Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield my postcloture debate time to Senator Wyden.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 join my colleagues in opposing Congressman Tom Price's nomination to be the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Every American deserves the opportunity to have quality, affordable health insurance coverage to help them live healthy and productive lives. Having health care is not just critical to the freedom, dignity, and well-being of our citizens but also to the strength of our economy.

As Governor, I worked with Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire to expand health insurance coverage--including coverage for substance use disorder and behavioral health services--to tens of thousands of Granite Staters.

We need to bring this same bipartisan approach to the Senate. We know that there are serious challenges in our health care system that must be fixed, and we need to work across party lines to support commonsense improvements to move our Nation's health care system forward, not rip health insurance coverage away from millions of Americans.

This is why I cannot support Congressman Price's nomination. Throughout his time in office, Congressman Price has promoted policies that would undermine the health care that so many in my State and across our Nation depend on. Congressman Price wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would strip coverage away from millions of Americans. Those who seek to repeal the ACA, including Congressman Price, have not come up with a plan to replace it.

Repealing the ACA without a replacement would send insurance markets reeling. It would be devastating for millions of people who have coverage because of the law.

Repealing the ACA would eliminate New Hampshire's bipartisan Medicaid expansion plan, harming our State's efforts to combat the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis. This crisis is the most pressing public health and public safety challenge facing our State, and thousands of Granite Staters have accessed substance misuse treatment because of Medicaid expansion.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I met a young man named Noah at Harbor Homes in Nashua. Noah is an active participant in the Nashua drug court and a former enrollee in our Medicaid expansion program.

Last month, after 14 years of struggling with addiction, Noah was celebrating 1 year sober. Because of legislation that expanded Medicaid, passed under bipartisan leadership, Noah received health insurance through Medicaid expansion, and he was able to quickly begin treatment.

Noah's recovery process required medication-assisted treatment which he would not have been able to afford had it not been covered under Medicaid. He is now 5 months off that treatment and hasn't had an instance of relapse.

Noah said the ACA and Medicaid expansion are ``working miracles every single day in this recovery community.'' For Noah and so many others, we cannot afford to set back our efforts, but that is what the repeal of the ACA would do.

I also oppose Congressman Price because he is determined to turn back the clock on women's access to reproductive health care. He has fought against the woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions and control her own destiny. He has voted 10 times to defund Planned Parenthood, and he has voted against a resolution to protect employees from being punished or fired by their employers for their reproductive health decisions.

And I oppose Congressman Price because he has pushed to turn Medicare into a voucher program, which will increase costs for seniors. Congressman Price's views and priorities are simply at odds and out of touch with the views and priorities of many, many Granite Staters.

Additionally, Mr. President, serious issues have been raised throughout this nomination process regarding Congressman Price's conflicts of interest and his potential violation of the STOCK Act, including recent reports suggesting that he received a private discount to purchase a health company stock while engaged in legislative efforts that would directly affect the company's financial interests. Congressman Price's insufficient responses concerning his stock purchases raise the question of whether, if confirmed, he will put corporate interests ahead of the American people. That is unacceptable. I believe we need a health care system that works for every American, and that is why I will vote against Congressman Price's confirmation.

I want to talk a little bit more about what Congressman Price's confirmation would do with respect to Medicaid expansion and particularly how it would affect the opioid crisis in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, we proved that Democrats and Republicans can come together to move our health care system forward when we passed our Bipartisan Medicaid Expansion Program. Passing and reauthorizing this program included healthy debate, and at times some argument, but what matters of course is what we do after our argument, after those debates. We were able in New Hampshire to put our differences aside and take a critical step forward to continue strengthening our families, our businesses, and our economy. This is the approach we need to be taking in the United States Senate.

The benefits of Medicaid expansion are clear, over 50,000 Granite Staters are now covered in a population of 1.3 million people. We included in Medicaid expansion coverage of substance use disorder and behavioral health services. I have heard story after story of Granite Staters who are in recovery, thanks to Medicaid expansion. I told Noah's story just a few minutes ago.

At another round table I met a young woman named Ashley at the Farnum Center in Manchester, CT. Ashley told of suffering from addiction for over 10 years. One day she woke up to discover that her husband had died of an overdose. She lost custody of her young daughter, but because of Medicaid expansion, Ashley was able to get treatment. She has been in recovery now for a little bit over a year--recovery through medical treatment made possible by Medicaid expansion. Because she is in recovery, she was able to get a job. Because she began working again, she actually has now moved off Medicaid expansion onto private health insurance. So Medicaid expansion was there when she needed it to get healthy. Now she doesn't need it anymore, and she is participating in the private health insurance market. By the way, she is beginning to reestablish her relationship with her young son. That is the power of the Affordable Care Act. That is the power of Medicaid expansion.

Representative Price, on the other hand, has advocated for repeal of these very programs. Such a repeal would have such harmful impacts, pulling the rug out from those who have coverage right now for critical medical conditions. At his confirmation hearing, Representative Price declined to guarantee that Americans with substance use disorders who got on insurance through Medicaid expansion would still be covered for these services if the Affordable Care Act is repealed under Representative Price's leadership.

He also would not commit to continuing the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that health insurance companies must cover essential health benefits, including treatment for substance abuse.

Representative Price's support for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act also requires more discussion. The Affordable Care Act has helped families across our Nation access quality, affordable health insurance coverage. We need to come together now and find bipartisan areas in which we can agree to improve the law, but we should not be repealing it. We should not be taking coverage away from millions of people. I have joined a number of my colleagues in expressing our willingness to work across the aisle with our colleagues to improve the law, but unfortunately it seems our colleagues in the Senate are headed down a path to repeal the law without a plan to replace it. Repealing the ACA without any replacement is a recipe for upheaval and instability, a recipe for hurting our families, small businesses, and our economic progress. Representative Price and those who seek to repeal this law have not agreed on any path forward other than repealing and stripping coverage away from millions of Americans. Repealing would have major consequences for many Granite State families and small businesses.

