Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, this is a critical moment in our Nation's history--a moment when partisanship should be set to the side, politics should be put on hold, and every Member of this Chamber should focus on what they can do to ensure the integrity of our justice system and the integrity of our executive branch. Nothing less is at stake, and none of us here should forget that.

For months, the questions surrounding President Trump's campaign's ties to Russia--what happened, who was involved, and why--have gone unanswered. The more information that comes out, the more suspicious it all looks. And the more that President Trump tries to douse the flame by firing the people looking at where the smoke is coming from, the more we are going to keep paying attention, because the bottom line is that there are so many questions--real questions, legitimate questions--that absolutely need to be answered.

Many of us have pushed for these answers. We have called for an independent investigation. We had hoped that President Trump would resist the urge to slow them down or stop them or cover anything up. But the time for the back-and-forth is over. The time for hoping is behind us, and the time for all of us to come together and speak with one voice for truth and against any kind of coverup is now.

What happened yesterday was truly shocking, and this is coming from someone who didn't think that was possible anymore with this President.

But if anyone was wavering before, if anyone wanted to give this administration just a bit more time, I am hoping they have been paying attention to the events of the past 24 hours because it is hard to stay on the fence now.

President Trump's firing the head of the FBI like that--in such a haphazard way--in the middle of an investigation into his own campaigning activities should be the last straw for anyone. So right now it could not be more clear.

It is time for a special prosecutor who can run an independent investigation, far from the reach of President Trump and his administration, to take the case and finally get the answers the American public deserves.

At the same time, our efforts here in Congress--especially the investigation in the Intelligence Committee--have to continue, and they need to continue in an independent and bipartisan way.

As I mentioned before, this isn't about politics. It shouldn't be, anyway. This is about the integrity of our election, of our national security, of our justice system, of our Presidency, of America's standing in the world.

No Member of Congress, no matter what their political affiliation, should stand in the way of a thorough investigation, and neither should the President of the United States.

Mr. Trump may think he can bully his way to a lucrative real estate deal or bully the press or bully his way into the White House; that he can fire anyone, including the Deputy Attorney General, a U.S. attorney, or the FBI Director, if they dare to get in his way or investigate his wrongdoing, but President Trump should not--he cannot-- bully his way out of an investigation, especially not when so much is at stake.

More than 100 days into his term, President Trump may have forgotten that he promised to be a voice for millions of people across our country. But I haven't forgotten whom I represent, and I stand here today to lift up the voices of so many people in my home State of Washington who are calling on us to get the answers--people who care about our country, who know we can do better, who hate to see us spiraling toward situations we have not seen since President Nixon.

As of noon today, my office had been flooded with hundreds of calls. The phones are ringing off the hook. On the other end of the line are the people we represent. They are picking up the phone and trying to get through to every one of us in the Senate. They want answers, and they deserve them.

So let's get to the bottom of this, once and for all, for the people we represent and for the integrity of our elections and our very democracy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before I discuss why the nominee before us, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, is the wrong choice to lead the Food and Drug Administration, I want to take a minute to talk about the FDA's impact on the health and safety of patients and families nationwide and how that impacts my perspective on this nomination.

Our constituents rely on the FDA's work every single day. They trust that the food they buy from the grocery store is safe. They trust that when they go to the emergency room, the drugs and medical devices that are used in their care have been held to the highest standards of approval and that the FDA's decisions are based on science, not politics or ideology. In other words, they trust in FDA's gold standard of approval. So it is critical that the FDA continue to have strong, independent leadership, especially in light of President Trump's radical priorities.

Like many, I am deeply concerned by this administration's efforts to roll back the progress we have made to strengthen the FDA and to improve public health. Let me give two recent examples from last week alone. First, the FDA delayed the implementation of a rule on menu labeling requirements, which would have provided families access to critical nutritional information about the food they buy and eat. These requirements have been worked on for years by several Senators and the Obama administration, with the support of public health groups and restaurants. The rule was less than 1 week away from going into effect. On the very same day, the FDA announced that it would delay the enforcement of a rule to ensure greater oversight over tobacco products, including cigars, pipe tobacco, and e-cigarettes. Now is not the time for the FDA to be taking its foot off the gas when it comes to protecting our children and youth from harmful marketing and flavoring tactics. These are significant steps in the wrong direction.

Families have every reason to be worried about this administration, and they are making it clear that they want leaders who are prepared to stand up for them, which brings us back to Dr. Gottlieb.

At our HELP Committee hearing, after scrutinizing his past record, asking where he stands on key policy issues, and reviewing his answers to many of my questions, it has been made clear to me that Dr. Gottlieb is not that leader. He has not convinced me that he can withstand political pressure from this administration or that he will be truly committed to putting our families' health first. For these reasons, I will be voting no on Dr. Gottlieb's nomination today.

In reviewing Dr. Gottlieb's professional history and background, I have grown increasingly concerned about whether he can lead the FDA in an unbiased way given his unprecedented industry ties. On numerous occasions, Dr. Gottlieb has invested in or advised a company and then used his public platform to promote policies that will benefit that company in the future.

I know that, if confirmed, Dr. Gottlieb has agreed to recuse himself for 1 year from decisions involving some companies in which he has invested or held positions, but Dr. Gottlieb will still be allowed to weigh in on matters that involve other companies in which he had been previously invested. His complicated relationships with a venture capital firm and an investment bank specifically raise many questions, and he will not be recused from matters that involve a number of their clients. Companies Dr. Gottlieb has invested in have more than 60 drugs in development that could come before the FDA for approval, and the companies Dr. Gottlieb will be recused from have over 120 drugs in development.

The extent of these entanglements is unprecedented, and they are particularly troubling given this administration's clear willingness to skirt ethics rules and pressure Federal employees in order to jam their agenda through. Yet, as troubling as these entanglements are, they are not my only problems with this nomination. I am equally concerned about where Dr. Gottlieb stands on key policy issues.

For one, I do remain unconvinced that Dr. Gottlieb will ensure independent, science-based decisionmaking at the FDA if he is confirmed. While Dr. Gottlieb was at the FDA under the Bush administration, I was working very hard to ensure that, consistent

with expert recommendations, emergency contraception known as Plan B would be sold over the counter to all age groups. Yet the Bush administration ignored the science and made a decision, based on purely ideological grounds, on a so-called behind-the-counter option for Plan B, which allowed politics to interfere directly with women's access to the healthcare services that they need, and that was a position which Dr. Gottlieb defended.

I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter with Dr. Gottlieb on several occasions now, but regrettably my concerns remain unchanged. When I asked Dr. Gottlieb about this at our hearing--whether he would allow this administration to use the FDA to further its political agenda against women's health--Dr. Gottlieb said he would ``not relitigate settled approval decisions'' on this matter. When I made clear that I was asking about the future and how he would respond to future pressure from this administration to undermine women's health, Dr. Gottlieb did not give a clear answer. Given the Trump administration's commitment to undermining women's reproductive rights, which we have seen so clearly in these past 100 days, I find this aspect of Dr. Gottlieb's professional history especially troubling.

I have also raised concerns regarding Dr. Gottlieb's published positions on a number of important issues that focus on drugs and medical devices.

As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, I find the administration's recent decision to delay oversight on tobacco products to be especially concerning, which makes it all the more important that the next FDA Commissioner have a clear position on this issue. I asked Dr. Gottlieb about this at our hearing, specifically as it relates to flavored e-cigarettes that have flooded the markets in recent years. I have to say that I was disappointed by his response. I think it is clear that a line has been crossed when tobacco companies prey on children by coming out with e-cigarette flavors like gummy bear and cookies and cream. Yet, during his hearing, when I asked Dr. Gottlieb about this, he said he was not quite sure where that line gets drawn. That speaks volumes to me, and it is a pattern I have seen in Dr. Gottlieb's answers, whether I have asked him about off-label communications by drug companies or combating the opioid epidemic and what the FDA can do to help rein in drug costs.

I could go on, but I want to make one related point, which is that we still have many questions about where Dr. Gottlieb stands on pressing policy questions he will have to confront when he is confirmed.

