Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his passionate remarks on this topic. I have had the opportunity over most of Friday and over the last 23 hours, to listen to my colleagues come to the floor and speak passionately about an issue they care about, speaking against DeVos. We heard very little passionate speaking for Betsy DeVos, but we heard a tremendous amount of passion against.

I want to thank the Senator from Ohio, in particular, speaking to the issue of the fact that Mrs. DeVos does owe a fine to Ohio that has not been paid. I find it incredulous that we are just dismissing that here and the Senators are voting for her.

The Senator from Ohio spoke passionately about what vouchers would mean for students with disabilities, and their ability to get a good education could be in jeopardy over the vision that this Secretary is about to put forward.

A few moments ago, I listened to the Senator from New Mexico speak about our tribal schools and the fact that this Secretary of Education has no knowledge of tribal education and her role in being in charge of that with no experience and no idea of what that means or how that will be enacted.

Again, I want to just say that we heard from so many people in our States because we clearly have a nominee to run the Department of Education with no experience and a background that is really in opposition to what most of us have stood up for and fought for most of our lives. I have mentioned throughout this debate--as I have spoken numerous times about the tremendous amount of letters that have come to me through our mail over the last several weeks since this nominee came before our committee and the public had a chance to see Mrs. DeVos at our hearing, without the knowledge she needs to lead this agency, with the tremendous conflicts of interest that were portrayed over and over.

I want to again go back and read some of those letters as we get into the last hour of this debate because I think they are quite telling.

I have one from Dr. Jennifer Kay Lynn of Olympia, WA. She says to me:

Thank you for your understanding Betsy DeVos would

devastate U.S. public education. Betsy DeVos's Senate

confirmation hearing underscored how unprepared she is to

serve as America's Secretary of Education. Mrs. DeVos has no

experience in public schools, either as a student, an

educator, administrator or even as a parent. Mrs. DeVos

doesn't understand key policy issues, like proficiency versus

growth, or the Federal role of the Individuals with

Disabilities Act.

Mrs. DeVos would not even commit to upholding current

guidance on preventing sexual assault under title IX. Mrs.

DeVos has no idea of how the arts and public education are

critical for human development, education. All of the arts

help our students grow emotionally, with dedication to task

or more and more connections with the brain, and perhaps,

most importantly, find out how much the arts enhance their

lives. We need a Secretary of Education who will champion

innovative strategies that we know how to improve success for

all students, including creating more opportunities and

equity for all.

Betsy DeVos is not that person, and I urge you to vote

against her for Secretary of Education.

Those aren't my words. I didn't talk to Jennifer Lynn. She wrote to me because she saw this candidate come before our committee. She has looked at her record and has said: This is not what our country is about.

I got a letter from Jamie Michaelson of Oroville, WA, very small community.

Senator Murray, as a public school administrator, I am

extremely concerned about Betsy DeVos' lack of knowledge and

support for public schools. Having never been a teacher or

administrator is bothersome enough, but to have not attended

a public school herself, nor sent her kids to one, makes her

ill-equipped to making educational decisions.

Furthermore, I worry about her understanding of small,

rural districts. We have our own unique needs, which include

funding professional development for teachers, Federally-

funded programs for at-risk youth, and support to recruit and

retain high quality teachers.

As a strong supporter of public education, I ask that you

oppose the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of the

U.S. Department of Education. We must have a Secretary who

can commit to supporting every student in our public schools,

and provide leadership that will help our neighborhood

schools succeed. Betsy DeVos' record in education and her

performance at the recent confirmation hearing proves she is

the wrong candidate for the job.

As a principal, I have spoken with teachers, parents,

students and community members, who agree that America's

future depends on a strong investment in our Nation's public

schools.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I understand

that you are being inundated with emails concerning Cabinet

picks. I feel the nomination of Betsy DeVos is political.

Students, families and educators deserve a highly-qualified

candidate that understands our complex educational system. I

am not writing to you because I have a political motivation.

Instead, I am looking for the best of the best for the

Secretary of Education position. Unfortunately, in my

professional opinion, Betsy DeVos is not the right person for

this job.

I couldn't agree more. Shouldn't we have the best of the best at the top of our education system today? That is what my constituents are asking--and I know many across this country are hoping that just one more Republican Senator will agree. That is what will occur in about an hour.

I see my colleague on the floor who has come here to talk. I appreciate him being here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have had the opportunity over the last almost 24 hours now to hear from a wide swath of our Democratic conference speak out against the nomination because they feel so strongly that in this country public education is a core principle. I know a number of my colleagues will be participating with me in these last few minutes, but I want to thank, again, everyone who has written, who has called in, who has expressed their opinion on this critical nominee that this President tapped to oversee education policy.

I yield to the Senator from Hawaii for a question.

Well, I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his question.

He is absolutely right. I did ask Betsy DeVos, when she came before our committee, if she would commit to not privatizing our schools or cutting a single penny from public education, and she would not do that. She would not do that.

To me, that sends a very clear message, and it did obviously to parents, students, and administrators across this country, that she was not committed to the core principle of public education, that our tax dollars in this country always have and should continue to be to make sure that every student, no matter where they are, will have the opportunity to participate in education. Her answer clearly meant that she was going to take money from our public education system, from our schools--big, small, rural, urban, and suburban--to go to private schools. That would mean a devastation for many communities.

So I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his question.

I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I deeply share the concern of the Senator from New Hampshire. She came to the floor last night to speak eloquently about the challenges that our students with disabilities have and the promise that this country has made now for decades that if you are a student with a disability, you will be able to go to a public school and get the education that you need.

She spoke eloquently. For everyone who didn't hear her, I ask you to go back and look at the Record and listen to it.

Yes, I am deeply concerned that this nominee whom this President has sent to us is not committed to that basic premise that, no matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or if you have a disability, you get a public education. But I am not only concerned that she doesn't have a commitment. I am deeply concerned that she didn't even understand that it was current Federal law.

How can someone be a Secretary of Education in this country and not understand that basic premise and not give that commitment to people across the country that, if it is your child or someone you love or someone you know, they, too, can go to school and get what they need.

So I want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire. And, yes, I am deeply concerned, as we all should be in this body and across the country, that this nominee is not prepared or qualified to make that basic assurance for all students in this country.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Minnesota, who came the other night to talk passionately about her own mother, who was a teacher and her favorite course to teach was about the monarch butterfly and how she would come dressed up as a butterfly and how she impacted a young student in her classroom who is now a young adult and still remembers the learning experience that her mother, as a teacher, gave to him. That spark is so important for every child in this country--that spark for education--no matter who you are, your disability, or what brings you to school that day. That is what is so important about the term ``public education.'' Every child in this country deserves a public education and to reach their full potential, no matter what they look like, how they come to school that day, whether they have been fed or have a disability. That spark is what is so important.

