Floor Statements

Mr. President, one of the most important constitutional duties we as Senators have is to decide whether a Supreme Court nominee is the right person for the job.

When we make a decision, we should always consider what is best for the people of this country. Three branches of government were created to serve the people, so no matter what we do--whether it is here in the Senate, whether it is in the White House, or whether it is across the street in the Supreme Court--the American people should always come first. And our rights--our individual rights should never be subordinate to the rights of corporations.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate protector of our individual rights--the ultimate arbiter of justice for our citizens.

Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch, over the course of his career, has made it clear that he thinks the rights of corporations are more important than the rights of individuals.

For someone who describes himself as a strict constructionist--as a so-called textualist--his judicial ruling on corporate rights in the Hobby Lobby case is one of the biggest distortions of our sacred principle of individual rights that I have ever seen.

And now President Trump has nominated Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, where he could end up ruling on many more cases related to individual rights.

In my State, just like in many of yours, there are thousands and thousands of families who will be directly affected by the decisions the Supreme Court makes in the next few years: voting rights, workers' rights, reproductive rights.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

In my State, just like many others, there are thousands of families who will be directly affected by the decision the Supreme Court makes in the next few years--even our First Amendment speech rights, which President Trump has threatened by saying he wants ``to open up our libel laws'' against the press.

If any of these cases make it to the Supreme Court, they will all be decided in part by the next Supreme Court Justice, and Judge Gorsuch's record does

not give me confidence that he will be a Justice whose rulings would bolster those individual rights.

On the issue of changing the rules to the filibuster, I strongly oppose changing these Senate rules for President Trump, to give him special help with Judge Gorsuch.

So I urge my colleagues to think about the potentially far-reaching and damaging consequences to our democracy if they vote to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Fundamentally, changing the rules for President Trump is a historic mistake.

We must stand up for individuals' rights over corporations, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

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

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the title X Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval.

This resolution would permit discrimination against family planning healthcare providers that provide primary preventive and reproductive healthcare services to millions of women around the country. It will allow States to take away Federal funding from family planning clinics and make it much harder for millions of American women to meet with their healthcare providers and access basic care.

I am struggling to understand, amidst all these problems we are having to solve in this country and around the world, why this Congress seems to have such a singular fixation on controlling women's access to basic healthcare. This legislation is so far out of touch with the actual needs of our constituents. If we cut funding for women's health clinics, is that going to create more good-paying jobs? Is it going to open more factories in our upstate rural towns? I don't believe it will. It is certainly not going to make anyone healthier.

There are millions of American women, including thousands of women in my State of New York, who rely on title X health clinics for treatments, preventive care, and for family planning services. They need these health clinics because they provide contraception counseling, cancer screening, and medical expertise right there in their communities. Many of the women who use these services have nowhere else to go for access because title X clinics are often the only affordable option for them and may even be the only place within driving distance of their communities. Yet, once again, my colleagues are pushing legislation to limit women's options for accessing healthcare and making it harder for thousands of New York women to get the care and treatments they need. I continue to be amazed by how little empathy there seems to be for millions of women in our country who don't have the resources to travel to a major hospital outside of their communities and desperately need these local clinics to stay healthy.

Let's be very clear about who this legislation would hurt the most. This bill will hurt women in small towns and rural communities more than anyone else. It will cause lower income women to struggle even more. Every single one of my colleagues has many women in their States who rely on title X clinics and would suffer if these clinics had their Federal funding taken away.

So I urge my colleagues in this Chamber: When it is time to vote on this legislation, think about the women who live in your States. Think about the women who live in small towns and rural communities who are just trying to access basic women's healthcare services that they can afford. Think about the women who don't have big hospitals or big cities nearby. Think about the women who don't have enough money to travel. The bill is going to hurt them. It will make their lives harder, not easier.

We all have the responsibility to stand up for the women in our States, and that includes defending their access to healthcare and basic family planning services. I urge my colleagues to vote against this very discriminatory resolution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to request that the U.S. Government officially recognize the last week in March as the Week on the Status of Black Women. During the week of March 27, 2017, as part of Women's History Month and in honor of the United Nations Declaration designating 2015 as the Decade of Afro-Descendants, this week marks the perfect occasion on which to begin an annual recognition and celebration of Black women's contributions to American society.