My office has heard from constituents about the impact the Affordable Care Act has had on their lives. One resident from Keene, NH, wrote to say this law has helped fulfill his goal of starting a small business. He wrote:

I have had health insurance through the exchange under the

ACA since late 2015, when I quit my job to start up a

business. Before the ACA, I wouldn't have taken the risk to

start a business, because I have a preexisting condition and

I wouldn't have been able to get an individual

health insurance policy.

He continued:

Under the ACA, I am able to get good health insurance at an

affordable premium. Since I left my job I built up a

profitable business and expect to be in a position to hire

employees within a year or two. None of this would have been

possible without the ACA.

And he added:

If the ACA is repealed, I am concerned that I will need to

put my business on hold in order to go back to a corporate

job that I don't need, only to get the health care benefits.

The ACA has flaws, but overall it has allowed me to take an

entrepreneurial risk and start a small successful business.

It is clear that this law has truly made a difference not just for the health of our citizens but also for our economy, and we cannot undermine the progress we have made.

I am also deeply concerned about Representative Price's record and his statements concerning women's health care. Representative Price has consistently opposed women's reproductive freedom. I have always fought to protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions and to chart her own course, and I always will. This is not just a matter of individual freedom, which of course is a good enough reason in its own right to support women's reproductive choice, but it is also a matter of economics. When women have to pay more for their health care than men do, it puts them at a financial disadvantage.

As Governor, I restored family planning funds and pushed to restore State funding to Planned Parenthood because I know how critical these services are for the women and families of my State. It is unacceptable that Washington Republicans continue to play games with women's health, and Representative Price has been at the forefront of that effort. Representative Price does not support a woman's constitutionally protected right to a safe and legal abortion. He has cosponsored and repeatedly voted for measures that would ban all medically appropriate abortions, without exceptions for rape, incest, or to protect a woman's health. He has voted to penalize small businesses that choose private health plans that include abortion coverage. Additionally, he has voted to allow employers to discriminate against employees based on their reproductive health decisions. He voted to eliminate the Title X Family Planning Program. He voted 10 times to defund Planned Parenthood.

Defunding Planned Parenthood, a critical health provider, would have devastating effects. A recent article in the Washington Post highlighted the impact of what can happen when legislatures attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.

This report in the post found:

In 2011, the Texas legislature cut the two-year budget for

funding family planning from $111 million to $38 million in

an effort to defund Planned Parenthood. After these cuts, 82

Texas family planning clinics, one out of every four in the

state--closed or stopped providing family planning services.

An unintended consequence of the law was that two-thirds of

the clinics that closed were not even Planned Parenthood

clinics. Organizations that remained open, many with reduced

hours, were often unable to offer the most effective methods

of contraception, such as IUDs and contraceptive implants, to

women who wanted them. The closings and reduced hours also

limited or cut back access to primary care providers for a

significant number of women.

Women and their families deserve better than an HHS Secretary who would disregard their constitutional right and roll back their access to reproductive health care. They deserve better than an HHS Secretary who appears to believe that women are neither capable nor trusted to make their own health care decisions. I believe women should be full and free citizens in the United States of America and can be trusted to make their own health care decisions.

Representative Price's nomination and his confirmation would be harmful to our seniors as well. Seniors deserve a high quality of life, high-quality care, and access to the benefits that they have earned throughout their life. I believe we must continue to strengthen and protect Medicare for years to come, not undermine it. Unfortunately, Representative Price has long sought to undermine Medicare and the important benefits it provides to seniors. His budget proposals have included extreme cuts to the program. He supports turning Medicare into a voucher program. In fact, he even said he wants to voucherize Medicare within the first 6 to 8 months of the Trump administration. This would increase costs for seniors.

He has also repeatedly opposed allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices for seniors. He has argued that seniors have no drug cost problem. Imagine that, a Health and Human Services Secretary who believes that drug costs are not an issue for our seniors. He even said allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs would be ``a solution in search of a problem.''

I can tell Representative Price that there are certainly seniors in New Hampshire who have found that the cost of their prescription drugs are truly a problem, and as we talk about the need to shore up and strengthen the Medicare Program, one of the best ways to stabilize its finances would be to allow Medicare to negotiate for prescription drug prices to lower those prices, lower the cost of the program, while making the program even more affordable for our seniors.

That is not something that Representative Price has even expressed a willingness to consider because he doesn't even acknowledge there is a problem. Representative Price has also supported raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67. This amounts to a devastating benefit cut for seniors, shifting costs onto them, which is unacceptable.

Whenever I hear people suggesting raising the retirement age for Social Security or the age for Medicare eligibility, I am reminded of my father-in-law. My father-in-law was one of the hardest working people I ever knew. He worked as a wholesale meat cutter, and for anybody who has never seen what that means, it means standing on your feet for hours at a time in a cold meat locker as large carcasses come through, and with time pressures, the way any production facility has, cutting those carcasses into salable product.

My father-in-law left the house before dark. He often came home, having

been assigned overtime, after dark, having been standing on his feet in the cold, doing incredibly hard, physical labor.

When it came time for him to retire, when he became eligible for Medicare, he really couldn't have worked at that job much longer. And the fact that he had a dignified retirement after those years of hard work was in large part due to Medicare. Before the physical impacts of that job slowed him down, it was our great pleasure to watch a man who had provided for his family with such hard work know the dignity of playing with his grandchildren, sleeping in until 7:30 or 8 in the morning, and watching his family grow and strengthen and thrive.

That is the dignity of Medicare. It is the dignity of Social Security. And to have a Health and Human Services Secretary who believes we should just be raising that age, as Representative Price does, contradicts the very notion of what it means to earn a benefit and to know a dignified retirement.

I am proud of the progress we have made to help ensure that more Granite Staters and Americans have the quality health care they need at an affordable cost. There is much more work to do to move our health care system forward and to combat the heroin opioid and fentanyl crisis that has devastated far too many families in New Hampshire and across our Nation. I am ready and willing to work with anyone who is serious about making improvements to our health care system to improve affordability and access to care, but that does not start with pulling the rug out for millions of Americans. It does not start with rolling back women's access to critical health care services.