That is why so many people have spoken out in this country about this nominee, who knows nothing or very little about IDEA--not even that it is a Federal law that is under the jurisdiction of the Department that she is seeking and that she would oversee and protect those students. That, to me, is deeply disappointing. It says to me that this President should say: I don't want this nominee to go forward. I will send you someone who understands this law.

I appreciate the question from the Senator from Minnesota.

I yield for a question.

The Senator is correct. The essence of what she has promoted and used her vast wealth for and has worked for throughout her experience is to take money away from public education and put it into private schools.

I thank the Senator for her question. I just want to say that she is absolutely right. The money is not magic. It doesn't just get printed to give vouchers to schools. It comes from our public schools. As she stated so eloquently, there are many schools--some in rural areas, some in urban areas, or mostly in rural, and there is no private school to send your kids to. That voucher money, that public money, those taxpayer dollars will come away from those schools. They will have less money, but it won't go to the advantage of those students, and they will be left behind.

I yield for a question.

Well, I want to thank the Senator from Michigan for that question because it is at the heart of what this entire debate is about. We

have a nominee who has come forward who is quite successful in private business--a billionaire herself--whose idea and vision for our Nation's education comes from a private business perspective.

The Senator from Michigan is absolutely right. Our schools are not about profits. They are not profit centers, and we can never run them that way because there is a core principle that this country was founded on that our forefathers very wisely thought of. They wanted to make sure that every young person in this country, no matter who they were and how much money they had, would get a public education.

You can't run that as a for-profit business because there are kids who come to our schools who are very hard. Maybe they come without having had a parent home the night before, they come hungry, they come with disabilities, they come with challenging education experiences. We can't throw those kids out because there are other kids who come with parents who are very active and are really bright and we want to keep them because they are better for profit. We have to run our public education schools so every child has that opportunity because who knows who that young child is going to be who takes that nugget of public education and ends up sitting here in the U.S. Senate. That is the foundation of our country.

I really appreciate the Senator from Michigan for raising that because that is the core essence of why so many people have spoken out against this nominee, who stood up and have written us letters and made phone calls and stood at rallies and spoken out--many people who have never spoken out on issues before who have never really paid attention before, but this is about the core principles our country was founded on, a public education for all--not a profit education for all but a public education for all.

I will yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Let me thank the Senator from Oregon for his question because he raises a very important point. No one is debating whether we want our kids to have a choice. The debate here is about whether or not those schools that take taxpayer dollars through a voucher system are accountable to the taxpayers who are paying for those vouchers.

This nominee came before our committee and very clearly stated that she would not equally hold accountable private schools. Now, I was a former school board member, and I can tell you, I was there late many nights listening to parents who stood before us and talked about the fact that they wanted to make sure that their school had good teachers or their school had good policies, and we were accountable to that because we were an elected board, and we had to make decisions based on what our constituents thought was important.

These are our constituents who are paying their tax dollars to this country, and they want to know that their taxes are used accountably. Yet we have a nominee before us at the Department of Education who has said she wants to take those taxpayer dollars--your money--and send it on to private schools with no accountability. What does that mean? That could mean that those private schools don't necessarily have to provide a strong curriculum in specific topics. It means they can let kids out of school and say: We don't want to keep you here anymore. You are too tough to teach.

It can say that they will not keep records of dropout rates so we know whether or not they are encouraging these tough kids to go to another school. They can actually deny access to students with disabilities or who come from tough backgrounds who may not meet their standards, and they will not be held accountable under the policies that Ms. DeVos proposes. So the Senator raises an absolutely critical question. At the end of the day, each elected official in this country is held accountable to their taxpayers to assure that the money they give out in their taxes is used in a way that our country agrees on, and this Secretary of Education says: Nope. We want to change that. We want your tax dollars to go to schools that are not accountable to you.

Mr. President, we have a number of Senators who have been on the floor who are here now and who would like to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that I continue this dialogue with Senators until a quarter to 12, and the last 15 minutes be equally divided between the chairman of the committee and myself.

Mr. President, let me revise my request. I ask unanimous consent that we continue to have this conversation until a quarter to 12 p.m.; that at a quarter to 12, I will give my final remarks and divide equally the last 15 minutes so the chairman of the committee has the last 7\1/2\ minutes.

I will yield to the Senator from Illinois.

I want to thank the Senator from Illinois, who is an amazing new and great Member of our Senate. She comes from Illinois. She comes from an incredible background and is asking a critical question about whether our students with disabilities should have access to education.

It is a passion many of us have feelings about, it is a principle that our country has supported, and it is a principle that this nominee is uniquely unknowledgeable about and, to me, that is reason enough for any of us to vote against that nominee.

I will yield to the Senator from Minnesota for a question.

I say thank you to the Senator from Minnesota, and I want to thank him for being a committed part of our committee, really helping us all recognize that this nominee is not qualified.

I see the Senator from Hawaii who has, I believe, the last question.

I will yield to the Senator from Hawaii.

I thank the Senator from Hawaii, and I think that is the question all of us should be posing to ourselves as we get down to the final few minutes. Is this the best of the best?

Is this a knowledgeable candidate who understands the Federal law?

Is this a candidate who comes to us without conflicts of interest?

Is this a candidate who is willing to stand up and be the defender of all young children in schools?

To me and to many of my colleagues who have been out here speaking, she is not.

I want to thank all of my great colleagues who have been out here speaking from their heart about a passion that they have in this country for a candidate to lead the Department of Education who is qualified, who is prepared, who is ready to stand up and fight for every child no matter where they live or where they come from.

With that, Mr. President, I believe we are down to the last 15 minutes before the vote, with the time equally divided.

Mr. President, as I noted, Democrats have been here on the Senate floor for the past 24 hours straight, talking about the importance of public education, sharing stories from parents and students and teachers in our home States, highlighting all of the reasons for Senators to stand with us and stand with their constituents, stand with other Republicans who are doing the right thing, and urging them to say no to Betsy DeVos and her plans to privatize public school and destroy public education in America.

But I come to the floor today to make one final push before this vote, to make the case one last time, because we are so, so close and because this is so important and also because we have a real shot right now to show people across the country that the Senate can actually listen to them, that their voices matter, and that their Senators put them and their kids and their families and their futures above loyalty to a party or a President.