As I said during our HELP Committee markup, we submitted many questions to Dr. Gottlieb following his hearing, and I was encouraged that in his answers to these questions, Dr. Gottlieb committed to upholding the gold standard and working with me on a number of priorities, like improving the postmarket surveillance of medical devices. Yet, in large part, I have to say we were left disappointed with the lack of specificity in his answers. Many of them were vague, and some questions were flatout ignored.

I just came back from hearing from families in my home State, and I can tell you that people are looking at what President Trump is doing. They are appalled, and they are looking for leaders to step up. Whether it is Dr. Gottlieb's unprecedented financial entanglements, his inability to withstand political pressure from the Bush administration in order to ensure science and not ideology drives decisionmaking at the FDA, or whether he will truly prioritize patient and consumer safety and the public health over the interests of corporations that stand to gain financially, I continue to doubt whether Dr. Gottlieb will be able to stand up to President Trump.

I believe that families and patients, rightly, expect more. They want independent, science-based leadership at the FDA. I stand with them and will oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, who frames this exactly correctly on the vote that we are about to take on a motion to proceed to yet another CRA that will be another broken promise on the part of President Trump and Republicans. President Trump said that he would help workers and put them first. But the legislation we are about to move to will get in the way of our States' efforts to expand access to retirement savings programs, which is something that so many workers in this country really need.

President Trump said that he would drain the swamp, but by rolling back this rule in question, as Republicans are proposing today, President Trump and his party are sending yet another very clear message, on top of many others in the last 100 days. They are listening to Wall Street rather than working families.

This rule--all it does is clarify an existing safe harbor that affords flexibility to States that want to give workers more options for their retirement. It is not complicated. It would do a lot of good for families across the country, including in my home State of Washington.

I will have a lot more to say this afternoon, as I know many of our colleagues will, but this is about taking away the options for people's retirement security. I hope the Senate will turn this down.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, like so many, I spent the weekend reflecting on what the past 100 days have meant. And from President Trump--aided by congressional Republicans--it has been 100 days of broken promises, 100 days of far too much division, and 100 days of attacks on women and workers and seniors. It has been 100 painful days for many, no doubt about it.

It is not surprising then that to kick off their next 100 days, President Trump and Republicans have prioritized today, sending a clear message to Wall Street that the Trump administration remains open for business and is committed to standing with them and not with working families. That can be the only possible message, since today, Senate Republicans have advanced another one of their favorite tools this Congress--yet another CRA--to thwart efforts by States to simply provide their workers access to retirement savings program.

In March, Senate Republicans voted to overturn a rule that would allow major cities the flexibility to start their own retirement savings programs. No doubt, the negative impact of this reversal has already been felt across the country. Today's effort by Republicans to target State programs would have even more far-reaching consequences now and in the long term.

If Senate Republicans jam through this CRA that is on the floor today, they will be pulling the rug out from numerous States nationwide, leaving over 15 million workers, which includes nearly 2 million workers in my home State of Washington, without any easy option to save for their retirement.

This is going to have a significant, chilling effect across our retirement system for our workers, for our Governors, for State legislators, and State treasurers.

As AARP said this week, it would send the political message that Congress is opposed to State flexibility to increase retirement savings. We would likely see a number of States delay action or legislation to offer workers more savings options because of the perceived congressional prohibition. This cannot and it should not happen.

Fifty-five million workers today in our country lack access to a workplace retirement plan through their employer. That is about one- third of all of our workers in this country. Our retirement savings gap has continued to worsen, and it is true for most States across this country. It is true for my home State of Washington, despite progress and steps in the right direction over the past few years.

Today, fewer than half of all Washington State workers participate in a retirement plan at work, and nearly 90,000 Washington small businesses offer no retirement arrangement. This is too common all across our country. Because Congress has been unable to come together to address this retirement savings crisis, States have now begun to step up to help workers save for retirement through savings programs.

As I previously talked about on the floor, these savings programs simply allow employers to automatically enroll workers while giving workers the opportunity to opt out. These programs only apply to businesses that do not currently offer retirement plans. They in no way limit an employers' ability to seek out and offer their own employer- sponsored plan.

These plans are worker and business friendly. There is little paperwork required for workers to participate in the program, and there are no added burdens to small businesses. In fact, in these programs, employers are strictly required only to serve in administrative capacity.

Last year, Democrats working with the Obama administration pushed for guidance to provide certainty to States that have launched their own retirement programs. This guidance simply clarifies an existing safe harbor allowing employers to establish payroll deduction IRAs, which gives States clarity they need that these programs will not be preempted by Federal retirement law.

This guidance merely provides flexibility to cities and States to move forward with these programs, and in fact it was requested by the States and local officials. This is pretty common sense. In fact, it is the kind of proposal that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on for several years.

As much as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not like to recall now, many of them have been on the record previously supporting just these kinds of efforts. Really, it is not hard to understand why. As I have said, it is very clear who President Trump and Republicans are standing with on this. Working families across our country are seeing clearly that on any chance to move the ball forward for them and their retirements, Republicans are now standing in the way and choosing instead to put the interests of Wall Street first.

This is a critical vote. Families are watching. If you say you stand with working families, you vote against this resolution. If you want to meaningfully address our retirement crisis, vote against this resolution.

I urge our colleagues to reject this harmful repeal. I urge them to stand with our States and our working families who just want to provide economic retirement security for the families in their States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, when workers and families fought back against President Trump's first disastrous pick for Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, they made it clear that they want a Secretary of Labor who will fight for their interests, especially as President Trump continues to break promise after promise he made to workers on the campaign trail. I couldn't agree with them more. As bad as Puzder would have been, our standard cannot be ``not Puzder.''

Never has it been so critical to have a Secretary of Labor who is committed to putting workers' protections and rights first, even if that means standing up to President Trump. It is with this in mind that I cannot support Alexander Acosta to run the Department of Labor.

Given Mr. Acosta's professional history, I have serious concerns about whether undue political pressure would impact decision making at the Department. My concerns were only heightened at his nomination hearing, when Mr. Acosta said he would defer to President Trump on the priorities of the Department of Labor. The Trump administration has already cemented a reputation for flouting ethics rules and attempting to exert political pressure over Federal employees. We need a Secretary of Labor who will prioritize workers and the mission of the Department of Labor over special interests and political pressure.

Unfortunately, Mr. Acosta's time leading the civil rights division at the Department of Justice suggests he will not be the mission-focused Secretary of Labor workers across the country have demanded. A formal investigation by the inspector general showed that, under Acosta's tenure, the civil rights division illegally considered applicants' political opinions in making hiring decisions, ignoring their professional qualifications. As Assistant Attorney General, Acosta chose to recuse himself from consideration of a Texas redistricting plan, instead, allowing political appointees to overrule career attorneys who believe the plan discriminated against Black and Latino voters.

Mr. Acosta's past raises questions about whether--instead of making workers' rights and protections the priorities of that Department--he will allow political pressure to influence his decision making.

Mr. Acosta's refusal to take a strong stand on many of the most pressing issues workers face today was equally concerning. We need a Secretary of Labor who is committed to expanding overtime pay to more workers, fighting for equal pay, and maintaining protections for our workers. But in responding to questions about those priorities, Mr. Acosta made it clear that he simply plans to defer to President Trump, who has already made it abundantly clear that he will not stand up for workers.

Mr. Acosta continued to evade addressing my concerns about how he would prioritize workers' interests at the Department of Labor in our followup questions. We need a Secretary of Labor who will remain committed to the core principles of the Department of Labor--someone who will prioritize the best interests of our workforce, who will enforce laws that protect workers' rights and safety and livelihoods, and who will seek to expand economic opportunities for workers and families across our country.

Unfortunately, Alexander Acosta has failed to show he will stand up to President Trump and prioritize those principles and help our workers get ahead. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to listen to the millions of workers who have made their voices heard about the need for a Secretary of Labor who is committed to building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, and vote against this nomination.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank my colleague from Hawaii for her really important statement on this. I come to the floor today to express my serious concerns, along with other women from the Senate, about the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, particularly about what it would mean for women across the country today and for generations to come.

Like the overwhelming majority of my Democratic colleagues, I have decided to vote against Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and I will be opposing a cloture motion ending debate. Now, I don't take this decision lightly, but with the future of women's health and rights and opportunity at risk, it is a decision I must make.

