that mortgage lenders

use to push people into default.

From there, I began the long, long process of loan

modification through the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (or

HAMP). I sent in numerous documents to OneWest, and in May, I

was offered my first loan modification. I was thrilled--the

new payments would fit perfectly in my budget, so I signed

the loan modification papers and sent them via FedEx along

with a check for my first payment under the new, modified

payment amount. In July, I expected OneWest to send me a

statement with the new lower payment amount. Instead, I

received a letter saying that they had not received my loan

modification paperwork, so the modification terms were no

longer valid. I called them and OneWest confirmed that they

had not received my returned loan modification agreement.

I knew right away this wasn't right, because they had

cashed the check for the first modified payment in the same

FedEx envelope. That they managed to cash the check but

completely neglect the loan modification agreement--again, in

the same envelope--is absolutely outrageous.

I had no choice but to apply again, this time submitting

even more documents; I was told to submit and resubmit many

duplicative documents in many different formats. Despite how

difficult OneWest made the process, I did everything they

asked because I was determined to keep my home. On August 3,

2009, I received a notice of default from OneWest but

proceeded with my second attempt at modifying my loan. I

received my second loan modification offer later that month.

The terms were almost identical to the offer they made me in

May, so I quickly signed the offer and mailed it in with

another check.

In October, I got a letter exactly like the one I received

earlier saying that they had not received the loan

modification paperwork and that the modification offer was no

longer valid. Yet as they did the first time, they cashed the

check I sent with the signed offer.

At this point, I felt I had no choice but to get an

attorney, who worked to get my foreclosure postponed while

the loan modification process played out. He spoke with

people at OneWest who told him that they would postpone the

sale of my condo until the loan modification process was

completed.

This simply wasn't true: on the evening of December 3,

2009, I received a knock on my door from a man that

introduced himself as the new owner of my property. And in

March of 2010, I received a final notice telling me that I

had five days to leave my apartment--five days to pack up the

ten years of my life I'd spent in my home.

The reason I am sharing my story is because there are so

many other people out there like me who got left in the dust.

Steve Mnuchin profited from people like me, even when we did

everything we could to keep our homes. You might say that

Steve Mnuchin did not personally authorize OneWest to cheat

me out of my home, but his fortune rose as a direct result of

managing a company that routinely engaged in irresponsible

behavior.

The Treasury Secretary will be tasked with making sure the

economy is working in a way that benefits all of Americans,

not just the top 1 percent. However, Steve Mnuchin is not

that person; he is just the opposite. Please make a statement

for people like me and oppose his confirmation as Treasury

Secretary.

Thank you, Cristina. Thank you for coming to Washington. Thank you for submitting your story.

Now these are just four stories--four experiences--among the thousands more like them, all leading to the same simple but startling conclusion: Under Steve Mnuchin's leadership, OneWest Bank took advantage of homeowners all across the country in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. And why did they do it? They did it to make a quick buck.

But don't just take my word for it. Paulina Gonzalez, the Executive Director for the California Reinvestment Coalition also came to Washington to speak to us. Paulina and her organization have been closely tracking OneWest's destructive practices for years. Here is what Paulina told us:

My name is Paulina Gonzalez. I am the Executive Director of

the California Reinvestment Coalition. Over the past 30

years, CRC has grown to the largest state reinvestment

coalition in the country with a membership of 300

organizations that serve low-income communities and community

of color.

It is critically important that our elected representatives

and the American public hear directly from people who have

lost their homes due to the egregious practices by OneWest

under Mr. Mnuchin's leadership, before deciding on his

nomination to the high and important office of Treasury

Secretary.

I'm going to share some data and information with you in

the next few minutes, but know that the wreckage from OneWest

is not really about numbers, data, and legal briefs. It's

about the tens of thousands of Americans who have suffered

devastating personal and financial losses as a result of

OneWest's abusive foreclosure practices.

Whether it's the story of the Minnesota woman who sought a

loan modification from OneWest and returned to her home in a

blizzard only to find that her locks were changed. Or the 90

year old woman who was nearly kicked out of her home for

mistakenly paying 27 cents less than [the amount] OneWest

said she owed. Or the 80 year old former Christian missionary

who was notified at his home that Financial Freedom was

foreclosing on him because the bank said it had no record of

him living there. The issue is the same: instead of helping

people stay in their homes, Mr. Mnuchin devised a foreclosure

machine that used every trick in the book to profit from

their suffering.

And foreclose he did. CRC and Urban Strategies Council

analyzed data showing that OneWest foreclosed on over 36,000

families in California and 24,000 families nationally. All of

these foreclosures occurred after Mr. Mnuchin purchased

IndyMac Bank. In addition, we suspect that OneWest's reverse

mortgage subsidiary, Financial Freedom, has foreclosed on

more seniors, widows, and widowers, and heirs than any other

company participating in the federal Home Equity Conversion

Mortgage program. A Freedom of Information Act request that

we filed with HUD revealed that Financial Freedom had

foreclosed on over 16,000 seniors, widows, widowers, and

their families, or 39 % of all Home Equity Conversion

Mortgage foreclosures, roughly twice the rate one would

expect given the bank's market share.

I just want to say that one more time. They foreclosed on seniors, on widows, on widowers, and on families at about twice the rate of anyone else doing the same business.

Mr. Mnuchin may defend his record by saying he inherited

these bad loans, that the foreclosures were inevitable, and

that his bank followed the law in dealing with his customers.

We strongly disagree, and it appears we are not alone. In a

CNN story that aired on January 3rd about Mr. Mnuchin and

Financial Freedom, a HUD spokesperson was quoted as saying,

``while HUD doesn't dispute that it has strict rules for

government backed reverse mortgages, OneWest had the ability

to give survivors more time but chose not to.''

Mr. Mnuchin's spokespeople have also praised his

modification record. But, we are not sure there is much to

praise. 2013 data from the Treasury Department shows that

OneWest had among the highest denial rates for the Home

Affordable Modification Program, [HAMP,] the federal

government's main foreclosure prevention effort. Under Mr.

Mnuchin, OneWest denied three-quarters of the thousands of

loan modification requests that came in from families

trying to save their homes. OneWest was much more likely

to deny loan modifications under this program than peers,

such as Bank of America or Wells Fargo.

A January 2013 memo from the California Attorney General's

office revealed a staff investigation finding of ``widespread

misconduct'' at the bank, including backdating thousands of

foreclosure documents, improper foreclosure auction credit

bidding which meant the bank could claim tax exemptions it

wasn't entitled to, proceeding with foreclosures without the

proper authority to do so, and speeding up foreclosure

timelines. All of these practices deprived working families

in California a fair chance to stay in their homes.

The Treasury Secretary leads our economy. The Secretary

helps oversee our banking system and will have much to say

about important policies relating to banking, housing, and

economic development that will impact all Americans. The

country needs a Treasury Secretary who will consider the

needs of all Americans, including working class Americans.

Mr. Mnuchin's tenure at OneWest Bank shows him to work in his

interest and in the corporate interest, at the great expense

and harm to everyday Americans.

Thank you, Paulina. I appreciate your sending in this information, and I agree.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mnuchin's history of oppressive foreclosure practices isn't the only thing that disqualifies him from serving as Secretary of the Treasury. I already told you that Mr. Mnuchin flat-out lied to the Senate when he told my colleague, Senator Casey, that his bank didn't engage in certain foreclosure practices. I wish to share an article from the Columbus Dispatch uncovering the exact practices Mr. Mnuchin told the Senate that his bank never engaged in. The article says: ``President Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. treasury secretary was untruthful with the Senate during the confirmation process, documents uncovered by The Dispatch show.''

Steve Mnuchin, former chairman and chief executive officer

of OneWest Bank, known for its aggressive foreclosure

practices, flatly denied in testimony before the Senate

Finance Committee that OneWest used ``robo-signing'' on

mortgage documents.

But records show the bank utilized the questionable

practice in Ohio.

``This guy is just lying. There's no other way to say it,''

said Bill Faith, executive director of the Coalition on

Homelessness and Housing in Ohio.

The revelation comes with the committee's vote on whether

to confirm Mnuchin's nomination, currently scheduled for

Monday night.

``Robo-signing'' is the informal term for when a mortgage

company employee signs hundreds of foreclosures, swearing

they have scrutinized the document as required by law when in

fact they have not.

``OneWest Bank did not `robo-sign' documents,'' Mnuchin

wrote in response to questions from individual Senators,

``and as the only bank to successfully complete the

Independent Foreclosure Review required by federal banking

regulators to investigate allegations of `robo-signing,' I am

proud of our institution's extremely low error rate.''

I just want to read that one more time. Steve Mnuchin said: ``OneWest Bank did not `robo-sign' documents.'' And he is proud of what he did.

But a Dispatch analysis of nearly four dozen foreclosure cases filed by OneWest in Franklin County in 2010 alone shows that the company frequently used robo-signers. The vast majority of the Columbus-area cases were signed by 11 different people in Travis County, Texas. Those employees called themselves vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, managers and assistant secretaries. In three local cases, a judge dismissed OneWest foreclosure proceedings specifically based on inaccurate robo-signings.

The Dispatch found more than 1,900 OneWest foreclosures in

the state's six largest counties from 2009 to 2015.

Carla Duncan, a social worker from Cleveland Heights, was

snared by OneWest's robo-signing machinery.

On her way out of town for a short trip in 2010, Duncan

stopped by her home to get her mail and found a note from a

field inspector for her mortgage company, saying that her

house was vacant and was going to be boarded up.

``It wasn't vacant, I was living there,'' Duncan said.

``There were curtains on the windows. The radio was playing

and the dog was there.''

What Duncan didn't know at the time was that OneWest had

begun foreclosure proceedings on her three-bedroom home even

though she was up-to-date on her payments. OneWest refused to

accept a loan modification approved by a previous lender that

had been purchased by OneWest, and it wanted to substantially

increase Duncan's interest rate and monthly payment and add

late fees. The company also put a lock box on a separate

rental property she owned in Cleveland.

After hiring former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, waging

a five-year court battle and filing personal bankruptcy,

Duncan was finally able to get the foreclosures dismissed and

keep her home and rental property. She said the experience

was devastating.

``It got to the point that I was afraid to open my own

door.''

Court records show that Duncan's mortgage was robo-signed

by Erica Johnson-Seck, vice president of OneWest's department

of bankruptcy and foreclosures. From her office in Austin,

Texas, Johnson-Seck robo-signed an average of 750 foreclosure

documents a week, according to a sworn deposition she gave in

a Florida case in July 2009.

Under oath, Johnson-Seck acknowledged that she did not read

the documents she was signing, taking only about 30 seconds

to sign her name. To speed up the process, Johnson-Seck said

she shortened her first name in her signature to just ``E.''

In the deposition that OneWest's practice was to review just

10 percent of the foreclosure documents for accuracy.

Dann, who now specializes in representing clients who have

problems with banks and other lenders after he was forced to

resign as attorney general nearly 10 years ago, said

Mnuchin's businesses were a ``major offender'' in problem

mortgages. Dann said Mnuchin's firms were known for dual

tracking [which means](pursuing foreclosure simultaneously as

they allegedly worked with homeowners), fabricating documents

and other tactics ``that caused unbelievable devastation in

people's lives.''

In 2010, federal laws were changed, enabling borrowers

victimized by lenders to sue them. Dann said he worries that

Mnuchin, as treasury secretary, would quietly work to repeal

reforms collectively known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street

Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

That appears to be the case.

``It has been over six years since the passage of Dodd-

Frank and it seems like an appropriate time to review all of

the regulations from Dodd-Frank to understand their impact on

the market, investors, small businesses and economic

growth,'' Mnuchin said in a written answer to the Senate.

The Dispatch analysis showed thousands of Ohio homeowners--

including 245 in Franklin County--found themselves in

OneWest's crosshairs when they defaulted on their loans, the

majority of them with high interest rates. Many mortgages had

terms that housing and financial experts view as predatory:

prepayment penalties, interest-only loans and no-money-down

loans.

Mnuchin was labeled by critics at the time as the

``Foreclosure King.''

That is it--the ``Foreclosure King.'' That is who is just hours away from becoming the chief financial officer of our country.

Steve Mnuchin is a Wall Street insider who has spent his career looking out for himself and his billionaire buddies. He led a bank that forced thousands of hardworking Americans out of their homes, and he lied to the Senate.

The Constitution demands that Senators advise and consent on the President's nominations. Well, here is my advice: Steve Mnuchin is not fit to be Secretary of Treasury.

He will not look out for the millions of Americans still recovering from the recession, like Heather and Cristina. He certainly will not defend the interests of middle-class families like the McCrearys and the Olivers. And I know he will not stand up to Wall Street and fight to protect the interests of all Americans.

I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Mnuchin's nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Tom Price to be the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The decisions made at HHS touch the lives of every family in America. The Secretary who runs this agency makes decisions about everything from safety of the food we eat to the drugs we take, to the health insurance we buy and the quality of nursing homes we live in. This is an extremely important job, and we should not hand over the keys to this agency unless we are certain that the person will put the American people first every minute of every day.

President Trump has nominated Congressman Tom Price to serve in this job. Unlike many of the President's other nominees who are stunningly inexperienced in areas where they will be setting policy, Congressman Price has a lot of experience in health care policy. Yes, he has experience, but it is the kind of experience that should horrify us if we care about Medicare, if we care about Medicaid, or if we care about our own insurance coverage.

Congressman Price's record is perfectly clear. He wants to destroy fundamental protections that millions of Americans depend on for their health and economic security, and, frankly, he isn't very subtle about it. He has described ACA's ban on discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions as ``a terrible idea.'' He has voted 10 times to defund Planned Parenthood--voted 10 times against a group that provides lifesaving cancer and sexually transmitted infection screenings to millions of patients a year. He has tried to privatize Medicare and raise the age of eligibility. Privatize Medicare; think about that. And he has been one of the chief boosters in Congress for gutting the Medicaid program--the Medicaid program, which provides health care for millions of kids, for people with disabilities, for families with parents in nursing homes--cut money to keep people in nursing homes.

Nonpartisan analyses of these plans are not pretty. Millions of people in this country, young and old, children and grandparents, poor and middle-class workers would be denied access to lifesaving care.

Congressman Price touts his own magic numbers that say differently, but make no mistake, this is the record of someone who wants to use his position at HHS to advance a radical, reckless agenda that puts rightwing, anti-government ideology ahead of the health and safety of the American people.

During his hearing before the HELP Committee, I asked Congressman Price some pretty simple questions. I asked him about more than $1 trillion in cuts that he has proposed to Medicare and Medicaid. I asked him if he would keep or undermine President Trump's campaign claim that he would protect these programs. I asked him to guarantee that not one dollar in cuts to Medicare would take place on his watch. I asked him to guarantee that not one dollar in cuts for Medicaid to help people living in nursing homes would happen on his watch. I asked him to guarantee that not one dollar in cuts for people with disabilities would happen on his watch.

I asked him three separate times to make this commitment, and three separate times he refused to do so. Think about that--cut Medicare for millions of seniors, cut help for people with disabilities, cut Medicaid for people living in nursing homes. This is the person Donald Trump wants to put in charge of those programs.

We have a lot of work we need to do on health care. We need to reduce the cost of insurance. We need to make sure insurance is available to small business owners, gig workers, and part-time workers. We need to make sure insurance continues to cover health care for women and people with preexisting conditions who otherwise are not going to be able to get insurance. What we don't need is to put someone in charge who is hell-bent on destroying health care in America.

For me, this is easy. When someone says he wants to cut Medicare, I am done with him. When someone says let's take away the money that people rely on to pay for nursing homes, this guy is finished. When someone says that protecting people with preexisting conditions is a bad idea, they don't get the job. This should be easy for everyone in Congress. This is a moment for Senator Republicans to step up and say no.

There is another reason to reject Congressman Price's nomination, a reason that has nothing to do with his terrible ideas, a reason that would disqualify him even if we agreed on every single issue. The reason is basic ethics.

During his time in Congress, Mr. Price has made money by trading hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of stock in healthcare-related companies at exactly the same time that he pushed legislation that could affect the value of these stocks. His formula has been pretty simple. First he buys the stock, then he pushes bills to help the company, which helps the stock price go up.

For example, Congressman Price bought stock in a company that makes hip and knee replacements, and then he introduced a bill to suspend a Federal rule affecting Medicare reimbursements for hip and knee replacements. Congressman Price bought stock in a bunch of pharmaceutical companies, then cosponsored a bill to suspend a Federal rule that would hold down drug prices for the drugs that these companies manufacture. Congressman Price bought stock in an Australian biotech company with an experimental drug to treat multiple sclerosis, and then he voted for a bill that would make it easier for the FDA to approve these drugs.

So what does Congressman Price have to say for himself? How does he explain this connection between buying stock, then supporting changes in the law that would boost the value of the stock he just bought? Well, he has his excuses lined up, and I have to say they are doozies.

He says he didn't know about the trades; his broker made them without asking him first. Oh, wait. He did know about the trades. He just happened to know about an obscure Australian biotech firm, and he just happened to decide to invest as much as $100,000 in it because it was a good investment. Then he hit his last excuse: It is all OK because he paid the same price as anyone else who bought the stock.

Wow, that is really a heaping, steaming pile of excuses, and the excuses stink. These are Congressman Price's stock trades, not anyone else's. He made those decisions to buy those stocks, and then he repeatedly pressed for rules that would increase the value of those stocks. In fact, with one of the deals, it isn't just a question of stinkiness; it is a question about whether he broke the law.

By his own account, Congressman Price found out about an Australian biotech company called Innate Immunotherapeutics from a fellow House Member who, it just so happens, sits on the company's board and holds the largest stake in the company. So when he decided to buy his latest batch of stock, Congressman Price got access to a private sweetheart deal, meaning he got a discount on the price of the shares the general public couldn't get.

This sequence of events might break the law. That is not good at all. And getting special access to a sweetheart deal doesn't help your claim that you are just an ordinary guy with a boring stock portfolio. So when Congressman Price appeared before the Finance and HELP Committees, he said he had not paid a lower price than had been available to other investors. That is just not true. The company itself pointed it out. In fact, Congressman Price got a

special discount that went to only 20 people in the country--20 special friends, including the Congressman who could help write the laws that would make the company even more valuable.

An outside watchdog has called for an SEC investigation into whether Congressman Price committed insider trading. Price lied to Congress about his trades, and that should be the end of it. No more nomination for Secretary of HHS. The Congressman should have the decency to withdraw his nomination. It should have happened weeks ago. And if he didn't go voluntarily, the President and his friends in Congress should have quietly but forcefully pushed him out, but that is not what happened either. Instead, Republicans barreled straight ahead, and they changed the rules to do it.

Since Congressman Price lied to the committee, Democrats wanted him back for another hearing to ask him about it. Republicans refused, and Democrats boycotted the Finance Committee to try to force Price to explain why he lied. So the Republican response was to just suspend the Senate rules so they can run around the Democrats and move forward Price's nomination anyway.

Do we do not care about basic ethics anymore? Is that just gone? A Congressman should not be buying stocks then pushing laws to help the company, and that Congressman sure shouldn't be lying to the United States Senate about it.

Because Congressman Price has no shame, it will take three Senate Republicans to reject his nomination. Where are the three Republicans who will say no to a man who bought stock and then tried to get the rules changed in Washington so the companies would be more profitable? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who got a special stock deal that went to only 20 people in the whole country? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who lied to a Senate committee? This has nothing to do with politics. It is about basic ethics. It is about potentially illegal behavior. Where are three Republicans who will say no to this man?

When Donald Trump selected Congressman Price for this job, he said Price was part of a ``dream team that will transform our healthcare system for the benefit of all Americans.'' Over the past few weeks, I have been trying to understand exactly what that dream looks like.

For families all over this country, the dream is pretty simple. They want to know that when they get sick, they can go to the doctor and not be hit with a surprise bill they can't pay. When they buy insurance, they want to be sure it covers birth control or cancer screenings and preexisting conditions. They want to be able to fight cancer and not lose their house or declare bankruptcy because their insurance company imposes a lifetime limit on benefits.

President Trump does not share this dream for health care in America, and neither does Congressman Price. From his first day in office, President Trump has acted to undermine access to health care. Now he has nominated an HHS Secretary who will help him sabotage our Nation's health care system from inside the Department of Health and Human Services.

Yes, we have our differences over health care, and, yes, there are fixes we need to make, but where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who wants to cut Medicare? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who wants to cut nursing home care? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who wants to cut insurance coverage? Democrats can't do this alone. Three Republicans need to put aside partisanship and stand up for the American people. We need you. The American people need you.