Black women have long gone above and beyond the call of duty in their contributions to American society through civic engagement, high voter turnout, and serving as leaders in their communities. Even in the face of grave oppression throughout our Nation's history, Black women have continued to stand strong and contribute to the well-being of their families, communities, and our country as a whole. A recognition of the Week on the Status of Black Women by the Trump administration and Congress would send a clear message that the Federal Government recognizes the unique struggles and achievements of Black women in America.

Black women have consistently played a leading role in shaping our Nation's history, often behind the scenes and with little recognition. Harriet Tubman escaped slavery and bravely returned to the enslaved South over a dozen times to lead her people to freedom on the Underground Railroad. A century later, Rosa Parks witnessed the oppression of her fellow Black women and took an active role in organizing the Montgomery Bus Boycott, while also taking up Black women's sexual harassment claims. Today, a Black woman, Carla Hayden, is our Nation's Librarian of Congress. Recognition of the Week on the Status of Black Women would honor the sacrifices of women such as Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, who paved the way for so many Black women in public service, business, and other industries today.

Yet even as Black women throughout our Nation's history have been leaders in American civic life, Black women today still continue to face many undue burdens. No one in America should have to choose between earning a paycheck and taking care of their family, but too many Black women who serve as primary family breadwinners are forced to make this painful choice. Black women continue to earn less than their male counteiparts and also less than women who are not Black. Black women remain at the economic margins of society, and we all have a responsibility to help fix that.

This year, a coalition of organizations advocating for the well-being of women and communities of color will partner to elevate the stories, histories, and realities of Black women's lives. Each day of the week, starting on March 27 and continuing through March 31, will focus on a different challenge Black women face in society today, ranging from disproportionate experience with police violence to discriminatory media representation. Exploring these issues and acknowledging the centrality of Black women to our history and social fabric, along with recognizing the unique intersection of gendered and racialized inequities they face, is critical. As we continue to work to extend equal rights to all Americans, we must ensure that Black women are a leading part of this movement. I hope and request that this year will be a continuation of years past in celebration and intentional recognition of Black women in America through the Week on the Status of Black Women.

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

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the American Health Care Act. This bill will destroy the Affordable Care Act, even though the Affordable Care Act has given more Americans access to quality, affordable healthcare than ever before in our history. It would force middle-class families to pay more money for less care. It would leave more people uninsured by a lot. It would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans with what is essentially an age tax, as if our parents and grandparents don't already pay insurance companies enough for their care.

It would cause many working families to lose coverage from their employers because, under this new bill, companies would no longer have to provide their workers with healthcare, and without a mandate to do so, we know many of them will not.

It would drastically cut Medicaid funding, which would cripple our State budgets and would leave many seniors in nursing homes and lower income New Yorkers stuck without a way to pay for the medical care they actually need to survive. This bill would also take away healthcare for millions of women, including lifesaving healthcare services like breast exams and pap smears.

On top of all of this, as if to add insult to injury, this so-called healthcare plan would give tax breaks to health insurance CEOs who make more than

$500,000 a year. How is any of this going to make people in my State or in my colleagues' States healthier?

I am struggling to understand, amid all of the problems we seem to have and all of the problems we need to solve in this Chamber, why this Congress seems to have a singular fixation on taking away access to healthcare from some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I continue to be amazed by how little empathy there seems to be in this Chamber for the millions of women, older Americans, and lower income Americans who do not have the incredible resources that we have here in Congress and who desperately need the Federal programs this bill will cut.

The legislation is completely out of touch with the actual needs of the people in my State. It is driven by ideology, as if it is somehow the wrong thing to do to help people in our States live healthy and fulfilling lives.

If someone is diagnosed with cancer and the only way he can afford to see an oncologist and have surgery is through an Affordable Care Act health plan, do you think he cares whether his insurance coverage was made possible by ObamaCare? If your parents or grandparents suffer from dementia and the only way they can afford the constant care and medical attention is if they sign up for Medicaid, do you think they care that Medicaid is a program that is actually run by the Federal Government?

I don't think families care about that. I think they are much more concerned about whether they have access to the insurance plans that actually cover their needs, that actually treat their illnesses, that actually give them the medicines they need, and that allow them to heal and get back to full strength.

That is why the Affordable Care Act has done so many good things for people in our States--because access to healthcare is a human right. Now that millions more Americans finally have it, it is wrong to take it away from them.

I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to think much more about the women in their lives who need access to these preventive healthcare services, to think about all of the hard-working Americans who do not earn a lot, though they work full-time jobs and cannot afford it, and to think about all of the older Americans who are really being disadvantaged through this bill so they will not be able to afford that 24/7 or nursing care they need. This bill harms all of them, and it makes their lives much harder, not easier.