The Trump administration has broken nearly every one of its promises, but one it has certainly kept is its promise to turn back the clock on women's progress. It is clear that Republicans in Congress are committed to doing the same. Last week, just a few days ago, Senate Republicans, with the help of Vice President Pence, overturned a rule that prevents discrimination against family planning providers based on the kinds of services they provide to women. It was shameful and unprecedented.

Now, not missing a beat, Congressional Republicans are already gearing up to attach riders to our coming budget bills in order to cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood for millions of patients. There are similar attempts to undermine women's access to healthcare in cities and States nationwide, and more often than we would like, the Supreme Court is going to be the place of last resort for protecting women's hard-fought gains.

If the buck has to stop with the Supreme Court on women's health and rights, I do not want Judge Gorsuch anywhere near the bench. Time and again, Judge Gorsuch has sided with the extreme rightwing and against tens of millions of women and men who believe that in the 21st century, women should be able to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Let me just give you a few examples. When the Tenth Circuit ruled in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that a woman's boss could decide whether or not her insurance would include birth control, Judge Gorsuch did not just agree; he thought the ruling should have gone further. Judge Gorsuch has argued that birth control coverage included in the ACA as an essential part of women's healthcare--one that has, by the way, benefited 55 million women--is a ``clear burden'' on employers that would not long survive.

When it comes to Planned Parenthood, he has already weighed in on the side of defunding our Nation's largest provider of women's healthcare. What was his reasoning? Judge Gorsuch thought that in light of completely discredited sting videos taken by extreme conservatives, women in the State of Utah should have a harder time accessing the care they need. I should note that just last week, the makers of those false videos received 15 felony charges.

I also want to be clear, as well, about what Judge Gorsuch's nomination could mean for a woman's constitutionally protected right to safe, legal

abortion services under the historic ruling in Rowe v. Wade, which was just reaffirmed last summer by this Court. In his nomination hearings, Judge Gorsuch would not give a clear answer on whether he would uphold that ruling, which has meant so much to so many women and families over the last four decades.

Judge Gorsuch has donated repeatedly to politicians who are dead set on interfering with women's constitutionally protected healthcare decisions. He has even made deeply inaccurate comparisons between abortion and assisted suicide.

I remember the days before Rowe v. Wade very clearly. I have heard the stories of women faced with truly impossible choices during that time. Women from all across the country have shared those deeply personal experiences because they know what it would mean to go backward.

Lastly, attempts to control women's bodies are not always about reproductive rights. Sure enough, Judge Gorsuch is on the wrong side here as well. He concurred in a ruling against a transgender woman who was denied regular access to hormone therapy while she was in prison. This ruling rejected the idea that under our Constitution, denying healthcare services is cruel and unusual punishment. That is not the kind of judgment I want to see on the bench, and I think most families would agree.

Families who have already done so much to lead the resistance against this administration and its damaging, divisive agenda are fighting this nomination as hard as they can. They know the Trump Presidency will be damaging enough for 4 years, but Judge Gorsuch's nomination will roll back progress for women over a lifetime.

I am proud to stand with them and do everything I can to make sure they are heard loud and clear here in the Senate. I oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination in light of everything it would mean for women.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my deep concern about the Republicans' rush to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat and about President Trump's nominee for this critical position.

I believe one of the most solemn and consequential decisions we make as Senators is whether to support a nominee to the highest Court in the country. It is a responsibility I do not take lightly. And after careful consideration, I will be voting against the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, and I will be opposing a cloture motion ending debate.

I come to this conclusion weighing several things. First, a Supreme Court Justice has an enormous responsibility to uphold our Constitution and defend our democracy. The Court's decision affects every citizen in every corner of this country. At times, one Justice--perhaps this nominee--may be the only thing standing between someone's rights and an executive branch that operates as though it is above the law.

That is a real concern--one I have heard over and over from people in my home State of Washington who are frightened about the direction President Trump is trying to take our country.

Since taking office about two months ago, he has demonstrated complete disregard for the law, the Constitution, and American families. He has tried to force through un-American bans on Muslim refugees and immigrants. He fired Sally Yates, an Acting Attorney General who dared to stand up to him.

It is clear this President doesn't just think he is above the law. He has, at times, shown a true disdain for it, repeatedly insulting the men and women on the bench, even telling a crowd that perhaps the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--a court that didn't rule in his favor--should be broken up.

Now, we need an independent judiciary that can safeguard the rights of citizens against this executive branch, but with so much chaos created by this President, coupled with the cloud of an FBI investigation into him and his associates, I have no reason to trust that he or his administration are acting in the best interests of our country or our democracy, and I cannot support moving forward with his choice for the Court.

On top of that, I am concerned about the unprecedented pace of the Judiciary Committee process, which would rush through this nominee on the fastest time line in recent history. That is pretty striking because this same committee failed to hold a single hearing on this vacancy for 12 months following Justice Scalia's passing. It refused President Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, any opportunity to be heard, which brings me to my serious concerns about this particular nominee.

I wish to start with women's access to healthcare. President Trump campaigned on promises to overturn women's constitutionally protected rights to make their own healthcare decisions, secured by the historic ruling in Roe v. Wade. This President has broken almost every promise he has made, but one he appears to be keeping, especially in selecting Judge Gorsuch, is his promise to undermine women's health and rights.

Judge Gorsuch would have taken the ruling in Hobby Lobby to allow women's bosses to decide whether or not they get birth control to an even more extreme result. His deeply conservative record suggests he can't be trusted to stand for women's constitutionally protected healthcare rights or access to care. In fact, it seems clear he will

work to weaken those rights at every opportunity.

Since day one of this Presidency, women nationwide have made it absolutely clear they do not want to go backwards, and that is something I am going to continue to fight for.

I am also going to keep fighting for our workers, and I am troubled that as a Federal judge on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has a clear record of siding against workers and with corporations and big businesses.

The Associated Press said his opinions were ``coldly pragmatic and they're usually in the employers' favor.''

His history of dismissing workers' safety concerns and hostility toward upholding disability rights greatly concerns me and strongly suggests that he would join conservative Justices to undermine workers' rights.

We need a Justice on the Supreme Court who will uphold workers' protections and safety and the right to organize.

I am also deeply concerned about the potential effect on children and students with disabilities.

In a number of cases, Judge Gorsuch ruled in ways that made it more difficult for them to receive the support and services they not only deserve but are entitled to under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act--our Nation's special education law. I strongly believe in this law, and I believe we should be doing everything to ensure individuals with disabilities can obtain their full potential by accessing meaningful, quality public education--certainly not the bare minimum.

It is notable that while Judge Gorsuch was testifying--actually, while he was testifying before the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago--the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his prior ruling in a case involving the rights of a student with disabilities to receive a meaningful education. It is highly troubling that when it comes to policies concerning torture, Gorsuch--as a member of President George W. Bush's Justice Department--advocated that the President has broad powers to basically ignore parts of the legal ban on torture.

This deference to Executive power is concerning, to say the least, but it also makes a whole lot more sense as to why Judge Gorsuch would be Donald Trump's No. 1 choice.

His testimony before the Judiciary Committee regarding Citizens United, in which he incorrectly stated that the Court left Congress the ability to enact commonsense campaign spending limits, strengthens my decision to vote no.

So if you believe in transparency in our elections and upholding the integrity of our democracy or you believe we need a Justice who will protect the rights of all Americans and stand with them and not with President Trump and millionaires and billionaires, this choice is clear.

As I have urged my colleagues for weeks, with so much chaos in the administration and so many questions now surrounding this President's commitment to the rule of law: Slow down. Stop playing political games. Respect the families we represent. Respect the separation of power, and stop trying to jam this nominee through.

Whatever you do, do not blow up the Senate rules for Supreme Court nominees. Invoking the nuclear option is a dangerous path to go down.

I have been in the majority and I have been in the minority. Either way, I believe when it comes to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, the Senate must adhere to a higher standard and the 60-vote threshold. If you can't get that many votes for a Supreme Court nominee, you don't need to change the rules, you need to change the nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this vote had to be held open in order to allow time for Vice President Pence to come down and break a tie.

My colleagues and I came to the floor weeks ago to make clear that this harmful legislation should not come to the floor. Republicans didn't listen to us, and they didn't listen to women across the country who made it clear that restricting women's access to the full range of reproductive care is unacceptable. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep holding them accountable, and we are going to keep making sure that women's voices are heard.