With my remaining time, I want to share some of the letters I have been getting from families in Massachusetts who have seen the reckless, radical plans that President Trump, Congressman Price, and Republicans in Congress have put forth for the Nation's health care system. These families know exactly what is at stake in this debate. Congressman Price didn't have an answer when I asked him to protect Medicare and Medicaid, but these letters are from constituents and they show just how important these programs are.

Lee from Holliston wrote to me, concerned about cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. I am just going to read an excerpt from his letter:

I am a 65 year old disabled woman who depends on the

generosity of MassHealth and Medicare to survive. I am

terrified that Medicare and Medicaid will be so drastically

cut that I will no longer be able to maintain my life. I live

in HUD housing, receive Medicare and MassHealth which covers

all of my healthcare and allows me to continue to live on my

own through senior services and the Personal Care Attendant

program.

I guess I am just feeling scared and hopeless as I realize

the potential for destroying the lives of seniors who live on

Social Security and nothing else. I wear an insulin pump,

have type 1 diabetes going on 53 years, and I have multiple

complications--including an amputation 11 years ago.

My healthcare costs are just unaffordable without all the

assistance. Medicare and MassHealth covers everything for me

so that the $1,050 per month I receive is doable for living

expenses.

I just need to know it is going to be OK.

Lee, we need three Republicans to help out here. Congressman Price has made it clear that he wants more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and that affects you. We have to find three Republicans to help out and to help stand up for you and the rest of America.

I also heard from Alan from South Shore, who is worried about his daughter Meg. Here is what he wrote:

My daughter Meg is 29. She was born with a condition called

neurofibromatosis. As a result of this, she has benign but

inoperable tumors on her spine. They cause her chronic pain

and problems walking. On some days, she cannot walk even one

step. On other days, she might begin walking with a walker,

then suddenly collapse on the floor.

Meg cannot hold down a job: She spent the last quarter of

2016 in and out of hospitals. She receives about $700/month

from Social Security Disability. She has no savings. She pays

for her Medicare prescription drug Part D supplement out of

her Social Security. MassHealth is free for her, and it pays

for Meg's Medicare Part B. I am retired, so I can only help

her a bit.

If Trump's first idea about TrumpCare goes into law--where

he assumes you will buy your health insurance out of

savings--I fear Meg will live in her bed, watching repeats of

quiz shows on her television. And her network of care--

including emergency services, rehab physical therapy, chronic

disease management prescription drugs--will be reduced.

I understand why you are worried, Alan. I am worried, too, because I think that is exactly the path we are on with Congressman Price's nomination to head up HHS. That is why we are fighting back.

Boston Center for Independent Living also shared with me a story from a constituent named Jill who receives health care from the State's Medicaid Program. Let me tell you a little bit about Jill.

Jill is 62 years old. She has a heart defect, a seizure disorder, and serious osteoporosis. She had a varied career as a manager of a women's clothing company a decade ago, and in the 1980s, she installed some of the first computer networks in public schools. In the past several years, Jill has had significant health problems: surgery for her heart condition and multiple broken bones due to her worsening osteoporosis.

MassHealth, the State's Medicaid Program, has covered hospital bills, appointments with specialists, rehab stays, and an affordable medication plan.

Jill is now hoping to use a personal care assistant to give her support with shopping, making meals, and basic housekeeping.

Jill said: ``For me, Medicaid is a lifeline--any cuts from Washington would be a disaster.''

I hear you on that, Jill. I just hope that Congressman Price, President Trump, and the Republicans hear you as well.

Medicaid helps a lot of people in Massachusetts, including the very youngest. I got a very powerful letter from Marika from Duxbury, who wrote to me about giving birth to her son Jack after just 28 weeks of pregnancy. I want to read parts of her letter:

I'm writing to you today because I am horrified about the

changes that may be happening to healthcare in the United

States.

My husband and I welcomed our son, Jack, at 28 weeks in

July of 2015. I had a very normal, healthy pregnancy--until

suddenly it wasn't. I ended up with rapid onset of HELLP, a

rare and life-threatening syndrome, and an emergency C-

section saved both my life and Jack's.

Jack was 1 pound, 14 ounces when he was born. We were both

in the ICU for some time,

my son Jack for 110 days. He had all the issues you'd imagine

at 28 weeks--cardiac, pulmonary, feeding.

Today, at 18 months old, Jack is a fighter--my hero

really--and despite still needing oxygen and a continuous

feeding tube that is surgically inserted into his intestines,

he is cruising, talking, and ALIVE.

He is alive, and quite frankly, I'm alive because of our

amazing healthcare. I have the benefit of an exceptional

employer plan from Harvard University. But Jack also

qualified (because of his birth weight) for MassHealth. And

our public health insurance has been an incredible resource:

Jack's hospital bills were in the millions after his 110

day stay in the NICU. This doesn't even include my own

hospital costs for my stay. Despite having excellent jobs and

resources, my husband and I would have been bankrupt, and

immediately so, without our private health insurance and

MassHealth benefits.

Since coming home from the NICU, Jack is still on a feeding

tube and oxygen, and he cannot be accepted into regular

daycare. He would go to a medical day care, but he has no

cognitive delays, and so placing him in such a facility would

not ensure that he gets the regular developmentally

appropriate engagement that he needs. And so MassHealth pays

for skilled nursing care in our home with no out of pocket

costs. This means that Jack gets the care that he needs, and

my husband and I can still work at the jobs that we love.

Jack participates in early intervention programs and

receives feeding therapy, physical therapy and occupational

therapy free of charge.

Jack's Synagis shots cost zero dollars. Synagis is a

prescription medication that is used to prevent a serious

lung disease caused by respiratory syncytial virus, RSV, in

children at high risk for severe lung disease from RSV. The

average wholesale price is $780.15 for the 50 milligram

Synagis vial, and $1,416.48 for the 100 milligram vial. Jack

gets a 150 milliliter shot every month.

I cannot imagine this life without my son's public health

insurance. I recently enjoyed the NICU Family Advisory Board

at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Hospital in Boston (where

Jack and I were cared for) as a way to give back. Today, I

mentor other families who have unexpectedly found themselves

the parent to a tiny premature baby fighting for life. In

nearly every case, navigating the insurance system and fears

about money are top of mind.

I am glad to hear that Jack is doing well, but I understand why it is that you want to hang on to MassHealth and why it is that we cannot take the cuts Congressman Price has proposed.

Families in Massachusetts are also deeply worried about the future of the Affordable Care Act. Jackie from Norwood wrote to me about how the ACA helped her get coverage for therapy after her mother was killed. She wrote:

My mother was murdered when I was 24. I was on her

healthcare, which kicked me off the day after she died. I had

recently accepted a new job and I was set to start that

Monday (she was killed on Saturday). I had already left my

previous full-time job the Friday before.

Due to having to move states after her death, I couldn't

start my new job. I didn't know when I'd have work again that

could provide insurance, nor did I have another parent whose

plan I could join. I also had no way of affording COBRA

payments.

So in the matter of one night, I was left helpless in so

many ways. Not having health insurance was one of many side

effect issues that no homicide victim's family should have to

worry about. Especially the next day and when planning a

funeral.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I was able to get

covered almost immediately, which meant I could still afford

my current medications and I was able to get into needed

therapy right away. If it weren't for the ACA, I would have

been left struggling and sick as a result of something FAR

out of my control.

Very true, Jackie.

Jackie goes on to say:

I ended up finding work within a couple of months, and I am

still in treatment for PTSD. I was lucky enough to find

employment at Harvard University and no longer needed

coverage through the ACA. I have generous health benefits

provided to me. However, I never want a fellow citizen or

victim of homicide to be without medical care due to cost,

preexisting conditions, or other setbacks. I am happy my tax

dollars go to help programs like MassHealth and the ACA. We

all work hard, but that doesn't mean we are all as fortunate.

I am not the typical poster child for a homicide victim/

survivor. I am white and college educated. I work for an Ivy

League school. I still needed help when disaster struck, and

so many others less privileged than me need help finding

affordable health care.

Please continue fighting for me and other victims and

survivors of homicide.

That is what we are here for, Jackie. That is what we are supposed to do. We just need three Republicans to help us out on this.

I also heard from Jennifer from Northampton, who is terrified for her family if the ACA is repealed. She says:

I suppose I can't say when our story starts. Maybe the day

I met my then-life partner (now wife) of 16 years. Maybe it

begins when she had to have emergency surgery in Maryland

when she wasn't covered under my insurance, because our union

wasn't legally recognized. Maybe it begins with the tens of

thousands of dollars of debt we incurred in uncovered medical

expenses when we tried to get pregnant with our son.

Or maybe it started two days ago when the unthinkable

happened. My wife got laid off. After seven years of

exemplary services to a large human services agency whose

mission is supporting individuals and families affected by

homelessness, my wife was given no warning, no severance and

no compassion in her sudden dismissal from the agency. For

any family this would be devastating. Now we come to the dire

part.

About a year ago, my younger sister, Stephanie, was

diagnosed with an aggressive form of Triple Negative Breast

Cancer at 35 years of age. But this story isn't about that.

Six months later, my mother got diagnosed with Stage 4

Metastatic Breast Cancer.

I didn't have to be an over-educated lesbian to know that

there was something genetic going on in my family. I got

tested for the BRCA gene and was found positive for the

mutation that causes breast cancer, specifically Triple

Negative (like my sister had) and am currently looking at an

80% chance of developing Breast Cancer in my lifetime.

I need a double mastectomy and I need it soon. It's

scheduled, in fact, for March 6th, 2017. And now, my wife

doesn't have a job. I am a Behavior Analyst who specializes

in the treatment of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. I

have a small private practice and don't make enough money to

support our household. I also don't have access to health

insurance through any of my contracts.

That is why it's dire.

One laid-off spouse, one four year old son, one self-

employed wife with an 80% chance of developing breast cancer

and fear of the ACA being repealed. This is dire.

We are terrified, I am terrified.

This isn't a ``wait and see'' situation for my family. This

is us. This is now. And this is real.

Yes, Jennifer, and that is why we are here tonight, in the U.S. Senate, to debate whether or not Congressman Price--a man who wants to cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act--is going to be the next head of Health and Human Services. That is why we are fighting. That is why we are looking for three Republicans to step up with the Democrats and turn him down. We must protect the Affordable Care Act.

I also got a letter from Olivia, a college student from North Reading. Olivia wrote me about what the ACA means to her as someone living with multiple chronic illnesses. She wrote:

I am a twenty-two year old white woman from a middle-class

suburb of Boston. I attend the University of Massachusetts

Amherst and will be applying to graduate school next year. I

eat an anti-inflammatory diet, I exercise regularly, do not

smoke, and drink lots of water. I am on my parents'

insurance, which they receive through their employer. I am a

patient at some of the best hospitals in the world.

I am so fortunate to live in a state that protects my right

to affordable health care. I was also hopeful when I heard

that President Trump was considering modifying ObamaCare

rather than repealing it. However, I am still worried about

the actions that will be taken in 2017 by his administration

and by Congress.

If you met me you would see a ``young, vibrant, and

ambitious woman''--other people's words, not mine. Many

people and politicians in this country would meet me and not

assume that I rely on the ACA. I am not from a low-income

family, I don't live in an area that doesn't have adequate

medical facilities, and I appear well. I am, however, living

with multiple chronic illnesses. I suffer from asthma,

fibromyalgia, chronic urticaria, chronic migraines,

irritable bowel system, gastro-esophageal reflux disease,

and a rare-genetic kidney disorder.

I take multiple medications daily that keep me alive,

prevent further health complications, and that allow me to

take care of myself. I also seek other therapies to manage my

conditions, such as chiropractic care and physical therapy. I

currently have great health insurance, yet I still pay

hundreds of dollars a month just to give myself any quality

of life.

I read the Trump/Pence administration's health care plan

and I am aware of the efforts by the GOP to repeal Obamacare

and their readiness to do so now that President Trump has

taken office. I don't believe I have to explain to you why

this worries me.

No, you don't.

I won't go on a rant about why health care reform should be

about the people not the money (though I could). I will also

not talk about why we should have universal health care

(though I could). I am hoping that my story offers a slightly

different perspective on why certain aspects of the ACA

cannot be modified.

Please remind your fellow senators that millions of

Americans suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, many of

which are invisible, and that we are a minority that is often

forgotten. Many people are just like me. We are college

students and new graduates who have to learn to manage our

medical conditions before going out into the real world.

To do this, we may have to stay on our parents' insurance

until we are twenty-six years old. We are people who can only

work part-time jobs and will need insurance to help keep our

medical costs down. We may require expensive prescriptions

and numerous doctor visits a year; we cannot have a cap on

our care because our conditions are chronic and

unpredictable. We are people who will have to apply for

insurance with pre-existing conditions which should not be

held against us. We are thankful for preventative care

because it prevents illnesses that would exacerbate our other

conditions.

Health care is a business that we need but that we didn't

ask to be a part of. It is a business we all take part in,

whether we plan to or not. We are NOT burned-down houses--we

are citizens who provide meaningful contributions to our

country.

I hope that Congress can work together to continue to give

people like me a fighting chance.

I am with you on that. I hope Congress can work together to give people like you a fighting chance.

I also got a letter from Christine in Canton, who wrote to me about her son. She writes:

My oldest child is a 21-year-old college student (soon to

turn 22 in February), who is also transgender. He suffers

from anxiety and depression. He's been working very hard to

complete college while also seeking treatment for his mental

health issues. He sees a therapist weekly and has also been

hospitalized twice for mental health issues since he's been

in college.

Luckily, due to the Affordable Care Act, he is able to

remain on our insurance, where the co-payments for both

therapy and hospitalization are at least manageable. If he

were not to have coverage through our insurance, I'm not sure

that we could afford to pay for his treatment--and as a

college student, he certainly could not afford to pay for it.

It frightens me to think of what will happen to him if he is

not able to receive treatment to keep him healthy.

Like so many others covered by the Affordable Care Act, it

is a life or death situation. I need to know that you will

fight by any means possible to keep the Affordable Care Act

from getting repealed.

I also have a 19-year old college freshman and a 17-year

old high school senior. While they do not have the same

health issues as their brother, we all know how that can

change in an instant. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act

will also have consequences for them down the line.

I guarantee, Christine, I will be here to fight for you, to fight for keeping the Affordable Care Act for you and for families like yours.

Denise from southeastern Massachusetts wrote to me about how her family is fighting cancer. Here is what she said:

We are family of four, with three cancer survivors. My

husband is a childhood cancer survivor who is now fighting a

blood disorder and is a patient at Dana Farber. I am a three-

time cancer survivor. Having been diagnosed with breast

cancer at age 42 (with no family history), I have since had

two recurrences.

I have had radiation, five years of tamoxifen therapy, a

bilateral mastectomy, and reconstruction. My reconstruction

has been difficult, with five surgeries within 18 months. I

have been postponing another surgery due to cost, since my

insurance has changed for the worse. At age 23, my daughter

was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and underwent surgery

and seven months of chemotherapy.

We are a family that has always been proactive and

responsible in receiving regular health care. Now, my husband

and I have been rejected for long-term care. My daughter, who

has two children, pays a higher premium for life insurance

and has been denied cancer insurance. We are in a position

where we cannot even succeed in our attempts to take

responsibility for ourselves.

This outreach to you is a further attempt to do just that;

to maybe give you one more example of reality in your fight

for us. We are not whining; we are fortunate to be a close,

loving family that has had the strength to rally every time

adversity has struck.

But we are tired from the fight and very afraid for the

future. It is shocking to us that, in the richest country in

the world, after years of working, planning and saving, that

we are at the point of fearing a possible bankruptcy in our

later years. We also fear financial destruction for our hard-

working children due to uncovered medical expenses or the

possible exorbitant premiums of a high-risk insurance pool.

Please, please never tire in the fight for access to

comprehensive affordable healthcare. Good medical care should

not be a privilege for the rich, but a fundamental right for

all.

Boy, I am with you on that one, Denise. It is a fundamental right for all, and that is what we will continue to fight for.

I also received a letter from Jenny in Worthington. And I want to read you Jenny's entire letter because she really underlines what is at stake in this fight.

My husband and I have spent our entire careers in the arts.

I write music for the theater; my husband is a novelist,

playwright, and freelance medical writer. We have two

children. We own a home. We paid back every dime on our

student loans and we contribute regularly to our self-funded

retirement accounts. We have no consumer debt. In short, we

are hardworking, fiscally responsible people.

We recognize the trade-offs that come with being our own

bosses. We enjoy the freedoms of self-employment, and take

seriously the extra burden that society imposes on us,

including making our own Social Security payments,

contributing to Medicare, and buying health care on the

individual market, something we have done our entire adult

lives.

When the Affordable Care Act was passed, we were thrilled.

For the first time, we had adequate coverage for our family.

Our deductibles shrank. We lost the dreaded co-insurance

provision and began to think that we could prepare

financially should we face the worst.

Or so we believed.

Our difficulties began in late 2014, when I was diagnosed

with breast cancer. Over the weeks that followed, I endured 5

surgeries, including a unilateral mastectomy and

reconstruction. Almost immediately after, I began to

experience complications. Since then, I've come to learn that

I was having a reaction to the silicone implant used in my

reconstruction and that was just the early stage of a complex

autoimmune condition that still lacks a name.

Back then, all I knew was that I was wracked with constant,

severe pain. I lost the ability to walk. I could no longer

think straight and I lost sight in my right eye. Luckily, we

stumbled upon an article by a Dutch team that had examined a

cohort of women suffering from the same condition. After

consulting with the lead author of the paper, we decided that

my implant was to blame, and we determined to have it

removed.

Although I experienced some relief immediately after ex-

plantation, I have never fully recovered. The joint pain and

exhaustion persist. I have shed more than a third of my body

weight. The battery of medications I take do little more than

keep my pain at bay, permitting me to drive my son to school

or shop for groceries, but not much more.

As for my artistic life, it has been put on hold. I have

unfinished commissions from two theaters--Chicago Shakespeare

Theater and Playwrights Horizons, in New York City--and both

institutions have been incredibly patient. Yet the truth is

that I have been unable to work for more than two years.

Severe cognitive impairment is a hallmark of my condition,

and I have serious problems with my short-term memory.

Holding the thread of conversation is incredibly difficult,

and I experience blinding headaches if I write music for more

than a couple of hours. Frequently, it feels as though

someone has reorganized my brain but forgotten to leave me

the instructions. It is frustrating; it's terrifying.

Only one thing has made it possible for me to survive this

at all: the coverage I receive through the ACA.

The day I got my cancer diagnosis, I was in the process of

re-certifying through the Massachusetts Health Connector. I

was thrilled when my local Navigator told me that thanks to

my new diagnosis, I qualify for Massachusetts' Breast and

Cervical Cancer Treatment Program, a Medicaid-backed

initiative designed to cover middle and low-income women

through their treatments. Not only would I be covered, but

our two children would also be insured by MassHealth, our

state's Medicaid program. Though my husband continued to

purchase care through a separate plan, this single event

saved our family from financial ruin.

Now, all of that stands to change. With the repeal of the

life-saving provisions guaranteed by the ACA, we are faced

with the complete erosion of our savings. The Republican

Congress has already voted to eliminate the ban on denying

individuals coverage on the basis of previously existing

conditions, meaning that I will most likely be uninsurable.

What will happen then? Will we go bankrupt? Will we lose our

home? How will I cope without my medications when we can no

longer afford to pay for them?

The passage of the ACA did more to shore up our little

family than any other piece of legislation in my lifetime. It

has enabled me to face my grave illness without worrying

whether cost would be a factor in my treatment or whether I

could try the next medication my doctors prescribed to

relieve my pain.

In sharing our story on social media, I have been

overwhelmed by the outpouring of concern from our tiny

community of theater professionals. The President of the

Dramatists' Guild, a professional association for theatre

artists, called me to offer the assistance of their Emergency

Fund should we need it. And while it is heartwarming to

receive the support of my professional community, the hard

truth is that even the most doggedly determined not-for-

profits can't possibly replace the broad social safety net of

the Federal government--a safety net Republicans are

determined to shred.

In every industrialized country but ours, health care is

considered an inalienable human right. It is abhorrent to

claim that

care is something Americans should have to ``shop for.''

Price-comparison shopping may seem like a wonderful market-

driven design, but in reality it forces us to confront the

terrifying arithmetic of balancing how much care we need

against what we can afford. The sicker one grows, the harder

it becomes to solve that equation.

