Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my strong

opposition to Director Pompeo's nomination to be our next Secretary of State.

This position is too important. The stakes are too high to let this nominee slide by without full consideration of what it would mean for Director Pompeo to be our Nation's top diplomat--the person whose every word and action broadcasts America's values to the rest of the world.

Some of my opposition concerns Director Pompeo's harsh views on matters of war and peace, and his blatantly false accusations regarding members of the Muslim community. Some of my opposition surrounds my deep concern about Director Pompeo's ability to stand strong against President Trump's erratic and uninformed foreign policy positions.

But what I wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to do is to express my serious concern about what Director Pompeo's ideological, extreme positions on women's rights and reproductive freedom would mean for women across the world.

Our Nation has an important role to uphold as a global champion of women's rights. We need a Secretary of State who will be a strong advocate and continue our legacy of leadership in fighting for women's health and reproductive freedom and the rights of women and girls around the world. Instead, I am afraid Director Pompeo would undo much of that legacy and undermine much of the global progress we have made.

An advocate for women doesn't repeatedly support the global gag rule, which keeps funding from clinics and programs that provide women important medical care. Director Pompeo did.

An advocate for women doesn't vote to defund the United Nations Population Fund, which provides family planning services for women around the world who live in poverty. Director Pompeo did.

When it comes to fighting for the survivors of rape and against those who would use rape as a tool of war, it is clear we should stand by survivors, fight for them, and work to make sure they have access to the medical care they need. However, Director Pompeo has said he would prevent women who have been raped from access to abortions. That is an unacceptably cruel response to women and war survivors, and it is one of the many clear indicators that Director Pompeo is an unacceptable choice to serve as Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State is always a critically important position, but it takes on even more important meaning in 2018. The President not only needs good counsel in navigating our complex global relationships, but he also desperately needs someone who can tell him when he is wrong and who can stand up to him and be a check on this President's worse impulses.

Throughout his nomination process, Director Pompeo failed to convince me that he is that person. So I will be voting no on his nomination to be Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose Kyle Duncan's nomination to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A review of Mr. Duncan's record--his cases and chosen causes--shows he is a dangerous, ideological nominee who has consistently been on the wrong side of women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights. Let's start with Mr. Duncan's record that argues against women's rights and reproductive freedom.

When he served as the lead counsel in the infamous Hobby Lobby case, he argued that an employer can interfere with a woman's personal healthcare choices.

In Texas, he filed a brief that was in favor of abortion restrictions that would have shut down the vast majority of clinics in that State-- restrictions the Supreme Court, ultimately, ruled an ``undue burden'' on a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion.

In my home State of Washington, he filed a brief that argued pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for ideological reasons. Fortunately, his views did not prevail.

Then there is Mr. Duncan's long record of opposing LGBTQ rights.

When it comes to the rights of same-sex couples, he argued against two loving parents who wanted to change their baby's birth certificate so they could add him to their insurance plan. He argued for denying a same-sex spouse her parental visiting rights to the children she had raised for 8 years. He also defended bans on same-sex marriages in Louisiana and Virginia.

When the Supreme Court was considering whether to strike down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide, he said the harm of doing this would be ``severe, unavoidable, and irreversible,'' and he filed an amicus brief against it. When the Court then made its historic decision to recognize same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, Mr. Duncan said it ``raises questions about the legitimacy of the Court.'' He said it might ``imperil civic peace.''

When it comes to the rights of transgender people, he fought for the intolerant, harmful bathroom ban in North Carolina and against Gavin, a young boy in Virginia who simply wanted his school to allow him to use the men's restroom. He did it by using bigoted remarks that were nothing short of appalling.

In defending the outrageous ban in North Carolina, he relied on bogus testimony from a self-proclaimed expert who suggested that transgender people

are delusional. In his opposing Gavin in Virginia, Mr. Duncan advanced the offensive and discredited conspiracy theory that schools need to fear athletes who pretend to be transgender in order to gain a competitive advantage.

Outside of the court, outside of his client work, he has repeatedly addressed an organization that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center--an organization that calls marriage equality an ``oxymoronic institution if ever there was one.''

There are other red flags about his commitment to defending civil rights.

For example, when the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for minors were unconstitutional, he argued the ruling shouldn't apply retroactively.

He argued that prisons that are packed to double their capacity were not in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting the problem caused ``needless suffering and death.''

In a case involving an innocent man who had spent 14 years on death row--an innocent man--Mr. Duncan argued that the district attorney's office was not at fault for failing to train a staff member who had withheld evidence.

When it comes to one of the fundamental rights in a democracy--the right to vote, the right of the people to choose their government officials--Mr. Duncan defended a racially tailored voter ID law in North Carolina, which the courts ultimately struck down for targeting African Americans with ``almost surgical precision.''

Any one of these cases Mr. Duncan has chosen to take should raise alarm, and any one of the ideological arguments he has made should cause concern. Yet all of them together paint an unmistakable picture of a nominee who would not uphold women's rights, LGBTQ rights, or civil rights.

To paraphrase one of his own statements, if confirmed, I believe the damage Mr. Duncan will do to people by putting his ideology over their rights will be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible. I oppose his nomination. I urge all of my colleagues to join me.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Carlos Muniz to be the Department of Education's general counsel.

The Department of Education's primary responsibility is to help schools educate our students and prepare them to be successful in life. A good education can open doors of opportunity for children who may not have thought that their dreams were possible, and a good education can lift millions of families out of poverty and into the middle class. That is certainly what a good education did for me and for my family.

As many working families are struggling today, we should be working to make sure every child can attend a good public school in their own neighborhood. We need to do more to ensure that every student who wants to attend college can afford it, graduate, and find a good-paying job and is not saddled with a mountain of debt. It is critical that every student, no matter what age, learn in a safe environment, free from discrimination, harassment, and violence.

This should be at the core of our Nation--that everyone has the right to a high-quality education, no matter where they live or how they learn or how much money their parents make.

As general counsel to the Department of Education, Mr. Muniz would be responsible for providing legal advice and assistance to Secretary DeVos. Her first year in office has shown how much she needs it.

Secretary DeVos continues to push her extreme privatization agenda even though millions of students, parents, and teachers have stood up and rejected it.