I want to thank all of my colleagues who have already come and will continue to come to the floor today to stand against this shameful, dangerous resolution.

The march that was held after President Trump was inaugurated was one of the most inspiring events I have ever had the opportunity to be a part of. Millions of people--men and women--marched in Seattle in my home State, here in Washington, DC, and in cities and towns in between and all across the world. They carried signs, they chanted, and they made it absolutely clear that when it comes to women's rights and healthcare, people across the country do not want to go backward. Since then, millions of people have continued to speak up and stand up. And last Friday, by the way, was no different.

Republicans have been threatening for years now to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but it took just a few weeks for families nationwide to stand up and fight back and shut down a deeply harmful plan that would have taken healthcare away from tens of millions of people, spiked our premiums, targeted seniors for higher costs, and cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood.

I was so inspired by the countless people who bravely shared their personal stories about their health and their loved ones in order to make clear just how damaging--and even deadly--TrumpCare would have been. I am proud to say that women led the way and made it known, in no uncertain terms, that Republicans would be held fully accountable for the disastrous TrumpCare legislation.

And try as they might, last week, Republicans couldn't ignore them. This was an absolute, undeniable victory for women and families in this country.

But while TrumpCare was dealt a significant blow last week, it is clear the terrible ideas that underpin it live on now, today, in this Republican Congress. It is unprecedented that we are here, with the Vice President breaking a tie vote on an attack on women's health across this country.

We are here today, once again, because President Trump and Republicans in Congress are not getting the message. Today, continuing on their extreme, anti-women agenda, Senate Republicans are rushing now to roll back a rule that protects family planning providers from being discriminated against and denied Federal funding.

Let me explain a little bit about what family planning providers mean to our communities. Those providers that are part of the title X program--which has, by the way, bipartisan history--deliver critical healthcare services nationwide, and they are especially needed in our rural and our frontier areas.

In 2015 alone, title X provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services--services like Pap tests and breast exams and birth control and HIV testing--to more than 4 million low-income women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers. In my home State of Washington, tens of thousands of patients are able to receive care at these centers each year, and they often have nowhere else to turn for their healthcare. In fact, 40 percent of women who receive care at health centers funded by title X consider it to be their only source of healthcare.

So taking resources away from these providers, which this resolution would do, would be cruel, and it would have the greatest impact on women and families who need it the most. It would undo a valuable effort by the Obama administration to ensure that healthcare providers are evaluated for Federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not on ideology. In doing so, this resolution would make it even easier for States led by extreme politicians to deny family planning providers Federal dollars, not because of the quality of care that they get or provide or their value to the communities they serve, but based on whether the politicians in charge--the politicians in charge--agree that women should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected right to reproductive healthcare.

This is wrong. It is dangerous, and we cannot let this stand.

If Republicans think that millions of people who stood up last week have suddenly stopped paying attention, they are sorely mistaken. And if they think that Senate Democrats are not going to fight back, they have another thing coming. They can expect every single Democrat in the Senate--and I hope some Republicans who are concerned about losing healthcare providers in their States--to fight back against this resolution with everything they have.

This vote won by a tie vote, and the Vice President was the tie vote. It will take one Republican this afternoon on the final vote to say yes for the women in their State and States' rights to say no. That is all we are asking for the women of this country.

While I have the floor, I want to say we should all be aware there is more headed our way. In a matter of weeks, we all know that government funding is going to run out. Everybody understands this. I know that since they didn't get their way last week and they are pushing this resolution so hard today to the point where they bring the Vice President to break a tie, it is a safe bet that extreme Republicans are going to try to attach riders that try to take away Planned Parenthood funding in the spending bill for the rest of this year.

So I want to be very clear from the outset: That is a complete nonstarter. We have been here before. We have shown that we can win, and we are going to fight these efforts every step of the way.

So I urge people across the country to let their Senators know that this is not acceptable. Stand up for women and families and for their rights to take care of their own reproductive healthcare at the facility that provides for them in their own communities.

I urge my colleagues: Don't make the same mistake again. End the damaging political attacks on women, and stand with millions of women and men and families. They need us.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues who are here speaking out against this shameful resolution that is before us today that goes after women's rights and their opportunity to make their own healthcare decisions with their own provider.

I, too, want to echo the comments that were just made. I find it amazing that the Republicans have yielded back all of their time. They are not going to come out here and defend their vote; they are just going to take the vote.

In fact, it seems clear to me that President Trump is clearly focused on attacking women's healthcare--so much so that he sent his women's health adviser, Vice President Pence, here just moments ago to break a tie on this latest disgusting attack on women's healthcare. It is truly appalling.

Women and men across the country are watching what is happening here today, watching what Republicans are trying to do, and they are paying attention.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Madam President, I wish today's resolution was the only shameful attack on women's health to talk about, but sadly that is not the case. So I do want to take a few minutes at this time to talk about another one that is very critical to women and families--not just today, but actually for years and years to come it will be happening, and that is the Supreme Court.

Last week I announced I would be voting against Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, and I will oppose a cloture motion ending debate. I did not reach that conclusion lightly. I consider my decisions about whether to support a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to be among the most important and consequential choices I make as a Senator. But I made it in part because this is not a normal nomination.

This process really began about 12 months ago when Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. And because since President Trump entered office, he has shown complete disregard for the law, for our Constitution, for the well-being of families across the country, leaving me unable to trust that he is acting in our Nation's best interest, I am unable to support his choice for the Supreme Court.

In addition to my deep concerns about this process and this administration, I also have strong concerns about this nominee specifically. Today, as Republicans appear to be rushing Judge Gorsuch's nomination through the Judiciary Committee as fast as they can, I want to lay out why putting Judge Gorsuch on the Supreme Court would be an attack on women's health, rights, and opportunity, one that has the potential to undo decades of progress we have made toward making sure women are equally able to participate in and contribute to our country.

The Trump administration has broken almost every one of its promises, but one it has certainly kept is its promise to do everything in its power to turn back the clock on women's health and women's rights. Extreme Republicans in Congress are doing the same and have more, apparently, in store. Right now, we are debating whether to undo a rule that prevents discrimination against family planning providers based on the kinds of services they provide to women. Congressional Republicans are already gearing up to attach riders to the coming budget bills in order to cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood for millions of patients in this country. There are similar attempts to undermine women's access to healthcare in cities and States nationwide.

More often than we would like, the Supreme Court is going to be the place of last resort for protecting women's hard-fought gains. The buck has to stop with the Supreme Court on women's health and rights.

I do not want Judge Neil Gorsuch anywhere near the bench. Time and again, Judge Gorsuch has sided with the extreme rightwing and against the tens of millions of women and men who believe that in this 21st century, women should be able to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Let me give a few examples. When the Tenth Circuit ruled in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that a women's boss--a woman's boss--could decide whether her insurance would include birth control, Judge Gorsuch didn't just agree, he thought the ruling should have gone further. That alone would be enough for me to oppose this nomination, but unfortunately there is more.

Judge Gorsuch has argued that birth control coverage included in the ACA as an essential part of a woman's healthcare--one that has now benefited 55 million women--is what he calls a ``clear burden'' on employers that would not long survive.

When it comes to Planned Parenthood, he has already weighed in on the side of defunding our Nation's largest provider of women's healthcare. What was his reasoning? Well, Judge Gorsuch thought that in light of completely discredited sting videos taken by extreme conservatives, women in the State of Utah should have a harder time accessing the care they need. Just this week, the makers of those false videos, by the way, got 15 felony charges. Women deserve independence and objectivity in a Supreme Court Justice, and that is clearly not it.

Attempts to control women's bodies aren't always about reproductive rights. Sure enough, Judge Gorsuch is on the wrong side here as well. He concurred in a ruling against a transgender woman who was denied regular access to hormone therapy while she was in prison. This ruling rejected the idea that under our Constitution, denying healthcare services is cruel and unusual punishment. Think about that. That is not the kind of judgment I want to see on the bench, and I think most families would agree.

I also want to be clear as well about what Judge Gorsuch's nomination could mean for a woman's constitutionally protected right to safe, legal abortion services under the historic ruling in Roe v. Wade, which was, by the way, reaffirmed just last summer by the Court. In his nomination hearings, Judge Gorsuch wouldn't give a clear answer on whether he would uphold this ruling which has meant so much to so many women and families over the last four decades.