We have no idea what the Republicans intend by way of a

replacement to the ACA. They refuse to specify, despite their

years of claiming that the ACA is a failure. They talk of

expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), though such

accounts represent nothing but a disingenuous transfer of the

cost to the consumer. Even if such an approach made sense,

how far would $6,750 (the current HSA limit) go in meeting

actual health care costs? That amount would be wiped out

after a single visit to the emergency room.

What's more, where do they expect sick Americans--those

fighting for their lives and unable to work precisely because

of their illnesses--to suddenly uncover $6,750 to sink into a

tax-sheltered HSA?

Clearly, this idea has been put forward by people who do

not depend on their health insurance for their very lives.

They pretend that this sort of thing will save ``our

system,'' but their proposal is like offering a patient an

Advil for an amputation--laughably inadequate at best; an

utter horror at worst.

What's more, efforts like the expansion of Medicaid under

the ACA have already saved us. Or many of us. Certainly me,

in any case. A Republican friend wrote me recently, venting

about the ``third-world'' coverage Medicaid provides. What he

had to say was ignorant and false. Medicaid isn't failing. To

the contrary, it has saved my life and the lives of many

others who have simply had the misfortune of falling ill. And

isn't that, after all, one of the primary functions of

government? To care for its citizens and return them to the

ranks of the healthy and productive?

We have no idea what the year ahead holds for us. It is

likely we will face health premiums of $24,000 or more for a

low-level plan. Our premiums will consume 30% of our income,

more than our mortgage. Despite MassHealth, we shelled out

nearly $15,000 for uncovered medical expenses in 2016, and we

are already on track to surpass that number this year. On top

of everything else, this is the year our daughter starts

college. I'm not the typical Medicaid patient that people

seem so fond of demonizing, nor am I some poster child of the

ACA. I am simply one of the countless individuals whose story

does not fit the narrative the Republicans are attempting to

feed us about the ACA and about what it means to be sick in

America. Medicaid is on the chopping block not because it is

failing, but because the people who benefit from it too often

fail to speak up on their own behalf. Their silence has

nothing do with a lack of will or words. They are simply too

busy struggling to survive.

Medicaid benefits our poorest, yet it also assists those

slightly higher on the income ladder--people like me who

would vastly prefer to be thriving without it. Many more

people than you suspect have turned to it in a time of need.

They aren't merely characters in some musical or play. Trust

me, I know. They are your friends and neighbors. They are

families whose lives have been unended by illness. This is

what happened to my family. And, with a single diagnosis, it

could be your family too.

Thank you. Thank you for writing. This is why we are here to fight.

I also heard from Kaitlyn, from Cambridge, who said the ACA has allowed her to continue pursuing her postdoctoral research. She says:

I am postdoctoral fellow at MIT, and I have a pre-existing

condition. In 2012, during my second year of grad school, I

started having debilitating pain in my abdomen. The pain was

so bad I couldn't eat or sleep, and I lost 30 pounds over two

months. The pain was so bad I couldn't wait the full 3 months

to see a specialist, and I went to the ER and finally got a

diagnosis for an autoimmune disease and began treatment.

However, my condition was so advanced that a little over a

year later I needed an emergency surgery while I was visiting

family out of state. I spent six nights in the hospital and

rang up a bill in excess of $50,000. Luckily, I was 25 and

still on my parent's insurance. Additionally, I was doubly

insured by the student health insurance from the University

of California, for which I was automatically enrolled through

my graduate program. Other than a $200 deductible, my

hospital bill was paid in full.

Now that I have a chronic illness, having quality

healthcare and regular checkups is vital to staying healthy

and productive. My medication, Humira, costs $5,000 a month

out-of-pocket, which was more than double my grad school

stipend. With insurance, I only pay $25 a month. Though

surgery helped me tame the inflation in my intestines, my

disease began to express itself as arthritis in my joints.

The pain was so bad that one Christmas I canceled my trip

home to see my family and spent the whole time alone on my

couch. I had a bad reaction to some of the medications and

became so severely anemic that I needed a blood transfusion.

Additionally, one of the medications I take causes severe

birth defects. So I needed an IUD to prevent pregnancy.

Easily, all these conditions could become overwhelmingly

expensive. But with my student health insurance through the

University of California, I could afford it. The premium was

$300 per month, part of which was covered by the university.

My medications cost $110 a month, and I had a yearly out-of-

pocket maximum of $2,000. While I didn't get my insurance

through the exchanges, the other conditions of the ACA which

determine the minimum quality of care made it possible for my

care to be affordable.

By having proper treatment and care, I can be a productive

member of society. I have received my PhD in Applied

Mathematics and my research contributes to the design of

medical devices that can be used for cancer screening. I am

able to mentor young girls and encourage them to study math

and science. And who knows--one of them may cure cancer one

day! Since I am no longer in pain and I am not in debt, I was

able to find a prestigious job after graduation. When a state

provides for the health of its people, they can thrive at

home and at work. It is not only the moral choice, but also a

good choice for the economy.

Kaitlyn, thanks for writing and thanks for being one of the big success stories under the Affordable Care Act. This is what we are fighting for tonight.

I also heard from a young woman in Somerville named Samantha. Here is what she wrote:

I've been dealing with severe mental health issues since I

was a kid. I am now 27. In that time, I have been through

numerous hospitalizations, residential treatment, day

treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, and outpatient

treatment.

When I was 18, I had to drop out of college and spent 3

months in residential treatment for my eating disorder. The

year prior, I spent 2 months in residential treatment and 6

months between day and intensive outpatient treatment, and I

had been in therapy for 4 years.

Due to Massachusetts law, I was still covered by my

parent's insurance, but the Massachusetts health care reform

didn't stop insurance companies from imposing lifetime

limits. At 18 years old, fighting for my life, I overheard my

parents discussing lifetime limits in regard to my health

care. I don't know how much all that treatment cost, or how

much of my lifetime limit I had consumed. For the next 7

years, I was in and out of treatment at various levels.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my time by 10 minutes, if I might, to finish my stories.

Thank you.

In 2014, when I had my own health care, I had a bad

relapse. For the first time I was paying for my own

treatment. I had health insurance through my employer that

was really good, but even with that, for 1 month of

residential treatment, 1 month of day treatment, and 3 months

of intensive outpatient, plus therapy, a nutritionist, a

psychiatrist and medication--all crucial to my recovery--my

out-of-pocket health care costs reached almost $10,000.

These days, I am much more stable and have remained in

relatively good health, but all because of the continued

support I get from my therapist, psychiatrist, and doctor. I

can only imagine how much money has been spent and how close

I'd be to my lifetime limit if those were still in place. And

of course, all that adds up to being a ``pre-existing''

condition.

The simple fact is that I would most likely be dead today

were it were not for the protections provided by the ACA, and

if I lose those protections, if I have another relapse, I

will either end up dead or unemployed and mired in debt.

Samantha, thank you for writing. Thank you for fighting. That is why we are on the floor of the Senate tonight, to continue to fight for the Affordable Care Act and to continue to fight against cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. This is what is at stake for families in Massachusetts.

As Jennifer said in her letter: This is us. This is now, and this is real. Congressman Price wants to cut more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. But I am not giving up, because I am here to fight for Lee and Meg and Jill and Marika's baby Jack.

Congressman Price wants to rip up the behavioral health protections in the Affordable Care Act. But I am not giving up, because I am here to fight for Christine's son and Jackie and Samantha.

Congressman Price wants to get rid of the ACA's ban on discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions. But I am not giving up, because I am here to fight for Jenny and Kaitlyn and Olivia and Denise and Jennifer.

I will fight for every one of them and for the tens of millions of people who are counting on Medicare and who are in need of Medicaid to pay nursing home bills and to help with home health care for people with disabilities and who need that Medicaid money for children with serious problems. I will

fight for every one of them. Where are three Republicans who will do the right thing and fight alongside me? That is what tonight is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to call on my colleagues to reject the nomination of Betsy DeVos as the next Secretary of Education.

It is difficult to imagine a worse choice to head the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos doesn't believe in public schools. Her only knowledge of student loans seems to come from her own financial investments connected to debt collectors who hound people struggling with student loans. Despite being a billionaire, she wants the chance to keep making money off

shady investments while she runs the Department of Education. We need someone in charge of the Nation's education policy who knows what they are doing and who will put America's young people first, and that is not Betsy DeVos.

Let's start with her record. Betsy DeVos has used her vast fortune to undermine Michigan's public schools. She is sure she knows what is best for everyone else's children, even though she has no actual experience with public schools.

In Michigan, the K-12 policy she has bankrolled has drained valuable taxpayer dollars out of the public schools and shunted that money into private schools, sketchy online schools, and for-profit charter schools. Even worse, DeVos believes these schools should get the money with virtually no accountability for what these schools do with taxpayer dollars. The results have been a disaster for Michigan kids.

Let's be perfectly clear. This is not a debate about school choice. It is not a debate about charter schools. There are people on all sides of this debate who are genuinely pouring their hearts into improving educational outcomes for children. Massachusetts charter schools are among the very best in the country, and they understand the difference.

Before her nomination hearing, I received an extraordinary letter from the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. The letter outlines their opposition to Betsy DeVos's nomination, citing her destructive record of promoting for-profit charter schools without strong oversight for how those schools serve students and families.

People who work hard to build good charter schools with high accountability are offended by the DeVos nomination. This abysmal record is troubling because the Secretary of Education is responsible for safeguarding the investments that the Federal Government makes in public schools and for holding States accountable for delivering a good education for all their students, especially those who need the help the most.

The Secretary is also responsible for enforcing critical civil rights laws, like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but Betsy DeVos's confirmation hearing demonstrated to the entire world she is embarrassingly unprepared to enforce these laws.

Her apparent unfamiliarity with these critical civil rights laws has terrified families who have children with special needs, terrified families in Massachusetts and all across the country. These parents are afraid we could have an Education Secretary who doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Federal laws that guarantee their kids a chance to receive a public school education.

We still have a long way to go to make sure all kids in this country have a shot at a decent education, particularly children living in poverty, children of color, children with disabilities, and children who are immigrants or refugees. That is why the Federal Government got involved in education in the first place, to make certain that all of our children, not just some of them but that all of our children get a chance at a first-rate education.

Public education dollars should come with some basic accountability for how that money is spent and some basic expectations about what we get in return for these investments, not just doled out to some for- profit school that doesn't even meet basic standards in educating our children. This is also true in higher education, where the financial stakes are huge for America's college students.

The Department of Education is in charge of making sure that the $150 billion that American taxpayers invest in students each year through grants and loans gets into the right hands and that students get an education that will help them pay back their loans.

The student aid program is not well understood, but it is vitally important to get it right because $1 trillion of student loan debt currently out there will impact the future of an entire generation.

Betsy DeVos has no experience in higher education. During her confirmation hearing, I gave her the opportunity to show that she is at least serious about standing up for students. I asked her basic, straightforward questions about her commitment to protecting students and taxpayers from fraud by these shady for-profit colleges. Her response was shocking. She refused to commit to use the Department's many tools and resources to keep students from getting cheated when fraudulent colleges break the law.

In her responses to my written questions, she even refused to commit to doing what the law requires by canceling the loans of students who have been cheated by lawbreaking colleges. An Education Secretary who is unwilling to cut off Federal aid to colleges that break the law and cheat students would be a disaster for both students and taxpayers. Betsy DeVos's refusal to guarantee debt relief for defrauded students could leave thousands of Americans saddled with student loan debt that by law they are not required to pay.

Betsy DeVos also refused to rule out privatizing the Direct Loan Program. Think about this. As if our students don't have enough problems already, DeVos is ready to let Wall Street banks get their claws into our students and start charging extra profits on top of the already high cost of student loans.

If Betsy DeVos won't commit to strengthening the Federal student loan program and running it for students, then she is absolutely unfit to be in charge of it.

I am also deeply concerned about the conflicts of interest and potential government corruption if Betsy DeVos is allowed to take the reins of the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos is a multibillionaire, and that is fine, but for her, that is apparently not enough. She already makes money off of several businesses that could profit from decisions she makes as Secretary of Education--several businesses, at least, that we know about. She said she will get rid of the ones we know about, but she wants to keep her family trusts and whatever investments two of them hold a secret--a secret from Congress and a secret from U.S. taxpayers. She says she doesn't have to follow rules that everyone else follows and tell the Senate what her investments are or what they will be in those secret trusts. I want you to think about that for just a minute. She already has billions of dollars, but she won't give up her secret trust and her chance to make investments that could create conflicts of interest while she is running the Department of Education? Who exactly does Betsy DeVos want to help out--the young people of America or her own bank account?

You know, I really don't get this. I disagree with her education policy, but the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that no one, especially not some billionaire, ought to keep investments that go up or down in value depending on the decisions she makes while she has a job working for the U.S. Government. Because of that concern, I wrote a letter with several of my Democratic colleagues to raise concerns about her potential conflicts that aren't clearly resolved by her public ethics agreement. We asked her some simple questions about the lack of financial transparency and the shady investments she plans to keep while she has a government job. What did we get back? Nothing. Zero. Bupkes. She thought our basic questions about ethics weren't even worth an answer. That stinks. This whole process stinks.

At every step along the way, the Republicans have made it clear that no matter her inexperience, no matter her radical views, no matter her potential conflicts of interest, no matter her secrecy, no matter her blowing off basic anti-corruption practices, they will ram this nomination down the throats of the American people sideways. Here are just a few egregious examples.

First, committee Democrats were allotted 5 minutes--5 minutes total-- during her hearing to question Betsy DeVos on her troubling record. Republicans suddenly invented a new rule that we couldn't ask additional questions. This is an important job. I asked President Obama's Secretary of Education multiple rounds of questions, and he had led a public education system in the past, but I guess when a Republican nominee and megadonor is in line to run education policy, we are supposed to fall in line and keep quiet.

Second, breaking with standard practice and what we did for President Obama's Education nominees, we were

forced to hold Betsy DeVos's hearing before the ethics review of her billions was completed. The complicated ethics review raised a ton of additional questions, but we got absolutely no chance to question her about it.

Third, Betsy DeVos is the first nominee ever to go through the HELP Committee who has flat-out refused to fully disclose her financial holdings. She will be the first nominee in recent history to hold secret trusts. She was supposed to complete a form that requires nominees to list in detail all of their assets, investments, and gifts so that the committee has a full understanding of the nominees' potential conflicts of interest. No, she wants to keep many of her holdings in a family trust a secret, so she just won't tell.

Fourth, Republicans ignored and overrode the rules of the Senate in order to barely squeeze the DeVos nomination out of committee as quickly as possible. And now, with at least 50 Senators--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--publicly opposed to this nomination, the Republican leadership has rigged the vote so that Senator Sessions can drag her across the finish line just before he is confirmed as Attorney General. Why is Senator Sessions even voting on this nomination? It is a massive conflict of interest. As the AG, Sessions will be responsible for enforcing the law against DeVos if her cesspool of unresolved financial conflicts results in illegal behavior, but apparently the Republicans just don't care.

Let's face it: The Republican leadership wants DeVos, and they are willing to ignore her hostility to public schools, willing to ignore her indifference to laws that protect special needs kids, willing to ignore the giant ethical cloud that hangs over her--ignore it all so that billionaire and Republican campaign contributor Betsy DeVos can be Secretary of Education. The American people can see what is happening here.

I commend my Republican colleagues, Senators Collins and Murkowski, for standing up for what is right and saying they will vote against Betsy DeVos's nomination on the floor. I know how difficult it can be to stand up for what is right even under overwhelming pressure from your own team to just keep your head down and go with the flow. They have been listening to the teachers and parents in their States, and I deeply respect their principled opposition to this nomination.

I have also heard from thousands of teachers, parents, and education leaders in Massachusetts raising deep concern about Betsy DeVos's nomination. I hear their concern, and I share their concern.

You know, this isn't just politics, this is deeply personal. It is personal for me. My first job out of college was as a teacher. I taught little ones, children with special needs, in a public elementary school. I have never lost my appreciation for the importance of strong public education because I have seen how public education opened a million doors for me, and I know it opens doors for young people in Massachusetts and all across this country. I believe that strengthening America's public schools is critical for securing a better future for our children and for our grandchildren. I also understand the vital role the Secretary of Education plays in making sure every young person has real opportunities and a fighting chance to succeed.

We are one vote away from making sure this job is not entrusted to Betsy DeVos. One vote. We need just one more Republican to stand up for the children of America, to stand up for public education, to stand up for college students, to stand up for basic decency and honesty in government. With just one more Republican, we can say this Senate puts kids ahead of partisan politics. With just one more Republican, we can say this Senate still cares about public officials who put the public ahead of their own interests. Just one more Republican, that is all we need. Just one.

I assumed that the rush to complete this nomination has something to do with the fact that Republicans' phones have been ringing off the hook from citizens who are outraged by the idea of this nomination. Before these Republicans decide whether to help Donald Trump reward a wealthy donor by putting someone in charge of the Department of Education who doesn't really believe in public education, I want them to hear from the people of Massachusetts, the people who on their own have contacted me about this nomination.

I have received countless letters and calls from constituents in Massachusetts, including a batch of letters from a new local grassroots organization--Essex County #6 Indivisible--that is very concerned that Betsy DeVos is a danger to our schools. So I just want to share a few of those letters with my colleagues right now.

I heard from Matt Harden, who is a teacher from Plymouth, and he wrote this:

I have been a teacher for fifteen years and a parent for

seven. I feel incredibly proud of the schools in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and view my position as a

music educator not simply as a job but a vocation. The recent

referendum in the Commonwealth regarding the expansion of cap

on Charter Schools was soundly defeated by the electorate. I

have grave concerns about Ms. DeVos and her ties to corporate

interests in education. Schools are not businesses, and

students are not products on an assembly line. This line of

thinking is a clear and present danger to our students, and

reflects a lack of familiarity with the public education

system.

In this matter, my concerns are not limited to the borders

of our own state but the equitable access to education across

our nation. Ms. DeVos is not the right person to be an

intellectual and educational leader for our nation--we need

real change and ideas, not privatization and politicization

of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

I also heard from Alexandra Loos, a special education teacher from Cambridge. She had this to say:

I am a special education teacher who works with children

with developmental disabilities, and I urge you to vote

against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of

Education.

I have grave concerns about the qualifications of Ms. DeVos

due to her lack of experience in the public education system

as well as her record of support for charter and private

schools that are not obligated to follow Federal education

standards or guidelines.

Most urgently, as a professional who specializes in

evaluating and treating children with autism, Down syndrome,

learning disabilities, ADHD, and other developmental and

behavioral disorders, I am extremely concerned about Ms.

DeVos's apparent lack of understanding of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal law that

guarantees ``a free and appropriate public education'' to

children with disabilities. During her confirmation hearing

this week, Ms. DeVos appeared to be unfamiliar with IDEA . .

. stating that she felt that enforcement of this federal law

should be left up to the states. This is unacceptable and

clearly indicates that Ms. DeVos is unqualified to serve as

Secretary of Education.

With approximately 13% of public school children in special

education, it is essential that an Education Secretary be

knowledgeable and supportive of the federal laws that guide

special education services. Please vote ``no'' on Ms. DeVos's

confirmation.

Yes, Alexandra. Yes.

My office also heard from Diana Fullerton, a school adjustment counselor from Salem. Diana said she had never written to a politician before, but she felt strongly enough about Betsy DeVos to write:

I am a school adjustment counselor in an elementary school

in Gloucester. I have never gotten involved much in politics

until this election. I went to the Boston Women's March on

Saturday and this is my first time writing to a politician. I

am extremely concerned about Trump's nomination for Secretary

of Education, Betsy DeVos. In my work I support students who

are very vulnerable: on IEPS, in high-poverty environments,

identifying as gay or transgender, and coming from

backgrounds where English is a second language. I believe

that Ms. DeVos' extreme and uneducated positions on the needs

of students in public schools could harm my children. Please

vote against her nomination as Secretary of Education.

Thanks, Diana. I will.

I heard from another teacher from Newton, who said:

I am opposed to Betsey DeVos as the next Secretary of

Education. I have spent my entire life as a teacher--first in

public and private schools for 14 years teaching French, then

as a member of the faculty of Lesley University for 26 years,

and now as a teacher in a Life Long Learning program at

Brandeis. I cannot imagine having a Secretary of Education

who has never had any direct educational experience. I am

also very worried about her views of public education and her

appalling record on civil rights. Strong education is the

foundation of our democracy. Please do what you can to

maintain and improve our current system.