Congressman Price's record demonstrates that he puts a partisan agenda and corporate interests before the health and economic well- being of our families. The American people deserve a Secretary of Health and Human Services who will help more Americans receive quality, affordable health insurance coverage, not one who supports stripping it away by repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.

For these reasons, I will be voting no on Congressman Price's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating Chief Alexander Scott on his many years of remarkable service to the city of Claremont and the State of New Hampshire. As the Claremont Police Department's chief of police, Chief Scott has worked tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the Claremont community. The State of New Hampshire owes him a debt of gratitude for his service.

Chief Scott's history with the Claremont Police Department dates back to a summer internship in 1989 when he was a member of the corps of cadets at Norwich University, the military college of Vermont. Shortly after finishing his internship, Chief Scott was hired part-time as a special officer. He finished his degree requirements early and enrolled in the New Hampshire full time police academy during his final semester at Norwich. Upon graduating magna cum laude from Norwich and completing the police academy, Chief Scott started in the Claremont Police Department's patrol division. Two years later, he transferred to the criminal division and rose to the level of assistant department prosecutor, igniting his passion for law.

Chief Scott left the department to attend the Franklin Pierce Law Center. In his first year, he married his wife Kathryn, with whom he has two daughters, Hannah and Elyse. As a lawyer, Chief Scott continued to support his community as the assistant county attorney for Sullivan County. He remained in that position until 2003 when he returned to the Claremont Police Department as the chief of police, a role in which he has served for over a decade. As chief, he has not only worked to preserve the peace and protect the law, but he has also inspired future generations of public servants through his professorship at River Valley Community College and at his own alma mater, Norwich University. Chief Scott will now retire from the police department and return to practicing law as he joins the criminal division of the New Hampshire Attorney General's office.

Claremont and all of New Hampshire have benefitted greatly from Chief Scott's devotion and leadership. On behalf of my colleagues and the U.S. Congress, I thank Chief Alexander Scott for his unceasing commitment to protecting his community and for his continued service to our State as he moves into his new position with the New Hampshire Attorney General's office.

Mr. President, before getting to the matter at hand, I thought I would take a minute to congratulate the New England Patriots, the Kraft family, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and all of the Patriots players and fans everywhere for the greatest comeback victory in Super Bowl history. They really demonstrated the grit and determination and resilience that New Hampshire and New England is known for, and we are very, very proud of them.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposing the nomination of Betsy DeVos to serve as the Secretary of Education. Our Nation recognized early in its history that public education is a necessary foundation for our democracy. It is critical that we continue to support a strong public education system that prepares all of our young people to participate in our democracy and to compete in the 21st century workforce.

All public officials, regardless of their party affiliation, should share a reverence for the importance of public education to our country's success, both now and into the future. They must show a commitment to enforcing our laws so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. I agree with my colleagues that Mrs. DeVos has not shown a commitment to or an understanding of these principles, and that is why I oppose her nomination.

This nomination process has been extremely disappointing from the start. Mrs. DeVos failed to provide critical information on her finances. Members of the HELP Committee were only given 5 minutes to question Mrs. DeVos on her views on our Nation's education system.

In the questions she did answer before the committee, Mrs. DeVos demonstrated a complete lack of experience in, knowledge of, and support for public education. She was unable to address basic issues-- issues any New Hampshire school board member could discuss fluently.

She showed that she lacks an understanding of issues facing students with disabilities. She has potential conflicts of interests that she still has not answered basic questions about. She supports diverting taxpayer dollars to private schools without accountability requirements.

As Governor of New Hampshire, I supported public charter schools. They play an important role in driving innovation in education and in providing additional opportunities for nontraditional learners, but they must meet the same standards as other public schools.

In Detroit, Mrs. DeVos led efforts to oppose accountability requirements, even for for-profit charter schools. In her testimony before the HELP Committee, she declined to support enforcing accountability requirements. It is clear that Mrs. DeVos would pursue policies that would undermine public schools in my home State of New Hampshire and across our Nation.

In the past several weeks, thousands of Granite Staters--including students, parents, teachers, principals, and superintendents--have called and written into my office. They have shared their concerns about Mrs. DeVos. They understand that she is completely unqualified for this position. Our children, their families, and our Nation deserve better than a Secretary of Education who does not value public education.

Ensuring access to public education for every student is an issue that is deeply personal to my family. Shortly after my husband Tom and I welcomed our first child into the world, our son Ben, we found out that he had severe and pervasive physical disabilities. It became clear to Tom and me that we were going to need a little bit of extra help if our son was going to have the kind of future we all want our children to have.

We were lucky because we found that help in our community--not only among friends and neighbors but in a public school system that welcomed Ben. I still remember the day that a schoolbus pulled into our driveway. We wheeled Ben onto the lift and up into the bus, and off he went at age 3 to his first day of preschool--a publically funded, inclusive preschool. As I sat on the stoop and watched the bus pull away, I found myself thinking that if Ben had been born a generation or two earlier, Tom and I would have been pressured to put Ben in an institution. There wouldn't have been the resources in our community or in our school system to include Ben.

But because of the work of the champions--the families, the advocates--who went before the Hassan family, Ben was able to go to school in his hometown. He was able to learn and to make friends, to do what we all want our children to do. That is the power of public education. It is the power of making sure that all kids are included.

Our family was able to live like any other family and feel like any other family because Ben could go to school in his hometown. As Ben went from preschool to elementary school to middle school to high school, we found that his peers accepted him, interacted with him, and grew with him. I still remember a day when I got a call from one of Ben's teachers, saying that the tire on his power wheelchair had gone flat. That is the type of call that a parent of a child with complex needs dreads because it means that you have to stop everything--because if the wheelchair can't move, your child can't go through their day.