I have talked about my frustration with the fact that Republican leaders did everything they could to jam this nominee through the Senate. They cut corners and rushed into a hearing before her ethics paperwork was in. They blocked Democrats from asking more than 5 minutes of questions, forcing a vote before all of our questions were answered about her tangled finances and her potential conflicts of interest, and rushed straight from the committee vote to the shortest possible floor debate they could manage.

So I won't spend more time on that today because the truth is that despite Republicans' best efforts, people across the country have learned a whole lot about Betsy DeVos over the past few weeks, and the more they have learned about her, the less they have liked and the more outraged they have become.

Over the past few weeks, people have learned about Betsy DeVos's tangled finances and potential conflicts of interest and how she and her family have given hundreds of millions of dollars to Republicans and extreme conservative groups. They have learned about her failed record, how she spent her career and her inherited fortune pushing anti-public school policies that have hurt so many students in her home State of Michigan and across the country. They have learned about the extreme rightwing ideology that drives her, how she wants to bring her anti-government, free-market-above-all philosophy to an education system that she has called nothing more than ``an industry, and a dead end.''

When people saw her in her hearing, they learned even more. When they watched Betsy DeVos in that hearing room, when they saw it live on the evening news, on ``The Daily Show,'' on ``The View,'' and on many other shows covering it, and one of the many clips that went viral on social media or shared by a friend or a family member, a whole lot of people were introduced to Betsy DeVos for that first time in that hearing, and they were not impressed. People across the country saw a nominee who was clearly ill-informed and confused, who gave a number of very concerning responses to serious and reasonable questions.

In that hearing, Betsy DeVos refused to rule out slashing investments in or privatizing public schools. She was confused that Federal law provides protections for students with disabilities. She didn't understand a basic issue in education policy--the debate surrounding whether students should be measured based on their proficiency or their growth. She argued that guns needed to be allowed in schools across the county to ``protect from Grizzlies.'' And even though she was willing to say that President Trump's behavior toward women should be considered sexual assault, she would not commit to actually enforcing Federal law protecting women and girls in our schools. Those were just a few of the moments in that hearing that made it clear why Betsy DeVos is not qualified to do this job. There were many more.

What people saw in that hearing wasn't just a nominee who didn't understand the issues; they saw a nominee for Secretary of Education who clearly didn't think about public education and public schools the way they do. For most people, public education hits really close to home. It is part of who we are, our families, and our communities. So many of us owe everything we have to public education. We have watched our kids and our grandkids and our neighbors get on the bus to go to their local public school. Many of us have taught in public schools or have family or friends who walk into classrooms every single day to help our students learn. And so many of us believe in a commitment to strong public schools that offer an education and opportunity to every student. It is a core part of the American promise.

So when we saw someone nominated to this position who knows so little about public education, who so clearly cares so little about public education, whose strongest connection to public schools is through her dedication to tearing them down, that struck a real chord with a whole lot of people, and they decided to make their voices heard.

Over the past two weeks, we have seen an unprecedented level of engagement from people on this nomination--tens of thousands of calls, thousands of letters, hundreds of people calling in, social media, and many of them have never been involved or made their voices heard before. It made a difference. Right now, every single Democrat is opposing this nomination, and two Republicans who listened to their constituents are joining us. So we are dead even--the first time in history that the Vice President will be called on shortly to cast a tie-breaking vote on a Cabinet nominee. We just need one more Republican to join us to prevent that from happening, one more to help us show the people across this country that their voice matters in this debate, one more to stand with people across the country and say no.

So I am here to finish this debate where we started--standing with students and parents and teachers, with the people of my home State of Washington and across the country who strongly support public schools and true education opportunity for all, and with Democrats and Republicans across the country who have poured their heart and soul into opposing this nominee. I stand with you.

I urge one more Republican to join us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand here today to give a voice to the thousands of people who have contacted me in recent weeks urging me to vote no on this nomination. First, I need to express my frustration and outrage about what happened here on the floor last night.

In the middle of a debate about the next Attorney General--someone whose job it will be to defend the rights of all Americans; whose job it is to defend people from discrimination, inequity, and unfairness; whose job it is to defend women, to defend people of color, to defend all those who are too often told to sit down, stand down, be quiet--we saw the Republican leader selectively use the rules to silence our colleague, a woman Senator, who was reading the words of an African- American woman and a historic civil rights leader, reading the words of someone who embodies the fight for justice, for freedom, for equality, and for civil rights in America; someone who all of us should be looking to for lessons in these times, not someone whose words should be silenced because she said something people may not enjoy hearing.

At a moment when we are engaged in a debate about how best to defend our fellow citizens from discrimination and fight back against forces that seek to demean others in order to gain power, I was stunned. I respect the decorum that the Senate strives to maintain, but there are times when you cannot stay silent. This is one of those times. We will not be silent.

So I want to say that I stand with my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts. I stand with the words of the late Coretta Scott King, and I stand with the many people who have contacted me about this nominee that we are debating here today. I can tell you that the day President Trump announced he had picked Senator Jeff Sessions to lead the Department of Justice, the phones in my office lit up. People from across my home State of Washington contacted my office to express their shock, their outrage, and their fear.

The calls came from people who help LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness; groups who have tirelessly advocated for necessary criminal justice reform; families caught in a broken immigration system; civil rights advocates and community leaders who have fought for decades to create a more just society; advocates and nonprofits trying to help women escape domestic violence. The list goes on.

That was in November. And in the weeks and months since the President made his choice for Attorney General known, those concerns have not died down. In fact, they have only gotten louder and more urgent as the public gets a better look at Senator Sessions' long record, what he stands for, and where he wants to take this country. I share their concerns.

It is why I will oppose Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General. I urge my colleagues to join me to reject this nomination, and send a message to the new President about the rule of law in this country. Send a message to the new President, who came into office showing blatant disregard for our traditions of transparency, traditions that tell us the President has a duty to put the needs of the American people before the needs of his bank account. Send a message to someone who, just weeks into his term, has displayed shocking disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers, the

same President who fired an Acting Attorney General because she refused to ignore the law, to approve his hateful and unconstitutional Executive order barring refugees; the same President who ridiculed a well-respected Federal judge in Seattle, a George W. Bush appointee, because the judge didn't rule the way he wanted.

The U.S. Attorney General is often the last line of defense for our Constitution within an administration. And they need to be the first to stand up to our President when our President is wrong.