Despite bipartisan agreement in Congress on our Nation's K-12 law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, Secretary DeVos is approving State plans that do not comply with all of ESSA's guardrails--guardrails that were agreed to by Republicans and Democrats in Congress to help ensure that no student falls through the cracks.

Secretary DeVos has rolled back protections for students and student loan borrowers, making it easier for predatory, for-profit colleges to take advantage of students.

Time and again, she has failed to uphold civil rights protections for students. She has tried to scale back the Office for Civil Rights, opened the doors for schools to once again discriminate against transgender students, and rolled back guidance for schools on how to investigate campus sexual assault. Especially in this moment when more and more women are coming forward and sharing their stories of harassment and assault, there is no excuse for those in power to attempt to sweep their stories under the rug. By rolling back this guidance, Secretary DeVos allowed schools to put the burden back on survivors. By making it harder for them to trust they will be believed, I am concerned that fewer women will come forward.

Mr. President, it is clear that Secretary DeVos needs an independent general counsel who will stand up to her when laws are being bent or broken. I am afraid Mr. Muniz has failed to convince me that is the kind of general counsel he would be.

He worked for a for-profit college company that preyed upon students and cheated them out of their education and their savings. He has a record of putting politics before students. He worked for the Florida attorney general, who came under fire for accepting a political donation from President Trump at the very time she decided against investigating Trump University--a sham university that defrauded countless students by promising them everything and leaving them with nothing.

Although Mr. Muniz and the Florida attorney general didn't stand up for students who were misled and defrauded by President Trump, many other States sued. Just last week--8 years after Trump University closed its doors--the $25 million settlement the President agreed to pay to his victims was finalized, meaning some of those cheated by the President will now start seeing relief. However, Mr. Muniz's involvement in the Trump University case gives me great concern that at the Department of Education, he will once again not stand up for student loan borrowers defrauded by other predatory for-profit colleges.

I am afraid Mr. Muniz at the Department of Education will only be more of the same. For those reasons, I will be voting against his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose in the strongest terms the nomination of Patrick Pizzella as Deputy Secretary of Labor.

With this nomination President Trump is once again breaking his promise to put workers first. Mr. Pizzella has a record that is time and again at odds with the goals of the very Department he would help to lead as Deputy Secretary. His track record is one of not merely failing workers but of failing to enforce laws to protect the health and safety of workers, seeking to diminish workers' rights and protections, and undermining the unions that represent and fight for them.

In fact, his record includes working with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff on behalf of causes that are counter to the mission of the Department of Labor.

In the 1990s, Congress was moving to expand labor and immigration protections to the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. Territory, to end the operation of sweatshops that did not follow Federal labor laws. The law at the time let companies bring in foreign workers to toil under inhumane conditions. The workers were underpaid. They were forced to sign contracts signing away their rights to protest labor conditions, and some were even coerced to have abortions.

The companies operating under these inhumane conditions were able to print the words ``Made in the U.S.A.'' on their products.

While Congress was looking to take action to change the law so we could better protect workers, Pizzella was working with Abramoff to coordinate all-expense-paid trips for dozens of Republican lawmakers and staff and seeking to maintain the sweatshop status quo.

Patrick Pizzella chose not to work for workers but for corporations. These efforts are not just counter to the mission of the Department of Labor, they are counter to our national values.

The rest of Mr. Pizzella's record shows that he has taken equally extreme positions throughout his career. Take, for example, his radical record as the sole employee of the Conservative Action Project, a far- right group funded by billionaire donors like the DeVos family, or his record when he last served in the Department of Labor. Under his leadership, the Department of Labor cut its budget in part by cutting down its own employees' collective bargaining rights and decreasing official time.

Then there is his long record championing anti-union policies and arguing to limit collective bargaining rights.

At the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Pizzella not only ruled consistently against workers and unions, but he repeatedly broke with longstanding policy by calling out the names of individual workers in his decisions. He chose to call out defendants by name and put them in the public spotlight. The pattern of Mr. Pizzella's anti-worker ideology is clearly unchanged today. Throughout his career, Mr. Pizzella's record has been alarmingly consistent. From his years serving as the right hand to Jack Abramoff until now, he has shown that he is not going to fight for workers. He will fight against them.

It would be irresponsible to put a man with such a strong track record of anti-worker conviction a tweet away from leading the Department of Labor. It is unconscionable that someone of Mr. Pizzella's background would be the No. 2 leader at the Department of Labor. It is unacceptable that he could be in line to serve as Acting Secretary should Secretary Acosta leave the Department.

I strongly oppose his nomination. I will be voting against him, and I encourage our colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today for two reasons. Before discussing the nomination at hand--John Ring for the National Labor Relations Board--I do want to take a couple of minutes to mark Equal Pay Day.

Today, it takes women more than 3 additional months to make what their male colleagues made in 2017. In the 21st century, there is absolutely no excuse for the reality that women are still being paid less than men for the same work. It is wrong, it is harmful, and it has to change.

What is even more unacceptable is that for women of color, the pay gap is even worse. African-American women, working full time, only make 63 cents for every dollar their White male colleagues make, and on average, Latinas earn 54 cents for every dollar their White male colleagues make.

The wage gap doesn't hurt just women; it hurts families and our economy. Women are actually the sole or cobreadwinner in two-thirds of families with children. Families increasingly rely on women's wages to help make ends meet--to buy groceries, pay the bills, or pay for childcare.

In order to help women and all working families get ahead, I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act provides transparency and support for women who are being paid less than their male colleagues. It protects women from retaliation for discussing salary information with their coworkers, it allows women to join together in class action lawsuits, and it prohibits employers from seeking salary history, so the cycle of pay discrimination cannot continue.

As President Trump now continues to roll back worker protections and prioritize corporate profits over working families' wages, I think it is time for Congress to act and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act because workers do deserve to be paid fairly, end of story, no matter their gender.

Mr. President, I want to turn to the nomination before the Senate today, the nomination of John Ring for the National Labor Relations Board.

First, I have to object to the unprecedented nature in which we are jamming this nominee through.