But instead of my needing to take a day off from work and pursue the repair of Ben's chair, it was other students in our Career and Technical Education Center in Exeter who came forward and said: ``We can fix that.'' Their education preparing them for a trade and a career served Ben's needs that day beautifully. Both Ben and his peers learned that day. Ben's experience in public education was made possible because of so many advocates, educators, and families who came before our family.

But this was not always the case for students who experience disabilities. When I served in the New Hampshire State Senate, I grew to know a woman named Roberta. Roberta, born in the early 1950's, had spent a good portion of her life in our State's school for individuals with disabilities. Roberta left that State school as we began to work, after the passage of the IDEA, to bring people out of institutions and into the communities.

Later, as Roberta learned to advocate for herself and tell her story, she recorded some of her memories from the Laconia State School, the separate school--so-called school--for students with disabilities. Roberta wrote:

Some of the attendants and residents at the Laconia State

School sexually, verbally, emotionally and physically abused

and assaulted me. The staff said they did this to me because

I misbehaved or acted silly. The attendants and residents

there hit and kicked me with their hands and feet. They

pulled my hair, whipped me with wooden or metal coat hangers,

wet towels, hair brushes, mop and broom handles, hard leather

belts, straps, rulers and hard sticks, stainless steel

serving utensils and clothes.

Roberta adds:

Additionally, they bullied me by laughing at me and calling

me names. They spat at me, bit and pinched my arms and other

body parts causing me pain. The employees and supervisors at

the institution threw buckets of cold water on my body,

clothes and all. They said that the cold water would calm me

down.

Roberta's experience was, unfortunately, what life was like for some students with disabilities before IDEA. Years later, after Roberta left Laconia State School, after she was reintegrated into her community, she appeared before a State senate committee that I was chairing because she was the main proponent of a law that we passed in the New Hampshire State Senate to remove the word ``retarded'' from all of our State statutes. Roberta knew that it was the judgment of people who first interacted with her, people who believed she had intellectual disabilities, that caused her parents to believe that they had to put not only Roberta but her sister Jocelyn in an institution. Both Roberta and Jocelyn happened to have the misfortune of being born with disabilities.

It is that contrast between Roberta's experience and my son's that keeps me focused on the importance of making sure that we include all children in our public school system but also that we have the laws in place to ensure that they get the free appropriate education that all American children deserve.

Unfortunately, Mrs. DeVos has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the challenges facing students with disabilities. At our hearing earlier this month, I questioned Mrs. DeVos on whether she would enforce IDEA. Not only did she decline to assure Senators that she would enforce the law to protect students with disabilities, but she was confused about whether IDEA was indeed a Federal law to begin with.

While I am pleased that Mrs. DeVos later clarified that she is no longer confused about whether IDEA is a Federal law, she has done nothing to reassure me that she would enforce it or that she understands how fragile the gains we have made under IDEA are.

The voucher system that Mrs. DeVos supports has often, intended or not, hurt individuals who experience disabilities. Children and families lose legal protections enshrined in the IDEA. In some cases, students and their families have to sign away their civil rights before they can receive their vouchers. Yet many of the private schools that take those vouchers--the schools that Mrs. DeVos wishes to push students to--lack basic resources or accommodations for children who experience disabilities.

So if a family determines that the school that has accepted their voucher really does not have the resources or the expertise to educate their child, they have no legal recourse. Mrs. DeVos's unfamiliarity with IDEA, her comments on students with disabilities was something my office heard about often from Granite State parents who contacted the office with concerns about her nomination.

A mother from Hopkinton, NH, wrote to tell me about her daughter who attends Hopkinton High School and experiences severe disabilities--is nonverbal and requires assistance for all aspects of her daily care.

This mother wrote:

Despite all of this, because of the extraordinary support

we have received, she is living a rich and loving life at

home and is part of the public school system. I have no

confidence that Betsy DeVos would understand or support the

role that public schools have for taking care of all

students.

This mother also called Mrs. DeVos's lack of understanding of IDEA ``appalling.''

I also heard from a parent from Concord, NH, who said:

My stepdaughter currently has a 504 plan for both a

physical and cognitive disability at Concord High School,

who, incidentally, are doing an excellent job of working with

her to make sure her learning needs are met. My children

deserve a future and so do all children.

This parent said she was feeling ``vulnerable'' as a result of Mrs. DeVos's nomination. Parents all across our Nation deserve to know that the rights of their children will be protected, and they are rightfully concerned with Mrs. DeVos's nomination.

In New Hampshire, I am proud of our work to build a future where every child can get the kind of education they need to be competitive and successful leaders in the 21st century economy. Just last week, I visited Souhegan High School in Amherst, NJ. Souhegan has become a pioneer in competency-based education. I visited numerous classrooms where students were doing hands-on lessons in Earth science, in literature to make sure they could master the material before them in a way that would stick with them.

They were great examples of what we have learned about the importance of hands-on, project-based learning, how much better students retain information, knowledge, problem-solving skills, when they actually have a problem to solve, and how important it is for them to learn to collaborate with their fellow students, just the way we expect people to collaborate as a team in the workplace.

After I visited the classes, the students at Souhegan had formed a panel to talk with me. There, students with a variety of interests, backgrounds, and education levels talked to about how important it was for them to have control of their own learning, to learn in a way, in a style that worked for them to work with their peers and build off of each other's strengths and learn from each other.

I also talked with them about New Hampshire's pilot, project-based competency assessment program called PACE, something that New Hampshire received waivers to do over the last year, and they are in the process of continuing right now. New Hampshire is piloting a program that moves us away, just as was recommended and foreseen by the Every Child Succeeds Acts from high-stakes, one-time testing to project-based assessments that are built into the project-based competency learning they are doing.

We are seeing great success with this pilot, and schools across the country are beginning to adopt it as well. That is the power of strong, innovative public education. This was an approach developed by teachers and parents and students and our Department of Education and our statewide school board as well as local school boards together. Just as we have important initiatives surrounding project-based learning in New Hampshire, we also have strong public charter schools.