Senator Jeff Sessions is not that kind of nominee. The people of this country expect and deserve an Attorney General who will protect their civil and constitutional rights and liberties. They deserve someone committed to the principles of inclusiveness and justice--someone who will fiercely defend the rights of all Americans to be treated equally under the law. The American people need an Attorney General who continues to make the fight against racism, discrimination, and hate crimes a core part of that Department's mission. We know Senator Sessions is not the person for that job.

More than 30 years ago, he couldn't even pass muster in a Republican- majority Senate. During his confirmation hearing, Senators cited his racially charged comments and his shameful record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney as reasons they could not support him. And as my late colleague Ted Kennedy said at the time: ``It is inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let alone a U.S. Federal judge.''

I ask my colleagues who are inclined to support his nomination today, What has changed? I have served alongside Senator Sessions for years, and I know his record all too well. And like my constituents who started sounding the alarm back in November, I am deeply concerned by his agenda that would take our country backward.

Senator Sessions has dismissed one of our bedrock civil rights laws, the Voting Rights Act, as ``intrusive,'' while pushing restrictive voter ID laws and fueling conspiracy theories about voter fraud. I watched as he refused to work with a bipartisan majority of the Senate on immigration reform and instead pushed extreme policies that would punish the most vulnerable members of our communities. And that, by the way, included DREAMers across the country who have never known another home besides America. His personal passion on that issue and his years of advocacy against commonsense immigration policies cause me great concern about whether he would use the Department of Justice to pursue his extreme anti-immigration agenda.

On criminal justice reform, he beat back efforts from within his own party to address the exploding race of incarceration across this country. The injustice of these laws falls disproportionately on communities of color.

Time and again, he has defended laws that favor throwing nonviolent offenders in jail rather than working to rehabilitate them, even though it has been consistently proven that prison is not a means of rehabilitation. This nominee's views on criminal justice reform are so out of the mainstream, his position is even at odds with the Koch brothers.

At the very time our Nation engages in a critically important debate about ensuring equal treatment under the law, as we continue the struggle to make sure equality shines through our education system, our justice system, our economy, and our country, Senator Sessions remains dismissive of the very tools our Justice Department must use to move us forward.

When I joined so many of my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize and improve the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act to protect women across the country, Senator Sessions worked against us to tear it apart. As someone who has sat face-to-face with survivors of domestic violence and fought to increase protections for those dealing with sexual assault, I can see why people would question whether Senator Sessions has any intention of enforcing the laws that protect them because I wonder that myself.

This nominee's track record of trying to undermine women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights is horrifying and should, by the way, scare every woman in this country.

I have heard from so many members of the LGBTQ community who are terrified that Senator Sessions would be tasked with protecting their rights. His votes against repealing don't ask, don't tell and expanding hate crimes definitions to include LGBTQ Americans confirm those fears.

This alone has to give my colleagues pause when so many Americans-- our friends, our family members, our coworkers--fear that their government will look the other way as they endure violence, discrimination, and marginalization just because of who they love or how they live. We must fight back with everything we have.

When this President attacks the independence of our judges--judges who have declared the obvious, that the Muslim ban Executive order is unconstitutional--we cannot put the person who Steve Bannon calls ``the fiercest, most dedicated and most loyal promoter'' of the President's agenda at the head of the Department of Justice. This is not who we are.

Senator Sessions is not the Attorney General this country needs. I urge members of the Senate to stand up for the Constitution, to stand with your fellow Americans. The stakes are far too high to make Senator Sessions our next Attorney General.

I urge you to join with me in voting against this nomination. Now more than ever, we need an Attorney General who will be independent and willing to stand up to President Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions whenever they happen.

The last thing this country needs right now is a rubber stamp to validate this administration's illegal actions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am on the floor today to stand with parents, students, teachers, families, and communities across our country to make sure they have a voice to strongly oppose Betsy DeVos and her plans to privatize public schools and destroy public education in America. I urge my colleagues to stand with their constituents and join Democrats and Republicans in rejecting this nomination.

I come to the floor as a former preschool teacher, someone who got my start in politics fighting for strong public schools, a former school board member, a Senator committed to standing strong for public education in America, and a mother and grandmother who cares deeply about the future of our students in our schools.

Like so many people across the country, I am someone who owes everything I have to a strong public education I received growing up in this country. I believe it is my responsibility to do everything I can to make sure the opportunities that were there for me and so many others are open to every student in this country, no matter where they live or how they learn or how much money their parents have. In general, I believe the Federal Government and specifically the Department of Education has an important role to play in making that happen.

I take the position of Secretary of Education very seriously. Leading this agency in this moment is a critical job. I consider it to be my job to do everything I can to make sure the person who fills it is truly committed to putting students and families first. As I will discuss in detail today and in the coming days, I do not believe Betsy DeVos is the right person to do that.

Before I get into Ms. DeVos's failed record and her lack of experience, I wish to make a point about how I approach nominees and how that impacts my perspective on this one.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to spend their time in this debate trying to impugn the motives of Democrats and Republicans who are trying to stop this nomination. They will try to say that President Trump won the election and he should be able to pick anyone he wants to fill this position and that we should all sit down and be quiet. I reject that. I believe the Senate has an important role to play in this process. It is our constitutional duty to take these nominations seriously, and I refuse to stand by and just watch.

President Trump absolutely has the right to nominate people for his Cabinet who he thinks will carry out his vision for the country, but that does not mean the Senate should be a rubberstamp. To the contrary, we owe it to the people we represent to make sure every nominee is not only qualified for the position and free of conflicts of interest but that he or she will put families and workers first and not millionaires and billionaires or big corporations.

President Trump was the first Presidential candidate in decades to not release his tax returns, and he is openly flouting ethics conventions regarding his personal and family businesses.

I believe that in an administration where lines around potential conflicts of interest are very likely to be blurred at the top, they need to be even clearer at the individual agencies. So I will not apologize for demanding that the Senate do its job when it comes to doing our due diligence with these nominees. I will not back down from asking my questions for my constituents--the ones they would want me to ask. I will not stop fighting as hard as I can to oppose a Secretary of Education who doesn't stand with them.

I am extremely disappointed at how this process has gone so far. I have great respect for the chairman of our committee, but I have never seen anything like it, especially coming out of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where until now we have worked together across party lines so well. Right from the start, it was very clear that Republicans intended to jam this nominee through the process as quickly as possible. Corners were cut, precedents were ignored, debate was cut off, and reasonable requests and questions were blocked. Again, I have never seen anything like it on this committee, Democratic administration or Republican, Democratic majority or Republican. It has been truly frustrating and deeply disappointing.