It is standard practice that Board nominees are always confirmed in pairs--one Democrat and one Republican. We do this to keep the Board as fair and balanced as possible in hopes that workers have a fair hearing when corporations violate their rights or bargain in bad faith, because the Board is the only place to which workers can turn to enforce their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Workers cannot sue in court. So I must ask, why is this nominee being forced through without also filling the Democratic seat that is about to be vacated, especially at a time when so many other nominees have been waiting significantly longer--some more than 6 months--to be confirmed? I have to believe that it is because special corporate interests are putting immense pressure on my colleagues across the aisle to confirm someone who will advocate for corporations, no matter the cost to workers.

Right now, the Board's credibility is damaged because another Trump- appointed Board member, William Emanuel, chose to cast aside his ethics pledge and commitment to me by participating in Board actions that would directly benefit his former employer. Because of those actions, Mr. Emanuel--the Board's independent watchdog--opened an investigation, and because there was a clear conflict of interest, the Board was forced to vacate the decision that overruled Obama-era worker protections.

With a cloud of ethics controversies surrounding the current Board members, it is clear to me why corporations and special interests are trying to get Mr. Ring confirmed so quickly. Mr. Ring has spent his career as a corporate lawyer representing the interests of companies, not workers. He has opposed the Board's reforms that stop companies from unnecessarily delaying union elections. He has encouraged the Board to undermine long-established rights, including the right for workers to have coworker representation in disciplinary interviews. I find it difficult to believe he will advocate now for workers, as this Board desperately needs to be doing.

This administration has spent more than a year undermining workers' rights and making it easier for corporations to take advantage of them, and the Board, under Republican control, has been leading that charge by ignoring longstanding practices in a rush to overturn precedents that protect workers.

At a time when corporations in this country and the richest among us are getting richer and working families are left behind, it is so critical today that the Board be independent and able to advocate for workers. Now is not the time to break precedent and vote on a nominee without the Democratic pair.

For all these reasons, I will be voting no on this nominee. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. JOHNSON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to take a moment to talk about how we got to this point and why I am hopeful that, despite the Republican leader's decision to once again scuttle bipartisan negotiations on health stabilization, we can return to the table and work together to do what patients and families want; that is, to strengthen healthcare and lower the premiums next year.

Chairman Alexander had said that in September every Democrat in the Senate was ready to pass the original Alexander-Murray legislation, and he is right. We wanted to work with Republicans to undo as much of President Trump's healthcare sabotage as possible because of how it is hurting families and forcing them to pay more for care. Unfortunately, Senator McConnell blocked our bipartisan agreement because he wanted to pressure his caucus into supporting yet another harmful Republican repeal bill. That TrumpCare bill failed, and I was again hopeful that after it did, we could make progress on our bipartisan legislation. Instead, Senate Republican leaders opted to do the exact opposite. They jammed through a terrible tax bill that actually raises families' premiums to pay for tax cuts for massive corporations. Even after that, I and Democrats were still at the table and ready to do what we could to stabilize markets and lower families' healthcare costs.

Imagine my frustration when, at the very last minute--just days ago-- Republicans leaders once again made clear that they didn't want to lower families' premiums. They didn't want to stabilize a healthcare system that, as one House Republican said, they never supported anyway. Senate Republicans opted, instead, to surprise Democrats with a new, last-minute partisan proposal, the so-called stabilization bill, which included poison pills that Republicans knew Democrats would never agree to.

The partisan bill that Republicans surprised us with would undermine access to care for people with preexisting conditions by writing President Trump's junk plans rule into law and by taking away protections included in our original agreement with Chairman Alexander to make sure that the sickest patients don't find themselves in a dramatically more expensive market.

This partisan bill also pulled the most worn page out of the Republicans' ideological playbook--making extreme, political attacks on women's healthcare. This partisan bill would take huge steps beyond current law, making it so women can't even buy abortion coverage using their own money.

From the start of negotiations last fall, I made it abundantly clear I will not allow women's reproductive freedoms to become a political football in these conversations. I also made clear that I understood, like it or not, that current prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion services would apply to our agreement. But that is not what this is--not at all.

I think that was made pretty clear when Republicans surprised us with this last-minute change in a press release without inviting any Democrats to join. I believe, and I think most people would agree, that the massive expansion of restrictions on women's access to safe, legal abortion we see in this partisan bill has nothing to do with lowering families' premiums or making healthcare work better in our country. That is not something that was in our original deal that had bipartisan support, and it is not something that should be in this bill now.

I am extremely disappointed that we have reached this point, but it does not mean I am giving up on getting this done. I know many Republicans have said that this is the end of the road for bipartisan negotiations on healthcare, but it is only if they choose that route.

Today I am laying out what I hope Republicans and Democrats will ultimately be able to agree on. This is legislation that includes current law prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion--what Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed was acceptable months ago. It would take strong steps to lower premiums and make healthcare more affordable for patients. It would hold protections for people with preexisting conditions, as so many Republicans and Democrats have said we need to do.

We are frustratingly close to an agreement, and I still do believe we can get there. This shouldn't be about the blame game. It should not be about pointing fingers. This has to be about getting results.

I hope Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting the amendment I am offering today, and even if they don't, I hope we can get back to the table and resume talks. I truly believe there are Republicans who want to do the right thing for patients and families, even if their leadership is determined to avoid a real debate and vote on the so-called ObamaCare bailout. Our work last fall showed that we can reach an agreement when we put aside partisan politics and focus on what is best for our families. I am ready to get back to work to get that done.

I object to the pending unanimous consent request.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1625

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 1625, the omnibus appropriations bill, the Murray amendment that is now at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the chairman of our committee, the Senator from Tennessee, through the Chair, that I greatly respect the rapport I have with him, the working ability we have shown time and again through issues like Cures and ESSA and all the bills we have worked on and will continue to work on. I have that respect and admiration for him, and I want him to know I will continue to do that because I believe in legislating, and I know he does as well. I share that respect.

To the Senator from Maine, through the Chair, I would also say I have a lot

of respect for the Senator from Maine and her passions and her goals on this as well. I say to both of them, this is an issue I care about deeply. I would not have sat down with any one of them to work on a bipartisan solution to the dilemma we found ourselves in throughout the last year as repeated decisions were made that undermine the security of people in terms of their ability to afford quality healthcare and a marketplace that was increasingly seeing uncertainty. I believe in those goals, and I know they do as well.