I implore all of my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum calls on H.J. Res. 58 be charged equally to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions for Attorney General.

I would like to preface my remarks with just a statement and recognition of the outpouring I have received from my State, from constituents. I have letters. I have postcards sent, some with the Statue of Liberty. I have letters from constituents from every corner of my State, passionately writing about their views on President Trump's nominations, particularly Senator Sessions.

I would like to read one letter because I think it really summarizes the views of so many New Yorkers. This constituent writes:

As your constituent and as a Reform Jew, I strongly urge

you to oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney

General.

As the top law enforcement official in the country, the

Attorney General has substantial power over the

administration of key legislation that advances the

fundamental rights of all people, regardless of race, class,

sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.

Senator Sessions' firmly established record of opposition to

protection of and advancements in voting rights, LGBTQ

equality, women's rights, immigration reform and religious

freedom suggests that he would not fulfill the Department of

Justice's mandate to provide equal protection under the law

for all people.

The letter goes on to talk about his votes particularly against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act when it was added as an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act. He also talks about voting against the Violence Against Women's Act.

He continues:

The words of Leviticus 19:18: ``Love your neighbor as

yourself, guide us to stand up against bias, prejudice and

discrimination.''

We cannot place the responsibility of leading the

Department of Justice, the federal agency directly

responsible for ensuring equal protection, in the hands of

someone whose record demonstrates insufficient commitment to

key civil rights protections.

I urge you to oppose Senator Sessions.

Our country desperately needs an Attorney General who will reject discrimination in all forms. We need an Attorney General who will defend our civil rights and human rights--with no exceptions. We need an Attorney General who will not be afraid to challenge the President if an order is illegal or unconstitutional.

Senator Sessions has not made it clear that he would use his power as Attorney General to stand up for the voiceless and the oppressed or to stand up to the President when he is wrong.

Already, in just the first weeks of this new administration, President Trump has begun to test the strength and limits of our Constitution. He has challenged the separation of powers. He has lashed out against the free press. He has singled out individual religions-- and even individual judges.

Now, more than ever, we need an Attorney General whose commitment to defending our Constitution goes far beyond the commitment to any one particular President or political party. Would Senator Sessions challenge the President when he needs to be challenged?

During the Presidential campaign, when the tape was revealed of then- Candidate Trump bragging about groping a woman against her will, Senator Sessions said he thought it was a ``stretch'' to call it sexual assault. He said: ``I don't characterize that as sexual assault.''

We need an Attorney General who knows very clearly what sexual assault is, and who cares enough to prosecute it.

Senator Sessions has voted to make our gun background check system even weaker. He voted against limits on high-capacity magazines, and he opposed legislation to make interstate gun trafficking a Federal crime.

We need an Attorney General who will stand up for victims of gun violence and their families.

Throughout his career in the Senate, Senator Sessions has voted against or spoken out against important legislation so important to my constituents, including the Violence Against Women's Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Voting Rights Act. These are important pieces of legislation that protect individuals from discrimination.

We need an Attorney General who will defend the rights of women, who will defend the rights of our communities of color, who will defend the rights of the LGBT community, and who will defend the rights of Muslim Americans, and all minorities.

We need an Attorney General who will fight every day for equal justice and equal protection under the law.

Senator Sessions has no record of doing that, and I have no reason to believe that he will do that as Attorney General. So I oppose Senator Sessions' nomination as Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination

of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education.

I want to start by just reading from some letters from some young constituents that I received.

From one little boy named Theodore:

Dear Senator Gillibrand, I am a public student in PS 3. I

love my school.

Please vote against Betsy DeVos because she's against

public schools. I'm happy here.

From Felix:

Dear Senator Gillibrand, I am a public school student in

New York, and I love my school. Please vote against Betsy

DeVos as Secretary of Education because she is prejudice

against public schools. I am in third grade and am a boy.

Love, Felix.

Dear Senator Gillibrand, my name is Mina, and I am a public

school student. I love my school (PS3), and I hope you vote

against Betsy DeVos because she does not support public

schools. Sincerely, Mina.

These are just three letters out of thousands of letters, phone calls, and emails from my constituents. I have never heard so much from my constituents about someone so ill-prepared for the job they have been nominated for.

I am unconvinced that this nominee in any way would use her position to actually fight for the 2.6 million students and 200,000 teachers in the public schools in my State.