I believe it is our job in the Senate to scrutinize nominees, but Republicans were acting like it was their job to protect Ms. DeVos, to shield her from questioning. First, Republicans rushed us into a hearing before we had Mrs. DeVos's ethics paperwork in. That might seem like a small thing, it may seem like a procedural issue, but it was important.

Every single nominee during the Obama administration had their ethics paperwork in before a hearing in our committee. The Republican majority leader made having ethics paperwork in before a hearing a core demand of his during the Obama administration. The reason for this is simple: Senators should be able to ask nominees questions about their finances, their potential conflicts of interest, how they plan to avoid them, and how they plan to uphold the letter and spirit of our ethics laws. But without the Office of Government Ethics financial disclosure and without their review, Senators go into a hearing in the dark on a nominee's ethics and finances, and that is exactly what we were pushed into with Mrs. DeVos.

Secondly, when we got into that hearing, we were told that Democrats would only have 5 minutes each to ask questions--5 minutes to ask about Betsy DeVos's finances, her long record of privatization of public education, her vision for this Department, and the many, many issues in this Department's jurisdiction--5 minutes and, then, cut off.

Now, this was completely unprecedented and absolutely wrong. Never before had it been the case in our committee--not a single time that I recall--that a Senator, who had a question for a nominee, was cut off and blocked from asking it. Democrats were sitting in the hearing, waiting, hoping the chairman would change his mind, but we were shut down and we

were silenced, and Mrs. DeVos was protected from answering additional questions.

Third, after we finally got Betsy DeVos's ethics paperwork and had a number of questions about it, I requested another hearing where we could ask her those questions. That was a reasonable request. It was rejected.

Fourth, I had a number of questions for Betsy DeVos about missing information in her paperwork to the committee, and she has simply not provided the committee with the required financial disclosures.

We have a strong tradition in our committee of not moving to vote until the ranking member's questions are answered to satisfaction, and that tradition was ignored as Betsy DeVos was jammed through.

Then, finally, after a vote was pushed through the committee as quickly as possible, with questions about rules being bent or ignored to get that done, this nomination is now being rushed to this floor, and Republicans are attempting to jam it through here as well. It is pretty clear to me why. The more people learn about Betsy DeVos, the more they realize how wrong she is for our students and our schools. The more they hear about her background, the more they see her as one more way President Trump has broken his promise to ``drain the swamp.'' The more that comes out about her failed record, her tangled finances, conflicts of interest, and her lack of understanding or experience, the more the pressure increases on Republicans to put their allegiance to President Trump aside and stand with their constituents.

So I understand why some Republicans want to rush to get this through. I think it is absolutely wrong, and I know people are paying attention.

I want to make one final point on this. The chairman of our committee, the senior Senator from Tennessee, has brought up the idea of ``fairness'' when it comes to how we should approach this nomination--that he believes President Trump's nominees should be treated ``fairly.'' But my friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, is defining fairness in an interesting way. He is saying that, if Republicans didn't scrutinize President Obama's nominees and if they didn't take the time to do their due diligence, then, it would be unfair for Democrats to do that for President Trump's.

Well, I don't agree with that. I define fairness very differently. I believe the fair thing to do is what is fair for our constituents, that we work for them and should do right by them--not for a party, a nominee, or an administration. I believe the ``fair'' thing to do is to scrutinize these nominees, ask tough questions, and push for real answers, and that we should err on the side of deeper review and more robust questioning, rather than on the side of pointing to how Democrats and Republicans were treated in the past and ``fairness'' to nominees.

So I think it is clear that this nominee is being rushed through and corners are being cut.

I want to take some time now to talk about why I will be opposing her and urging all of our colleagues to do the same. I have three main reasons, and they are these: open questions about her tangled finances and potential conflicts of interest; strong concerns with her record, her lack of experience, and her clear lack of understanding of basic education issues; and the belief that her vision for education in America is deeply at odds with where parents, students, and families across the country want to go.

First of all, there is her tangled finances and potential conflicts of interest. I mentioned this a bit before. I have never seen a nominee with such tangled and opaque finances and who is refusing to shine anything close to an appropriate level of light on them.

Mrs. DeVos is a billionaire, and her inherited money is invested, along with other members of her family, in potentially hundreds of holding companies. Now, these holding companies often invest in other holding companies, and it is often very hard to untangle the individual companies in which she and her family actually own stakes. That is very relevant because we know her family has had significant education company holdings in the past, and they would be impacted by the decisions she made if confirmed.

Mrs. DeVos has told us that she will comply with all ethics rules should she be confirmed, but we still have questions, and she still has not fulfilled the committee requirements. We have questions about areas in Mrs. DeVos's ethics paperwork, where it is simply unclear if assets she continues to hold have potential conflicts of interest, and we have not been given the full answers.

We also want to know more from her about the family trusts she is maintaining positions in, and we have not been given the full answers.

Finally, as I mentioned before, I have raised a number of questions about Mrs. DeVos's failure to provide the required financial disclosure to the committee, and I have not been given full answers there either.

Secondly, I have very strong concerns with Betsy DeVos's record, her lack of experience, and her clear lack of understanding of basic education issues. I will take these one at a time.

Nominees for this position have generally been people who were committed to students, had a long career dedicated to education, and were focused on keeping public education strong for all students and all communities.

Betsy DeVos is very different.

First of all, she is first and foremost a Republican and conservative activist and megadonor. She was chair of the Michigan Republican Party, and she and her family have reportedly donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Republicans and conservative groups over the years.

Second of all, Betsy DeVos has spent her career and her fortune rigging the system to privatize and defund public education and hurt students in communities across our country. She has no experience with public schools, except through her work trying to tear them down.

She has committed herself for decades to an extreme ideological goal: to push students out of public schools and weaken public education, no matter what. She has spent millions of dollars in political donations, organizations, and super PACs to try and influence elections and policies to accomplish that goal.

It is not difficult to pick out where Betsy DeVos has focused. The signs are usually pretty easy to see. Where she has succeeded in getting her way, too often there are weaker public schools, worse outcomes, and fewer true opportunities for students.

In fact, the only people guaranteed to benefit when Betsy DeVos focuses her attention on a community or a State are the TV stations who see hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in money pour into attack ads against her political opponents.