Thank you.

Yet another teacher contacted our office, this one from Abington. She wrote:

I believe in my community's public schools. In fact, I've

worked in them as a

teacher for over 15 years. The nomination of Betsy DeVos has

me seriously considering a change of employment. Betsy DeVos

believes in school privatization and vouchers. She has worked

to undermine efforts to regulate Michigan charters, even when

they clearly fail, and yet she has never worked in a school.

The marketplace solution of DeVos will destroy our

democratically governed community schools. Her hostility

toward public schools disqualifies her. I am asking you to

vote against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos.

We also heard from parents all across the State, including Leslie Boloian, a mother from Andover. Leslie said:

I am a mother of an 8 year old who is dyslexic. She is

smart and very capable of learning what other kids can learn;

however, she needs specialized education. Through the public

school system, she is learning to read and continues to reach

new milestones daily. I fear that Betsy DeVos could put my

daughter's education at risk.

I urge you to oppose Secretary of Education nominee Betsy

DeVos, who is best known for her anti-public education

campaigns!

The chance for the success of a child should not depend on

winning a charter lottery, being accepted by a private

school, or living in the right ZIP code. It is our duty to

ensure all students have access to a great public school in

their community and the opportunity to succeed. Betsy DeVos

has consistently worked against these values, and her efforts

over the years have done more to undermine public education

than support all students.

Betsy DeVos has no experience in public schools, either as

a student, educator, administrator, or even as a parent. She

has lobbied for failed schemes, like vouchers to fund private

schools at taxpayers' expense. These privatization schemes do

nothing to help our students most in need, and they ignore or

exacerbate glaring opportunity gaps.

We need a Secretary of Education who will champion

innovative strategies that we know help to improve success

for all students, including creating more opportunities and

equity for all. Betsy DeVos is not that person, and I urge

you to vote against her for Secretary of Education.

Thank you, Leslie.

Kate Brigham, a mother from Somerville, also wrote. She said.

My name is Kate Brigham, and I am a constituent of yours

from Somerville. . . . I'm writing to urge you to vote

against Betsy DeVos' confirmation as Secretary of Education.

The future of our kids here in Somerville and across the

country are depending on you to see the difference between

education progress and privatization.

The majority of America's school children attend public

schools. We cannot leave their futures and the future of our

country in the hands of a woman whose ideas to privatize

school funding have already left the state of Michigan and

its children in shambles. Her personal financial conflicts of

interest are staggering.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--which

DeVos did not know was a federal law--guarantees rights to

both students with disabilities and to their parents. So this

isn't just about civil rights; it's also crucial to families.

We cannot afford a Secretary of Education who's ``confused''

on what the law is. My own 2-year-old daughter benefits from

MA's wonderful Early Intervention program and will need

special education services when she turns 3 in September.

IDEA and the ADA were both signed into law by Republican

Presidents. Disability rights are not and cannot become a

partisan issue. Thank you for ensuring that public education

for ALL will be protected. Somerville, and Massachusetts,

needs it. And we won't succeed with Betsy DeVos as Secretary

of Education.

Thank you, Kate. Thanks for writing.

Samantha Lambert, a mother of four from Everett, also contacted us with her concerns. Samantha wrote:

I am a voter from MA who has struggled with the change

coming as a result of this election. . . . It is difficult to

focus when there is a new outrage at every turn.

No one frightens me more than Betsy DeVos. Why? The impacts

of her ignorance and disdain for public education will remain

with us for a generation. I have 4 children, all educated in

the Everett Public School System, one of whom benefits from

Special Education.

We have one opportunity to get it right with our children.

I was asked by a conservative friend who was curious why this

appointment brought such a backlash, and the answer was

simple for me. Our job is to protect our children, the

nation's children. Those unable to influence their future

with a vote. There is no mandate for the destruction of our

most treasured institution, the foundation of our democracy.

My son deserves a free and fair education, as do his

siblings. As do their peers. The children in our school

district are in the lower socioeconomic rung. Many rely on

public transportation and neighborhood public schools. That

takes the choice out of school choice, doesn't it? It favors

students on economic lines, furthering the divide and putting

an undue burden on the schools left behind who will struggle

to serve the students that need this gift of education most.

The public hearing demonstrated that Mrs. DeVos is wholly

unqualified for this appointment. Her answers or lack of

answers, specifically regarding IDEA and school choice, were

frightening. As a parent, I was literally shaking.

My nine-year-old son was listening to a portion and heard

Senator Hassan mention dyslexia in her question. He cheered

and asked if we were going to make sure all kids get special

help to read. I couldn't answer him because in her answer,

Mrs. DeVos seemed not to know that IDEA is a Federal law

protecting these beautiful minds. Protecting them from being

a line item that can be wiped away, their future successes

and achievements going right along with it.

I ask you, please oppose Betsy DeVos for Education

Secretary, for the good of ALL our nation's children.

Thank you, Samantha. Thanks for writing.

We also heard from Laura Fukushima, a mother and former teacher from Dedham. She wrote to say:

Before having my own children, I taught in public schools

for five years--three in Boston and two in Tennessee (Sumner

Country)--and I'm writing to ask you to vote against

confirming Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

It's evident that Ms. DeVos is passionate about education--

judging from the enormous amounts of money she has poured

into shaping policy--and I have no reason to doubt her

intentions are good. But that doesn't qualify her for this

job. Here are my concerns:

1) Aside from having no experience in public schools,

either as a parent or a student, she has no experience in any

kind of school as an educator.

2) At her confirmation hearing, she demonstrated a lack of

basic understanding of many pertinent issues and concepts--an

intimate knowledge of which is required to shape good

educational policy.

3) Despite lacking both the prerequisite knowledge and

experience within the field of education, she actively used

her wealth to sway legislators in Michigan away from their

initial support of bipartisan measures, based on a broad

coalition of informed participants, to regulate and improve

charter schools. (For the record, I do support charter

schools, but understanding that there is a vast disparity in

their quality, I see the need for rigorous oversight.) Her

efforts, I believe, have been more detrimental than

beneficial to the children of Detroit.

4) Her suggestion that enforcing IDEA should be left to the

states is very troubling. Such policy would leave our most

vulnerable students very far behind.

While I agree with Ms. DeVos that our educational system

would benefit from some additional choice for parents, I

think she's wildly mistaken if she believes a completely free

market will fix our schools. We need a Secretary of Education

who believes in proper oversight and can help create

effective measures of assessment and accountability to

improve education for all our children. That's what the

Department of Education is for. To run it successfully, we

need a Secretary, unlike DeVos, who is well trained in the

field.

Thank you, Laura.

A mother from Clinton also wrote about how she would be personally affected by Betsy DeVos, saying:

I have an 8-year-old daughter with Autism Spectrum Disorder

who receives services through our public elementary school. I

believe that every individual deserves an equal education.

IDEA must be upheld! My daughter is doing very well with her

studies because of the supports she receives. She is a very

smart girl but needs and deserves accommodations. I am

thankful there are laws to protect her.

Betsy DeVos thinks that states should decide how to fund

education for individuals with disabilities. I believe it

should remain federally mandated. I wouldn't be able to

afford a private education for my daughter in a special

school. I know there are many more parents like me.

I also opposed expanding Charter schools in our state. I

believe publicly funded schools should be publicly run and

overseen.

I request you reject Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary.

Thank you.

Another parent wrote to say:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the

confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. She

has demonstrated NO commitment to public education throughout

her life, and her support of charter schools in Detroit has

been a demonstrated failure. The framing of for-profit

charter schools as providing ``choice'' for parents is a

false framing--it provides the illusion of a poorly regulated

and poorly supervised choice for some parents while limiting

the resources and choices left to the other parents and

leading to a downward spiral in the quality of public

education. Transferring public funding of education to for-

profit charter schools, creaming off the children of the most

motivated parents, and leaving the more difficult, lower

income, and children with special education challenges is a

prescription for failure of public schools and will result in

herding lower-income students into dysfunctional schools,

setting them up for a lifetime of underemployment.

I am not a teacher, nor a member of a teacher's union. I am

a mother, and I was

proud to send my son to the Brookline Public Schools for his

entire K-12 education. I want other children to have a chance

for a quality education, not to be the fodder for a private,

for-profit charter school with no commitment to the public

good.

Quality public education is the foundation of a free

society and the key to sustaining a vibrant economy in the

future. Please oppose the confirmation of Betsy DeVos.

A woman from Canton also wrote in. She said:

As a parent of public school children, I urge you to reject

the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. A

free and appropriate education is the cornerstone of our

democracy, but Ms. DeVos has shown no interest in preserving

public education. In fact, she has worked tirelessly to

divert public funds into private pockets by way of

deregulating and expanding charter schools and to offer

vouchers which can be used at private and religious schools.

This is a clear violation of our principle of separating

church and State.

Ms. DeVos's strategies have had disastrous consequences in

Michigan. Eighty percent of charter schools there operate for

profit. When schools look first to satisfy investors, they

rely on teaching to standardized tests, not on educating

children. Here in Massachusetts, we overwhelmingly rejected

the idea, one funded by billionaires, and resisted by parents

and public school teachers.

Please join us in opposing a ``lead educator'' who has

never gone to a public school nor sent her children to one.

Please consider that the nation's future depends on educating

every child, and that to do so, we need to restore and

strengthen our public school system, not dismantle it in

favor of profiting off the backs of our youth.

Thank you.

It is no surprise that we also heard from many constituents struggling with student loans. One of those was Liam Weir, a college student from Brighton, who had this to say:

As a college student and a resident of the State of

Massachusetts, I am writing you to express my deep concern

over the potential appointment of Betsy DeVos to the position

of Secretary of Education. Ms. DeVos is extraordinarily

unqualified to lead such a department. The fact that the

President has chosen such a person, with no experience in

education administration in any capacity at any level, is an

insult to the millions of teachers, students, and school

administrators across the country. Ms. DeVos's policies will

undermine already struggling public school systems by

allocating taxpayer funds to advance a cynical and deeply

troubling agenda against established science. I myself am a

recipient of Federal college grants and loans, and I am

growing increasingly concerned about Ms. DeVos's competency

in managing the looming student debt crisis.

Now more than ever is a time for the Education Department

to be run by capable and caring individuals, not willfully

ignorant ones.

A young mother from Winthrop also reached out to us. She had this to say:

I urge you to vote No on the confirmation of Betsy DeVos, a

singularly unqualified individual . . . among a veritable sea

of unqualified individuals this administration has chosen to

lead our country.

My husband and I have no personal stake in public education

over the next 4 years. Our daughter is only 7 months old. But

I am the child of two public schoolteachers in RI, my friends

are teachers, my friends' children are in school, my nephews,

cousins, etc. I believe in public schools and I believe that

Betsy DeVos is not the right direction for our public

education system. She is dangerous, and her lack of knowledge

is appalling.

Also, and I thank you so much for asking about this at her

hearing--student loans are not a business, they are a crisis

in this country. My husband has a six figure debt, with

interest rates at 7.5 percent. He had to take a job . . .

rather than pursue his dreams of working in criminal justice

because he needed a job that could pay his $1,000 a month

student loan bill. Our saving grace is that I have a good

job, and my student loan debt is nearly paid off--because I

was loaned a reasonable amount at a reasonable 2 percent

interest rate. We are a case study in how the program should

work vs. predatory lending.

That is so true. Thanks for writing.

Liz Bosworth, a mother of two from North Dartmouth, had this to say:

While I am fully aware that you do not support the

nominations for many of President Trump's nominees, I am

currently most concerned about Ms. DeVos. I watched parts of

her hearing and I remain concerned that there was a denial

for a second hearing. I hope this leads to continued

questions and a final opposition of her as Secretary of

Education. Your lines of questioning served to highlight her

lack of qualifying experience but still, in light of this

last six month's politics, I believe anything is possible.

As the mother of two small children and a daughter-in-law,

niece, cousin, friend, and wife of public school teachers, I

find her to be quite alarming and somewhat scary as the

potential leader of that office. We are strong proponents of

public education and of teaching our children to value their

time in school and to achieve high levels of success.

With that comes some anxiety around their aspirations to

higher learning. As a master's level social worker, I will be

paying off my loans until I start to pay for my son's higher

education. I do not want the debt for my children that I

have. At this rate, I am saving far much less money per month

for their college funds while paying off my own. I want my

children to go higher than myself, but I want them to do so

with a level of confidence in their finances that I was not

afforded. Ms. DeVos, highlighted by you in her confirmation

hearing, has not been involved with student loans on any

level and does not have the experience to become entrusted

with my current debt or the debt of my children.

Finally, I would like to highlight my abject fear of the

treatment of those students with learning disabilities,

particularly severe and profound disorders, if she is

confirmed. While I see many walks of life in my field, my

mother was a proud special education teacher in New Bedford

for 33 years. She was proud to be able to teach life skills

like budgeting, simple cooking and social skills to her

students who may not ever be college ready. We worry about

those kids and what will become of them if Ms. DeVos is

confirmed. My husband is currently employed in a

collaborative that works with mentally ill children who need

a different kind of educational process but can still achieve

the same goals. I am not sure they would ever qualify for a

voucher to attend some Charter school.

We are committed to families and community maintenance of

all students with the right care at the right time. I am not

sure that Ms. DeVos is committed in the same way.

Please vote to oppose Ms. DeVos.

Thank you, Liz. Thanks for writing.

I heard from another student in Boston who told me the following:

I am writing to you today as a public school teacher and a

Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Education, Leadership and Policy

Studies. I believe in public schools. Betsy DeVos believes in

school privatization and vouchers. She has worked to

undermine efforts to regulate Michigan charters, even when

they clearly failed. The ``marketplace'' solution of DeVos

will destroy our democratically governed community schools.

She has no professional experience in the education field.

She does not truly understand the nuances of public education

nor does she want to understand.

I managed to earn scholarships that took care of most of my

schooling, but I still have about $80,000 in student loans.

(Not bad for 2 expensive private institution degrees!) I am a

first generation college student and my single mother could

not afford to help me pay for my schooling. Betsy DeVos just

doesn't have experience in K-12 public schools, but she has

no experience in running the student loan department. The

Federal student loan program is far from perfect. We need

someone running it who is knowledgeable in the process,

believes in making college more affordable, and understands

what it feels like to not be sure how you will pay for

college. She has no qualifications of any kind in this area.

I am asking you to vote against the confirmation of Betsy

DeVos. Please consider this request and the thousands of

other people across the country who vehemently disagree with

Ms. DeVos's candidacy.

Thank you.

Sarah Rothery, a mother of two from Northborough, told me about her two sons, saying:

I am writing to ask that you oppose the confirmation of Ms.

DeVos for the cabinet position for which she was nominated

under President Trump. I have put 2 sons through college

thanks to Stafford loans and personal savings and I think she

has no idea what is involved in middle class families

financing college educations today. One of my sons is now an

8th grade history teacher in a public charter school, Abbot

Kelly Foster, in Worcester, and worries that Ms. DeVos has no

real understanding of urban education as well.

Thank you, Sarah. Thanks for writing.

I have also heard from Alicia Bettano, a former student from Merrimac who bravely shared with me her own experiences. This is from Alicia:

I suffer from a Non Verbal Learning Disorder. Up until I

was 13 years old I was not diagnosed with anything. I went to

aides, speech therapists, everyone. I had trouble in the

maths and in sciences. I was thought of as stupid. I was

yelled at by aides. When I was 13 and diagnosed, my teachers

didn't understand. They thought sitting me closer to the

white board would allow me to understand better, despite the

fact that it was their teaching methods that confused me. I

was told I would not go to college or graduate. My parents

had to hire an advocate to work for me to get my teachers and

school to understand my disability. It took me some time to

figure out what I wanted and needed, but in May I graduated

college.

Betsy DeVos would be a horror for those with disabilities;

not just learning ones, but mental ones. I was lucky I had

parents and one teacher backing me. What about the ones that

don't? Putting Betsy DeVos into office will hurt our children

in America--that's not making America great.

Alicia, thank you for writing. I really appreciate it. Congratulations on your graduation.

A man from Brookline also wrote in, saying this:

As someone passionate about education, especially the

education of students in Massachusetts, and as a graduate of

a public elementary school, middle school, high school and

college; as a young professional burdened by education debt;

as the husband of an early childhood educator working in a

struggling Boston neighborhood; as a member of a family

filled with men and women dedicated to careers in public

education, I strongly urge you to oppose Secretary of

Education nominee Betsy DeVos. My vote for or against

candidates in future elections will be informed by whether

the candidate publicly opposed this Secretary of Education

nominee.

Betsy DeVos has consistently worked against public

education and she is incredibly unqualified for this

position. At best, she should be an undersecretary focused on

public-private partnerships. If you must work with the

incoming administration, suggest her nomination for that

role, but you must oppose her cabinet-level appointment.

DeVos has no experience in public schools, either as a

student, educator, administrator or even as a parent. She has

lobbied for, and been employed by, initiatives that have

undermined public education in America.

We need a Secretary of Education who will champion

innovative strategies that we know help to improve success

for all students, including creating more opportunities and

equity for all. I urge you to vote against Ms. DeVos for

Secretary of Education.

What does Betsy DeVos have to say to Matt and Diana or to the thousands of other teachers who have more experience in public education than she does? What does she have to say to Leslie and Samantha, whose children have benefited from the programs she wants to cut? What does she have to say to Sarah, who relied on Stafford loans to put her sons through college?

It is not just individuals who are worried about Betsy DeVos. We have heard from groups across the State as well. The Massachusetts Charter Public School Association wrote me, saying this:

Dear Senator Warren,

As the Association representing the 70 Massachusetts

commonwealth charter public schools, we are writing to

express our concerns over the nomination of Elisabeth DeVos

as U.S. Secretary of Education. We do not express these

reservations lightly, but we believe it is important to raise

certain issues that should be addressed by the nominee.

Both President-elect Trump and Ms. DeVos are strong

supporters of public charter schools, and we are hopeful they

will continue the bipartisan efforts of the Clinton, Bush and

Obama Administrations to promote the continued expansion of

high quality charters while pursuing reforms that will

strengthen traditional public schools.

But we are concerned about media reports of Ms. DeVos'

support for school vouchers and her critical role in creating

a charter system in her home state of Michigan that has been

widely criticized for lax oversight and poor academic

performance, and appears to be dominated by for-profit

interests.

As the senior Senator from Massachusetts and a member of

the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor &

Pensions (HELP), which will hold hearings on the nomination,

you will be in a position to ensure the nominee commits to

holding the national charter school movement to the highest

levels of accountability and oversight that are the hallmark

of the Massachusetts charter system.

By all independent accounts, Massachusetts has the best

charter school system in the country. We are providing high

quality public school choices for parents across our state.

Our urban schools are serving the highest need children in

Massachusetts, and are producing results that have

researchers double-checking their math. These gains held

across all demographic groups, including African American,

Latino, and children living in poverty.

The cornerstone of the Massachusetts charter public school

system is accountability. The process of obtaining and

keeping a charter is deliberately difficult. The state Board

of Elementary and Secondary Education is the sole authorizer

and historically has approved only one out of every five

applications. Once approved, each charter school must submit

to annual financial audits by independent auditors and annual

performance reviews by the state Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education. Every five years, each charter must be

renewed after a process as rigorous as the initial

application process. For-profit charter schools are

prohibited by Massachusetts law.

Our schools have also created partnerships with many

Massachusetts public school districts to foster collaboration

and best practices sharing, and have forged an historic

Compact between Boston charter public schools and the Boston

Public Schools that has become a national model.

Bipartisan support has been key to the development and

success of the Massachusetts system. Created in 1993 by a

Democratic Legislature and a Republican Governor, public

charter schools have continued to receive support from all

Governors, Republican and Democratic alike, and Democratic

legislative leaders.

If the new President and his nominee intend to advance the

cause of school choice across the country, they should look

to Massachusetts for their path forward.

The history of charter schools in Michigan offers a more

cautionary tale. The same researchers from Stanford that

declared Massachusetts charter public schools an unqualified

success, had mixed reviews for Michigan's charters.

According to media reports, last year Ms. DeVos actively

campaigned against bipartisan legislation that would have

provided more oversight for Michigan's charters. If these

reports are true, we are deeply concerned that efforts to

grow school choice without a rigorous accountability system

will reduce the quality of charter schools across the

country. We hope you agree that quality, not quantity, should

be the guiding principle of charter expansion. Without high

levels of accountability, this model fails.