She refused during hearings to commit to protecting the Federal funding that goes to our title I schools which serve students from our lowest income families. She refused to uphold critical Federal laws, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in schools that receive this absolutely necessary Federal funding. She refused to commit to upholding title IX guidance from the Department of Education, which has played an instrumental role in addressing the problem of sexual assault in our schools across the country. She even wavered on whether guns have any place in and around our schools, she said she would oppose gun-free school zones. She doesn't have any experience working as a teacher or as a school administrator at any point in her career. Instead, she has spent decades advocating for education policies that would fundamentally undermine our public school education system.

What kind of message does this send to our students and their families and our teachers if we put our trust in a person who has worked so tirelessly throughout her career to weaken public schools?

I am astonished by how little the nominee seems to understand about the basic needs of New York's schools, teachers, and parents. I am very disturbed about how out of touch her statements are with basic values.

In New York, we have over 2.6 million students who attend public schools, including 450,000 with disabilities. We have over 200,000 public schoolteachers.

Ninety percent of all students in our country go to public school. Public schools serve all kids. They feed them if they show up hungry. Public schools help all kids with disabilities and don't send them somewhere else. Public schools help all students reach their God-given potential, and public schools are held accountable for meeting the requirements of our Federal education system and essential civil rights protections, but this nominee has vilified public schools.

Teachers and students around the country have raised their voices about this nominee, and they have made their views very clear. They do not want us to confirm Betsy DeVos to lead the Department of Education because they feel she is not an Education Secretary for all of America. I have heard from tens of thousands of them. Listening to what my constituents say, they are pretty concerned.

I would like to read a couple more letters. This one is from a school social worker in a middle school. She was hired to help underserved children develop effective executive functioning skills and survive their day-to-day lives.

My students are resilient, intelligent, loving young women

and men, and they face indescribable hardships that no child

should have to experience.

The ideologies and policies represented by Betsy DeVos and

the Trump administration put my students' futures on the

line.

Please continue to represent and fight for my students by

denying the confirmation of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of

Education.

Here is another letter:

While I teach in a private school setting, my sixth grade

daughter attends a public middle school, and my second grade

son attends a funded special education school to address his

speech and language delays.

We rely on the excellent public schools in our community to

support the learning needs of our children, as do hundreds of

thousands of other families in New York City and millions of

families across the Nation.

Here is another letter from a teacher in one of the poorest school districts in my State. He wrote:

I not only teach the State-mandated curriculum--we offer

elite educational programming to all those who reside in our

district.

I am honored on a daily basis to know that I have been able

to level the playing field for many students by offering them

the keys to success through their education.

Students who come to us homeless, underfed, victims of

poverty and trauma are given the same access to success as

those more fortunate.

Because of our public school systems, they have been able

to achieve the American dream and achieve all their dreams.

These are real concerns. These are heartfelt worries. This is what the people of New York are saying and people across this country. We need to listen to our constituents. We need to serve them. We need to represent them. We need to listen to our teachers across our States who work so hard every day to make sure our children can learn and reach their potential. We need to listen to our families and our students who have expressed very real fears that this nominee will cause damage to our public schools.

So I stand with my colleagues from both parties to oppose this nomination. I will not support the confirmation of someone who is such a threat to our public school system.

I encourage everyone in this Chamber to think about the students and teachers in their States who desperately need a leader to run the Department of Education. I urge all of my colleagues to vote this nominee down.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this past Sunday was the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I wish to take a moment to reflect on how far we have come since the Supreme Court decision.

Because of Roe v. Wade, American women for the last 44 years have had the right, the freedom, the privacy to make their own decisions about their own bodies with their doctors and with their families, without the Federal Government barging its way into the conversation and telling them what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

Roe v. Wade was one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in the history of women's rights in this Nation, but it was only a start. In the 44 years since, we have made so much progress with women's health, and much of that progress has to do with what we accomplished in the Affordable Care Act.

Millions of American women now have access to health care coverage that used to be extremely difficult and expensive for a lot of women to get. Millions of American women now have access to affordable preventive health care services, including contraception, birth control, STD screenings, mammograms, breastfeeding support and supplies, and cervical cancer screenings, and since the Affordable Care Act was passed, the number of unwanted pregnancies has gone down, in part, because more women have access to affordable contraception.

There is no doubt that American women have better access to safe and affordable health care because of Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act, but some of my colleagues are committed to turning back the clock on women's health and taking away women's access to this lifesaving care. They are doing everything in their power to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, and they are determined to see Roe v. Wade get overturned.