But all people need to do is watch her hearing in our committee, and they can learn everything they need to know. This is a hearing that people across the country heard about--and for good reason. From local newspapers to local news to the ``Daily Show'' to ``The View'' and posts that went viral on social media, a whole lot of people heard Betsy DeVos herself for the first time in that hearing, and they were not impressed, to put it mildly. They watched as Democrats were blocked from asking questions in an unprecedented and disappointing attempt to protect this nominee. Then, on the questions we were allowed to ask, they saw a nominee who was clearly ill-informed and confused and gave a number of very concerning responses to serious and reasonable questions.

Let's go through what Betsy DeVos said to us. She refused to rule out slashing investments in or privatizing public schools--privatizing public schools.

She was confused that Federal law provides protections for students with disabilities.

She did not understand a basic issue in education policy--the debate surrounding whether students should be measured based on their proficiency or their growth.

She argued that guns needed to be allowed in schools across the country to ``protect from grizzlies.''

Even though she was willing to say President Trump's behavior towards women should be considered sexual assault, she would not commit to actually enforcing Federal laws protecting women and girls in our schools.

Her hearing was such a disaster, and it was so clear how little she understood about education issues, that a

number of people and groups who usually stay on the fence--or even sometimes stand with Mrs. DeVos on some issues--could not stand with her anymore.

Parents watching across the country saw a nominee who doesn't seem to care about or understand the education issues that impact them and their kids.

This takes me to my final point right now on Betsy DeVos. Her vision for education in America is one that is deeply at odds with where parents and students and families across the country want us to go. At a time when education and the opportunity it affords is more important than ever, she would take our country in the absolute wrong direction.

Eli Broad, a philanthropist and a strong charter school advocate, put it very well when he said: ``At the risk of stating the obvious, we must have a Secretary of Education who believes in public education and the need to keep public schools public.''

He went on to say: ``With Betsy DeVos at the helm of the U.S. Department of Education, much of the good work that has been accomplished to improve public education for all of America's children could be undone.''

I completely agree. Parents across the country want their government and their representatives fighting tooth and nail to improve public schools for all students in every community, while Betsy DeVos is committed to privatizing public schools and diverting public funds into taxpayer-funded vouchers that will leave far too many of our students behind.

I will add that I have many friends here in the Senate representing rural States that will be severely impacted by a Secretary of Education who implemented a radical agenda like this.

The bottom line is that strong public education is at the heart of true opportunity in America--something we all strive for and work for every day. People understand that. They see that Betsy DeVos's vision for this job is a direct attack on that core national value.

I truly believe this is what has motivated so many people around the country to stand up and speak out. They saw her disastrous hearing on the news and going viral on social media. It is clear that people across the country care so deeply about education and are so passionate about making sure we have strong public schools that seeing President Trump nominate someone like Betsy DeVos to run this Department just hits very close to home to a whole lot of people, and it is so deeply offensive to them. For parents of students in our public schools, it is very hard to see a billionaire--who never went to public school, who didn't send her children to public school--put in a position to work against your interests.

For teachers who work so hard every day in our public schools, it is hard to see your work denigrated.

For so many others in communities across the country, something about Betsy DeVos has lit a fire underneath them, as well, and they have all decided to do something about it. Senate office phone lines have been shut down over the past week with so many callers weighing in against Betsy DeVos. Every office is receiving tens of thousands of letters asking the Senate to reject her. Almost 40,000 have come in to my office alone. Millions of people have signed petitions with the same message. There have been rallies and protests across the country and millions more posting on Facebook, sharing it with their friends, tweeting, and doing everything they can to make their voices heard.

I wish to share just a sample of what I have heard from my constituents.

One teacher from Mukilteo School District, a 26-year veteran of Washington State public schools, said she has worked tirelessly at title I elementary schools to help children achieve their greatest potential. If DeVos is confirmed, this teacher is terrified her school will lose its funding.

Another constituent of mine from Federal Way tells me she has grandchildren in Michigan who are at risk because of Mrs. DeVos's reckless policies there, and she does not want to see this disaster repeated throughout our country.

The regional superintendent in Wenatchee, a small city in North Central Washington, told me that he and his colleagues didn't even know where to begin laying out their concerns about Betsy DeVos.

A fourth grade teacher from Spokane, WA, reached out to tell me she watched the confirmation hearing and was shocked at how little Betsy DeVos seemed to understand about the issues she faces every single day in her classroom.

Those are just a few examples. There are thousands upon thousands in every community, in every State, and it is having an impact. Every Member of this body has felt the pressure. Already, two Republicans have made it clear that the voices of their constituents have pushed them into the ``no'' column, and I know there are other Republicans who take seriously what their constituents have to say and who have serious concerns about putting partisanship ahead of their States' and their constituents' interests.

I don't like that we are rushing into this without the information we need. But if the majority is going to jam this through, we are going to do everything we can to have a robust debate over the next few days.

So I am here to say: I am proud to stand with parents; I am proud to stand with students; I am proud to stand with teachers; I am proud to stand with those in my home State of Washington and across the country who support strong public schools and true education opportunities for all; and I am proud to stand up and fight back against Betsy DeVos.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my many colleagues who have been here this morning to talk about this critical appointment, the Secretary of Education, who oversees all of our K-12 and higher education in this country. It is a principle so many of us care about. I have heard passionately from so many of my colleagues here today about what public education means to them, what it means to our country, what it means to our

democracy, and what it means for kids of all different backgrounds to come together in a public education system that is guaranteed by this country. The dangerous views of this nominee, Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education--who has said repeatedly she will not protect the investments we have made, but rather has the philosophy that we should take money away from our public education students and put it to vouchers for private schools--will undermine our whole entire democracy. It is why we have heard across this country from so many parents and teachers and students and grandparents and business leaders who are urging Senators from every State to vote no on this nominee.

Certainly we can do better. Certainly the last election was not about sending our K-12 and higher education system into chaos, certainly not at a time when one of the most important things people care about is the stability of our economy, the ability to get a job. Fundamental to that is being able to know you can go to a school, no matter where you are or where you live or how much money you have, and get a good education. We need to keep that, and no one wants to send that system into chaos at this time. That is why people are speaking out.

As I mentioned earlier today, I have heard from thousands of people in my home State who have contacted me with concerns about this nomination of Betsy DeVos to be the Secretary of Education. An overwhelming number of them are people who have spent time in our classrooms with our kids; that is, our teachers. Many of them have spent decades in public schools dedicating their own lives to helping our children learn in school districts of all different sizes, and those teachers deserve a voice today.