We ask that you use the hearing to probe the incoming

Administration's intentions regarding education policy in

general and school choice and quality specifically.

We'd be happy to provide you with more information on the

Massachusetts model and would welcome a meeting with your

staff to brief them on our concerns.

Sincerely,

Massachusetts Charter Public School Association Board of

Directors.

The people of Massachusetts cannot afford Betsy DeVos. This is why I will vote no on her nomination and why I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

I ask: Where are the Senators who will say no to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States? I hope there are at least enough Senators here who understand that America is careening over a constitutional cliff and that all of us, regardless of political party, need an Attorney General who can be relied on to enforce the laws fairly and fight back against lawless overreach by an out-of-control President.

On January 27, the world turned upside down for tens of thousands of people directly affected by President Trump's Executive order turning America's back on refugees around the world and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Last week, I recalled many of their stories. I spoke about students and professors, about mothers and children, about friends and neighbors, real people who were turned away, detained, or deported based solely on their religion or the simple fact that they were fleeing war. We all breathed a sigh of relief when a court temporarily halted that order, but we know the fight continues to permanently overturn this unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply immoral Executive order.

That isn't all that happened last week. Last week, the Acting Attorney General of the United States refused to

defend President Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive order so President Trump fired her. That is right, the President of the United States fired the Nation's top law enforcement officer for refusing to defend an unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply immoral order.

Last week, after days of slow-walking or ignoring judicial decisions, President Trump went on the attack. He raged against the judge who temporarily halted his order, calling him a so-called judge and questioning his authority to act. That is right. The President of the United States attacked the legal authority of an individual district court judge, lawfully appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate, to pass judgment on Trump's Executive orders.

These are dangerous times. At times like this, it is more important than ever that the Attorney General of the United States has the guts, the independence, and the good moral judgment to stand up to the President when he seeks to violate the Constitution and ignore the law.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Senator Sessions claimed to be that person. I have to say, I wish it were true. I really do. I wish the President's campaign had been different. I wish his actions now were different. I wish we could give his nominees the benefit of the doubt, but I will not ignore the real world, as unpleasant as it is, and neither can anyone in this Senate.

In the real world, Senator Sessions obviously isn't going to stand up to the President's campaign of bigotry. How could he? In the real world, Senator Sessions is one of the principal architects of that campaign.

Senator Sessions made a special name for himself for being a particularly vitriolic opponent of commonsense immigration policies. He railed against legal immigrants. He attacked cities and States that focus on keeping their communities safe instead of serving as a national deportation force. He called Islam a toxic ideology and a threat to our Nation. Despite the plain language of the Constitution, Senator Sessions doesn't think that children born in the United States should automatically become citizens. He wants to round up and deport DREAMers, who were brought to the United States as kids. Does that all sound familiar? Well, it should because Senator Sessions was an early and energetic supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump, and the Senator played a key role in shaping what has become the most extreme, most divisive, and most dangerous immigration policies of any President in decades.

Senator Sessions' radical views are not limited to immigration. On issue after issue, Senator Sessions has displayed open hostility to the rights of all Americans.

He has made derogatory and racist comments that should have no place in our justice system.

As a Federal prosecutor, he got involved in a voting rights case against those who were trying to help American citizens who were lawfully registered to vote. Yes, that is right--he brought a case against civil rights workers who helped African-American voters submit absentee ballots.

While serving as Alabama's attorney general, he reportedly made numerous racist comments, including saying he thought the KKK was OK until he learned that they smoked weed.

He called a White attorney representing Black clients in a civil rights case a disgrace to his race.

He claimed that the NAACP and the ACLU were un-American.

In a speech in 2006, he said: ``Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming here because they have a provable skill that would benefit us and that would indicate their likely success in our society.'' According to Sessions, Dominicans come to the United States by engaging in fraud.

Senator Sessions is also extraordinarily hostile to any effort to root out discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. According to Senator Sessions, marriage equality is a threat to the American culture.

Roe v. Wade is constitutionally unsound.

Employers should be able to fire you because they don't like whom you love.

He voted against equal pay for equal work.

He even voted against the Violence Against Women Act.

It doesn't stop there. On crime, Senator Sessions' solution is to lock up people for even minor, low-level offenses; throw away the key. He has advocated for expanding prisons for youth, aggressively prosecuting marijuana offenses, and eliminating parole or reduced prison time for good behavior.

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, he heaped praise on then- candidate Donald Trump for having once taken out a racially tinged full-page newspaper ad advocating for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, the Black and Latino teenagers who were falsely accused and convicted of raping a young woman in New York's Central Park.

Senator Sessions is not a plain-old conservative Republican. No. Senator Sessions occupies a place way out at the radical fringe of his party, regularly taking positions that are far more extreme than his other Republican colleagues. For example, when Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a commonsense, bipartisan immigration bill, Senator Sessions worked overtime to make sure the bill did not make it through the House. When Republicans and Democrats came together to propose legislation to reform our broken Federal criminal sentencing laws, Senator Sessions was part of the handful of Senators who ensured that the bill would not get a vote here in the Senate.

Senator Sessions has been a public figure for decades. None of this-- none of this is secret, and much of it is completely indefensible, but President Trump wants this man. So the same Republican Senators who once fought Senator Sessions tooth and nail have now launched a massive PR campaign to try to repair his public image.

That case against the civil rights workers helping Blacks in Alabama to vote? Hey, you go it all wrong. He was just trying to help out other African Americans who were concerned about voting irregularities.

His vote against the Violence Against Women Act? His position on LGBTQ rights? His opposition to a woman's right to choose? Hey, don't worry about it. He says he will vigorously enforce the law once he becomes Attorney General. Give me a break.

The law enforcement power of the United States of America is an awesome thing. In the right hands, in steady and impartial hands, it can be used to defend all of us, to defend our laws, to defend our Constitution. In the wrong hands, it can be used to bully and intimidate the defenseless, to destroy lives, to undermine American democracy itself.

Senator Sessions is not misunderstood. Senator Sessions has never been misunderstood. For decades, it has been absolutely clear where he stands. Now the time is here for every Senator to make absolutely clear where they stand as well.

Let's be clear. Winning a seat in the U.S. Senate does not exempt a Cabinet nominee from the close scrutiny that all nominees to lead our government deserve. It does not change the Senate's constitutional responsibility to examine a nominee to make certain that nominee will faithfully and fairly enforce the laws of the United States of America. It does not relieve the Senate of its duty to reject nominees whose records demonstrate that they will not stand up for American values and constitutional principles.

When it comes to the Senate confirming someone to be Attorney General--the highest law enforcement officer in this country--we are all personally responsible for that choice. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an insult to African Americans. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is a direct threat to immigrants. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is a deliberate affront to every LGBTQ person. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an affront to women.

I ask again, where are the Senators who will say no to Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States? Thirty years ago, a Republican-controlled Senate took the extraordinary step of rejecting Senator Sessions' nomination to serve as a Federal judge.

They had the courage to stand up for the principles that transcend party affiliation--fairness, equality, justice for all. Their rejection sent a message that that kind of dangerous, toxic hatred has no place in our courts. I urge them again today to exert that moral leadership and to send a message that this kind of dangerous, toxic hatred has no place in our Justice Department. I urge them to set aside politics and do what they know is right.

I wish to read two statements that really stood out to me as I was reviewing Senator Sessions' record on civil rights. One is the powerful speech that the late Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, gave in 1986, and the other is a very moving letter from Coretta Scott King, a letter she wrote to the Judiciary Committee that same year.

I want to start with what Senator Kennedy said. He said:

The confirmation of nominees for lifetime appointments to

the Federal judiciary is one of the most important

responsibilities of the Senate mandated by the U.S.

Constitution, and the examination by the Senate of a

nominee's fitness to serve as a Federal judge is the last

opportunity to determine whether the candidate possesses the

education, experience, skills, integrity, and, most

importantly, the commitment to equal justice under law, which

are essential attributes of a Federal judge.

Once confirmed, a Federal judge literally has life and

death authority over citizens that appear before him, with

limited review of his decisions. Our Federal judiciary is the

guardian of the rights and liberties guaranteed to all of us

by the U.S. Constitution, and the decisions of fellow judges

are constantly shaping and reshaping those rights and

liberties.

This committee has a duty to our citizens to carefully

examine the qualifications of nominees for the Federal bench

and to give our approval only to those who have demonstrated

a personal commitment to the principle of equality for all

Americans and a sensitivity to the long history of inequality

which we are still struggling to overcome.

Mr. Sessions, as a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, comes to this committee with a record which regrettably includes presiding over the now-infamous so-called Perry County voting fraud prosecutions. In the Perry County case, the government indicted three well-known and highly respected Black civil rights activists on charges of voter fraud and assisting elderly Black voters to vote by absentee ballot. But for the efforts of the defendants 20 years ago, these Black citizens would not have been allowed to vote. All three of the defendants were acquitted on all charges in the indictments, and some of the elderly Blacks have responded to their experiences during the prosecution, vowing never to vote again. Mr. Sessions' role in that case alone should bar him from serving on the Federal bench.

There is more--much more. We just received a sworn statement from a Justice Department attorney I know--which will be the subject of a good deal of questioning during the course of this hearing--who has worked on civil rights cases with Mr. Sessions over the period Sessions was U.S. attorney. Mr. Huber has stated to the committee investigators that Mr. Sessions on more than one occasion has characterized the NAACP and the ACLU as un-American, Communist-inspired organizations. Mr. Huber reports that Mr. Sessions said that these organizations did more harm than good when they were trying to force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them. Mr. Huber also stated that Mr. Sessions suggested that a prominent White civil rights lawyer who litigated voting rights cases was a disgrace to his race for doing it. Mr. Sessions is a throwback to a shameful era which I know both Black and White Americans thought was in our past.

It is inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let alone a U.S. Federal judge.

``He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department, and he should withdraw his nomination and resign his position.'' Those were the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, and I will stand with Senator Kennedy, and, like he did, I will cast my vote against the nomination of Senator Sessions.

Coretta Scott King also wrote to the Judiciary Committee about the Sessions nomination in 1986. This is what she wrote:

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my

strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for

a federal district judgeship for the Southern District of

Alabama. My longstanding commitment, which I shared with my

husband, Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black

Americans, rights which include equal access to the

democratic process, compels me to testify today.

Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert

Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and

unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used

the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of

the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to

serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to

happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his

politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his

indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws,

indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and

judgment to be a federal judge.

The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important

to the future of democracy in the United States. I was

privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to

Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was

particularly impressed by the determination to get the

franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As

he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the

Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and

her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended

largely upon students and unemployed adults [to participate

in non-violent protest of the denial of the franchise], Selma

has involved fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in

active demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population

of Marion was arrested on one day.''

Mrs. King continues:

Martin was referring of course to a group that included the

defendants recently prosecuted for assisting elderly and

illiterate blacks to exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin

anticipated from the depth of their commitment twenty years

ago, that a united political organization would remain in

Perry County long after the other marchers had left. This

organization, the Perry County Civic League, started by Mr.

Turner, Mr. Hogue and others, as Martin predicted, continued

``to direct the drive for votes and other rights.'' In the

years since the Voting Rights Act was passed, Black Americans

in Marion, Selma and elsewhere, have made important strides

in their struggle to participate actively in the electoral

process. The number of Blacks registered to vote in key

Southern states has doubled since 1965. This would not have

been possible without the Voting Rights Act.

However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal

participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the

South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to

the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the

voters. It has been a long, up-hill struggle to keep alive

the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental

right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility

to the enforcement of those laws----

Mr. President, I don't think I quite understand. I am reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee from 1986 that was admitted into the Record. I am simply reading what she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a Federal court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her.

I think that may have been Senator Kennedy who said that in the record, although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words.

So quoting Senator Kennedy, calling then-Nominee Sessions a disgrace, is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 1986.

So let me understand. Can I ask a question, in the opinion of the Chair? I want to understand what this rule means.

Is it the contention of the Chair, under the rules of the Senate, I am not allowed to accurately describe public views of Senator Sessions, public positions of Senator Sessions, quote public statements of Senator Sessions?

I am asking what this rule means in this context. So can I continue with Coretta Scott King's letter?

Thank you. I will pick up, then, with Mrs. King's letter to the Judiciary Committee when the Judiciary Committee was considering, not then-Senator Sessions, Nominee Sessions for a position on the Federal bench.

She makes the point:

However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal

participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the

South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to

the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the

voters. It has been a long, up-hill struggle to keep alive

the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental

right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility

to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise

of those rights by Black people, should not be elevated to

the federal bench.

The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that if confirmed,

he will be given life tenure for doing with a federal

prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished twenty years

ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years ago, when we

marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of voting was

real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in Selma and

Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the time, ``it

was not just a sick imagination that conjured up the vision

of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who forced an

inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who ordered

the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; who

clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously inflicted

repeated brutalities and indignities upon nonviolent Negroes

peacefully petitioning for their constitutional right to

vote.''

Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to

American democracy, that we can not tolerate any form of

infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been

disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has struggled

longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than

Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box

denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a

broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block

the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the

purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gambit from

the straightforward application of brutality against black

citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as

``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests.

The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984

voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique

used to intimidate Black voters, and thus deny them this most

precious franchise. The investigations into the absentee

voting process were conducted only in the Black Belt

counties, where blacks had finally achieved political power

in the local government. Whites had been using the absentee

process to their advantage for years, without incident. Then,

when Blacks, realizing its strength, began to use it with

success, criminal investigations were begun.

In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney,

exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three

leaders of the Perry County Civic League, including Albert

Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence

of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, Mr.

Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites,

choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by

blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions

sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors

and colleagues of my husband, who had been key figures in the

civil rights movement in the 1960's. These were persons who,

realizing the potential of the absentee vote among Blacks,

had learned to use the process within the bounds of legality,

and had taught others to do the same. The only sin they

committed was being too successful in gaining votes.

The scope and character of the investigations conducted by

Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were

selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of

their testimony to the government's case. Also, the

prosecution illegally withheld from the defense, critical

statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were

pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct''

testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by

the FBI, who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a

grand jury in Mobile when they could have more easily have

testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These

voters, and others, have announced they are now never going

to vote again.

I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in

these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious

questions about his commitment to the protection of the

voting rights of all American citizens. And consequently his

fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental

right. When the circumstances and facts surrounding the

indictments of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer

Hogue are analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation

was political, and the result frightening--the wide-scale

chill of the exercise of the ballot for blacks, who

suffered so much to receive that right in the first place.

Therefore, it is my strongly-held view that the

appointment of Jefferson Sessions to the federal bench

would irreparably damage the work of my husband, Al

Turner, and countless others who risked their lives and

freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal

participation in our democratic system.

The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by

which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will

be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil

right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately

results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is

only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that they

are able to participate actively in the solutions to their

own problems.

We still have a long way to go before we can say that

minorities no longer need to be concerned about the

discrimination at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native

Americans, and Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented

at every level of government in America. If we are going to

make our timeless dream of justice through democracy a

reality, we must take every possible step to ensure that the

spirit and intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the

Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution is honored.

The federal courts hold a unique position in our

constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other

citizens without political power have a forum in which to

vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is

essential that the people selected to be federal judges

respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for

individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all.

The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they

protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel confident

that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge

with fairness others holding different views.

I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite

judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights

guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for

appointment to the federal district court. Based on his

record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating

effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also

on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my

husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I

therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his

confirmation.

I thank you for allowing me to share my views.

Mrs. King's views and words ring true today. The integrity of our Justice Department depends on an Attorney General who will fight for the rights of all people. An honest evaluation of Jeff Sessions' record shows that he is not that person.

My concerns regarding Jeff Sessions go far beyond his disappointing record on civil rights. Take immigration, for example. The Daily Beast published an article a few weeks ago entitled, ``Donald Trump's Refugee Ban Has Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions's Fingerprints All Over It.'' Here is what the article says:

To longtime Jeff Sessions observers, the chaos that

unfolded in American airports on Saturday morning wasn't a

surprise. At all. Rather, the refugee ban was the predictable

culmination of years of advocacy from two of President Donald

Trump's most trusted advisors: White House Senior Advisor

Stephen Miller, and attorney general designate Jeff Sessions.

For years, Sessions and Miller--who was the Alabama Senator's

communications director before leaving to join the Trump

campaign--pushed research and talking points designed to make

Americans afraid of refugees.

Press releases, email forwards, speeches on the Senate

floor--Miller and Sessions used it all to make the case

against Obama's refugee program was a huge terror threat. The

executive order Trump signed late in the day on Friday is

just the logical conclusion of their work.

I started getting press releases that Miller sent on behalf

of Jeff Sessions in March 2013, shortly after I moved to D.C.

to cover Congress. The emails went to my Gmail, and kept

coming over the years--hundreds and hundreds of them. By the

time he left Sessions' office to join the Trump campaign,

Miller's press releases were legendary among Hill reporters:

There were just so many of them at all hours of the day, and

they never stopped. Some were lengthy diatribes; some were

detailed, homemade charts; some were one-liners; one was just

a link to Facebook's stock page on Google Finance with the

subject line, ``Does this mean that Facebook has enough money

now to hire Americans?''

``I wanted to put together a little book of the best emails

I ever sent,'' Miller told Politico last June. ``I spent

hours and hours of research on those.''

Some of that research had serious methodological problems,

according to Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the

libertarian Cato Institute.

``Miller's work vastly overstates the threat of foreign

terrorists to the homeland,'' Nowrasteh said.

He pointed to Miller's efforts to chronicle cases of

refugees implicated in terrorist activity. It is true that

some refugees in the U.S. have been indicted for terrorism-

related crimes, Nowrasteh said. But instances of refugees

actually planning terror attacks on American soil, he added,

were vanishingly rare.

``Almost all the refugees that I was able to specifically identify in his set were trying to support a foreign terrorist organization, mostly Al Shabab in Somalia, by giving them money or something like that,'' Nowrasteh said. ``I don't know about you, but I think there's a big difference between sending a militia in your home country funds and trying to blow up a mall in Cincinnati.''

The collective effect of Miller and Sessions' messaging was

to enthusiastically push a narrative that now dominates the

Trump administration: that refugees and other immigrants

steal Americans' jobs, suck up too much welfare money,

incubate terrorists in their communities and, overall, are a

big problem.

The conclusion was always the same: The government should

let in far fewer refugees, and it should think twice about

welcoming Muslims.

And now, that's exactly what Trump is doing.

For instance, in one ``Dear Colleague'' letter that

Sessions co-authored with conservative Republican Rep. David

Brat--a letter Miller blasted out to his press list--the

would-be Attorney General ripped into the refugee program.

``There can be no higher duty as lawmakers than to keep our

constituents and their families safe,'' Brat and Sessions

wrote. ``Yet our reckless refugee programs, lax green card

and visa policies, utter failure to enforce rampant visa

overstays, along with our wide open southern border, put the

U.S. at grave and needless risk.''

``Grave and needless risk''--it is a view that clearly

informs Trump's decision to temporarily ban refugees.

And a Miller press release, blasted out on November 25,

2015, included this ominous title: ``U.S. Issued 680,000

Green Cards to Migrants from Muslim Nations Over the Last 5

Years.''

Sessions then forwarded that email to his email list on

Jan. 12, 2016, the day of Obama's final State of the Union

address, and added this note: ``Some numerical context for

any discussions of refugee policy that may arise tonight. As

further context, the top-sending country for migrants are

Iraq and Pakistan, according to Pew, `Nearly all Muslims in

Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%)

support Sharia law as official law.' ''

The implication was clear as a bell: Muslim immigrants are

flooding into the U.S., and they are bringing Sharia with

them. Someone who agreed with Miller's assessment would do

what Trump just did.

Just about any time a refugee living in the U.S. was

charged, implicated, or otherwise connected to terrorism,

Miller emailed his list about it.

Another Sessions press release, sent jointly with Sen.

Richard Shelby, also included ominous intonations about

refugees and Muslims.

``Congress must cancel the President's blank refugee check

and put Congress back in charge of the program,'' Sessions

and Shelby said. ``We cannot allow the President to

unilaterally decide how many refugees he wishes to admit, nor

continue to force taxpayers to pick up the tab for tens of

billions of unpaid-for welfare and entitlement costs.''

``The omnibus''--

Still quoting the letter from Senators Shelby and Sessions--

would put the U.S. on a path to approve admission for

hundreds of thousands of migrants from a broad range of

countries with jihadist movements over the next 12 months, on

top of all the other autopilot annual immigration--absent

language to reduce the numbers,'' the release continued.