I still recall a visit to our North Country Charter School in one of the more rural parts of New Hampshire, a school that was formed--a regional effort--to allow students for whom traditional high school was not working, whether it be because of their learning style, because of particular events that were happening in their home, or other emotional or developmental issues.

It allows them to come together and go to school in a way and in a place that works for them, keeping them in school, helping New Hampshire meet its goal set in law that no child drop out of high school before age 18.

The strength of the students I saw at the Country Charter School graduation was extraordinary; students who would overcome particular challenges, whether it was personal, whether it was academic--speaking for themselves and about themselves and their vision of their own future to a crowded, excited room of friends and family.

That is another kind of public education that supplements our statewide public education system and is something we can work together to do, holding all schools accountable. The vision that Mrs. DeVos, on the other hand, outlined and has devoted much of her work to, would dismantle the progress we have made, diverting taxpayer dollars to private, religious, and for-profit schools without accountability requirements.

Mrs. DeVos advocates for a voucher system that leaves out students whose families cannot afford to pay additional tuition costs, and leaves behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs. In his book, ``Our Kids,'' Robert Putnam notes that education should be a mechanism to level the playing field, but today the inequality gap is growing because affluent students start better prepared and are more able to pay.

Putnam also points out that daycare and transportation needs constrain the amount of choice that poor parents have when it comes to voucher programs. We should all be working to fix that gap, but the voucher programs that Mrs. DeVos advocates for threaten to increase the gap. The system that Mrs. DeVos advocated for in Detroit, MI, has undermined public schools and hurt students in the process.

In 2014, Michigan taxpayers spent $1 billion on charter schools, but laws regulating them are weak and the State demands little accountability. The Detroit Free Press reported on the Detroit school system, finding a system where school founders and employees steered lucrative deals to themselves or to other insiders, where schools were allowed to operate for years despite their poor academic records.

The Detroit Free Press described a system with no State standards for those who operate charters and where a record number of charter schools, run by for-profit companies, refuse to detail how exactly they are spending taxpayer dollars.

One Detroit mother said that Mrs. DeVos's ``push for charter schools without any accountability exposed my children and their classmates to chaos and unacceptable classroom conditions.''

In Florida, the McKay Scholarship Program voucher for students with disabilities that Mrs. DeVos has pointed to also raises significant concerns, including no due process rights for students under IDEA, no accountability requirements for participating schools, and absolutely no evidence of student success.

Additionally, the McKay voucher often does not cover the full cost of the

private school, leaving parents responsible for tuition and fees above the scholarship amount, not to mention responsibility for transportation. This puts students and their families at risk. Rather than taking the approach we have in New Hampshire, where charter schools supplement a strong public education system, this system of unaccountable schools destabilizes and undermines public schools.

Now, given that Mrs. DeVos's goals for K-12 education are what they are and the fact that we were only given 5 minutes to question her at the hearing, many key issues facing American students were not discussed at all in her confirmation hearing. In particular, we did not talk about higher education. When I was Governor of New Hampshire, I was proud of our work to make college more affordable, building a 21st century workforce pipeline for our businesses.

We froze tuition for the first time in 25 years at our public university system, and we actually lowered it at our community colleges. We engaged in increasing and more robust job training efforts, where we partnered businesses with community colleges or other learning centers to make sure we were engaged in the kind of job training that would prepare students for the 21st century economy.

I was hoping that at our hearing for Mrs. DeVos's confirmation, we would discuss higher education, but issues relating to higher education have been lost altogether in this discussion. What is clear, though, is that Mrs. DeVos has absolutely no experience in higher education. Her written responses following our hearing were troubling. On student debt, Pell grants, reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and job training efforts, her responses were vague and offered no vision for issues that are critical to millions of Americans. When asked about

for-profit colleges, which have had a history of taking

advantage of students, including but not limited to our

veterans, Mrs. DeVos said she was agnostic--that is her

word--about the tax filing status of higher education

institutions. That is just not acceptable.

I believe we should be expanding Pell grants. We should lower the interest rates on student loans. We should be expanding apprenticeship and job training opportunities. We need to crack down on predatory for- profit colleges.

We need an Education Secretary who understands and is able to focus on higher education, and it is clear that Mrs. DeVos does not have that experience or focus.

Mr. President, our Founders understood that public education for our citizens was essential to the functioning of our democracy. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

I think by far, the most important bill in our whole code

is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No

other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of

freedom, and happiness.

Generation after generation has worked to build on those ideals, including, as we do that work, more and more Americans in the process and creating a system that gives all students an opportunity to succeed.

We need an Education Secretary who is committed to upholding that principle, not rolling our progress back, and we should all be working together to ensure that we have strong neighborhood public schools, not dismantling them.

I join with my colleagues here today and the thousands from my State who have made their voices heard. We need just one more vote to defeat this nomination and to make clear that the Senate truly values our Nation's public schools.

I surely hope that there is another Senator willing to break with the President and vote against this woefully unqualified nominee.

We all have learned in this wonderful country of ours, with each generation, as we include more and more people who have been marginalized, left out, who weren't counted, that when we include them, we certainly honor their freedom and dignity--important and sufficient, of course, in its own right. Then when we do that, we also unleash the talent and energy of everyone, and that strengthens us all, helps us thrive, helps our economy grow, and makes sure that America not only leads but deserves to.

It is our job in the Senate to listen to the thousands speaking up for our children and for the public education system that serves all Americans.

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

Mr President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Tom Burack and honoring his more than a decade of service to the State of New Hampshire. As commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, he has been a strong advocate for our State and our environment.

Our economic vitality as a State hinges on our pristine lakes and rivers, our clean air, and our strong protection of these natural resources. Under Tom's leadership, the department has focused on combating the serious challenge of climate change and ensuring that New Hampshire citizens and visitors have access to clean air, water, and land while providing excellent customer service--all of which is critical to our State's economy and future success. This includes the development of the 2009 Climate Action Plan, New Hampshire's entrance into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, the creation of the MtBE Remediation Bureau, and the formation of the State Government Energy Committee, among many others.