I remain committed to getting this done. I agree timing is everything, and we have been working on this since September. I regret the actions that were taken that we were not able to put this forward in September or December, and we are here now at this point.

I will state, as to the language that has been added, obviously and clearly, there is a real divide on how it is read, how it is interpreted, and how it could be applicable. That is our objection. I say to my colleague, my chairman, through the Chair as well, that we had offered him language on Friday that did indeed deal with the Hyde amendment. No one here said we cannot have that, but we have language that exceeds, in my opinion--I know that is not shared on the other side--but in my opinion extends well beyond into the private marketplace, where I think there is a line the people would not support, and I certainly can't myself.

In addition to the other language dealing with people's ability to protect their preexisting conditions, we clearly have a divide on how that is interpreted, but that does not preclude our ability, if we agree on the goal of stabilizing the marketplace and ensuring that we can do the CSR payments, that we can do the reinsurance program the Senator from Maine has championed, and rightfully so--and I hope we can all agree that moving on from here, we would return to that bipartisan proposal, not partisan proposals, and move to get this done.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to LTC Charcillea ``Charcy'' Schaefer for her exemplary dedication to duty and service as an Army congressional fellow and congressional budget liaison for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller. Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer is transitioning from her present assignment to serve as a battalion commander for the 19th Military Police Battalion of the 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI.

Born in Ipswich, England, into an Air Force family, Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer was commissioned as a military police officer after her graduation from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point with a bachelor of science degree. She then went on to earn a master's degree in administration with a focus in leadership from Central Michigan University and another in legislative affairs from the George Washington University.

Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer has served in a broad range of assignments during her 15-year Army career. Her assignments took her across the country including Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Leonard Wood, MO; Fort Bragg, NC; and Fort Campbell, KY. She has four combat deployments encompassing over 45 months in theater, with 23 months advising host nation forces in policing and Army tactics and operations. Three of Charcy's deployments were to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the fourth was to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

I had the privilege of working with Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer in my office in 2016 during her year as an Army congressional fellow, as well as during her subsequent assignment as a congressional budget liaison for the U.S. Army. Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer worked tirelessly with Members of Congress and their staff to accurately articulate the Army's budget positions to the Appropriations Committees. Her professionalism, diligence, and commitment to the mission are unmatched, and her work both as a fellow and as a liaison exemplify the best of the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense to the U.S. Congress.

The foundation of Charcy's military success is her family. Her parents, Parks and Mary Schaefer of New Bern, NC, provided the base of selfless service evident in all that she and her siblings, Chas and MaryLynne, do. Charcy is a devoted wife to Rachel Brant, an accomplished attorney and herself a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate Corps. Rachel anxiously awaits their family's reunion, to include dogs Rocco and Stevie, in Honolulu. Their attitude of service and care for others permeates in each organization and activity they participate in, and they are both truly examples of extraordinary leaders in the Army and the communities they serve.

Throughout her career, Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer has positively impacted the soldiers, peers, and superiors around her. Our country has benefited tremendously from her extraordinary leadership, judgment, and passion. I join my colleagues today in honoring her dedication to our Nation and invaluable service to the U.S. Congress as an Army congressional liaison.

It has been a genuine pleasure to have worked with Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer over the last 2\1/2\ years. On behalf of a grateful nation, I proudly recognize and commend Charcy for her service to our country and wish her all the best as she continues her service in the U.S. Army.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to remind all of us of those who have been lost due to gun violence from Washington State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names be printed in the Record to remind all of us that this is just a fraction of those we know have been lost.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, time and again, President Trump and Vice President Pence have made clear they will put extreme ideology ahead of women's health and constitutional freedoms. We have seen it in their efforts to undermine women's ability to get reproductive healthcare from providers they trust. We have seen it in their efforts to let employers deny women birth control coverage based on what they believe and regardless of what the women who work for them believe. We have seen it in the administration's close coordination with a hate group on tailoring policies to undermine Planned Parenthood. We heard it loud and clear when Vice President Pence laid out his far-right vision that women's freedom to have safe and legal abortions could end in our time. We have also seen it implemented to an appalling extreme in Scott Lloyd's inexcusably harmful and ideologically driven actions as Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement is a little-known but very important office inside the Department of Health and Human Services. They are supposed to be helping resettle refugees who are fleeing violence, to resettle and integrate Iraqis and Afghans whose lives are actually in danger because they work for the U.S. Government. They provide rehabilitative, social, and legal services to survivors of torture, and they are charged with overseeing a network of providers across the United States who care for unaccompanied children who arrive at our Nation's borders--children and youth--seeking safety in our country.

However, under Director Lloyd, it has become a testing ground for the radical Trump-Pence agenda to interfere with women's health choices. Repeatedly, under the supervision of Director Lloyd's office, when young women--some of whom are survivors of sexual abuse--have sought safe and legal abortions, his response has been to personally step in and put up barriers to their care. He worked to prevent young women in his custody from speaking with lawyers about their rights. He personally interfered to try to pressure women out of their decisions to have abortions. Director Lloyd even had his office explore the possibility of reversing an abortion once the medical procedure was underway--a practice that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has noted is ``unproven and unethical.''

A deposition from ongoing litigation shows just how reckless and irresponsible Scott Lloyd has been. In emails,

he admitted he was making these decisions on an ad hoc basis. In other words, Director Lloyd wasn't concerned with fulfilling his duty as the head of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. He wasn't concerned with the well-being of women. He wasn't concerned with their personal decisions or their freedoms. He was only concerned with furthering an extreme, ideological agenda.

Women and men across the country are not having it. They are standing up and standing against Scott Lloyd's extreme policies. Many have signed a petition calling for his removal, and they are just the latest addition to a growing outcry against Director Lloyd's willful disregard for women's rights.

Many Senate and House Democrats have called for him to step down. I am again calling on Secretary Azar to fire Scott Lloyd as Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement because Scott Lloyd's actions and his personal beliefs about what women can and can't do with their bodies show a fundamental disrespect for the rights and equality of women, as does setting policy that has huge implications for women's health and lives through an ``ad hoc'' process.