One of President Trump's first Executive orders was so extreme that it would take away funding for any international organizations that even talk about whether a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy. We should never let this happen. If we take away women's access to the health care they need, it would be devastating--even life-threatening-- for millions of American women.

This weekend, a massive group of women and men and children joined together in women's marches across the globe. They were there to speak out, to be heard, to protest some of these issues that would deeply affect American families and women in particular. I was so proud to march with them. I was inspired by them--their passion, their determination, and their commitment to never give up.

The women's marches were truly the biggest outpouring of support and activism I have seen in my lifetime and certainly that we have seen in this generation. They were loud and clear statements that we will not let the government dictate to us how we should manage these most personal decisions--when you are going to have a family, how big your family is going to be. Those are decisions that are made by husbands and wives, by spouses all across this country about what their family is going to look like.

I urge all of my colleagues in this Chamber to listen to the millions of Americans, the millions of women who would like to make those decisions themselves, who would like to choose their health care, who would not like to be charged more just because they are women, who would not like to see their health care coverage dropped the minute they become pregnant, who would not like to be told: You have a preexisting condition and we will not cover you. That is what we go back to.

We have to fight for the Affordable Care Act, and we have to make sure the Supreme Court does not overturn Roe v. Wade. Listen to your constituents. These marches weren't just in New York; they were in every State across the country. These marches were real, they were powerful, they were determined, and these men and women want to be heard.

Members of Congress, I hope you are listening to them. That is our job, to represent our country. Their voices must be heard. We shall not ignore them.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose this legislation concerning a waiver for General Mattis.

I know that all of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee who just left the hearing on this very topic with General Mattis and this entire body take the oversight role of our committee very seriously. We take civilian control of the military as a fundamental constitutional principle of the Founding Fathers. Even George Washington put aside his commission 5 years before he became our Commander in Chief and became the President of the United States. When Congress in 1947 debated the National Security Act to create the Department of Defense and create the Secretary of Defense, they decided to imbue this idea of civilian control into the Secretary of Defense by law, by mandating that he had to be separated from the military at least 10 years before taking on the role of Secretary of Defense, enshrining again this notion that civilian control is so important to our democracy and our American values.

On Tuesday, the Armed Services Committee had a very compelling hearing. We had two experts testify about the reasons for civilian control and why they are still so important today. The importance of having a Secretary of Defense who brings a civilian perspective to this position and brings with him or her a breadth of views and experience-- those views coming from a civilian are very important.

Second, they said it is very important not to politicize our officer ranks, meaning our senior, top military advisers jockeying for the next job as a political appointee. That undermines the functioning of the military, and they testified about countries where it has had such deleterious effects.

The third reason is concern about bias toward one service or another. Arguably, if one comes from a particular service, one may have preferences innately for that branch of service, which could undermine the strength of our military.

The fourth reason, which is really important in today's world, is the desire to model civilian control for other countries around the world that are struggling to become more democratic, less autocratic, and less militarily run.

Those are the four reasons given as to why civilian control of the military is so important. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Hicks both agreed--despite those four reasons--that from their perspective, it should be abrogated. Dr. Cohen said it was because the characteristics of the incoming administration gave him such concern that he needed to have someone like General Mattis and thought the qualities of General Mattis were important. Even Dr. Hicks said it was the qualities of General Mattis that were so unique and important, but she very importantly said: Never, though, should we say that it is time for a general to be the Secretary of Defense. In her perspective, it should never be that you need a general. So for her it was not the exigencies of circumstances; it was the specific characteristics of General Mattis.

Overwhelmingly, the Senators and the Members of the Armed Services Committee, myself included, have expressed enormous gratitude for the extraordinary service of General Mattis. That is not in debate. But if there is no civilian in all the world as of today at this moment who could meet the needs of the incoming administration, then who is to say that there will be no civilian in the future who could meet the needs of this administration, should they need another Secretary of Defense, or the next administration?

What we are doing today, inadvertently, because of a cherished notion we have toward this one nominee, is subverting the standard, and, in fact, this exception now can swallow the whole rule. If we are literally saying an exception could be made because of the nature of an administration and the nature of a nominee, we have literally swallowed the rule.

I think it is a historic mistake. I truly believe we are about to unwind something that has served this country well for the past 50 years. We are about to unwind it. Interestingly, the last time the Congress unwound it, they said: Never again.