Tom has also led and facilitated a voluntary, informal network of State agency commissioners for 8 years, helping to bring agencies together to improve the operations of and drive innovation and efficiency in State government. He is a leader on the regional and national levels as well, including envisioning and coleading an overall modernization of how environmental protection services are delivered nationwide through a joint State-tribal-Federal initiative known as E- Enterprise for the Environment. All of these actions and the many others that are too numerous to list have helped to strengthen our environment, protect public health, and combat climate change.

New Hampshire's natural resources and scenic beauty must be protected, and doing so requires strong collaboration. As commissioner, Tom embodied New Hampshire's ``all-hands-on-deck'' spirit, working collaboratively with our neighboring States on issues like RGGI, local communities on issues like water quality and contamination, other State agencies on issues like State government energy efficiency, and partners at the Federal level.

New Hampshire and our country have benefitted enormously from Tom's vision, energy, and leadership, and I thank Tom for his tireless dedication to protecting our environment and his immense contributions that have helped make New Hampshire a special place to live, work, visit, and raise a family.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Thank you very much.

Senator Murray, I have been very concerned, as you know, with Mrs. DeVos's lack of understanding of issues facing students with disabilities. My son Ben's experience in public education was made possible because there were so many families and advocates who came before my family to make his inclusion possible.

Before IDEA, students who experienced disabilities in an institutional setting often didn't get an education at all and were often mistreated.

Yesterday when I spoke on the floor, I discussed a woman in New Hampshire named Roberta who had been in our State school before IDEA was passed and gave accounts of terrible experiences there.

Do you also have concerns with Mrs. DeVos's lack of understanding of the challenges faced by students who experience disabilities and her lack of commitment to ensuring that all students have a free and appropriate public education?

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States.

Now more than ever, it is critical to have an Attorney General who is an independent defender of our Constitution, who puts the rule of law before all else, and who is committed to ensuring that all Americans have equal access to justice. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Senator Sessions is fully committed to enacting those principles, and every American should be concerned that he will not independently stand up to President Trump.

Senator Sessions was one of Trump's earliest supporters and has been a key source of influence for the President's actions. White House Strategist Stephen Bannon recently wrote to the Washington Post: ``Throughout the campaign, Sessions has been the fiercest, most dedicated, and most loyal promoter in Congress of Trump's agenda, and has played a critical role as the clearinghouse for policy and philosophy to undergird the implementation of that agenda.''

In the wake of President Trump's first few weeks in office, in which he signed dozens of Executive orders--including the un-American backdoor Muslim ban--it was reported that Senator Sessions played a role in influencing the President's policy and strategy.

My office has heard from thousands in New Hampshire who have had serious legitimate concerns about the President's actions in his first few weeks. I am concerned by reports that Senator Sessions pushed for an even more aggressive approach.

The Washington Post reported: ``The Senator lobbied for a `shock-and- awe' period of executive action that would rattle Congress, impress Trump's base, and catch his critics unaware. . . . `'

Senator Sessions' record in Congress and his history of standing against the constitutionally protected rights of millions of Americans is deeply troubling. These are issues that my office has heard from constituents across New Hampshire. As a resident from Merrimack wrote: ``Pick a current civil rights issue and Sessions is on the wrong side of history.''

I do not have confidence that Senator Sessions would be an independent Attorney General who would put the rights of all Americans before the whims of this President, and that is why I oppose this nomination.

I am incredibly proud that my home State of New Hampshire understands that the values of inclusion and equality are at the very core of what makes us American and at the core of our constitutional system. We believe in freedom and the value of every person, and that is our duty and our destiny--to extend the same freedoms we enjoy to all of our people. We value human rights and we see inclusion and equality as core principles in our laws. These values have helped our State become a leader in advancing the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community, recognizing that all people deserve the legal right to fully participate in the social, civic, and economic life of our communities.

Years ago, New Hampshire led the way in becoming one of the first States in the Nation to pass marriage equality, and I took great pride in casting my vote for that legislation as a State senator. When we passed that legislation, we made clear once again that when we as a State or a country bring people in from the margins into the heart and soul of our democracy, we all get stronger.

About a year after we took that step in New Hampshire to enact marriage equality, I was sitting on a plane in the window seat, and the man next to me noticed my name on the notebook I was reading and said: Aren't you elected in New Hampshire? What do you do there?

I told him I had been a State senator.

He looked at me and said: Did you have anything to do with marriage equality passing?

Now, I wasn't sure what this man's point of view was as I sat next to him on this plane ride. I said: Well, yes, I was in the New Hampshire Senate, and I voted to pass marriage equality.

He said: I want to thank you for it. I am a recruiter for one of our State's largest employers, and marriage equality is one of the best recruitment tools we have.

I asked him to expand a little bit on that. He said: It isn't that we have any particular percentage of LGBTQ applicants or employees that is unusual, but the fact that New Hampshire passed marriage equality signals to people we are trying to recruit that we are an open and inclusive State, where everybody is welcome if they are willing to work hard and do their part to move us forward.

During my time as Governor, we continued to fight for progress for the LGBTQ community, including issuing an executive order to prohibit discrimination in our State government on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.

Unfortunately, Senator Sessions' record and previous comments call into question whether he will enforce the Federal laws designed to promote equality and protect the LGBTQ community. Senator Sessions has been a vocal opponent of marriage equality, going as far as to label same-sex marriages as dangerous.

In 2004, he stated: ``But I do believe that it is not disputable that adopting a same-sex marriage culture undermines and weakens marriage.''

Following the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that guaranteed marriage equality in all 50 States, Senator Sessions said: ``The marriage case goes beyond what I consider to be the realm of reality.''

As Attorney General, it would be Senator Sessions' job to implement and defend this ruling. I am extremely concerned that he would not follow through with that responsibility.