Scott Lloyd's actions to undermine women's health and to deny women's rights are utterly unacceptable, and they cannot go unchecked. We cannot permit bullies to try to intimidate vulnerable young women who are making the healthcare decisions that are right for them--not President Trump, not Vice President Pence, and not Scott Lloyd.

I am going to keep standing up and fighting for the rights of these women and immigrants across the country and for the rule of law that ensures those rights. I am going to keep fighting against those who think they are above the law and who want to roll back the clock on these freedoms. I urge my colleagues to join me today in standing with women, standing for the rule of law, and calling for Scott Lloyd's immediate removal from office.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as people around the Nation listen to this floor debate, I am sure they can hear the divisions about immigration loud and clear. I know I can. Immigration policy is hard, it is emotional, and it has vexed this Congress for decades.

While the floor debate we are having right now can be trying and can be thrown off-kilter by one more ill-timed tweet from the President, we have to keep our eyes on the ball because as tough as it may seem right here, the stakes are so much higher for millions of people who live every day in this country, trapped in a broken immigration system. They face the constant fear of deportation, and they suffer from the threat of being ripped apart from their families, their friends, and the communities that they love.

Just like the deep divisions we see on this issue across the country, finding a path forward in the Senate, in the House, and all the way to the White House is not going to be easy, but tackling the tough issues and engaging in fair and honest debate is why we are here. Creating a more perfect union is why we are here. Finding a bipartisan path forward both to secure our borders and protect the futures of so many hard-working families is why we are here.

First, we have to agree to some basic truths. To start, Dreamers-- hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbors, our teachers, firefighters, servicemembers, and students--are not criminals. They are not MS-13 gang members nor are they the shadowy pictures depicted in disgusting campaign ads in the President's speeches.

They are not a drain on our economy. In fact, Dreamers are just the opposite, contributing in countless ways to our communities and enriching the lives of so many others.

So who are Dreamers?

Dreamers are determined; they are passionate; they are American in every way except on paper. They are fighting for the only lives they have ever known. They are fighting for their loved ones with everything they have, and they are trying to do it the right way.

A few years back, when Congress had fallen down on its job to fix the broken immigration system, Dreamers stepped up to work in good faith with the Federal Government--Dreamers like Jose Manuel Vasquez, who grew up in south Seattle. He didn't know he was not a natural born citizen until he went to get a driver's license. Thanks to the DACA Program, Jose Manuel was able to graduate from the University of Washington. He started a tech business, and he volunteers at local nonprofits.

Another Dreamer who grew up in Pasco, WA, described being 4 years old when he was taken to the airport to fly to the United States. He said that he was so young, he didn't understand what was going on. He only recalls being confused about why he couldn't bring all of his toys with him to his new home in America. Years later, after he enrolled in DACA, he said that he was able to quit working in manual labor and start working as a personal banker at Wells Fargo.

There are hundreds of thousands of Dreamers with similar stories. They came out of the shadows. They paid their taxes. They kept promises. They underwent background checks and did the hard work, even if only for a temporary shot at the opportunity so many others in this country have taken for granted.

What Dreamers are is the embodiment of so much of what this country was founded on. That is truth No. 1.

Truth No. 2: We all want to keep America safe, with commonsense border security measures, and for anyone to claim otherwise is merely making an attempt to muddy the debate so that critics can retreat to their partisan corners, fall back on hateful rhetoric, and try to stop a bipartisan bill from actually moving forward.

The reality is, no matter what political party you ascribe to, protecting and defending the safety of fellow citizens and preventing those who could do us harm from entering this country is something we all believe in and something we are all working for, which leads me to truth No. 3; that is, despite failed attempts in the past, today is a new day and a new chance to finally fix our broken immigration system for the Dreamers who call our country home. It is a new chance to honor our country's rich tradition of welcoming people from around the world who add to the rich tapestry of our Nation, who enrich our communities, and who will write the next chapter of our Nation's history. It is a new chance for my Republican colleagues to stand by their word and do what they said--work with Democrats in good faith to find a bipartisan path forward that will allow Dreamers to stay here in the country they call home.

I hope Congress finally has the will to see this through, to be a nation of laws and a land of opportunity. With the right piece of legislation, we can do both.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the Trump administration's latest move to override the will of Washington State's citizens--our fishing families, our small business owners, our environmentalists, and our outdoor enthusiasts--by opening our coastal waters to harmful oil and gas drilling.

The continental waters on the west coast are one of our State's richest and most cherished national resources, sustaining communities along the Pacific Northwest for centuries and helping to define our regional culture for generations. It would be hard to overstate just how important Washington's coastal waters are to our local way of life.

Many of us count on our coasts for our food or work. Washington State coasts are home to numerous seafood- and tourism-dependent communities, and they support a $50 billion maritime economy and nearly 200,000 maritime-related jobs--not to mention countless families and travelers who are seeking outdoor recreation and flock to our shores throughout the year to experience the natural beauty and sport of our iconic shorelines.

To put it simply, Washingtonians don't take our healthy coasts for granted. We know that keeping our shores pristine isn't just about leisure and scenic views. Preserving our coastal waters is a critical factor in promoting a healthy regional ecosystem and an economy that support vital jobs and industries, fish and wildlife, and public health opportunities that many of us--our families, friends, and neighbors-- rely on.

So I, too, was deeply disappointed but, ultimately, unsurprised when Interior Secretary Zinke announced the Department's plan to ignore the existing oil and gas leasing program that was just approved a few years ago and instead moved to draft and implement a new program that would allow offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all of our Nation's continental waters, including our coastal waters off of Washington State.

Despite decades of factfinding and public input that already established the need to protect ecologically sensitive areas like our coasts, it appears, once again, that President Trump and his Cabinet have decided to prioritize Big Oil and the relentless pursuit of profit over the interests of Washington State families and with virtually no regard to what their one-sided policy proposals may mean for our environment, for our public health, or for our economy.

To add insult to injury, I was even more appalled when it was reported just a few days later that Secretary Zinke was planning to remove Florida's waters from consideration after

meeting with their Governor and hearing their concerns. I will leave it to others to wonder what exactly persuaded Secretary Zinke to remove Florida from that list, but I can't say I was stunned when that courtesy was not extended to Washington State, even after our Governor made the exact same request.