So I thought I would take a few minutes to tell my colleagues a little bit about what I am hearing and why they believe we should oppose Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

I heard from a teacher from my hometown of Bothell, WA, who wrote me and said that public education is the basis of equality for all students in this country. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of having educated citizens and the need to provide it for all of our children. Education for profit doesn't work. And we need to do what we can to make sure we fight privatization of our education system.

I heard from another woman in central Washington who works with low- income students. As she noted, taking title I funding and putting it toward private schools will be devastating to small communities. She is echoing what I am hearing from rural communities across my State and what I am hearing from many other Senators who have talked to me about what they are hearing from rural communities in their States.

From Seattle, I heard from an educator who told me that she wanted to see fellow educators--or at least people with some experience in our public schools--running this Department. That is why she opposes Betsy DeVos--no experience.

A retired teacher from Mercer Island asked me to oppose this nomination. She has spent 37 years teaching children in our public schools.

On the other side of my State, in Spokane, a 28-year teaching veteran says strengthening public education is the best thing we can do for schools like hers that are located in a high-poverty district.

In Prosser, a public school teacher and a former lawyer told me that he is committed to both the public education system and the Constitution. He called the nomination of Betsy DeVos an affront to both, given what he called her track record of undermining public schools and the need for separation of church and State. He said that only through access to high-quality learning opportunities can we remain free.

I heard from a teacher--also a parent--from Issaquah who said: ``This nomination is very disappointing.'' In order to ``make America great again'' she said we need fully funded schools for teachers who have the time and the resources to prepare students to be lifelong learners.

In Monroe, WA, a teacher for 35 years says she is afraid of what DeVos could mean to public education.

From Camano Island, a retired teacher of 31 years said all children deserve the same access to high-quality public education.

A teacher from Vancouver School District tells me that our public schools deserve better than someone who has called them a dead end, adding that the Secretary of Education should be an advocate for the principle of free, quality, and equal education. She worries that if we don't defend public education from the views of Mrs. DeVos, then we have failed the future of this democracy.

I received a succinct message from Dave in Seattle, in all caps, where he writes: ``ABSOLUTELY NO.''

Those are just a few of the many, many people I am hearing from. There are literally thousands and thousands more. I know that is true from all of our colleagues here. Why? Because people are making their voices heard loud and clear. They want a Secretary of Education with real experience in public schools who is truly dedicated to strengthening our public education system across the country.

I am proud to stand with my constituents and the public school educators from Washington State to urge our colleagues to vote no on Betsy DeVos.

We have had a good number of Senators here today to talk about this. I know we are going to be spending Monday, Monday afternoon, into the night Monday, Tuesday morning hearing from many other Senators and having a very robust debate.

I hope that all of those who are listening, and everyone in this country, stands up at this time and thinks about what public education means to this freedom and this democracy, and I know they will, as they have been continuing to let their voices be heard by their elected representatives.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Anne Ordway, a fellow in my Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, I would like to address some of the very serious concerns posed by the nomination of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State, along with several of President Trump's Cabinet nominees. But first I do want to briefly address what unfolded this weekend at airports across the country following President Trump's appalling and un-American ban on Muslims and refugees from entering the country.

With the stroke of a pen, the Trump administration caused chaos and heartbreak for hundreds of families, many of whom are our friends, our neighbors, and our coworkers. On Saturday night, Members of this Congress, including myself, were denied answers to even the most basic questions from border enforcement officers, questions that affect the people whom we represent.

While I am glad that a Federal judge quickly issued a stay and that the Department of Homeland Security has since provided further guidance on the Executive orders, many questions remain and too many lives hang in the balance.

I am going to keep fighting as hard as I can, and I encourage everyone who is listening and watching right now to continue making their voices heard because President Trump is already governing the way he campaigned, by dividing our country and pushing extreme policies that hurt families across the country. Again, we saw this so clearly in the Executive orders he signed this past week.

But it is also something we have seen in the Cabinet nominees he has put forward since his election. As we all remember, President Trump said that he was going to drain the swamp, but he seems to think the way to do that is by filling it with even bigger swamp creatures. He said he was going to stand with the working class and fight Wall Street and Big Business. But he nominated a Cabinet full of Wall Street bankers and billionaires and millionaires and friends and insiders and campaign contributors.

As many of my colleagues have discussed today, one clear example of President Trump's broken promise to drain the swamp is the nomination of Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil for Secretary of State. This is a nominee who is not only a known friend and business partner to Russia, but someone who publicly spoke against sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine and Crimea.

People in my home State of Washington have significant concerns about who he plans to work for, and so do I--concerns that Mr. Tillerson failed to adequately address in his hearing. I have said before that reports of Russia meddling in our election should disturb and outrage every American, Democrat, Republican, or Independent who believes that the integrity of our elections is fundamental to the strength of this democracy. That is why it is so critical we have a Secretary of State who will stand up to protect those values.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about women's health. But before I do, I want to address an issue that my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, just talked about: President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

This is a nominee the Democrats have significant numbers of concerns about. In her hearing, where Republicans blocked us from asking questions in an unprecedented and disappointing way, Mrs. DeVos gave what has been widely seen as ill-informed, confused, and concerning responses to serious and reasonable questions. She refused to rule out slashing investments in or privatizing our public schools. She was confused that Federal law provides protections for students with disabilities. She actually argued that guns needed to be allowed in our schools across the country to ``protect from grizzlies.'' And even though she was willing to say that President Trump's behavior toward women should be considered sexual assault, she would not commit to actually enforcing Federal laws protecting women and girls in our schools. So that nominee is absolutely not ``in the mainstream.'' She is far from it.

When it comes to policy, many of us have serious concerns about whether she would stand with students and parents who care about strong public education for all or with President Trump and other millionaires and billionaires like them. And that does not even touch on the serious questions that remain regarding her ethics paperwork, her tangled finances, and her potential conflicts of interest--questions that Democrats have continued to demand answers to.

After her first hearing, Mrs. DeVos announced that she would have to divest 102 separate assets, many of them investments in education companies that Democrats were unable to ask her about. So Democrats have requested another hearing to get information on those issues and to do our job scrutinizing this nominee. I am hopeful that my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, does allow that to happen because here in the Senate, we owe it to our constituents to scrutinize these nominees. That is our job. It is not our job to protect them from tough questions; it is our job to ask them tough questions.

While I suspect that my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, supports Mrs. DeVos and I respect that he is the chairman of the committee, I am hopeful that he does not simply jam this nominee through without allowing us to do our job.