Senator Sessions has also worked to undermine the Federal hate crimes law designed to protect LGBTQ Americans. In explaining his vote against the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Sessions argued that Federal protections for LGBTQ Americans were not necessary. When debating the law, Sessions said: ``I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination.''

Following Senator Sessions' nomination as Attorney General, Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, for whom that law was named, wrote a letter for the Human Rights Campaign opposing Sessions' nomination. Shepard wrote:

In 1998 my son, Matthew, was murdered because he was gay, a

brutal hate crime that continues to resonate around the world

even now.

Following Matt's death, my husband, Dennis, and I worked

for the next 11 years to garner support for the federal Hate

Crimes Prevention Act. We were fortunate to work alongside

members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who

championed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate

Crimes Prevention Act with the determination, compassion, and

vision to match ours as the parents of a child targeted for

simply wanting to be himself. Senator Jeff Sessions was not

one of these members. In fact, Senator Sessions strongly

opposed the hate crimes bill--characterizing hate crimes as

mere ``thought crimes.''

My son was not killed by ``thoughts'' or because his

murderers said hateful things. My son was brutally beaten

with the butt of a .357 magnum pistol. [They] tied him to a

fence, and left him to die in freezing temperatures because

he was gay. Senator Sessions' repeated efforts to diminish

the life-changing acts of violence covered by the Hate Crimes

Prevention Act horrified me then, as a parent who knows the

true cost of hate, and it terrifies me today to see that this

same person is now being nominated as the country's highest

authority to represent justice and equal protection under the

law for all Americans.

As Attorney General, Senator Sessions would be responsible

for not only enforcing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, but a

myriad of other Civil Rights laws including the Violence

Against Women Act, which includes explicit protections for

LGBTQ people. Senator Sessions' very public record of

hostility towards the LGBTQ community and federal legislation

designed to protect vulnerable Americans, including the

Voting Rights Act, makes it nearly impossible to believe that

he will vigorously enforce statutes and ideas that he worked

so hard to defeat.

I agree with Judy Shepherd, and it is clear that Senator Sessions' record shows that he will not stand up for the rights of LGBTQ Granite Staters and Americans if he becomes Attorney General.

There are other issues of concern as well. I have always fought to protect a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions and control her own destiny, and I always will. Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision that protects women and their access to abortion. It guarantees a fundamental right for women, and it affirms that a woman has the right to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy without government interference.

Sessions' record leaves questions on whether he will enforce the law in this area. During his time in the Senate, Sessions has been dedicated to opposing a woman's constitutional right to safe and legal abortion. He voted to grant legal status to an embryo. He has repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the right to use their own private funds for abortion care at military hospitals. He has said that he would like to see a woman's constitutional right to make her own health care decisions overturned.

This is unacceptable for a nominee to lead the Department of Justice whose role would be to uphold the very law that he seeks to overturn. We also know that a woman's right to make her own health decisions isn't just a matter of freedom. It is a matter of health. It is also a matter of economics and finances.

When women have to pay more for their health care, and it puts them in an economic disadvantage. As Governor, I restored family planning funds and pushed to restore State funding to Planned Parenthood because I know how critical access to these services are for the women and families of my State.

Planned Parenthood provides critical primary and preventive health care services to thousands of New Hampshire women, including preventive care, birth control, and cancer screenings. There are countless stories of women whose lives have been changed as a result of access to Planned Parenthood in my State.

A young woman named Alyssa in my State lost her health insurance. She was on her father's health insurance. She was younger than age 26. Suddenly her father passed away, and then she had a medical emergency. She didn't know where to go. Grieving for her father, she was also without health insurance. She turned to Planned Parenthood, and they were able to provide her the care that she needed.

Alyssa's story and the stories of thousands of others across our State make it clear why it is essential that we have an Attorney General who will protect a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions.

Senator Sessions has voted six times to block patients from accessing health care at Planned Parenthood health centers. Senator Sessions has stated that Planned Parenthood should not receive Federal funds for any services because, among the other health care services it provides, it provides the constitutionally protected care--abortion--that a woman needs when she decides she must terminate a pregnancy.

Senator Sessions has opposed women's access to no-cost birth control that is now provided through the Affordable Care Act. Sessions even refused to condemn President Trump's remarks in the ``Access Hollywood'' tapes released last year, saying that he did not characterize the behavior President Trump described as sexual assault.

He voted against the 2014 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which is critical for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. The Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 and has been reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 and 2005 and signed by President George W. Bush.

The idea that the Attorney General of the United States would not support his commonsense legislation to protect women from violence is unacceptable. As Governor, I also fought to expand economic opportunity for women and families.

We passed the New Hampshire Paycheck Fairness Act in New Hampshire, making sure that an equal day's work gets an equal day's pay.

I also strongly support efforts to expand paid family leave to ensure that workers are able to support their families during times of need at home.

I am troubled that Senator Sessions has worked to roll back the progress of equal pay. Senator Sessions voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and has consistently voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

I am far from the only one in New Hampshire who opposes the idea of Senator Sessions as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. I have heard from many of my constituents regarding the impact of Senator Sessions' nomination on women's right.

One constituent wrote:

I truly fear for the future of women's rights and my

daughter's right to an autonomous life if Jeff Sessions is

confirmed. The bottom line, Senator Sessions has a record of

undermining the civil and constitutional rights of women in

this country.

On another topic, in recent weeks there has been much discussion about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, otherwise known as IDEA, and the fact that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos seemed confused about the fact that IDEA is Federal law and also declined to commit to enforcing it. This contributed to my vote against Mrs. DeVos's nomination yesterday.

What is also appalling is Senator Sessions' previous comments on IDEA. In 2000, Senator Sessions gave a speech

on the Senate floor suggesting that disciplinary problems in schools stemmed from IDEA. Sessions said:

Teachers I have been talking to have shared stories with

me. I have been in 15 schools around Alabama this year. I

have talked to them about a lot of subjects. I ask them about

this subject in every school I go to, and I am told in every

school that this is a major problem for them. In fact, it may

be the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout

America today.

He continued.