They didn't say: If you have an urgency as we have now, which was the concern, according to these experts, that World War III was looming, the concern that we needed a well-known, well-loved general because of all the foreign policy worries of the moment with North Korea; they said: Never again.

I don't know why we are here. I really don't know why--because it is not the standard.

Now this is the world we are going to live in. President-Elect Trump will mainly have his foreign policy input from two four-star generals and a three-star general. So where is the diversity of opinion coming from? Where is that balance going to come from, the No. 1 reason the experts gave for why we have civilian control of the military-- Tillerson?

Even General Marshall, if we remember history correctly, had the experience of being a former Secretary of State and head of the Red Cross, so he had civilian experience in addition to his military experience. Civilian control has very important constitutional reasons based on our democratic values, the balance of power, and how our democracy runs. Those principles are being gutted and ignored. We are not using the right standards, and I think it is a historic mistake.

As I stated, this has nothing to do with our particular nominee. These principles exist for a reason. It has enabled our country's success for decades and has kept our democracy safe. If we take this change in our laws lightly, as we are about to do today, when future Congresses--or even this same Congress 2 or 3 year from now--look at this and want to make the same exception, it will be much easier to do.

I will continue to oppose this waiver for any nominee who is not a civilian or who has not met the waiting period that is required by law, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I urge them to vote no.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of amendment No. 82. This amendment would make it so anyone in Congress trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act would not be allowed to touch women's health care services.

I have been listening to my colleague from Montana and my colleagues in this Chamber speak about health care in our country, and after many hours, I am worried there is a lack of concern. I am worried there is a basic lack of empathy of what is going to actually happen to millions of Americans, and I am particularly worried about what will happen to women and their children and their families. So I want to spend a moment just talking about what the ACA actually provides for women and what actually will happen when it is no longer there.

I am very concerned that we are barely 1 week into the new Congress and too many of my colleagues have already made it clear that their most urgent priority this year is to take our country back to its darker days when women could be denied coverage and charged higher health care premiums just because they are women. I am outraged by this, and I stand with millions of American women and men, moms and dads, sons and daughters who are outraged too. The Affordable Care Act uniquely gave women access to health care on a level that was unprecedented. In fact, 9.5 million more women now have access to basic health care because of that law.

In my State alone, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, women can now have access to contraceptive care, cancer screenings, and mammograms. Millions of women who were pregnant or survived diseases like cancer are able to keep seeing their doctors without fear that their health insurance companies will take it away, but too many people in this Chamber don't seem to understand that consequence or seem to care about that consequence. After years of talking about it, some of my colleagues now seem determined--even entitled--to take away this lifesaving health care for millions of women.

The election in November was not about women's health care. No one came to Congress with a mandate to take away women's access to mammograms and cancer screenings, but now we are one big step closer to once again making it impossible for millions of American women to see a doctor when they need to in order to access basic medicine and reproductive health care services so they can live healthy, happy, productive lives. For some, there is a very real risk that if they do get cancer or some other life-threatening disease, they will have to declare bankruptcy just to pay for the health care they need. This is something we must stand together to stop. It will show the American people that we understand what is happening to them. The consequences are too real and too dangerous, and for too many families the consequences are actually life or death.

We should never go back to the days when insurance companies can tell a woman: You are no longer economic for us. We can't make money insuring pregnant women. We cannot go back to the days where insurance companies can tell a breast cancer survivor to go elsewhere because their insurance costs too much. I don't think we can ever go back to the days when insurance companies can simply charge women more for the same plan than men. We should not turn back women's basic health care rights.

My amendment makes it very clear that the Senate would be forbidden from directing the committees to cut funding for basic women's health care services. It would ensure that the women's health care protections we put into the Affordable Care Act would stay there and women would have access going forward. It protects vital services such as disease screenings and comprehensive reproductive care that millions of women in my State rely on.

If my colleagues destroy the Affordable Care Act, it will have real, direct, and painful consequences for a lot of women and the families who love them. I think it would be what we call the ultimate overreach by Congress, and it would take years to fix.

I urge my colleagues to not let these protections be taken away from American women and their families, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very simple amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska. While we all support community health centers, and they are very useful in the State of New York as well, this is just another attempt to end the protections the Affordable Care Act provides for women.

Nothing in this amendment will say that you cannot charge women more for health care just because they are women. Nothing in this amendment will say that you cannot charge women for health care or drop their coverage when they become pregnant. Nothing in this amendment provides for any restrictions on discrimination.