Judge Gorsuch has donated repeatedly to politicians who are dead-set on interfering with women's constitutionally protected healthcare decisions, and he has even made deeply inaccurate comparisons between abortion and assisted suicide.

I remember the days before Roe v. Wade very clearly. I heard and saw firsthand the stories of women faced with truly impossible choices during those times. Women from all across the country have shared deeply personal experiences because they know what it would mean to go backward. I know that millions of women who have already done so much to lead the resistance against this administration and its damaging, divisive agenda are going to fight this nomination as hard as they can. They know the Trump Presidency will be damaging enough for 4 years, but Judge Gorsuch's nomination could roll back progress for women over a lifetime. I am proud to stand with them and do everything I can to make sure they are heard loud and clear here in the Senate, and I oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination in light of everything it would mean for women now and for generations to come. Next week is when we will vote on that.

Today here in the Senate, we just saw a historic moment. The Senate Republicans put forth a resolution that would allow States to deny funding to providers in their States who provide healthcare services for women--funding that is desperately needed. They got only 50 votes, and those in opposition got 50 votes, so they brought over the Vice President of the United States, and he broke that tie in order for us to be here to debate this resolution now. This vote will now occur, under the order, later this afternoon, and he will be brought back once again to deny women the healthcare choices they deserve to have. It is a sad day for the Senate.

I want my friends, colleagues, and the women who have stood up and have spoken out since the day after the election, marched here in Washington, DC, and across the country, to know that I stand with them. My voice will not be silenced. I will continue to fight back.

I will say one more time that it will take one more Republican on the other side this afternoon--one--to stand up and let their voice be heard and say that women should get access equally in their States for the healthcare they deserve.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I have to say that this is a sad day for the Senate. I know many of us here today--certainly my Democratic colleagues--are truly appalled. Once

again, instead of working on the many pressing issues at hand, Republicans are continuing their tired, dangerous obsession with attacking women's health.

Once again, women's health is being used as a political football, with Republicans attempting to cut off access to vital healthcare services. Once again, millions of families across the country are watching Congress, wondering why there isn't just one more Republican who will stand up for them.

The Republicans just held a vote open for nearly an hour to force a vote that would allow politicians to discriminate against family planning providers. Of course, whenever they can't make a vote, when women's health is being attacked, whom do Senate Republicans call to break that tie in the Senate? Vice President Mike Pence.

We have actually seen this before. We all remember what happened in the nomination of Secretary DeVos, and we all know that enough is enough. This is shameful. This is wrong. It cannot stand.

Families have spoken time and again, and they have made it absolutely career that when it comes to women's rights and healthcare, they do not want to go backward. But today, thanks to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, thanks to Vice President Pence, the Senate will hold a vote on whether critical healthcare services should be taken away from millions of women across the country.

Let's not forget, it hasn't even been a week since people nationwide completely rejected TrumpCare, that disastrous bill that would have undermined women's rights and healthcare in so many ways.

Now, here in the Senate today, we are about to vote on whether a young woman should be able to go to the provider that she trusts to get birth control; whether it is Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, or HIV testing, which should be more or less available to women across the country; whether healthcare providers are evaluated for Federal funding based on their ability to provide services or ideology; whether women are able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to reproductive healthcare; and whether the Senate is going to turn back the clock today on women's health.

For me and for Democrats, and I know even for some Republicans, it is disappointing, deeply disappointing, that we are even having this vote today--a vote that was jammed through, with 48 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting no and Vice President Pence coming down to break the tie.

Put simply, rolling back this rule today will put at risk women's lives, like a constituent of mine from Tacoma, WA. She wrote me a letter recently to tell me the many reasons this is so important to her.

When she was 20, she was uninsured. She had no other options. A family planning center was there for her. During a routine Pap test, her doctor discovered a precancerous condition in her cervix. That led to surgery, which saved her life and saved her fertility.

Without access to that provider, she would not have been able to get a regular Pap smear and checkup and most likely would have developed cervical cancer. She would not have been able to get pregnant, go on to have a daughter, become a community college counselor, and today, at the age of 65, be cancer-free.

I hope that some of my Republican colleagues are listening and that they think of women just like this, whose lives are healthier and have been saved because of the services of so many family planning centers. That is who I will be thinking about. That is what has always kept me going.

I urge people across the country right now to let Senators know that this vote today, this rule is not OK. It is not acceptable. Make phone calls. Go on Facebook. Tweet about it. Everything helps. Tell your Senator today that in about an hour, with their vote, to stand up for you, for your family, and for women across the country.

We need only one more Republican--one more--to join us. This vote that we are about to have in about an hour is dead even, on the razor's edge. Fifty Senators--48 Democrats and 2 Republicans--will vote to reject this harmful, disgusting resolution. We just need one more Republican to join us, to stand on the side of women and men and families, and put an end to this damaging political attack on women.

I am sure people will hear about this. I am going to be here on the floor. Many of my colleagues are going to be out here talking about it. People nationwide will have the opportunity to know exactly where every Republican stands on this.

I urge our Republican colleagues: Stop to think about what you are doing, taking away the ability of women in communities across our country to go to the provider they trust for the care that is most important to them, their families, and our country's future. I urge them to make the right choice.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Illinois is here. While she is setting up, I just want everybody to realize what is happening here. We are debating a rule that, should the Republicans-- with the Vice President voting to break the tie this afternoon--put it in place, will allow the discrimination of healthcare providers for women across the country.

I have many Democratic colleagues here making the case for those women, mostly low income, who have no other access, particularly in our rural and urban regions. I just want to note that there are no Republicans out here saying why this rule needs to be passed. They just want it done, over with; the Vice President to break the tie, and it is out of here. We are noticing. Women are noticing. People are noticing.

I thank all of my Democratic colleagues and a few brave Republicans who are with us for their support to get this done. We need one more Republican to be able to defeat this.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want Senate Republicans who are about to take this vote--and Vice President Pence--to be very clear on what they are about to do. As a direct result of their choices today, extreme politicians in States across the country will have greater power to take away women's choices.

I think it speaks volumes that the vote to uphold this rule--which simply says family planning centers, where women can exercise their constitutionally protected rights, should not be

discriminated against--is bipartisan. But do you know what I think is most striking about this vote? The deafening silence from the group of almost entirely male Republican Senators who are voting today to make it harder for women to get the healthcare they need. Not one spoke today to justify this vote. Where are those Republican Senators? Why did they feel so entitled not just to interfere with women's healthcare decisions but to do so without explaining themselves? If they are ashamed of their votes, which they should be, they had ample opportunity to reconsider.

I came to the floor with my Democratic colleagues weeks ago to urge Republicans not to bring this damaging legislation to the floor. We asked for just one Republican vote today to prevent this attack on women's health. And women across the country, in Republican and Democratic States, called, emailed, tweeted, and organized to say that these restrictions on women's access to healthcare have no place in our country or in the 21st century. But what have these 50 Senate Republicans done? They refused to listen, and they refused to answer for their actions.

Frankly, women deserve better. The thing is, women know it. So today, as a woman, I am angry. As a mother and a grandmother, I am furious about what attacks like this mean for our daughters and our granddaughters, especially those who are struggling and disproportionately rely on family planning centers. But as a Senator, I am more confident than ever that Republicans who fail to listen to the women of this country do so at their own peril. I have had the chance to see how much impact women have when they call and march and organize and make their voices heard.

The fact that Vice President Pence had to come and break this tie today, that Senate Republican leaders could not twist enough arms to pass this bill on their own, is clear evidence. So is the failure of House Republicans' abysmal TrumpCare bill, which would have cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood.

I know without a doubt that Republican Senators who vote against women and with their extreme base today and who rely on this anti-women administration to jam this resolution through will be held accountable both by women across the country and women right here in the Senate. We will keep making our voices heard. We will fight back against these attacks on our rights and our own self-determination, and ultimately, you can be sure, we will win.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the time on this side.

The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. President, I am deeply frustrated that Republicans, in one of their first actions following their and President Trump's disastrous attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, have decided to bring to the floor yet another CRA that would hurt workers, hurt the middle class, and hurt our economy.

Last week, millions of families sent a very clear message to President Trump and Republicans: Enough with the attempts to turn back the clock on progress for working families.