That same statement also suggested that refugees were

robbing elderly Americans of their benefits.

``Refugees are entitled to access all major welfare

programs, and they can also draw benefits directly from the

Medicare and Social Security Disability and retirement trust

funds--taking those funds straight from the pockets of

American retirees who paid into these troubled funds all

their lives,'' Sessions and Shelby said.

Now that Trump is president, those numbers are getting

reduced--and fast.

Another foreboding subject line from Miller showed up in

reporters' inboxes on Nov. 20, 2015: ``ICYMI: Each 5 years,

U.S. issuing more new green cards to migrants from Muslim

nations the population of Washington, D.C.''

Sessions also took to the Senate floor to argue that Muslim

immigrants are uniquely dangerous. On Nov. 19, 2015, the

Alabaman said the following about Muslims:

``It is an unpleasant but unavoidable fact that bringing in

a large unassimilated flow of migrants from the Muslim world

creates the conditions possible for radicalization and

extremism to take hold.''

In the speech, Sessions argued that the U.S. should set up

safe zones in Syria where refugees could settle--instead of

allowing any of them into the United States. Miller emailed

reporters as Sessions spoke to highlight his argument. Now

it's Trump's position.

At Breitbart, Julia Hahn covered Sessions' speech, in an

article headlined ``Afghanistan Migration Surging into

America: 99% Support Sharia Law.'' News broke earlier this

week that Hahn got a job in the White House as an assistant

to Trump and senior advisor Stephen Bannon.

And on and on and on, for hundreds of emails, without even

a whisper of flip-flopping.

Trump's crack-down on Muslims and refugees should not

surprise anyone. He is just taking his advisors' advice.

Trump's Executive order sparked protests and resistance all across the Nation. People across the country and around the world are standing up to say that it contradicts our core values and that it violates the law.

Massachusetts is on the frontlines of challenging this illegal and downright offensive Executive order. Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined a Federal lawsuit to challenge that Executive order. This is what she said. I am quoting Attorney General Healey:

Harm to our institutions, our citizens, and our businesses

is harm to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. . . . The

President's Executive order is a threat to our

Constitution. Rather than protecting our national

security, it stigmatizes those who would lawfully

immigrate to our State. With this policy, our global

universities, hospitals, businesses, and startups and far

too many students and residents have been put at risk. On

behalf of the Commonwealth, my office is challenging the

immigration ban to hold this administration accountable

for its un-American, discriminatory, and reckless

decision-making.

In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that expanded protections and services provided to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.

There is a piece from the Bedford Minuteman that really tells the story of how sexual violence impacts Massachusetts. This is what it said: ``They are mothers, daughters, sisters, fathers, sons, and brothers.''

Mr. President, I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate.

I ask leave of the Senate to continue my remarks.

Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. This week they are starting to roll out their legislative agenda.

So now that they have complete control of the agenda, what do the Republicans have in store? Something to bump up wages for working families or something to create more jobs? Something to tackle the student debt crisis? Maybe something to deal with all the jobs that get shipped overseas? No, one of the Republican Party's first orders of business is a giveaway to ExxonMobil that will help corrupt and repressive foreign regimes and make it easier to funnel money to terrorists around the world.

Here is the problem. Big corporations like Exxon--or other oil, gas, and mining companies--often pay millions of dollars to foreign governments to access natural resources located in these countries. Many of these foreign regimes are corrupt, and Exxon's massive payouts regularly end up in the pockets of government officials rather than in the hands of the people. These corrupt officials get filthy rich while their citizens face punishing poverty and dangerous working conditions. Worse still, some of these undisclosed payments can end up financing terrorists.

Just over 6 years ago, Congress passed a bipartisan provision to help tackle this problem. With the strong support of Senator Dick Lugar, the leading Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Congress required oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose any payments they make to governments to extract natural resources. Republicans and Democrats agreed that shining a light on these payments would help combat corruption and terrorism around the globe and help citizens in some of the very poorest nations in the world hold their own governments accountable.

Disclosing these foreign payments also helps investors right here in the United States so they can make more informed investment decisions. Some investors may want to stay away from companies that could face expensive lawsuits for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or other anti-corruption laws. Other investors, quite frankly, may just prefer not to invest in companies that could be helping prop up corrupt foreign governments or indirectly financing terrorism.

Congress directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to write the rule, and the SEC spent years soliciting input from investors, from human rights advocates, from anti-corruption experts, and from oil, gas, and mining companies. The agency ultimately issued a ruling last year, and it

worked. The rule gained the support of faith groups, human rights groups, development organizations, and anti-corruption advocates all around the world. The rule also earned the support of investors who collectively controlled more than $10 trillion in assets, and--we should really be proud--it set an international standard, with the European Union, Canada, and other countries adopting similar standards for companies in their own countries.

But it didn't go down well with everyone. A handful of powerful oil and gas companies have been after this requirement from the start, and Exxon has been leading the pack on this. In fact, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon at the time, personally lobbied against the requirement back in 2010. His reason? What was his objection? The foreign payments rule would undermine Exxon's ability to do business in Russia. Listen to that again. If Exxon has to tell the world about the millions of dollars it hands over to the Russian Government, Exxon wouldn't be able to do as much business in Russia. So now the Republican Congress wants to rush in to help out poor Exxon so they can keep the secret money flowing to these Russian officials.

This Exxon giveaway shows just how bankrupt the Republican agenda is. They don't have any ideas for helping working families. It is just one corporate giveaway after another--making their big business donors happy and keeping the campaign contributions flowing for the next election. But the economic lives of our working families, our moral leadership in the world, the safety of our financial system, and the water we drink and the air we breathe--all of those--are just afterthoughts to the corporate wish list.

If you are a corrupt foreign dictator, Republicans rolling back the rules is great for you. If you are an oil company executive, Republicans rolling back the rules is great for you. But if you are anyone else, you should be outraged that the Republican Congress is so willing to throw you under the bus to please these groups.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are in the second week of the Trump Presidency, and it is pretty clear that something is happening in our country. All across the Nation, Americans in quiet towns and boisterous cities are taking to the streets to fight for American values. They are protesting in the streets and calling their Representatives. They are getting involved in local organizations, and they are organizing around the causes they support.

We know that American values are threatened when the President issues an order banning immigrants from the country based on their religion. We know that American values are threatened when politicians try to break apart a health care system that has extended medical benefits to millions of Americans, and we know that American values are threatened when a President tries to stack his government with billionaires and insiders who have a history of grinding working people into the dirt.

Yesterday something happened that is a threat to our American values. President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. For years now, I have repeated this warning: America's promise of equal justice under the law is in danger. Over the last three decades, as the

rich have grown richer and middle-class families have struggled, the scales of justice have also tilted, tilted in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.

This is not an accident. It is part of a deliberate strategy to turn our courts into one more rigged game for folks at the top, and its effects have been devastating. Recent court decisions have protected giant businesses from accountability, made it harder for people who have been injured or cheated to get a hearing, gutted longstanding laws protecting consumers who have been swindled, and unleashed a flood of secret money into our politics that is rapidly tilting the entire government in favor of the wealthy.

Billionaires and corporate giants have launched a full-scale attack on fair-minded, mainstream judges. It has happened at every level of our judiciary, but the best example was the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland was an obvious consensus nominee and a straight shooter who followed the law. Why block him? The problem was that Judge Garland's career didn't reflect a sufficient willingness to bend the law to suit the needs of the rich and powerful. And for that sin, far-right groups, financed by Big Business interests, spent millions of dollars attacking him, to torpedo his nomination and keep that seat open.

They did something else that is even more damaging: Far-right groups also drew up a list of ``acceptable'' Supreme Court nominees, people who demonstrated they were sympathetic to the rich and the powerful. Judge Neil Gorsuch made the cut, and his nomination is their reward.

Judge Gorsuch is intelligent and accomplished. He is polite, respectful, and articulate. Make no mistake, his professional record, which I have reviewed in detail, clearly and consistently favors the interests of big corporations over workers, big corporations over consumers, and big corporations over pretty much anybody else.

Let's not mince words. The nomination of Judge Gorsuch is a huge gift to the giant corporations and wealthy individuals who have stolen a Supreme Court seat in order to make sure that the justice system works for them. What I am saying shouldn't be controversial. They haven't made a secret of what they were doing. This is exactly why Judge Gorsuch has been on their list for 4 months. He is the payoff for their multimillion-dollar investment.

Throughout his professional career, Judge Gorsuch has shown a truly remarkable insensitivity to the struggles of working Americans and an eagerness to side with businesses that break the rules over workers who are seeking justice.

Even before he became a judge, Judge Gorsuch famously argued in favor of limiting the ability of investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies commit fraud, whining about how annoying it is for billionaire corporations to have to face their investors when they cheat them.

As a judge for more than a decade, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure that the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. Let me just count some of the ways. He has sided with employers who deny wages, employers who improperly fire workers, employers who retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has sided with employers who denied retirement benefits to their workers. He has sided with big insurance companies against disabled workers who were denied benefits. He has ruled against workers in all kinds of discrimination cases. He has even argued that the rights of corporations outweigh the rights of the people working for them, for example, allowing businesses to assert religious beliefs so they can limit their employees' access to health care.

Listen to that one again. He thinks that a company can assert a religious belief and decide whether female employees get access to birth control. Let's be clear. That means a lot of employees will be living at the whim of their employers.

Judge Gorsuch has written dismissively about lawsuits to vindicate the rights of vulnerable people. Equal marriage? Assisted suicide? Keep those issues out of his courtroom.

He is willing to open the doors wide when big corporations show up in his court to challenge health and safety rules they don't like or regulations to prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining our public safety, or just plain cheating people. When that happens, Judge Gorsuch is ready to go, to override the rules with his own views. On that score, he is even more extreme than Justice Scalia.

This is exactly the type of Supreme Court Justice that giant corporations want, but they have never been quite so brazen about it. Spending millions to slime a consensus straight shooter nominee like Merrick Garland and steal a Supreme Court seat, then drawing up a public list of ``acceptable'' alternatives and handing it over to a billionaire President so he can do his buddies a favor. That is bold. That is bold, and that is not how America is supposed to work.

Our courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on the facts and the law, not people chosen to advance the interests of those at the top.

Let's be clear. This fundamental principle might be more important today than it has ever been in modern history. Every day our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for an independent judiciary, for a civil society, and for the rule of law. That is precisely the reason that our Constitution gives us a neutral, independent judiciary. We don't need Justices who have been handpicked for their willingness to kowtow to those with money, power, and influence. We need Justices who will stand up to those with money, power, and influence.

Judge Gorsuch may occasionally write in vague terms about the importance of the independent courts. Today, right now, that simply is not good enough. Now, more than ever, the United States needs a Supreme Court that puts the law first every single time. That means Justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans-- civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and all the protections guaranteed by our laws.

We cannot stand down when American values and constitutional principles are attacked. We cannot stand down when the President of the United States hands our highest Court over to the highest bidder, and that is why I will oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination.

Mr. President, I yield.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to President Trump's nomination of Rex Tillerson to be the next Secretary of State. There are many, many reasons to oppose this nomination, and my colleague from Washington has just listed several of them. But the main reason for me is as simple as it is disturbing: Tillerson's extensive and longstanding ties with Russia mean that the United States of America simply cannot trust him to be a strong advocate for the interests of our country.

Here is what has been publicly reported. Our intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government conducted a successful series of cyber attacks on the United States designed to help Donald Trump get elected President. Intelligence chiefs have briefed the President on a dossier alleging that the Russian Government has collected compromising information on him. And in response, the President has attacked the intelligence community.

This week, he installed his political crony, Steve Bannon, a man with ties to White nationalists, on the National Security Council while marginalizing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence.

Now, there is significant reason to believe that the President has extensive financial relationships with Russia, but nobody actually knows any of

the details because he has refused to release his tax returns. And, apparently, the President's own national security adviser is currently under FBI investigation for his own interactions with the Russian Government.

This is only the 12th day of the Trump Presidency, and this is what is going on right now--12 days. I wish this weren't happening. I wish things were normal, but this is not normal. We cannot simply ignore all of this as we evaluate the President's nominees to critical foreign policy and national security jobs.

I have heard some people say that Rex Tillerson doesn't know anything about diplomacy or have any experience with foreign policy. I actually think that is wrong.

For the last decade, Tillerson has served as the CEO of ExxonMobil, a massive company that would have roughly the 42nd largest economy in the entire world if it were its own country. As the leader of that giant oil company, Tillerson was an expert at diplomacy; specifically, how to advance the interests of his own fabulously wealthy oil company and himself, no matter the consequences for American foreign policy toward Russia.

Russia has vast oil resources, and Exxon is one of the world's largest oil companies. Getting at that oil is a critical priority for Exxon--such a high priority, in fact, that when it came time to pick a new CEO, Exxon chose Tillerson, who had spent years managing the company's Russia efforts. This isn't just a passing coincidence. Tillerson has worked closely with Putin's senior lieutenants, and, in 2013, Tillerson received the highest honor that the Kremlin gives to foreigners.

Tillerson's Russia projects ran into trouble the following year, however, because after Russia invaded Ukraine and started illegally annexing territory, Europe and the United States slapped sanctions on Russia. Those sanctions made life more difficult for Exxon, so Tillerson ignored them. He forged ahead despite the sanctions, signing more agreements with Russia, and then he used his army of well-funded lobbyists to undermine our sanctions with Russia.

When confronted with the facts about this in his confirmation hearing, Tillerson first pretended that he didn't know if the company had lobbied at all. And then later, he said: Well, the company simply participated in discussions with lawmakers without actually taking a position.

He is saying that they paid their lobbyists to show up and just talk generally, not to advance what the company wanted. You know, when you hear something that lame, you wonder just how dumb he thinks we are.

Mr. Tillerson has argued that in his job at Exxon he was advocating for the interests of his giant oil company. And he understands that being Secretary of State is a different job.

Really? At his hearing, Tillerson lamented that when sanctions are imposed, ``by their design, [they] are going to harm American businesses''--as though the principal question the Secretary of State should be asking when deciding whether to hold Russia accountable for hacking our elections or for annexing Crimea is whether it might dent the bottom line of a powerful oil company.

And has Tillerson really separated himself from Exxon? Tillerson is receiving a massive $180 million golden parachute for becoming Secretary of State--$180 million. It is a special payout that he wouldn't get if he were taking some other job. He is getting it only because he is coming to work for the government.

I have opposed these parachutes for many years now, and many of us have worked on legislation to make them criminally illegal--many of us. I have opposed nominees in my own party over them because if your employer offered you $180 million to go to work for the government, that looks an awful lot like a bribe for future services. This kind of payment raises questions about whether you work for the government, for a multinational oil company, or for both at the same time. America deserves a Secretary of State who works for the American people, period.

Will Tillerson help Exxon while he is in office? Well, the law requires him to recuse himself from any matters involving this company for how long? For just 1 year.

Common sense requires Tillerson, who, again, is receiving a $180 million special payment from the company where he has worked his entire adult life--common sense requires him to recuse himself from all matters involving Exxon for the entirety of his time in government. But when pressed by my Massachusetts colleague, Senator Markey, Tillerson flatly refused to do it.

Mr. Tillerson's views, experiences, relationships, and compromising arrangements with Russia aren't my only problem with this nomination, not by a long shot.

Mr. Tillerson's company has spent years lying about climate change. In Massachusetts, we have laws about consumer fraud: telling people lies about your product, lies that could make a difference about whether or not customers want to buy it. The Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healy, has been investigating whether Exxon deliberately misled people about the impact of climate change on our economy, on our environment, on our health, and on our future.

Exxon didn't want to answer, so they bullied and stonewalled all the way. But it hadn't worked. In fact, our attorney general won a court ruling earlier this month, and Exxon is being forced to hand over 40 years' worth of internal documents that will show what the company knew about climate change, when they knew it, and whether they lied to their customers, their investors, and the American public.

Tillerson bobbed and weaved on climate change at his confirmation hearing. I wonder if he is just trying to avoid accidentally saying anything that might help Massachusetts finally find out and hold his company accountable for massive fraud. Look, that may be OK for a CEO, but that is not good enough for someone who wants to be our Nation's Secretary of State.

Climate change is a defining issue of our time, and the last thing we should do is hand our foreign policy over to someone who cares more about lining his own pockets than the survival of our planet.

I could go on at length about the glaring problems with Mr. Tillerson's nomination. It is amazing how far we have fallen, to go from John Kerry, an accomplished statesman, combat veteran, Presidential candidate, long-time public servant, and son of Massachusetts, to a billionaire with a golden parachute and no record of public service or putting American foreign policy interests ahead of his own corporate interests.

When we vote, Senators should understand this: Handing American foreign policy over to the leader of a giant oil company is not something we do in the United States; it is something Vladimir Putin would do in Russia.

Donald Trump is building his Presidency in the image of Vladimir Putin, and that is good for Russia, but it is a real problem for America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Friday night, President Donald Trump issued an Executive order that strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

I wish I were exaggerating. I wish this were some sort of game. But the ban that imposes religious tests and keeps refugees and immigrants from entering our country is illegal, it is unconstitutional, it is immoral, and it must be overturned.

The effects of this order were immediate and terrifying for people in Massachusetts and all across this country. My office got a call from an Iranian citizen who was traveling to Massachusetts to see his daughter who is currently receiving treatment for cancer. He was denied boarding in Germany and sent back to Iran. We heard from a woman who already has an approved immigrant visa but still hasn't found an airline that will allow her to board a flight to the United States. A Massachusetts resident called because her cousin who holds a student visa was not allowed to board a flight either. Another Massachusetts resident called because her Iranian sisters were denied boarding at London Heathrow. Both have their valid J-1 visas. One is a visiting professor at Harvard, and the other is a postdoc fellow at Harvard Medical. We heard from an Iranian student studying at MIT. She was denied entry on Saturday, and when she tried to return on Sunday, after the temporary stay had been issued, she was denied boarding by Lufthansa. A Massachusetts student on a student visa called because his wife was denied boarding in Switzerland.

None of these people are criminals. None of these people are threats. They are students at some of the world's top universities; they are doctors and scientists at some of the country's best hospitals. Most of them have already been vetted and granted the right to come to America. One is a father who wants to see his cancer-stricken daughter. They are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors. They are people. They are real people. They are part of what makes Massachusetts great, and they are part of what makes America great.

Donald Trump's radical ban on Muslims isn't in line with American values or with our Constitution. It is also not in line with what the Republican Party stands for.

In the months following the attacks of September 11, President George W. Bush made a point to remind the United States that we were not at war against Islam. In a speech in April of 2002, he said:

America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred

against people of Arab background or Muslim faith. America

values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths--Christian,

Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is

practiced and protected here, because we are one country.

Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because

we're one country. Race and color should not divide us,

because America is one country.

Do Senate Republicans agree? If so, then come down here and say so. Where are you? Where are Senate Republicans when their Republican President issues an order targeting one religious group?

Let's be clear about what happened here. Keeping the details secret, working with a small group of operatives inside the White House, consulting no experts in diplomacy or homeland security, and getting advice from outsiders with no actual legal authority, President Trump acted unilaterally to issue this order.

Make no mistake, while it may not affect every Muslim in the world, Donald Trump's Executive order is a Muslim ban, and it is unconstitutional.

This is a crisis. The Senate should take up and pass Senator Feinstein's bill to overturn this illegal order right now. What is happening is shocking. It is shocking, but it is not surprising.

Donald Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. During his Presidential campaign, he promised ``a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' That is what he said. Last year, it seemed like pretty much everyone agreed that this was not acceptable in the United States of America.

Speaker Paul Ryan declared:

A religious test for entering our country is not reflective

of America's fundamental values. I reject it.

Where are you now, Paul Ryan? Have you rejected President Trump's order to impose a religious test for entering our country? Have you introduced a bill to overturn it? You have the power. Where are you?

As Governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence said: ``Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.'' Where are you right now, Vice President Pence? Have you called to overturn President Trump's offensive and unconstitutional order? Have you asked Republicans to introduce a bill to overturn it? You have a platform. Where are you?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a Muslim ban ``completely and totally inconsistent with American values.'' Where are you right now, Mitch McConnell? Have you rejected President Trump's Muslim ban that is completely and totally inconsistent with American values? Have you introduced a bill to overturn it? You have the power. Where are you?