It does not provide the mammograms, the preventive care services, the contraception care, and other affordable cancer screenings that women need. This amendment does not protect women's health care. They will still be discriminated against, charged more, and drop coverage as soon as they become pregnant. It is not acceptable.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 82. This amendment protects women's health care.

Under the Affordable Care Act, we made many changes that made a huge difference in the lives of everyday American families. It said to women in America: You can't be charged more just because you are a woman. It said: You can't be dropped from coverage when you become pregnant.

Imagine becoming pregnant and having your insurer drop your coverage because you no longer are economic or you cost too much money. Imagine being a cancer survivor and then having your coverage dropped because you survived cancer and you cost too much money.

In the Affordable Care Act, we made sure contraception, preventive care service, health care screenings, and mammograms were affordable and accessible. If we take that away, these families are left without the basic care they need to survive.

So if you love women and you love your mothers and daughters and wives, please do not unwind the Affordable Care Act. We need women's health protected, and that is what this amendment does.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

I vote no--

--on behalf of all the women who need health care.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Olivia J. Hooker, a leader whose commitment to service has lifted the lives of many Americans. As the first African American woman to serve in Active Duty in the U.S. Coast Guard, and as a survivor of the Tulsa Race Riots and founder of the Tulsa Race Riot Commission, Dr. Hooker is a pioneer and role model for all to follow. I am especially proud to recognize Dr. Hooker on her centennial birthday.

During this momentous occasion, we celebrate the legacy of Dr. Olivia J. Hooker, whose strength and spirit have enriched our society.

Dr. Hooker was born in Oklahoma in 1915. In 1921, her community in Tulsa was destroyed in the worst race riot in United States history. The Tulsa Race Riot caused over 300 fatalities, as well as the burning of over 1,000 homes and businesses.

Following the riot, Dr. Hooker helped found the Tulsa Race Riot Commission. The commission served to draft recommendations for restitution. The advocacy of Dr. Hooker and her allies led them to testify before the Oklahoma State Legislature and U.S. Congress.

Dr. Hooker attended The Ohio State University after her family moved to Columbus, OH. After earning a bachelor's degree, Dr. Hooker applied to join the Navy, but was denied because of her race. Dr. Hooker then applied to join the Coast Guard, and became the first African American female to serve there. In 1942, Federal legislation created the U.S. Coast Guard Women's Reserve--the program known as SPAR. Dr. Hooker separated from the Coast Guard at the rank of petty officer 2nd class, with a Good Conduct Medal.

Dr. Hooker went on to earn her master's degree from Teachers College at Columbia University, and then a doctorate in psychology from the University of Rochester. Dr. Hooker had a long, remarkable career as a professor in New York. After retiring at the age of 87, she continues to inspire and support women joining the military, and believes our country prospers because of its diversity.

Dr. Hooker broke barriers in our Nation. Her story inspires many people who have faced adversity and discrimination. Dr. Hooker's legacy, accomplishments, and spirit will live on in our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to do the right thing and pass a bill that would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, without the politically driven riders that are the focus of this debate.

Protecting our country from terrorist attacks should be our top priority in Congress and we should not be playing games with Homeland Security funding. That is the least our constituents expect of us. I know that for many of my colleagues the question of immigration is a very contentious one and an important one worthy of debate. We should have that debate without risking the safety of our families by once again putting an immigration bill on the floor of the Senate.

But this funding bill for such a vitally important part of our national security is simply not the place for an ideological debate. If we fail to pass and fund the Department of Homeland Security, the consequences for our safety could potentially be devastating. Take for example the Urban Areas Security Initiative. This is the program that helps our cities pay for things such as surveillance equipment, secure communications systems, training for law enforcement personnel, all in order to increase our security and prevent terrorism. These grants ensure that all of the places terrorists have targeted and will continue to target are able to effectively prevent those violent acts from happening.

New York City is my home State. It is the No. 1 terror target in the Nation. It relies on the urban security program to keep its millions of residents and tourists safe. It also relies on our Homeland Security network to stop the plans of would-be terrorists.

Since 9/11, New York City has thwarted at least 16 terrorist attacks, and it has done so because of the constant support the Department of Homeland Security provides. If we cannot pass this bill, the Urban Areas Security Initiative and the extensive network of security systems in New York City would lose their funding, and every visitor to an urban area in this country, including right here in Washington, DC, would be less safe.

If we cannot pass this bill, not only would our security suffer, but the inspectors at our ports would not be paid, our security personnel would not be paid, and our Border Patrol agents would not be paid. If we don't pass this bill, then we have failed at our most solemn responsibility, to keep the American people safe.