Clearly, President Trump and Republicans are not getting the message because, today, in what can only be described as a truly shameless giveaway to Wall Street, Republicans are poised to roll back a rule that would, simply, allow cities to help small businesses provide their workers access to easy, affordable, and high-quality retirement savings programs.

Before I continue, I want to reiterate what is at stake if Republicans roll back this rule. If Republicans pass this anti-worker resolution that is on the floor today, over 2 million workers in Philadelphia, in New York City, and in

Seattle--in my home State of Washington--will lose the opportunity to access a retirement savings program.

I expect my Republican colleagues to make several claims as to why they are pushing to repeal this rule, but I want to be very clear that this is a deliberate attempt by Republicans to deny millions of workers the opportunity to save for retirement just to ensure that Wall Street remains in charge of our retirement system and can continue to write its own rules.

The 2 million workers who are at risk today in these three cities are part of the nearly 55 million workers across the country, which include 2 million workers in my home State of Washington, who do not have access to a workplace retirement plan through their employers. That is about one-third of all of the workers in our country. These are workers--particularly low-income and young workers--who are putting in long hours, meeting all of their responsibilities, but who lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan.

Because Congress has been unable to come together to address our retirement savings crisis, cities and States have now stepped up to help more workers save for their own retirements. These programs vary, but they all generally include several things.

First of all, they allow employers to automatically enroll workers while giving workers the opportunity to opt out. Several studies have made clear that, when workers are automatically enrolled, they are more likely to save simply because it is easier to save. We all want that, and that is a fact.

Secondly, these programs apply only to businesses that do not currently offer retirement plans, and they, in no way, limit an employer's ability to seek out and offer its own employer-sponsored plan.

Lastly, these programs are worker and business friendly. There is little paperwork required for workers to participate in the programs, and there are no added burdens to the small businesses. In fact, in these programs, employers are strictly required to serve only in an administrative capacity.

Last year, Democrats, in their working with the previous administration, pushed for guidance to provide certainty to cities and States that have launched their own retirement programs.

This guidance clarifies an existing safe harbor that allows employers to establish payroll deduction IRAs, which gives States the clarity that these programs will not be preempted by Federal retirement law while still retaining the protections under the Internal Revenue Code. These retirement programs are safe; they are secure. This guidance merely provides flexibility to cities and States to move forward with these programs. Again, this guidance provides clarity for small businesses, which facilitate these programs for their employees, in that they may only act in an administrative capacity in operating these plans.

I think we all know what this repeal is truly about. President Trump is committed to doing everything he can to put the interests of Wall Street first. Unfortunately, with this action, Republicans in Congress are helping him do that.

It does not seem to matter if Republicans need to vote against policies they are on the record as having previously supported, like these retirement programs. Apparently, it does not matter if they need to vote to undermine our States' rights, as this resolution will do. It is becoming increasingly clear, without having a legislative agenda of their own, that Republicans are working to undo any and all rules and protections that had been put forth by the Obama administration.

It is not working. It is not leadership. It is not the kind of leadership our families deserve. After last week, I had hoped that President Trump and the Republicans would have dropped their extreme anti-worker agenda. Families nationwide are sending a clear message in marches and phone calls and letters and online and in their communities. They expect their representatives to be committed to working for them, and they are paying close attention--more than ever before--and are prepared to hold Members accountable.

This CRA is a critical vote. Families are watching. If you stand with working families, vote against this resolution. If you say you believe in States' rights, vote against this resolution. If you want to meaningfully address our retirement crisis, vote against this resolution.

I am here to urge all of our colleagues to reject this harmful repeal and to stand with our working families. That is what is at stake.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to start by addressing the news last night that Republican leaders have decided to try to make their awful TrumpCare legislation even worse. TrumpCare wasn't enough of a giveaway to insurance companies, and it didn't do enough harm to women, seniors, and people with preexisting conditions, so Republican leaders decided to double down in efforts to appeal to their extreme conservative base.

They are now claiming that they can take away essential health benefits like maternity care, mental health care, and preexisting conditions through the reconciliation process, but here are the facts: Republican leaders know, just as Democrats do, that measures to take away these critically important protections cannot survive the reconciliation process and could never get 60 votes in the Senate. They are simply trying to sell conservatives a bill of goods today in the rush to jam this through, but the more they scramble, the more harmful this bill gets for patients and families and the worse it will be for any House Republican who will be held accountable for their votes on it.

As we all know, today marks 7 years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. While some here in Congress may view this as an ideal opportunity to ram through a reckless, harmful repeal of the law, I, for one, think about today a little differently.

I remember 7 years ago, standing with a young constituent of mine from Seattle, Marci Owens, as we watched President Obama sign the Affordable Care Act into law. I had met Marci when she was about 11 years old, in the midst of some of the most heated moments of the healthcare reform debate, and to this day, I will never forget the story she told me about her mom, who all of a sudden had become sick, was forced to miss work, and because of that, she lost her job and lost her health insurance. Ultimately, because she wasn't even able to see a doctor or get any care, she died as a result of her illness.

I took that story with me, along with countless other stories of families unable to access care, pay for medication, or see a doctor. I used them as motivation as my colleagues and I worked tirelessly to pass the Affordable Care Act.

Just last month, I was proud to have Marci, who is now 18, attend President Trump's joint address to Congress as my guest. Today, Marci is still sharing her story and advocating for affordable healthcare, as well as transgender rights. She, along with millions of others across the country, is once again standing up, speaking out, and making it clear that we cannot go backward.

I come to the Senate floor to share some of the stories of families in my home State of Washington who are worried, who are afraid, and whose lives will be at risk if President Trump and Republicans take us down this dangerous path to repeal, people whose voices need to be heard more than ever.

I want to make it very clear why we are here and what is at stake. The House Republican TrumpCare bill would have a profoundly negative impact on the lives and the well-being and the financial security of people across the country, people who are truly terrified about the uncertain path forward. Yet, for having such a profound impact, Republicans are seemingly doing everything they can to limit public discussion on TrumpCare. This bill was rushed through four House committees without a single public hearing, no testimony, no expert view. House Republicans voted the bill out of two of these committees without a CBO score, without knowing how many people would be impacted.

In the Senate this week, every Senate Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee called on the chairman to allow for a hearing to talk about this bill, but he refused. He ignored the request, and he held a hearing on other health policy instead. That the Health Committee--the Health Committee--has not been allowed to hold a single hearing to talk about and debate TrumpCare is appalling and shameful.

Not to be outdone, of course, the majority leader, instead of committing to give all Senators time to review and evaluate the bill, has now said the bill will go straight to the floor for a vote as soon as next week, prompting even Members of his own party to come out against this plan.

In all, these efforts are unprecedented. They are wrong, and they speak volumes about the kind of bill they are trying to ram through, because we now know many of the facts of the bill.

This bill will kick 24 million people off their coverage. It will cause premiums to skyrocket. Seniors will pay more for their care. It will put at risk those who are struggling with mental illness and substance use disorders, including opioid addiction. It would end Medicaid as we know it.

Predictively, it attacks women's constitutionally protected healthcare and rights. It defunds Planned Parenthood and puts insurance companies back in charge of other critical parts of women's healthcare, including maternity care, cancer screenings, and contraception. This bill undermines women's access to healthcare and women's ability to make their own healthcare decisions in virtually every way a piece of legislation could.

I oppose this bill in the strongest terms. I am going to be doing everything I can to fight back against it, and I know Senate Democrats will as well.

Families across the country are looking to us, and they have nowhere else to turn. Like many of my colleagues, I have constituents coming up to me constantly when I am at home, asking me what is going to happen if TrumpCare becomes law. They are bravely sharing deeply personal stories about their health, their families, and their fears--something they should not have to do. They deserve to be heard.

Erin Zerba from my home State of Washington deserves to be heard. She has been a teacher for 19 years and teaches in two rural school districts, but because of her part-time standing in both districts, she is ineligible for insurance. If it weren't for the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, she would have no options.

As Erin puts it, she is ``terrified'' to learn that Medicaid would be gutted under TrumpCare. She has multiple disabilities, including autism and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She has had repeated surgeries following a difficult pregnancy. The medication she has to take every day is very expensive. There is no generic form. She is one of those millions of people.