President Trump ignored these Republican leaders. Today these Republican leaders will not stand up for what is right. President Trump may be willing to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and the Republican leadership in Congress may be willing to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, but the American people are not.

This weekend, Americans across this country came together to reject this sort of fear and hate. The American people showed courage, even as the Republican leadership hid out. Crowds of people raced to airports across this country to welcome immigrants and refugees and to demand compliance with court rulings that gave individuals and families temporary relief and to demand that this reckless order be rescinded.

I was proud to stand with hundreds of people at Logan Airport in Boston on Saturday night and then with more than 20,000 people in Copley Square on Sunday. We had one of the biggest demonstrations in the country. I also want to say I am in awe of the hundreds of lawyers and translators who dropped everything and spent sleepless nights in airport terminals and courts fighting for justice. Because of their tireless work, we have already been able to undo some of the damage caused by President Trump.

While I am encouraged by our victories in the courts this weekend, the Trump administration has derided these judges and, in some instances, refused to follow these orders. This is shocking and unconstitutional. Congress must act. We must act now. Congress must stand up and say to President Trump that this is not who we are. Congress must say to Donald Trump and to the world: We will not turn our backs on lawful immigrants and refugees fleeing murderers. We will not turn our backs on people who risk their own lives to protect our soldiers in Iraq and in the fight against ISIS. We will not give ISIS more recruiting material. We will not promote an imagined religious war between America and Islam. We will stand for our values, for American values, for human values. We will not be divided by hate and fear.

Fifteen months ago, I traveled to the Greek island of Lesbos. This is the first stop for many Syrian refugees as they flee from the terrorists of ISIS. That was where I saw the shoddy, paper-thin river rafts that people cram onto, with nothing more than a hope and a prayer that they will make it across a choppy sea. I saw the little plastic pool floaties that people put on small children, hoping it would be enough to save them if the raft went down.

I met a 7-year-old girl who had been sent out on that perilous journey alone. I thought about what horrors her parents must have faced to hand a wad of cash to human smugglers with only the most desperate dream that their little girl would find something better on the other side.

President Trump is trying to shut the door on that little girl and on countless others who are fleeing for their lives. He is trying to shut the door on children, on doctors, on students, on engineers, on husbands and wives, on grandmas and grandpas. That is not all. President Trump is trying to shut the door on people who risked their lives helping American soldiers, people who face execution in the hands of terrorists if they are sent back.

President Trump is even trying to shut the door on legal immigrants, on students and faculty, on people who work in Massachusetts and across this country, on people who have already been thoroughly screened for entry into the United States and have been granted permanent status to live and work in our country. This has nothing to do with security-- nothing.

Little girls fleeing from murderers are not a threat. Elderly grandparents detained at airports are not a threat. Students and teachers and people who work in Massachusetts and across the country are not a threat. Iraqi translators who put their own lives at risk to protect American soldiers are not a threat. We should welcome them. We should welcome them with open arms. That is who we are.

Voices from across the political spectrum, including many of my friends from across the aisle, have already stepped forward to criticize this order, but criticism is not enough. President Trump's Executive order must be overturned. We must overturn it.

For those who remain unconvinced, I would like to take some time this evening to talk about some of the people who are hurt by the President's reckless, heartless, illegal, and unconstitutional actions. As stories have poured into my office, on the evening news, on social media, we have heard time and again about the consequences of President Trump's reckless and illegal order, and I would like to share some of those stories in my time tonight. I want to read one.

My staff and I have spent the weekend listening to and meeting with people who have been affected. I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of President Trump's actions. I want to start with a story of someone I met at Logan Airport on Saturday night. The story I want to read is from CBS Boston, ``Detainee Released After Federal Judge Grants Stay On Trump's Immigration Freeze.''

Hamed Hosseini Bay was questioned at Logan Airport Saturday

while trying to get back into America after caring for his

sick father in his native Iran. Hosseini Bay has lived in the

Boston area for approximately nine years. After a judge

granted a case brought by lawyers from the American Civil

Liberties Union Saturday night, Hosseini Bay was reunited

with his wife and daughter, who had traveled with him to Iran

but returned two weeks earlier.

He was not angry about his questioning.

``Everybody was friendly,'' Hosseini Bay told WBZ-TV's Jim

Smith. ``They had to do what they had to do. I'm grateful for

all the people back there, but it was chaotic.''

Hosseini Bay's wife is now questioning what the future will

be like for her family in America. ``It's just terrifying how

my life has changed in two days, in three days,'' she said.

``I don't know (about the future). Last week everything was

normal. I would pick up my daughter from preschool, she was

like everyone else, I was like everyone else. But now we're

different.''

I met with this family. This is what President Trump's order means. It means stopping people like this and telling them that their future is different now in America.

I am going to read another story. This one is from NBC Boston. ``Protesters Rally as Doctors, Students Blocked From Entering Country After Trump's Orders.''

At Boston's Logan International Airport, at least six

people from Iran were detained Saturday after their flights

landed in the U.S. A Federal judge in New York issued a

temporary stay late Saturday for all detainees affected by

Trump's executive orders, which barred all refugees from

entering the United States for four months, and indefinitely

halted any from Syria. Trump argued the ban is needed to keep

out ``radical Islamic terrorists.''

A tweet by Samira Asgari, an Iranian doctor, stated that

she was denied boarding when she arrived for her flight to

the U.S.

from Germany. In a Skype interview from Switzerland, Asgari

told us she had planned to come to the U.S. to start a study

at Harvard Medical School analyzing tuberculosis.

``My view of America of course, doesn't change because of a

decision a politician makes. My view of America changes

because the land that used to be the land of those who want

to be there, who want to do something good to the community

and take something good from the community--that picture of

America has changed for me,'' she said.

Several students at Massachusetts colleges also tweeted

that they were being blocked from entering the country.

In a statement, MIT officials said they're ``very

troubled'' that Trump's executive order is affecting the

university's community and are exploring options for helping

impacted students.

Northeastern University in a statement to their community

offered support to their students, faculty and staff

reminding them of ``their commitment to each other.''

We believe in the commitment to inform each other, but that

is what it is that Donald Trump is trying to destroy.

Another story, from WBUR, a ``Somali Family Resettling In Lowell Worries For Other Refugees As Trump Promises Restrictions.''

The order will have global implications, including for one

newly arrived Somali family now living in Lowell.

The three Ahmed sisters from Somalia huddled on a couch

with their mother in a lobby of a busy office. Each woman

wore a brightly colored head scarf and winter jacket, and

each clutched a plastic bag carrying their personal

documents.

They are the most recent refugees to be welcomed at the

International Institute of New England's Lowell resettlement

office. And, with Trump's refugee restrictions hanging in the

balance, they are likely the last Somali family to enter the

state for some time.

``My mom and dad fled from the conflict in Mogadishu,''

explained Hawo Ahmed, 24. She and her twin sister were only 4

months old when their parents fled for Kenya.

Hawo retold the story of her mother, Fatuma, and why she

and Hawo's father left in 1993 amid the Somali Civil War.

``She said that it was, like, conflict all over the

country,'' Hawo said. ``People were killing each other, like

tribes, different tribes were killing each other. Whenever

they see you, they kill you, and they even used to come in

the houses to rape the girls and kill them. So they had to

move.''

The youngest daughter, Asha, was born in Kenya, where the

girls grew up, and went to school and learned English. Still,

they all very much consider themselves Somali.

When asked about their father, one of the young women said

she watched him die in 2006 from an asthma attack. She said

the family didn't have enough money for a new inhaler.

After beginning the refugee application process in Kenya 6

years ago, the family arrived in Manchester, NH, only a few

days ago.

Hawo and Muna said their arrival barely felt real, like a

dream come true. And then, Hawo said, as soon as they got off

the plane, they saw the news about Trump's executive orders

on the airport television.

``Even tears were filled up in my eyes, because I felt very

bad for others,'' she said. ``They have more expectations,

some were even told where they are going, which city they are

going, and if they stop all the things, it's going to be very

painful. I just have a very sincere request to the President,

that he should drop out that idea. That is all.''

Hawo said that they know many fellow refugees in Kenya who

are in the final phases of their application process.

She said her aunt and cousin, who live in a refugee camp in

Kampala, Uganda, had only one more interview to complete

before they were hoping to meet them in Massachusetts. Now

they're not sure what will happen.

``I couldn't sleep last night just thinking about them, and

she has been in the process for so long, and we want, if you

can help her,'' Hawo said.

That is what Donald Trump is doing to people around the world.

Another story--WCVB TV.

Trump's executive order worries Massachusetts family

awaiting loved one.

With the stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump fulfilled

a campaign promise that temporarily bans more than 130

million people from entering the United States.

Several people were prevented from entering Boston due to

Trump's executive order.

``We are very worried. We are very concerned,'' Omar Salem,

of Canton, said. ``I'm hoping for the best. I'm hoping that I

could get a text from him saying, `I'm here.'''

Salem is anxiously awaiting his brother's arrival back in

Massachusetts. The Syrian-born, Boston-based orthodontist was

on vacation when the President signed the executive order

suspending visa entry from seven countries.

``We didn't know it was going to be that bad and that

shameful,'' Salem said.

Salem's brother thought his green card would be enough to

secure his return, but the business owner is now facing

uncertainty.

``It always starts somewhere and we see it evolving to

become much bigger and much more sophisticated,'' Salem said.

While Salem is hoping to see his brother soon, his heart is

heavy for the millions of refugees and visa holders, who see

the U.S. as a sanctuary of freedom and acceptance.

``I really call it un-American to do this with the stroke

of a pen,'' Salem said.

The seven countries included in the executive order may be

just a starting point as the order left room for a broader

ban.

That is what Donald Trump is doing around the world.

Another story--this is a Facebook post from Niki Rhamati, a student at MIT.

I just got back home (Tehran) and I figured I should break

the silence. I want to start by saying how grateful I am to

all the friends, faculty, alums, sorority sisters, staff and

admin at MIT and other parts of the US who have contacted me

in the past couple of hours. My inbox is flooded with

messages and emails of love and support. I am truly

speechless, grateful and proud to be part of the MIT

community. I have never been subjected to any form of

religious or racial discrimination at MIT. Our community is

extremely diverse, inclusive, supportive and accepting of

individuals and their backgrounds. But I cannot believe all

this love is coming from the same country that banned me from

entering its borders just a couple of hours ago.

I don't want to get to the political mess that has created

this situation for me and many others. I just want to share

what millions of other people and I are going through, and

simply what it feels like to be an Iranian and targeted to

such racism and discrimination--things I have been very

familiar with most of my life.

I currently have a valid multiple entry student visa that

I've used for the past year and a half and have traveled very

smoothly (thank you Obama!). I came home (Tehran) to visit my

parents and family. I suspected I would not be able to travel

as easily as before with the new President, so I extended my

stay.

Here's the story of what happened this past week. On

Wednesday, I woke up to the announcement of the new Executive

Order by President Trump that would restrict entry for Syrian

refugees and citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries

(Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen) for 30

days. As BBC Persian, one of the reliable sources here,

contacted immigration attorneys and Politicians, this order

was read and interpreted as, ``issuance of any types of

immigrant and non-immigrant visas would be banned for

citizens of those countries for 30 days.''

The President had not yet signed this order so the ban was

not yet effective. I changed my flight to another one that

would get me to Boston on Saturday night with a transfer in

Qatar. It was rumored that the President signed the Order

once I was on my way to the airport, and it was executed

while I was in my first flight to Doha. But I looked on the

White House website, BBC and Washington Post and nothing had

been published yet. When I got to Doha, I was stopped at the

gate for my U.S. flight.

We found out that the ban (which is effective for 90 days

now instead of 30), included everyone currently holding an

immigrant, student or tourist visa as well as Green Card

holders. We heard a lot of people were deported at the

American border in different cities.

About 30 other Iranians and I were stuck in Doha, waiting

for flights back to Tehran. Among them were old couples

trying to go and see their children in the US, 2 old women

trying to be with and help their pregnant daughters there for

their third trimesters, students who had just gotten their

visas and families who had sold their belongings back home so

they could build a better life in the US. All these people

had gotten visas legally and had gone through background

checks. The President had said that the goal of this Order

was dealing with illegal immigration. Do any of the people

sound like illegal immigrants?

This will not secure the borders from the terrorism and

illegal immigrants. It will only increase racism in the

American society. The President is trying to make

Islamophobia a norm and policy by which he wants to lead the

country. There has not been a single terrorist activity from

those 7 countries listed above, in the US.

If you feel like helping millions of people facing this,

please contact your representatives or senators in your areas

and ask them to fight against this absurd ban. Reach out to

friends and ask them to do the same. Please also let me and

everyone else know how we can contribute to this.

As I was stuck in Doha, with other Iranians, I was telling

stories of interactions with many of the Americans I know.

Please know that I love and respect all of you because you

have always treated me with love and respect.

This is who Donald Trump is trying to keep out of the country.

Another story--this time from CNN.

A Syrian teen was headed to MIT and then came the ban.

Mahmoud Hassan was ecstatic when he got the acceptance

letter.

All through high school, the 18-year-old had one goal in

mind: get an engineering degree from the prestigious

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

But Hassan is from Damascus, Syria. And Friday, he had his

hopes crushed through no fault of his own.

When President Trump signed the executive order on

immigration, temporarily banning citizens from certain

Muslim-majority countries, Syria was one of the seven.

``Now Trump's orders will prevent me from going there,'' he

told CNN. ``My dreams are basically ruined.''

Hassan had been looking forward to his journey to the

Cambridge campus in the fall. He says he had been offered a

scholarship.

He's read and reread that letter from MIT dozens of times.

``Dear Mahmoud, On behalf of the Admissions Committee, it

is my pleasure to offer you admission to the MIT Class of

2021! You stood out as one of the most talented and promising

students in one of the most competitive applicant pools in

the history of the Institute.''

Hassan doesn't know what he'll do next.

This is who Donald Trump is determined to keep out of America.

Another story. This one is from our office.

A constituent from Concord, MA, came into my office in Boston just this morning--Monday, January 30, 2017. She came looking for more information on the current status of the Muslim ban, on behalf of her husband, who was originally born in Iran.

She explained that when he was young, he received refugee status in Australia for religious persecution, as he was raised in the Baha'i faith. He now has dual citizenship in Iran and Australia and is a green card holder of 10 years here in the United States. He is the vice president of a startup company that requires him to travel outside the country often but has decided that, because of the latest Executive orders, to stay grounded in the United States until further notice. He is currently safe in the United States.

Emam has also decided to begin his U.S. citizenship application, and the couple have two young children whom they are raising in the United States, afraid to travel outside the United States on business because of President Trump's ban.

Another story. This is a story via the Wall Street Journal.

Iraqi interpreter Laith al-Haydar received multiple death

threats for working with the American military at the height

of the war in his country. In return for helping the U.S., he

and tens of thousands of other Iraqis were promised U.S.

immigration visas.

Nearly four years after he applied, the 41-year-old father

of two is still waiting for a visa--and now he faces a new

setback: President Donald Trump signed an order suspending

immigration from several countries with a Muslim majority,

including Iraq, and a temporary ban on all refugees.

Mr. Haydar is among roughly 58,000 Iraqi applicants for

U.S. immigrant visas and refugee resettlement under the

federal programs that promised to fast-track entry for Iraqis

who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions

deemed critical to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq, according to

the State Department. A similar program for Afghans who've

worked with the U.S. government may also be at risk.

At least one Iraqi and two Afghans who worked with the U.S.

government and also qualify for expedited immigration visas

were turned away from American ports of entry on Friday and

Saturday, a State Department official said, adding that

several more were prevented from boarding planes to the U.S.

A substantial backlog of applications remains in part

because Congress limits the number of visas that can be

granted each year. Frustration with visa delays has now been

aggravated by Mr. Trump's executive orders.

Critics of the visa ban say it abandons thousands of

valuable allies abroad and risks deterring such people from

working with the United States in the future at a time when

Mr. Trump is promising a more aggressive military posture

abroad.

``These guys laid their lives on the line alongside

American soldiers and got paid a fraction of what I made,''

said Jake Thomas, a U.S. Army veteran who worked with Mr.

Haydar in Iraq and who now lives in Georgia. If they want

out, we need to honor our promises and get them out. Mr.

Thomas is one of several U.S. military officers who have

written letters to the State Department appealing for Mr.

Haydar to get a visa. He said he sympathizes with some of the

views regarding immigration that Mr. Trump campaigned on, but

he added that Iraqis like Mr. Haydar ``were singled out and

shot at for serving the United States and we made a

promise.'' Mr. Thomas said he knew of five Iraqi interpreters

who were killed in the 15 months of his last tour in Iraq,

including 3 who were gunned down in their homes for working

with the U.S. military.

President Trump continues to ignore the damage he is doing to the safety of our country and our servicemen and servicewomen overseas. Brave men and women who risked their lives to help U.S. soldiers in Iraq have already been caught up in the President's unconstitutional order.

I just want to associate myself with the man who said--who had been there, the soldier who had been there--that America made a promise. I believe in an America that keeps its promises. Donald Trump's order breaks our promises.

Another story, this one from Marcolla via PRI:

The Iraqi linguist who worked side by side with US troops

in Baghdad put her life on the line for America's war effort.

Now her family is in danger back in Iraq and she fears her efforts to get them to safety in America are all but doomed.

``I'm scared. The chance to see my family reunited again is

very slim now,'' she says. ``People like me and my family who

helped and supported America, I believe we should be

reunited. The history of the United States is to support

people and help them, not to separate the families.''

Marcolla was just 18 and living in Baghdad shortly after

American tanks rolled into the Iraqi capital in 2003. She was

recruited to work for the US military. Her role caught the

attention of Iraqi militants. They sought revenge. They

burned down Marcolla's house, kidnapped her father and

murdered her husband.

Fearing for her life, she applied for a US visa. And in

2013, after seven years of waiting, she received the

permission she had been waiting for. But Marcolla had to

leave her parents and siblings behind, even though she says

they too were in danger because of her service with US

troops. She says she tries to talk with her family in Baghdad

daily. ``Every day their lives are in danger,'' she says.

``They have to change their address, move from place to

place. They live in the unknown.''

Marcolla is worried that the refugee ban proposed Wednesday

means her parents and siblings will never reach American

soil.

``We already been in extreme vetting,'' she says. ``I

understand and I respect the US rules and the safety and

national security. . . . I understand that and I respect

that. However, there are people in Iraq who have a long

history of supporting America in Iraq and Afghanistan--the

linguists, the translators--they deserve and they need their

papers to be expedited.''

These are the people Donald Trump is keeping out of America.

Another story from Mother Jones:

``Immoral,'' ``Stupid,'' and ``Counterproductive'':

National Security Experts Slam Trump's ``Muslim Ban.''

``At the moment we need them most, we're telling these

people, `Get screwed.' ''

While Trump's executive order claims to be in the interest

of ``protecting the nation,'' experts in national security

and counterterrorism who spoke with Mother Jones argue that

it poses potentially disastrous immediate and long-term

security threats to the nation and US personnel overseas.

``Not only is it immoral and stupid, it's also

counterproductive,'' says Patrick Skinner, a former CIA

terrorism case officer who now works at Soufan Group, a

security consulting firm. ``We've got military intelligence

and diplomatic personnel on the ground right now in Syria,

Libya, and Iraq who are working side by side with the people

imbedded in combat and training and advising. At no time in

the US's history have we depended more on local--and I mean

local--partnerships for counterterrorism. We need people in

Al Bab, Syria; we depend on people in certain parts of

eastern Mosul, Iraq; in Cert, Libya. At the exact moment we

need them most, we're telling those people, `Get screwed.' ''

Kirk W. Johnson, who spent a year on reconstruction in

Fallujah in Iraq with the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) echoes Skinner's fears: ``This will have

immediate national security implications, in that we are not

going to be able to recruit people to help us right now, and

people are not going to step forward to help us in any future

wars if this is our stance.''

The US-led war on ISIS is but one front of a constellation

of fights against extremist groups that could be hampered by

Trump's decision. ``The US is officially banning people in

these countries at the same time we are trying to build up

local support to fight ISIS,'' Skinner said. ``It takes a

long time to build trust with these people. You have to start

over, say, `Okay, starting now, trust me.' How many times can

you get away with that?'' It also sends a message that groups

like the so-called Islamic State can exploit. Elizabeth

Goitein, the codirector of the Brennan Center's Liberty &

National Security Program, says, ``The message this projects

is that America sees Muslims as a threat--not specific

actors who are intent on committing terrorist acts. The

message that America really is at war with Islam will be

ISIS's best friend.''