I urge all my colleagues to please put politics aside, vote to pass a bill free of divisive policy riders and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the rest of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. As it stands now, gas companies in this country do not have to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act-- the law that keeps our tapwater clear, safe, and clean.

For decades now, this loophole has exempted hydrofracking and gas storage companies from this law, even though every other energy industry, including oil and coal industries, is legally obligated to comply. If big coal can comply with this law, so can gas companies.

This special exemption is unfair, it is unnecessary, and it is unsafe. My amendment would finally remove it from the law. I urge my colleagues not to let this chance pass us by.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to propose three important amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that I strongly oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline plan. I have serious concern about the effects this project would have on our health and safety; I have serious concerns about the environmental impact; and I am skeptical of the real, permanent jobs it could create.

This project has many risks and very few advantages, and I will be voting against it. But if this legislation does pass the Senate, we should at least try to make it a better bill. There is no excuse why we cannot turn the Keystone XL Pipeline Act into an opportunity to protect our clean drinking water and ensure that polluters have to pay to clean up their own messes.

First, I have offered amendment No. 48, which would remove the Halliburton loophole from the Safe Drinking Water Act and finally require gas storage and gas drilling companies to comply with our clean water laws. Every other industry has to do it. Our farmers have to do it. Construction companies have to do it. Yet our gas companies have been exempt for years.

It should give my colleagues pause that fracking companies are allowed to ignore our clean water laws when they pump chemicals deep into the ground. In this country, when we turn on the tap for a glass of water, we need to know that our drinking water is safe. So let's be fair and hold the gas industry to the same environmental and public health standards as everyone else.

Second, I worked with Senator Menendez on amendment No. 65, which would make oil companies financially responsible for the damages they cause when they spill on our land and leak into our waterways. Under current law, when an onshore oilspill occurs, the company that causes the spill is only liable for $350 million in damages, including cleanup and compensation. Yet a major oilspill into a river or lake, such as the one this week in Montana, could easily result in damage well above that arbitrary limit.

Hard-working taxpayers should never be stuck paying for an oil company's mess, and local property and businesses should not have to slog through endless litigation just to get the compensation they deserve from a negligent oil company. This amendment would finally place the burden on companies to clean up after themselves.

Third, I have proposed amendment No. 76, which would allow our homeowners and business owners whose property has been damaged by natural disaster to use Federal disaster assistance funds to upgrade their property's energy efficiency. Under current law, the disaster assistance can only be used to replace what was lost even if that property was antiquated and not up to current standards. We need to have much more forward-looking policies that actually make sense.

Due to the effects of climate change, we have seen a growing number of natural disasters in recent years, from blizzards, to hurricanes, to raging fires, to endless droughts. When we pick up the pieces after a major storm, we want to make sure that when we rebuild, we rebuild in the smartest way possible, and that includes not only protections against the next disaster but also proactive measures to save energy, reduce emissions, and lower costs.

As I said, I don't support the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, but if this new Congress is intent on sending this bill to the President, then we need to make sure the bill keeps our drinking water safe, holds companies accountable for their own messes, and encourages efficiency in our economy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the life and extraordinary legacy of former New York State Governor Mario M. Cuomo.

Governor Mario Cuomo inspired a generation of Americans to be unafraid of idealism. He was a role model for Americans with big dreams, and he was a champion for the causes and values that we cherish in this country.

He was a tenacious competitor on the baseball diamond, the basketball court, and in the halls of the capitol in Albany, but it wasn't merely the abstract desire to win that drove him. The quest for justice and fairness in our country motivated him to act, and he used his pulpit as a public servant to push for a better world for all Americans.

Throughout his career, he spoke powerfully to us about the value of equality, and the visionary words of his most famous speech, the Tale of Two Cities, still hold true today, decades later.

Governor Cuomo was a brilliant and generous mentor, and I was honored that he took a risk and helped me when I was an untested Congressional candidate a decade ago. Whenever we met, he was always kind, thoughtful, and always generous.

I know that Mario Cuomo's most cherished title wasn't Governor--it was husband and father. He took these roles as seriously as his governorship, and it is clear that he succeeded in both. He loved his wife and children, and he instilled in his sons and daughters an unwavering commitment to service.

Mario Cuomo was one of the great, motivating, and inspirational leaders of our time, and I will always be grateful to him for his leadership, his service, and his inspirational mentorship. He was a friend that my family and I truly admired.