I have to say that we are going to fight back in every way we can because the TrumpCare bill that is being rushed through the House with giveaways being given to Senators for their votes is not the way we take care of people in this country. I am deeply worried about the process of this bill.

I see the Democratic leader on the floor, and I know how important it is for him to speak. I just want to say, as the ranking member on the Health Committee, it is appalling to me that we have had no hearings, no expert witnesses, no markup. We have not seen this bill, and it is being rushed through. It will impact every single American and deserves the time of day, not some created chaos and deadline timeline that was created simply to fulfill a campaign promise and not to do the right thing for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Mr. President, when President Trump was running for office, he made a lot of promises to the American people. He promised the middle class he would stand up for them. He promised workers he would bring good jobs back to their communities, and he promised to drain the swamp of corporate lobbyists that muck up our democracy with dysfunction.

Well, we are just over 2 months into this Presidency, and all we have seen from this administration is a series of broken promises, whether it is Cabinet picks who are billionaires, Wall Street bankers, and corporate CEOs; or his plan to jam through a healthcare bill that the President himself admits will hurt middle- and working-class families; or his proposed budget, which guts everything from job-training programs to assistance for low-income families who pay their heating bills, to meals on wheels, which provides hot meals to low-income grandparents. It is clear President Trump is standing with his billionaire and corporate lobbyist friends at the expense of the people he promised to stand up and fight for.

While we have made many improvements in our economy in the last 8 years, we have a lot of work left to do. Too many people in our country today are working multiple jobs trying to support their families and pay their bills, and they are still struggling to make ends meet. That is what we should be talking about today on the

Senate floor--how to build an economy that works for everyone. We should be working together to make sure that people are making a decent wage to support their families, that corporations aren't getting rich at the expense of their workers, and that hard-working people aren't risking their lives in dangerous conditions at work.

Instead, what we are doing today is that my Republican colleagues, with the backing of President Trump, are trying to roll back a rule that protects workers and prevents work-related deaths and injuries. This rule allows the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA--an agency whose sole purpose is to keep workers safe on the job-- to accurately monitor and prevent workplace injuries and fatalities in our Nation's most dangerous industries.

Dangerous businesses have been recording serious workplace injuries and deaths for more than four decades, and this rule simply affirms the policy enshrined in the OSHA law itself of 1970 that these records have to be accurate--a precedent of keeping workers safe and monitoring dangerous workplaces.

After a recent court case put this important safety practice at risk, OSHA issued this rule to clarify their recordkeeping practices. This rule is not new. It does not impose added obligations or costs on employers, and it was actually suggested by the court in its decision. And it does not cover small businesses with 10 employees or fewer.

We should be trying to make workplaces safer, but in rolling back this rule, President Trump and my Republican colleagues are doing exactly the opposite. This is not something we should be playing politics with. Without this rule--if it is overturned today by the Senate Republicans--some of the most dangerous industries will then be able to hide worker injuries and keep falsified records of injuries and workplace deaths, and it will make it more difficult for OSHA to punish low-road companies that are putting their workers' lives in danger.

Every year, more than 4,800 workers are killed on the job in America, and 3 million more suffer serious injuries and illnesses. We have found that it is often the same companies that are repeat offenders. Without this rule, OSHA cannot sanction employers for keeping fraudulent injury records for multiple years before OSHA walks in the door to conduct an inspection.

So many people in this country get up every day and go to work at tough, dangerous jobs to support their families and drive the economy. Those workers deserve to be able to trust that their employer isn't knowingly putting their life at risk. Without this rule, corporations and dangerous industries can take advantage of their workers, and OSHA will not have the tools it needs to stop it. We should not overturn this rule. If we do, recordkeeping will become elective.

This goes against everything President Trump promised to middle- and working-class families on the campaign trail. He promised to stand up for them, to bring back good, respectable jobs to their communities. Instead, he wants to allow his billionaire corporate friends to take advantage of workers and threaten their safety, and, unfortunately, it appears my Republican colleagues are now onboard.

Instead of doing President Trump's bidding, I urge my Republican colleagues to do what President Trump promised and start putting workers first by abandoning this deeply harmful effort.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to once again urge my fellow Senators to vote against this resolution, which will weaken our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and will hurt students and schools across the country. I wish to quickly run through the reasons why passing this resolution will hurt our students.

First, voting for this resolution will throw States and school districts into chaos just as they are beginning to implement this law. Secretary DeVos has already sent a letter to State chiefs suggesting that a new State template for plan submission would be coming, less than a month before approximately 18 States and the District of Columbia intend to submit their plans. This timeline will not allow enough time for the stakeholder review process that is required in the law and may force States to reopen their plans and delay implementation of the law.

Secondly, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a civil rights law at its core. We know from experience that without strong accountability, kids from low-income neighborhoods, students of color, kids with disabilities, and students learning English too often fall through the cracks, and now it is up to all of us to uphold the civil rights legacy of the law and its promise for students by voting against this resolution.

I wish to spend a little more time on the third reason. It should concern all of us that if this resolution passes, it will give Secretary DeVos a blank check to promote her anti-public school agenda. During her confirmation process, my colleagues and millions of Americans saw that Secretary DeVos lacks a basic understanding of key concepts in public education policy, and even more concerning, she has openly questioned the role of the Federal Government in protecting our most vulnerable students.

After her hearings, millions of people across the country stood up, made their voices heard, and called on the Senate to reject her confirmation. Although she squeaked through with an unprecedented tie-- the breaking vote from Vice President Pence--it was clear that Democrats, Republicans, and people across the country rejected her anti-public school agenda. Instead, they want the Department of Education to stand with students and with schools. We cannot in good conscience, through this rule, give Secretary DeVos another tool to promote her anti-public school agenda in ESSA implementation, and that is exactly what passing this resolution will do.

My colleagues across the aisle--the senior Senator from Tennessee made a number of claims in his remarks yesterday about this rule, and I want to go through a few of them because I believe they were off base on a number of levels.

First, the way my friend talked about what the law allows, or doesn't allow, in terms of rulemaking is absolutely wrong. Major laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act allow for and depend on Federal agencies to issue rules that help implement and clarify said laws. The Every Student Succeeds Act maintains the Secretary's overall authority to issue

rules and clarifications that are consistent with the law. This rule before us today is consistent with ESSA, and it provides important clarity to our States, our school districts, and our schools.

Secondly, the senior Senator from Tennessee misrepresented how this rule requires States to rate schools. While the Department's initial rule did require States to provide schools with a ``summative rating,'' my colleague across the aisle, as well as a number of education stakeholder groups, requested that the Department provide States more flexibility. The Department listened and took this out of the final rule which we are talking about today. In fact, the Council of Chief State School Officers, one of the groups who was concerned with the summative rating, said in a statement in response to this rule: ``It is clear the U.S. Department of Education listened to the feedback from state education chiefs across the country and made several important changes to ensure the accountability provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act can be implemented in all States.'' And now the final rule only requires States to comply with ESSA in this area.

Finally, I want to say that my colleague was simply wrong in the way he talked about the impact of this rule on schools that are struggling. ESSA provides guardrails to make sure that grant sizes are sufficient to meet the needs of students, but it provides States with the flexibility to allot smaller grants to smaller sized districts and schools if that is what works best for them. But this rule in no way limits State decisionmaking in this area.

Those are just a few of the ways this rule was mischaracterized over the course of the debate. There were many others. I just have to say that it is disappointing because Democrats and Republicans worked together on this law. I thought there was a clear understanding of what the law intended. I assumed my colleagues understood what the Department was doing to implement our law in an open and collaborative way, and it is very concerning to me to hear such partisanship and false representations of our bipartisan law.

This rule does not dictate what States have to do in struggling schools. Instead, it balances the goals of ESSA--flexibility with Federal guardrails--and provides important clarity for our States.

A vote for this resolution is a vote to run away from the bipartisan nature of the Every Student Succeeds Act. It is a blunt instrument and a significant step in the wrong direction, and it will have a serious impact on our students, our schools, and our districts across the country.

I am disheartened to see that my Republican colleagues are jamming this partisan play through in the same fashion they did with Secretary DeVos's nomination.

Over the past few months, millions of students, parents, and teachers have made their voices heard about the importance of public education to them. They want us to work together, and they want us to build on the bipartisan law. This resolution does exactly the opposite.