BuzzFeed reporters Mike Giglio and Munzer Al-Awad spoke

with five current or former ISIS fighters who cited Trump's

divisiveness as a factor that will weaken America. They added

that his rhetoric against Muslims will help them reinforce

their narrative that America and the West are fighting not

just terrorism, but Islam itself. ``Trump will shorten the

time it takes for us to achieve our goals,'' said one.

Meanwhile, the very allies who have operated alongside US

personnel in war zones for years--contractors and translators

like Darweesh--are once again being abandoned. For the past

decade, Johnson has been leading an effort to resettle Iraqi

allies, many of whom, he says, face torture, kidnapping, and

death after collaborating with American soldiers. It all

started in 2006 when he heard from an Iraqi USAID colleague

who had been identified by a militia. The militia left a

severed pig's head on his door step, along with a message

saying that it would be his head next. Despite his years of

helping the United States, the US government offered no help,

and he had to flee the country with his wife.

``We are not going to be able to recruit people to help us right now, and people are not going to step forward to help us in any future wars if this is our stance.''

This is what Donald Trump's Executive order is doing. It is putting Americans at risk around the world.

Another story from Newsweek: ``Spy Veterans Say Trump's Muslim- Country Visa Ban Will Hurt Recruitment.

President Donald Trump's temporary ban on immigrants from

seven Muslim-majority nations takes a major recruiting tool

out of the hands of US spy handlers, say a growing number of

intelligence veterans.

For decades, CIA and US military spy recruiters have held

out the promise of eventual resettlement in America to induce

foreigners to turn coat and work secretly for the United

States against terrorist groups or repressive governments. In

reality, many were caught before they ever made it, but

during the Cold War countless Eastern Europeans living under

communist rule, and more recently, Muslims across the Middle

East, North Africa and Central Asia, have worked secretly for

US spy agencies on the promise that they or their children

would eventually be extracted. Another effective recruiting

tool for US operatives has been to offer their agents'

families medical care or education in the United States.

Those inducements, a primary recruiting tool in Muslim

land, were effectively suspended with Trump's executive order

Friday to temporarily ban immigration from seven critical

targets of the U.S. spy agencies--Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen,

Sudan, Libya and Somalia. The departments of State and

Homeland Security, the order stipulates, may allow entry from

those countries on ``a case-by-case basis,'' but it's a balky

arrangement not likely to appeal to the managers of the CIA's

highly secretive operations directorate, its espionage and

covert action arm.

Intelligence veterans with vast counterterrorism experience

are expressing dismay about how the order will affect their

spy operations.

``These individuals often put themselves at the risk of

death for working with the U.S., and without the ability to

offer them safety, we will be reducing the likelihood that

those in countries targeted by the ban will work with us in

the future,'' Phillip Lohaus, a decorated veteran of the U.S.

Special Operations Command and CIA, tells Newsweek.

``We relied heavily on local translators, many of whom have

gone on to forge productive lives for themselves here in the

States,'' Lohaus added. ``Why would they take such a risk if

they knew that they would face retribution or death by

staying in their home countries?''

``Absolutely,'' agreed Cindy Storer, a former member of the

CIA intelligence team that tracked al-Qaeda leader Osama bin

Laden. ``It hurts,'' she said in a brief interview. ``Capital

h-u-r-t-s.'' Imagine, she said, if the ban had been in place

when Jamal al Fadl, a Sudanese Muslim and key al-Qaeda

operative, showed up at the American embassy in the mid-1990s

and volunteered to defect to the United States. FBI

counterterror agents brought him into the U.S., where he

provided ``a major breakthrough of intelligence on the

creation, character, direction, and intentions of al-Qaeda,''

according to the official 9/11 Commission report.

And that is what Donald Trump is putting an end to.

Another story from the Washington Post: ``Dissent memo circulating in the State Department over Trump's policy on refugees and immigrants.''

For this one, Foreign Service officers have written a memo--and they shared it with the Washington Post--in opposition to President Trump's Executive order. Here are excerpts from a leaked dissent memo by U.S. Foreign Service officers regarding the Executive orders:

It will immediately sour relations with these seven countries, as well as much of the Muslim world, which sees the ban as religiously motivated. These governments of these countries are important allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, regionally and globally. By alienating them, we lose access to the intelligence and resources we need to fight the root causes of terror abroad before the attack occurs within our borders. It will increase anti-American sentiment. It will have an immediate and clear humanitarian impact. It will have a negative impact on the U.S. economy.

Looking beyond its effectiveness, this ban stands in opposition to the core American and constitutional values. This ban stands in opposition to the core American and constitutional values that we, as Federal employees, took an oath to uphold.

The United States is a nation of immigrants, starting from its very origins. The concept that immigrants and foreigners are welcome is an essential element of our society, our government, and our foreign policy. So, too, is the concept that we are all equal under the law and that we, as a nation, abhor discrimination, whether it is based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. Combined together, that means we have a special obligation to maintain an immigration system that is as free as possible from discrimination, that does not have implied or actual religious tests, and that views individuals as individuals, not as part of stereotyped groups.

Banning travelers from these seven countries calls back to some of the worst times in our history. Laws enacted in the 1920s and which lasted through the 1960s severely restricted immigration based on national origin and, in some cases, race. The decision to restrict the freedom of Japanese Americans in the United States and foreign citizens who wanted to travel to settle in the United States during the 1940s has been a source of lasting shame for many in our country. Decades from now, we will look back and realize we made the same mistakes as our predecessors: shutting borders in a knee-jerk reaction instead of setting up systems of checks that protect our interests and our values.

We do not need to place a blanket ban that keeps 220 million people-- men, women, and children--from entering the United States to protect our homeland. We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe. And we do not need to sacrifice our reputation as a nation which is open and welcoming to protect our families. It is well within our reach to create a visa process which is more secure, which reflects American values, and which would make the Department proud.

Again, this is a dissent memo circulating in the State Department over President Trump's policy on refugees and immigrants.

And this is what Donald Trump's Executive order does; it makes us less safe. It is wrong.

Another story, from a Boston Globe op-ed, Matt Gallagher, who is a veteran. The headline: ``Trump rejects the Muslims who helped us.''

The bravest person I've ever known went by the nickname

Suge Knight. He was as physically imposing as the infamous

music producer, but he was calm and bighearted, with a smile

as wide as a canyon. A Sudanese Muslim, Suge served as my

scout platoon's interpreter during our deployment to Iraq in

2007 and 2008, and he went on every patrol and mission with

us, no matter the circumstances. He'd survived multiple

roadside bomb attacks, had lost three young children to the

bombings of the first Gulf war, and yet still believed in

America and what America represented to him and his family.

Though he doubted he'd ever get to our country, he aspired

for his children to do so. ``Perhaps my grandchildren will go

to school with your kids,'' he once told me with typical

paternal charm. ``I'd like that very much.'' I felt the same.

We all did. He was one of us.

President Trump's recent executive order on Muslim refugees

and immigrants works to ensure that such a dream never comes

true. Muslim allies, including interpreters like Suge in Iraq

and Afghanistan, have done more for the United States during

the past 16 years of war than most Americans will even think

of doing their entire lives. Yet we're abandoning them in

their hour of need, wrapping ourselves up in a big, billowing

flag of fear and pretending it's for safety. We're also

abandoning Middle Eastern refugees fleeing the very

terrorists we've professed to combat, who have seen their

homes and lives destroyed and now seek shelter on our shores

the same way immigrants have for generations.

This is a national disgrace. The president's executive

order betrays American values and weakens our national

security all at once. Our country was founded as a haven.

Trump and his administration seem intent on turning it into a

medieval fortress.

In November, shortly after the election, I joined a

nonpartisan group in Washington, D.C., to advocate for Muslim

refugees and immigrants--Veterans For American Ideals, a

project of Human Rights First. There was a gray pall over the

city, and a deep sense of uncertainty for what awaited, even

in Republican offices. No one knew then what we all know now:

Trump really did mean to do what he'd said on the campaign

trail.

Time and time again, Democrats and Republicans alike told

us the United States already has in place the best and most

thorough refugee and immigrant screening process on the

planet. A prominent Republican adviser assured us that

Trump's ``extreme vetting'' idea was just a ploy to rustle up

votes. A national security official suggested that we should

be more thankful Congress

had saved the Special Immigrant Visa program for interpreters

and translators who served with the US military, and

maintained that the amount of issued visas was sufficient,

despite the overflowing backlog of requests.

A shouting match ensued. Enraged veterans can have our own

sort of diplomatic style.

I look back at that week with both pride and despondency.

On one hand, to see so many young American veterans standing

up for the principles of our nation--often the very same

principles that led them to enlist in the military to begin

with--was stirring. We tried, sometimes successfully and

sometimes not, to convey to politicians the importance of

remaining true to our Muslim brothers- and sisters-in-arms.

We also tried to remind them of the secondary and tertiary

effects of not honoring the bonds forged in combat. On the

other hand, bearing witness to how easily dismissed entire

lives and formative experiences can be by fellow citizens

(let alone elected representatives) was rather dismaying.

Even in our era of yellow-ribbon patriotism and star-

spangled grandiosity, veterans' stories of heroic Muslim

translators and brave, dedicated local Iraqis and Afghans

were, sometimes, met with hollow stares and empty platitudes

in Washington. What we were telling these officials defied

their preconceived notions about vets, and Muslims, and how

vets of the terror wars were supposed to feel about Muslims.

What we were telling them was that American security was

dependent on opening our doors to as many vetted refugees and

immigrants as possible, not barricading ourselves and saying,

``We're not that America anymore.'' What we were telling them

was that we knew, more than any other group of Americans,

what the hearts and souls of the Middle Eastern people were,

and that those hearts and souls were so very much like our

own.

These are just some of the stories of what Donald Trump is doing to people here in America, to Americans abroad, and people around the world.

This Executive order is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is immoral, and it must be overturned by Congress.

I understand that under the rules, a majority can stop any Senator after speaking for an hour postcloture, but there is a bit more I would like to say.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 additional minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I will continue with the story that was published this morning in the Boston Globe. This is from a veteran who was writing of his own experiences.

He says:

Trump's executive order, which seeks to ``keep radical

Islamic terrorists out of the United States,'' will only

embolden those very same people, who already had a near-zero

chance of gaining entry to our country to begin with. This

order proves too many ISIS and al-Qaeda talking points true

about what the United States really is, and will serve as an

excellent recruiting tool for those organizations and others.

This executive order isn't about national security. It's

about fear-mongering for ends we can only guess at.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. As my friend Phil Klay,

winner of the National Book Award and a Marine veteran,

pointed out last year, Ronald Reagan's ``city on a hill''

speech outlined an America ``For all the pilgrims from all

the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness toward

home.''

``I get that people are scared,'' Klay continued. ``But

it's only during frightening times when you get to find out

if your country really deserves to call itself the `home of

the brave.' ''

Donald Trump's zero-sum worldview and flimsy understanding

of the intricacies of modern war and terrorism threaten to

undermine our republic. His policy on Middle Eastern refugees

and immigrants must be checked and resisted by citizens of

all political stripes, legislators of both major parties and

the judicial courts.

After 16 years of war, much of my generation of military

veterans stands with the Middle Eastern people we sweated,

labored and bled with, and sometimes died for. It's going to

be a fight, but it's one we're not going to lose. The legacy

of America's past is at stake, as well as the soul of its

future.

Matt Gallagher is the author of the novel ``Youngblood''

and the memoir ``Kaboom: Embracing the Suck in a Savage

Little War.'' He is an Iraq war veteran and a former US Army

captain.

And he wrote this morning in the Boston Globe.

We are here tonight because this country is in crisis. We are here tonight because it is a constitutional crisis, because it is a moral crisis. We are here tonight to stand up and ask the rest of the U.S. Senate to overturn Donald Trump's Executive order. We have that power. All we need is the courage, the courage to stand up and do what is right. This is why we came to the U.S. Senate, to stand up and do what is right.

I call on the rest of the Senate to overturn Donald Trump's illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral Executive order.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Madam Clerk, on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats--

--who worked for a decade in Massachusetts to bring health care to 97 percent of our people, I vote no.

Mr. President, for 8 years Republicans have complained about health care in America. They have blamed everything in the world on President Obama. They have hung out on the sidelines, name-calling, making doomsday predictions, and cheering every stumble that they could blame on someone else. They spent a lot of energy rooting against families who needed help paying for health insurance or who wanted coverage but were frozen out because of preexisting conditions. They jeered and carried on. But what they didn't do--ever--was lift a finger to try to improve health care

in America. But they are in charge now. They get to call the shots.

So what is the first thing on the Republican agenda now that they are in control? Is it working to help improve health care in America, working to bring down premiums and deductibles, making fixes to expand the network of doctors and the number of plans that people can choose from--any of those? No, the very first thing on the Republican agenda in the 115th Congress is to shatter health care in America. The first thing is to rip health insurance out of the hands of millions of Americans who need it. The first thing is to massively raise the cost of health insurance for everyone who has it. The first thing is to create chaos for hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies, and send their costs spiraling out of control. The first thing is to abandon the people they were elected to represent. The first thing is to repeal and run away.

Republicans have been rushing around Capitol Hill for the past couple of weeks, huddling in meetings and trying to come up with a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. They are shocked--shocked--to discover that guaranteeing Americans access to health care is a complex business, and they don't have any good ideas.

Now, after 8 years of complaining, they are trying to convince each other that it will all be OK if they just repeal health care access, with nothing to replace it. They are trying to reassure each other that they know what they are doing.

Get real. They don't have a clue what to do next. For 8 years they have had no plan, and they don't have a plan now.

Let's be very clear about what is going on here. Republicans want to tear apart our Nation's health care system--a health care system that protects kids with cancer, protects women getting mammograms, protects independent contractors, protects new moms, protects college kids, protects grandparents, protects disease survivors, and protects so many of America's families. They want to tear it apart, and they don't have the first clue what to do with it afterwards. Repeal and run, that's the Republican plan.

In Massachusetts, we know how important health reform is because we have been working on it now for years--long before the Affordable Care Act was even a spark on the horizon in Washington.

My Republican colleagues could learn a lot from our work in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the belief that everyone should have access to affordable health insurance coverage is a shared value that Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, hospitals, insurers, doctors, consumers, and advocates have all worked to implement over the past decade. It is not just the lip service we are hearing right now here in Washington. It is real commitment, and, because of it, in Massachusetts we got real results.

Just because we are all behind this effort together in Massachusetts doesn't mean that health care reform has been a cake walk. Finding ways to cover more people and bring down costs, all while improving the quality of care, is a tough job. You have to be in it for the long haul. That is why, in Massachusetts, we didn't just pass one health care law in 2006 and then just run away. We came back a couple of years later with additional legislation to make fixes and adjustments. We formed commissions to study how things were working and to make recommendations for more changes. We passed amendments. We revised our regulations where they needed to be changed to support implementation. We worked to make coverage more affordable. We set standards to make sure insurance is a good value. We invested in prevention programs to keep people healthy in the first place. We got more coverage for more people, and we lowered health care costs.

We kept working month after month, year after year because we knew what it meant for a family to have the peace of mind that comes with affordable, high-quality health insurance coverage. We kept working because we knew it was the right thing to do. We kept working because we knew that is what Massachusetts residents expected us to do. Once we started something, we had to see it through. When it got tough, we worked harder. We didn't repeal and run.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, Massachusetts went all in. We expanded our Medicaid program. We used Federal funds to cover people who still lacked insurance even after our State reforms. We set up a State health insurance exchange, the Health Connector, and we combined Federal and State dollars to make sure that insurance was truly affordable.

Just 2 months ago, we signed an ambitious new Medicaid agreement with the Federal Government that will allow us to set up innovative partnerships among health providers, insurers, and community organizations so we can better serve Medicaid patients in our State.

We have a great deal to be proud of in Massachusetts. More than 97 percent of our citizens are insured. People have coverage. They have good coverage--coverage they can afford. This wasn't something we got done overnight, but it is something we worked at, and it is something we can achieve in every State if we are willing to do the work.

Democrats and nonpartisan government officials have worked for years here in Washington to try to make this health system work, and we have made real progress. Now Republicans in Congress are ready to throw away these years and years of progress. They are ready to threaten the collapse of our insurance markets. They are ready to threaten the health and the safety of millions of Americans simply to make a political point. They are ready to repeal and run.

In Massachusetts, right now, families are watching this debate, and they are worried about what happens to them. Kids with diabetes and moms with cancer are worried. Hospitals and insurers are watching, too, and they are worried--worried about an irresponsible Republican Party that is more interested in political stunts than in helping Americans get access to health care.

I don't blame them for being worried because this isn't a game. There is no magic replacement plan that will suddenly make everything all better. In Massachusetts, we can't just snap back to our old health insurance system if Republicans decide to rip up the Affordable Care Act. Other States across the country are also facing the terrifying prospect that they will be left high and dry as a result of the Republicans' reckless actions.

Every Senator here has ideas about how to improve health care in America, but no Democratic Senator will vote to destroy it today based on the vague assurance that maybe at some point Republicans might think up some kind of replacement plan later on. The Republicans' strategy is repeal and run. Repeal and run. That is not governing. That is not leadership. It is one of the most reckless and irresponsible things that has ever been proposed in this Congress. I know some Republican Senators agree with that. I know they are worried about whether this is the right move forward, given all that hangs in the balance. I hope their consciences get the better of them and they scuttle this plan before it is too late. I hope they remember that every single Senator who votes to destroy health care in America will be responsible for the disastrous consequences that come next.

If Republicans actually want to improve health care in America, let's talk about how to do that. That is what we were sent here to do. That is what voters--conservative and liberal, Republican and Democratic-- expect us to do. If Republicans want to destroy health care in America, I will fight them every step of the way. The stakes are too high for the millions of Americans whose futures are about to be sacrificed so one party can make a political point.

Let's stay and do the work that needs to be done to make sure every American gets access to high-quality, affordable health care. Repeal and run is for cowards.

Mr. President, I yield.

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

Mr. President, over the last two weeks Republicans in Congress have insisted on playing political games with funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The same agency that supports States such as Massachusetts when disasters hit, the same agency that provides grants for equipment to keep firefighters safe when they rush into burning buildings, the same agency that helps train and fund local police, the same agency that tracks down weapons that terrorists can use to threaten our safety here at home, the same agency that keeps our borders and airports safe--this is the agency the Republicans are willing to shut down. Why? Why put America at such risk? Because Republicans want to protest the steps President Obama has taken to try to address our country's immigration challenges.

This is not a responsible way to govern. This is a dangerous way to govern. There are real threats out there, from ISIS in the Middle East to cyber threats, to acts of terror such as the one in Paris earlier this year.

DHS gives funding to State and local governments to help them prevent terror attacks. Massachusetts received over $30 million in these grants just last year alone. If DHS shuts down, that funding dries up, leaving our firefighters, our police, and our EMTs hanging, putting the safety of every American at risk.

Think about the Customs and Border Protection agents, who screen people traveling into the United States through our airports, and the men and women of the Coast Guard who patrol our waters. They will still have to work those tough, sometimes dangerous jobs, but if the Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security, these people just won't get paid. Tens of thousands of workers nationwide could be working to help keep us safe and not get a paycheck to cover their groceries and rent. That is no way to treat the people who protect this country.

The solution is simple. Last year Democrats and Republicans agreed on a bipartisan bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That bill was ready to go until the Republicans decided they wanted to play politics. They decided to hold the Department of Homeland Security hostage to try to force the President to reverse an Executive order on immigration. That Department of Homeland Security funding bill is still ready to go. We could vote on it today and be done with all of this. Everyone who works to protect our safety would keep on working and keep on getting paid.

A few days ago the Boston Globe wrote an editorial about this, and they said:

The game of political chicken has to end with the

Republicans blinking. It's one thing to disagree with a

President's executive actions, but it's another thing

altogether to hold crucial funding for a wide range of

security programs hostage.

I couldn't agree more.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial be printed in the Record.

Let's be clear. If Republicans in the Senate don't change course, they will shut down the Department of Homeland Security and compromise the safety of the American people, and they will have done it because a handful of extremists in the Republican Party are angry at the President because he is trying to fix what we all know is a broken immigration system. Well, if they are angry about the President's immigration policy, let's debate the President's immigration policy. Last Congress the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to address immigration. Let's debate that bill again. Or if they want to propose a new bill, let's vote on that. But don't play games with the safety of the American people.

The way forward is clear. We need to pass a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.