Later, while I was on my way back home from the other Washington and concerned about the potentially damaging impacts of Secretary Zinke's decision on our Washington State ecosystem, I decided to ask my followers on Twitter to join me in sending a message to the Interior Department and tweet photos of some of Washington State's many important and pristine coastal areas. I just have to say that the response was overwhelming.

Within hours, my timeline was filled with photos of beaches and coasts all along Washington State's shoreline, from Ruby Beach to Bellingham Bay to Olympic National Park to Orcas Island--photos of painted sunsets on the Puget Sound, the majestic calm of Cape Flattery, and of rainbows arching across the Bell Island shore, photos of children running across the beaches of Kalaloch, and photos of fishermen unloading their haul in Salmon Bay. I even received photos from other coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest. They were all from residents who want their pristine shorelines preserved, and they were eager to raise their voices to safeguard our coasts.

I was inspired as I scrolled through this growing and beautiful collection of photos that illustrated the significance of our coasts, not just to our State's economy and environment but to our shared culture and identity. Our shores are where we fish, swim, exercise, and work, but also where our wildlife roams, our children play, and where we make lasting memories with our loved ones.

It is not too late for the Interior Department to reverse its misguided decision to expand offshore oil and gas drilling and instead focus on maintaining and strengthening existing regulations protecting this country's continental waters.

I really hope Secretary Zinke and officials at the Interior Department finally hear loud and clear what Washingtonians have been saying for decades--that the extreme environmental and ecological dangers posed by offshore oil and gas drilling are too great a risk for Washington State families. I hope they move quickly to reschedule the public meeting they were supposed to hold yesterday in Tacoma, so people from Washington can share their concerns with the Department directly.

I want to remind my colleagues and everyone in our country who cares about our environment that this fight is far from over. As we have learned over the last year, it is important that we continue to make our voices heard again and again to ensure that this administration backs down from this reckless proposal and puts the interest of Washington State families first.

As a voice for Washington State here in the Senate, I am going to continue fighting against the Trump administration's efforts to leverage our environment to boost Big Oil's bottom line, and I know I will never stop standing with our families, workers, and small businesses to protect our coasts today and for future generations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleagues who are sounding the alarm about Russia's interference in U.S. elections and who have worked tirelessly for months on their respective committees to get the answers that Americans deserve and give the confidence Americans need to know that their government is committed to preventing such interference from ever happening again.

This work is incredibly important to people around the country and in my home State of Washington. I have heard from countless people who deeply love this country but fear for its institutions, and they are concerned about the integrity of elections.

Here are the facts. More than a year ago, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered in the last Presidential election, calling Russia's meddling a ``significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort'' compared to previous attempts.

That is not my opinion. It is not a partisan statement. It is a fact. Even more troubling, they are already back at it. We know this because our President's own handpicked CIA Director said last week that, ``of course,'' Russia is trying to meddle in this year's midterm elections.

That is exactly why this Congress approved sanctions months ago in order to punish Russia and show them the steep price of doing this again. If there is one issue that we should all be able to agree on, it is that no one should get away with such a devious attack on our democracy. But, somehow, while the public is demanding action, the White House has gone silent, refusing to implement sanctions for reasons President Trump can't or will not explain.

This same President, who has no problems speaking or tweeting on any other topic under the sun, clams up when it comes to Russia or he tries to change the subject or he launches a political attack. This same President, who promised to put ``America first,'' has failed to live up to the most basic duty of defending our elections and enforcing congressional actions to punish Russian meddling.

The same President who promised law and order has been lashing out against a special counsel investigation, with a campaign to discredit our agencies of law and order by criticizing the men and women of our Nation's top law enforcement agencies, firing or threatening to fire those who stand up to him, and sowing doubt about the media that dares to report the facts.

Let's remember that the Putin regime that President Trump is so fond of is one that has invaded and annexed part of Ukraine and continues to incite war in Ukraine, is propping up the murderous Assad regime and is every bit as responsible for those heinous acts as Assad himself, and constantly tries to instigate conflict by threatening our troops around the world.

Perhaps the most disappointing piece of this is that President Trump is now not acting alone. He gets help from Members of Congress who join in partisan attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice. Just think about that. We have a President and Members of the Republican Party who are more interested in helping a foreign power get away with interfering in our elections than allowing an investigation to run its course.

It is simply stunning how far some of my Republican colleagues would go to undermine the special counsel and congressional investigations in order to score political points. This doesn't just put them at odds with the public in the short term. This has long-term consequences for the men and women who protect our country from harm. A few days ago, a former supervisory special agent with the FBI who served as a counterterrorism investigator and special assistant to the Bureau's Director explained why he was now resigning from the FBI in order to speak publicly.

He said his resignation was painful but ``the alternative of remaining quiet while the bureau is tarnished for political gain is impossible.'' He said he worries that the damage from attacks on the integrity of the FBI could last generations.

There are a number of things this Congress must commit to. First of all, we must ensure that Special Counsel Robert Mueller stays on the job and continues to follow the facts wherever they may lead, without threat or intimidation and with the resources he needs. We already know the President talked about firing Mr. Mueller last year. Well, the President should be on notice: Firing Mueller is not an option, and the same goes for trying to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

I also want to be clear. Doling out a Presidential pardon to try to cover up any collusion or obstruction of justice is unacceptable and will be met with furious resistance across the country.

This is about our elections, our national security, and it is about our standing in the world. No one--no one--should stand in the way of a thorough investigation. In the coming days, weeks, and months, Congress must work to fulfill its duty to the American people by ensuring the integrity of our elections and safeguarding investigations by allowing them to run their course free from political pressure.

The question is whether the Trump administration and all Members of Congress will choose to act in the best interests of our country and our democracy or whether they will continue to act out of self- preservation and shortsighted political gain. The world is watching.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today in communities across our country, young people are asking whether they will be able to stay in the only country they have ever called home. Struggling patients and veterans are wondering whether their local community health center will be able to stay open and provide the care that they can't otherwise afford. Workers and business owners are wondering--again--whether the government will even be open in a week or two.

Instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing, Republican leaders today are debating whether to trust women to make their own healthcare choices. That is right. While this country is waiting for us to come together and solve problems, Republicans are wasting precious time with a politically motivated, partisan bill that is engineered to drive us apart and hurt women.

I have come here today to oppose, in the strongest terms, the extreme, ideological abortion ban that Republican leaders have brought to the floor today. It goes against the Constitution, against medical experts, and against the rights of women across the country. However, I don't merely oppose this partisan bill. I oppose the very fact Republicans are once again bringing this bill--which they know is a nonstarter--to the floor.

I oppose the very idea that in the 21st century, we are going to waste time on a question that has already been answered and shouldn't even be up for debate. I oppose the fact that we are still voting on whether women and doctors are best equipped to make healthcare decisions--or politicians here in Washington, DC. We are still voting on whether we should criminalize doctors for making sound medical decisions. We are still voting on whether we should turn back the clock and put women's lives at risk.

Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago. We celebrated the anniversary of that historic decision last week. I would like to think that after almost half a century, we could move on from debating this settled issue. Yet here we are.

In 2015, the Republican leaders stated quite flatly that a vote to defund Planned Parenthood would be an exercise in futility because there was no way it was going to pass. The same is true of this extreme, harmful legislation. Yet here we are.

Bringing this bill to the floor is an exercise in futility, and passing it would be an exercise in cruelty. Just look at the story from a Washington State mother, Judy Nicastro. A few years ago, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, and she courageously shared a story that is every expecting woman's worst nightmare. Judy shared her experience of learning that one of the twins she was carrying had a lung condition. One lung chamber had not formed at all, and the other was only 20 percent complete. She wrote:

My world stopped. I loved being pregnant with twins. . . .

The thought of losing one child was unbearable.

She went on to say:

The MRI at Seattle Children's Hospital confirmed our fears:

the organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not

developing properly. We were in the 22nd week.

I am grateful her doctors were able to give her sound medical advice. I am grateful that she and her husband were able to make the decision they felt was best for their own family. And I am so grateful to Judy for sharing her story, which represents the incredibly painful decision she and so many other women have faced.

My colleagues might recognize that story. I have shared it before, just as Republicans have introduced this deeply harmful legislation before. I hope this time the Republicans listen. I hope they will stop trying to pretend they are in any way qualified to interfere with decisions that a woman has the

constitutional right to make on her own. I hope they will stop trying to criminalize a doctor's ability to provide sound medical advice and protect the lives of patients. I hope they will stop wasting our time with bills that are so out of date, extremely out of touch, and obviously unconstitutional.

But if Republicans will not stop this exercise in futility and their attacks on women's rights, they should know that I will not stop standing up and making clear exactly why they are wrong. They should know I am going to keep fighting for Judy and so many other women and their families, and I will keep urging them to work with Democrats on the serious challenges that face our Nation--none of which, by the way, have to do with trusting women or controlling their healthcare choices.

I do want to thank the many Democrats who will be joining me here on the floor to stand up for women and deliver this same message to our Republican colleagues. Again, I hope they listen because Democrats would like to get to work.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, almost a year ago, as Republicans were jamming through the confirmation of Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I rose to object to his nomination. I voiced my very deep concerns about whether Secretary Price would be committed to protecting healthcare for our families, committed to putting evidence and sound policy over partisanship and ideology, and whether he would be committed to addressing the many ethical questions about his investments Republicans allowed to go unanswered. Well, he was not.

Today, Secretary Price is infamous for two signature accomplishments: first of all, undermining healthcare access for millions of people; and, second, resigning in scandal and disgrace.

In the wake of Secretary Price's resignation, President Trump had another opportunity to get this right. I believe families in Washington State deserve a Health and Human Services Secretary who will finally put patients ahead of politics.

Unfortunately, after meeting with Alex Azar, hearing his testimony, and carefully reviewing his record and his qualifications, I do not believe Mr. Azar is an acceptable choice to lead the Department, and I will be voting against his confirmation.

From President Trump's first day in office, he has been focused on undermining healthcare coverage by putting up barriers to obtaining care, shortening our enrollment period, expanding loopholes for corporations, and making every effort to throw the entire system into chaos. After a year of President Trump's healthcare sabotage, there were over 3 million more people uninsured in our country. We need a voice to stand up and defend the healthcare our families rely on.

I am alarmed by Mr. Azar's statements, including cheerleading healthcare repeal efforts, predicting that the Affordable Care Act was ``circling the drain,'' even though enrollment stayed strong across the country this year, and detailing specific steps to, as he said, hasten the demise of patients' and families' healthcare.

While President Trump continues to call the opioid crisis a public health emergency, he has yet to treat it like one. So far, his administration has proposed cutting the budget for the Office of National Drug Control Policy by 95 percent. It is focused on gutting Medicaid, which provides critically needed substance use disorder treatment, and they have failed to provide any new funding or resources to support the communities that are fighting this crisis.

Local leaders in my home State of Washington and across the country need a voice at the Department of Health and Human Services committed to bringing more resources, not fewer, to address the opioid epidemic. I am alarmed by Mr. Azar's refusal to support more funding for communities that are hard hit by the opioid epidemic.

President Trump's Department has also shown a concerning pattern of undermining evidence-based policies in favor of ideology. When it comes to undermining evidence, political appointees at Health and Human Services have asked their career staff not to use the terms ``evidence- based'' and ``science-based'' because they view them as ``essentially meaningless.''

When it comes to favoring ideology, not only has the Department taken steps to restrict access to care for women and transgender patients, leaders have also sought to effectively ban words like ``transgender'' and ``diversity'' and ``vulnerable'' among their Department employees-- ban the words, and they have not just cut important words, they have gutted valuable, evidence-based programs like the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

This program has provided useful insight on what works to address high teen pregnancy rates. It has been recognized by the bipartisan Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking for its rigorous approach to evaluation. Yet President Trump's administration chose to unilaterally shorten that program's grants.

We need a voice there who will reject such damaging ideology decisions and to champion evidence and science and sound policymaking. I do not believe Mr. Azar is that champion--quite the opposite, in fact.