There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost

by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times of an

increasingly competitive global society, it is no wonder

American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to

remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours

that can never be replaced.

There is no need to extend the school day. There is no need

to extend the school year. If politicians would just make it

possible for educators to take back the time that is lost on

a daily basis to certain individuals, there is no doubt we

would have better educated students.

He added:

It is clear that IDEA '97 not only undermines the

educational process, it also undermines the authority of

educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon

to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources,

our credibility is being stripped from us.

As I have discussed over the last couple of weeks, the passage of IDEA was a groundbreaking moment in American history for people who experience disabilities in their families. After IDEA was passed, all schools--all public schools in our country--were required to provide a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.

Children like my son, now 28 years old, and a graduate of Exeter High School, who used to be relegated to institutions, subjected to inhumane conditions and maltreatment, treated as truly less than human were included in our public schools. There is not a parent of a child like my son who does not acknowledge that including new people with different needs in any setting can be challenging, but we are Americans, and we are supposed to do challenging things, and that is what IDEA challenged us to do.

I have seen the power of inclusion not only in my own home, but in my community and in our schools. I have seen it strengthen other students. Just last week, one of my son's classmates from fifth grade reached out because he had seen the coverage of the hearing concerning Mrs. DeVos's nomination. He said in an email to me: You know, I don't remember much about fifth grade, but I do remember having lunch with Ben. And I remember even now Ben's lighthearted disposition.

What a lesson for our children to learn that even if you have severe and debilitating physical disabilities that prevent you from speaking or typing or walking or eating in a typical way, you could be lighthearted and love your life. There are always challenges connected to including new students with different learning styles, different behaviors. But because of IDEA, we have learned how to help those students cope and learn and adjust their behavior. And for anybody to suggest that it is the fault of people with disabilities, that it is their disability that is undermining our education, is appalling.

Various groups who represent individuals with disabilities have, therefore, voiced their opposition to Senator Sessions' nomination. The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates has written to the Judiciary Committee arguing that:

[Sessions] has compiled a longstanding and consistent

record, including public statements, policy proposals, and

other various actions that serve to discriminate against the

rights and dignity of children and adults with disabilities.

Sessions' disdain for special education and opposition to

community integration of individuals with disabilities is at

odds with the laws, inconsistent with our nation's commitment

to supporting individuals with disabilities, and will lead to

far higher societal costs in the future.

And a constituent with Etna, NH, wrote to share her concerns on Senator Sessions' record on individuals with disabilities. She said:

Senator Sessions has a long, well-documented history of

active opposition to respect for the human rights of the

American citizenry, particularly those of us who experience

multiple marginalizations in our society. And as such, he is

unfit for the office of Attorney General. It is abundantly

clear to me, as a disabled woman, that his Justice Department

would not support my equal protection under the law.

Americans with disabilities and their families deserve better than an Attorney General who has consistently spoken out against their rights.

I also have concerns about Senator Sessions' voting rights record. Voting is our most fundamental right, and ensuring that everyone can exercise that right is critical to making our democracy successful. Everyone deserves representation and the opportunity to vote on who represents them.

Throughout his time in office, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an opposition to ensuring that all Americans have the right to vote. In 1986, Senator Sessions called the Voting Rights Act ``an intrusive piece of legislation.'' In 2006, after the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, Senator Sessions joined other Republicans in issuing a highly unusual committee report that sought to undermine the same legislation that they had all just voted to support. Chief Justice Roberts cited the report in his Shelby County v. Holder opinion, which gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Senator Sessions celebrated the Shelby County decision and stated it was, ``good news for the South.''

Since that decision, and despite the passage of voting restrictions in several States by Republican legislatures, Sessions has said, ``I don't think the Supreme Court ruling has damaged voting rights in any real way.''

It is clear that Senator Sessions is not committed to protecting voting rights. Many Granite Staters have written to my office, highlighting Senator Sessions' record on voting rights as a reason that the Senate should oppose his nomination.

A constituent from Tilton, NH, said:

Our country has battled long and hard to throw off the

errors of our past, but voting rights are under assault. Jeff

Sessions is not the right person to safeguard the integrity

of our voting process, nor can he be trusted to work on

behalf of all Americans in the cause of Justice.

At a time when we are discussing ensuring equality, justice, and inclusion for all of our citizens, I am reminded of my father's story. My father was born and raised in the segregated South. His father was a traveling shoe salesman, and his mother was a school teacher who, during the Depression, got paid in food stamps. That is what kept the family going. Through hard work, a scholarship, taking on jobs like waiting tables and moving furniture, and a bit of good luck, my dad was able to attend Princeton University. It wasn't long before his studies were interrupted, however, when, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he left to volunteer to fight in World War II, eventually being thrown into the Battle of the Bulge.

The Battle of the Bulge marked one of the first times in World War II that White and Black American soldiers fought alongside each other. Thousands of miles away from the school where he had been studying, this young man from the Deep South found himself learning more about the values of equality and inclusion than he ever could have learned back at home. And after my father's experience in that battle, where African-American soldiers fought and died alongside their White counterparts, Dad returned home to a life of working to make the notion that every single one of us counts a reality. Our Founders believed in that principle, that when you count everyone and bring more people in from the margins, we all grow stronger.

We know that our Founders didn't count everyone at first, but they had faith that we would continue striving, as our Constitution commands us to, to build a more perfect union, that generation after generation, we would continue to deliver on our Nation's promise of equality. And while the road to greater inclusion is not without significant challenges, time and again, we have persevered to build a better future.

We need leaders who are committed to those values and who are committed to enforcing the laws that have included more and more Americans. Senator Jeff Sessions' record shows that he is not committed to those values, and he has demonstrated that he lacks the independence needed to stand up to President Trump.

For these reasons, I cannot support Senator Sessions to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I

urge my colleagues to vote no on this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield my hour of postcloture debate time under rule XXII to Senator Schumer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the thousands of New Hampshire residents--

--who will lose treatment, I vote no.