I urge our colleagues to vote against this resolution and vote for our schools and our students and to vote for the bipartisan ESSA law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to once again urge my fellow Senators to vote against the pending resolution and support strong and accountable teacher preparation programs in America today.

There are so many great teacher prep programs across the country that are supplying our teaching students with the tools they need to succeed in the classroom, but there are also teacher prep programs that are struggling and need support to make sure they are producing great teachers for our schools.

This rule ensures that students can make informed decisions about teacher preparation programs and that they have access to this information before they take out massive amounts of student debt. It gives States information about the schools that are struggling so States can provide those schools the tools and resources they need to improve their teaching preparation programs.

Finally, eliminating this rule will give Secretary DeVos more power over our higher education programs--a risk we should not be willing to take without learning more about Secretary DeVos's vision for our higher education system.

Every student deserves to have an amazing teacher in the classroom. This rule helps ensure that is possible. So I urge Senators to think of the future teachers and students who will be impacted if this resolution passes.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today on behalf of students, parents, teachers, and communities around the country to urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and to oppose this resolution today.

This resolution will roll back a rule issued by the Department of Education that is critical to the effective and intended implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA.

I am urging my fellow Senators to vote against this resolution for the following reasons, and I will go through each one of them: First of all, this legislation will throw our States and

school districts into chaos just as they are beginning to implement our new law. Secondly, it will give Secretary DeVos a blank check to promote her anti-public school agenda. Third, passing this resolution would be a retreat from the bipartisan law President Obama called a Christmas miracle, one that takes us down a strong partisan path instead, which could undermine ESSA's civil rights protections and guardrails.

But before I go into that, I want to remind my colleagues of what we are working on here and what this resolution would unwind. As many of my colleagues remember well, in 2015, the senior Senator from Tennessee and I came together, with so many others in this body, to fix No Child Left Behind. We both agreed--in fact, nearly everyone in the country agreed--the law was badly broken. No Child Left Behind relied too much on high stakes standardized testing. It gave schools unrealistic goals but failed to give them the resources to meet those goals. And it included a one-size-fits-all punishment if those goals weren't met.

We knew overhauling our public education law was not going to be easy, but we took the time to listen to teachers, to parents, and to students around the country, to make sure their voices were heard. And I am proud that we were then able to break through the partisan gridlock in Congress, find common ground, and pass the Every Student Succeeds Act with strong bipartisan support.

After a major law like the Every Student Succeeds Act passes, Federal agencies usually issue rules to implement and clarify that law. The Every Student Succeeds Act maintains the Secretary's authority to issue rules and clarifications that are consistent with the law. This rule before us today is consistent with ESSA, and it provides important clarity to States, school districts, and schools.

Using such a blunt instrument like this resolution to overturn the entire rule will be a retreat from bipartisanship. Here is how: This resolution would roll back a critical Department of Education rule that gives States more flexibility in key areas while at the same time maintaining strong Federal guardrails to ensure our most vulnerable children don't fall through the cracks. This rule provides clarity on accountability, on reporting requirements, and State plan requirements. It helps ensure that no student, no matter where they live, can fall through those cracks. In other words, this is a rule that gets at the heart and soul of what we are trying to accomplish with our bipartisan law.

The Department of Education did not simply come up with this rule on its own. It incorporated over 20,000 comments from education stakeholders, State chiefs, and district superintendents, many of whom--including the State chiefs and superintendents--applauded the Department of Education for listening to their concerns and incorporating those comments into the final rule that was then released last fall.

During the debate around the Every Student Succeeds Act, there was some division about what accountability should mean in the law, but the final law showed that we can balance flexibility with strong Federal guardrails, until this point, when Republicans now want to tear down the rule that ensures those guardrails go into effect.

Now I want to get into some of the challenges that would be created if this resolution passes and this rule was eliminated. One important thing this rule did was clarify State submission plan requirements and set deadlines for the submission of those plans. Based on this, States have been working now with the Department of Education for months on their State plans. Approximately 18 States and the District of Columbia intend to submit their plans in the beginning of April, but if this rule goes away now, if the rug gets pulled out from under these States, there could be chaos and confusion and the undermining of confidence in this new law.

By the way, we are already seeing this start. In February, Secretary DeVos sent a letter to our State chiefs suggesting a new template for their State submission plans would be ``coming,'' even before the Senate voted on this resolution, and that the new template would be available less than a month before State plans are due. This could force those impacted States to abandon their plans and start from scratch, and it does not allow enough time for the stakeholder review process that is required in the law.

So that is the first reason we should oppose this legislation because there is simply no reason to insert more chaos into a system that is finally settling into our new law. The second reason is, passing this legislation would then give Secretary DeVos a blank check over implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act to promote her anti- public school agenda.

As we saw in her confirmation hearing, Secretary DeVos, we know, has dedicated her career to privatizing public education. She has a long record of fighting to cut investments in public schools and shift taxpayer dollars toward private school vouchers. In her hearing, she showed a lack of even basic understanding of key concepts in public education policy, and she has openly questioned the role of the Federal Government in protecting our most vulnerable students.

After her hearing, millions of people across the country stood up, made their voices heard, and called on the Senate to reject her confirmation. Although she squeaked through with a historic tie- breaking vote from Vice President Pence, it was clear people across the country rejected her anti-public school agenda. Instead, they want the Department of Education to stand with students and with our schools.

One month into her tenure as Secretary of Education, Secretary DeVos has not done a lot to reassure parents who had serious concerns. She has made mistake after mistake, from grossly misrepresenting the origins of the HBCUs to failing to protect transgender students in schools, proving what the American people saw at her confirmation hearing; that her lack of understanding of public education is hurting our students. We cannot, in good conscience, provide Secretary DeVos another potential tool to implement ESSA, our bipartisan bill, with her anti-public education slant, and that is exactly what passing this resolution would do.

If this resolution passes, make no mistake, I will do everything I can to ensure that Secretary DeVos implements ESSA, as Congress intended.

Let me be clear. Congress did not intend that DeVos or any future Secretary of Education could use this law to encourage, prioritize, or even require States to incentivize private school choice. We will work to ensure that she does not take advantage of the chaos that will follow, if this rule is overturned.

Providing Secretary DeVos a blank check would absolutely be the wrong way to go in the early stages of this law's implementation. So that is the second reason.

The third reason is, at its heart, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a civil rights law, and the rule that this resolution would eliminate reflects that reality. We know from experience that without strong accountability, kids from low-income neighborhoods, students of color, kids with disabilities, and students learning English too often fall through the cracks. Now it is up to all of us to uphold the civil rights legacy of this law and its promise for all of our students.

I was proud to work with my colleague, the senior Senator from Tennessee, on this law. I know he is proud of what we accomplished, but I am disheartened to see my Republican colleagues jamming this partisan play through in the same fashion they did with Secretary DeVos's nomination.

Voting for this resolution will ruin the bipartisan nature of our Every Student Succeeds Act, and it will hurt our students, but by voting against this resolution, we can make sure ESSA works for all of our students, regardless of where they live, how they learn, or how much money their parents make.

Finally, I want to make one more point. Even people who had concerns with the final rule do not--do not--want to see it overturned. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers, civil rights groups, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--groups that aren't always actually on the same side of education issues--are all speaking out against rolling back this rule, and parents,

teachers, and community leaders are all on the same page.

In a letter to the Senate, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers union said: ``Repealing these regulations now would not just be counterproductive and disruptive but would demonstrate a disregard by Congress of school districts' operation and timelines.''

In a letter to my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various education groups, including the National Center for Learning Disabilities, wrote that rolling back this rule ``will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the work in states and wasting time that we cannot afford to waste.''

So if unions, business, and civil rights groups, disability advocate organizations, and the States are not asking for this, we must ask the questions, Why are my colleagues jamming this resolution through? What perceived problem are we trying to solve?

Millions of students, parents, and teachers have made their voices heard about the importance of public education. They want us to work together to uphold and build on our bipartisan law, not for it to become just the latest partisan exercise that only hurts our students.

A vote against this resolution is a vote for our students, it is a vote for our schools, it is a vote not to give Secretary DeVos power she can abuse, and it is a vote to keep working together to build on this bipartisan law, not tear it apart.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.