I am alarmed Mr. Azar believes a woman's employer should be able to decide, based on ideology, whether or not her birth control should be covered. I am alarmed by his extreme and out-of-touch views on Roe v. Wade, as shown by his support for legislation and political candidates who would undermine the constitutional rights enshrined in this important decision, and his use of ideological rhetoric in discussing the rights guaranteed to women by that landmark case.

Unfortunately, Mr. Azar is the latest in a string of ideologically driven healthcare appointees from President Trump. We cannot tolerate one more nominee overseeing a woman's healthcare programs who is more focused on undermining them than on advancing them.

Finally, I am alarmed by his track record at the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly. As a nominee, Mr. Azar has said we need to fight to lower drug prices, but during his time as president of Lilly, that company tripled the price of insulin, and Mr. Azar personally approved significant price increases for dozens of the company's drugs.

As a nominee, Mr. Azar may try to assure us that he will fight for patients and protect the health of our communities, but after looking at his record, after reading his past statements, and after discussing these issues with him, I am alarmed he might not stand up for women and families, I am alarmed he might not stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, and I am alarmed he might not stand up to President Trump's agenda, driven by sabotage and ideology.

After months of Republicans putting politics ahead of funding healthcare for children, and as Republicans continue to put politics ahead of funding for community health centers like those in rural Washington State and those across the country that help to serve underserved communities, and as they continue to ignore other primary care programs that bring medical professionals to populations in need like teaching health centers in Spokane, we have to have strong leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services that will demand that we put public health first, not partisanship.

I urge my colleagues today to vote against this nomination.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it was just 1 year ago that President Trump was sworn into office, promising the American people he would break through the gridlock to get results for workers and families; that he would work with Democrats and Republicans; that he would be this great dealmaker--``the best,'' he said.

This past year has proven quite the opposite, and nothing has made that clearer than what we have seen these past few days. This has been a year of chaos and dysfunction, of bullying and attacks, of hatred and division and controversy and crises. That is just what we have been seeing on the President's Twitter feed before breakfast.

On the heels of so much utter dysfunction and disarray coming from this Republican government, it is fitting, even while deeply disappointing, that President Trump's first year has ended with him pushing our country into a completely unnecessary government shutdown. There is no reason--absolutely no reason at all--why we should be in this position. Democrats have spent months--months--trying to get the President and Republican leaders to work with us. We have spent months pushing Republicans to work with us to pass a long-term extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program that gives millions of kids access to care. We have spent months pushing Republicans to work with us to pass funding for community health center programs so many of our patients and families depend on. We have spent months pushing Republicans to work with us to pass disaster relief for our families and communities who have been hit so hard. We have spent months pushing

Republicans to work with us to support our veterans and to combat opioid and substance abuse. We have spent months pushing Republicans to work with us to increase investments in education and healthcare and other domestic and defense priorities.

We have spent months, and really years, pushing Republicans to work with us to protect the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers across our country--young men and women who have known no home but America, who have spent their entire lives reciting our Pledge of Allegiance, who think of our great country as their great country, who now, through no fault of their own, are facing a prospect of being torn from their homes, from their families and their friends, and deported to a country many of them can't even remember.

Months and months have been spent trying to get Republicans to work with us. Months and months we have been urging Republicans to join us at the table. Months and months we have been trying to solve problems with solutions that had bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans were on the same page on all of these issues. For months and months, President Trump and the Republican leaders have refused. They have sat in their partisan corner. They have ignored the Democrats and Republicans who wanted results. They have pushed us to the precipice and then right into this completely unnecessary shutdown.

I know this has been discussed on the Senate floor at length today, but it bears repeating. This shutdown is a choice made by Republicans-- the party that controls the Senate, the House, and the White House. It is a choice made through their inaction, months and months of refusing to work with us, and it is a choice made through their actions trying to jam through a partisan bill at the last minute they knew couldn't pass, blocking our last-minute efforts to keep the government open for a few days while we negotiate an actual deal, moving the goalpost in the last-minute negotiations between President Trump and the Democratic leader from New York, and now spending their time trying to point fingers and place blame instead of facing up to their responsibilities as the governing party.

I know President Trump said this year that our country ``needs a good shutdown.'' I hope he remembers what he said in 2013 because back then President Trump said:

Problems start from the top and they have to get solved

from the top--and the President's the leader. And he's got to

get everybody in a room and he's got to lead.

He went on to say:

When they talk about the government shutdown, they're going

to be talking about the President of the United States, who

the President was at that time.

And that in a government shutdown, ``I really think the pressure is on the President.''

I don't say this often, but President Trump was absolutely right in 2013 about the Trump shutdown of 2018. President Trump is not the only one in the White House, but it is Republicans who run the Senate and they run the House, all of them. The onus is on them to get this done, and they have a Democratic Party that is ready to work with them to get this done right.

Before I close, I do want to make one final point, very much connected. This weekend is not just 1 year since President Trump's inauguration; it is also the anniversary of the women's march, when millions and millions of people across the country stood up to make it clear, wearing those bright pink hats, that they weren't going to just sit by and watch. I was at that incredible women's march in DC a year ago, and I remember thinking to myself, this is what a democracy looks like--people getting involved, getting engaged, speaking up, speaking out, fighting back, and standing strong. For those women and men at the marches this weekend and for the millions and millions more who are looking at what is happening in our country and feel so strongly that this just isn't right, Democrats agree, and we have your back.

I am going to keep fighting as hard as I can. I am going to keep making it clear, I stand ready to work with anyone from any party who is willing to stand with me to restore respect and get results. I believe there are enough Members on both sides of the aisle who are more focused on reaching out hands than pointing fingers, and we can get this done. We can reopen our government. We can address the many challenges facing the people we represent, and we can get back to doing the work the people we represent sent us here to do.

Before I close, I do want to mention one thing. A number of my colleagues have been working hard to make sure our military and their families are protected no matter what. We have a bill--the Pay Our Military Act--that would do exactly that. My friend, the Senator from Missouri, has been working so hard to get this done. I know my friend the junior Senator from Illinois has as well. So many of us believe this is the right thing to do right now, at a time when there is uncertainty. Unfortunately, the Republican leader has blocked our efforts so far. I just want to say I am really hopeful he reverses course and allows us to get this done. It is the right thing to do, and it is the least we can do for the men and women who sign up to serve our country and protect all of us.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.