Mr. President, having said that, I am on the floor today with a number of my colleagues who will be joining me throughout the time here today in the Senate to stand up and to be a voice for women.

I was so proud to march this weekend with millions of women and men in a

clear rejection of the hate and division that President Trump campaigned on and in strong support of every woman's rights.

This past weekend, we also recognized the anniversary of the historic ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that has empowered women and expanded economic opportunity and security for families for more than four decades.

I have heard story after story from Washington State and across the country about what Roe v. Wade means for women. It means being able to plan your family, to be able to pursue your dreams and give back to your community. But perhaps most importantly, the decision in Roe v. Wade sent a clear message that access to abortion--a woman's right to make the most personal of all decisions herself--is fundamental to her freedom and her ability to chart her own path.

Now we have already seen extreme politicians in State after State do everything they can to undermine access to abortion. But, today, the constitutionally protected rights these women have had now for 44 years are, unfortunately, more at risk than ever as a result of President Trump's extreme and deeply harmful agenda.

He has promised to pick Supreme Court nominees whose beliefs about women's reproductive rights simply could not be more backwards or damaging. Unfortunately, in what looks like a sign of things to come, the President yesterday signed an Executive order limiting access to safe abortion and other family planning services on women worldwide by reinstituting the global gag rule.

I want to be very clear. If the President continues down this path, women will be hurt. Their lives will be put at risk, and the same goes for women around the world. So I am very concerned, and I am angry.

But if Saturday's march proved anything, it proved that women and men across this country are more motivated than ever, and, frankly, so am

For those who have a preexisting condition, I vote no.

Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate tonight with my colleagues to share the stories of families in our home States whose lives are now healthier or have even been saved because of the Affordable Care Act, including those who depend on Medicare and Medicaid, people whose voices now more than ever need to be heard here in Washington, DC.

But first, I am going to make clear how the Republican plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act will rip apart our health care system. And after what came to light late last week, I also come to the Senate floor tonight to stand with the millions of women, men, and families nationwide who are rightly outraged that this reckless and harmful effort also includes a plan to defund Planned Parenthood.

For 7 years now, congressional Republicans have made all kinds of empty promises about how undermining families' health care isn't going to hurt anyone; that if the Republican-controlled Congress privatizes Medicare, cuts Medicaid, defunds the Nation's largest provider of women's health care, and guts public health and prevention programs, somehow families are going to be magically better off.

Well, let me be clear. Ripping apart our healthcare system with no plan to replace it will create chaos. This is a view shared not just by the Senate Democrats who are here tonight but by independent experts. In fact, it is a view shared increasingly by State Republican leaders across the country, including some Senators and Congressmen.

Last Friday, just to cite one example, the Republican Governor of Arizona urged his party in Congress not to rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act, saying: ``I don't want to see any Arizonan have the rug pulled out from underneath them in terms of changing this law.''

Mr. President, if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, it is women and kids and seniors and patients with serious illness and people with disabilities who will bear the burden. Premiums will skyrocket. Out-of-pocket prescription drug costs will rise, and overall health care costs will increase. It is a perfect storm to make America sick again and is absolutely the wrong direction for our families and our economy.

Mr. President, I have to say, I have never seen a start like this to a Congress, where the majority is jamming legislation through on a fast-tracked basis with no hearings for public debate or actual legislative text. As a former chairman of the Budget Committee, I have to say I have never seen such an abuse of the budget process.

What many of my Republican colleagues are doing right now is unprecedented, but it gets worse. As if all of their harmful plans weren't enough, House Republicans announced last week after meeting with Vice President-Elect Pence that they plan to defund Planned Parenthood in this budget. In other words, congressional Republicans are not only trying to undo a law that protects women from being charged more than men for their health care and ensures birth control is covered without a copay, they are also going after the Nation's largest provider of women's health care as well. They are doubling down on their shameful and tired obsession with undermining women's access to health care, and it will have devastating consequences for women's health and rights and economic security.

So I am here with a very clear message: not on my watch. I, along with my colleagues and women and men across the country, have fought this fight before in 2011, in 2013, in 2016, and we will fight it in 2017. We know what Planned Parenthood means to millions of patients-- men and women--who have trusted it for over 100 years for cancer, STD screenings, for HIV tests, birth control, and so much more. We are not going to let extreme politics get in the way of their health care. So if Republicans think causing chaos in our health care system, heightening economic uncertainty, attacking women's health and rights, and burdening our seniors and their families with higher health care costs somehow makes our country ``greater,'' they are obviously not listening to millions of families who did not vote in November for higher premiums or a health care system thrown into chaos.

I have gone back to my home State of Washington, and I have heard from moms and dads and grandparents who are finally experiencing some stability and are able to cover their families with quality, affordable health insurance--many for the very first time. There was a mom from Bellingham, WA, who sent me a story about how the Affordable Care Act helped save her son's life when doctors found a life-threatening blood clot during a routine physical. She was not only able to afford the preventive check-up that found the clot because of her new coverage, but her son's treatment was then covered by the Affordable Care Act through the Medicaid expansion.

I heard from a small business owner from Spokane, WA, who told my office about his wife, a retired nurse of 62, and how she was able to get a better plan thanks to the Affordable Care Act. He told us what this meant for his wife and his family. You bet he gets upset when he hears Republicans say the law hasn't worked for anyone or that they want to privatize Medicare by turning it into a voucher program.

Finally, I want to share the story of Kalon, who is a software engineer from Seattle, and his son Bryce. Kalon reached out to my office right after the November election. Two years ago, his son Bryce was kayaking in West Virginia and he injured his back. The pain in Bryce's back didn't go away for months. What doctors first suspected as a stubborn muscle strain ended up to be a rare type of bone cancer called Ewing's sarcoma, a horrible illness. Thankfully, his family had health insurance.

Today Bryce is getting excellent treatment at Seattle Children's Hospital, where doctors have been able to ease some of his pain, and he is responding well now to chemotherapy. Bryce, who is now almost 18, will need care--expensive care--for many years to come, and Bryce's dad, Kalon, is greatly concerned that, if the Affordable Care Act goes away, the preexisting condition protection that we fought so hard for in this law will go away, and his son will not be able to afford health care or get the benefits or treatments he is going to need in the future.

Those are just three stories, but they represent many of the more than 600,000 people in my State who are part of the 30 million Americans across the country who are benefitting from this law today. Of course, there is more we need to do. I said it before. The work didn't end when the Affordable Care Act was passed--far from it. Democrats are ready. We have always been ready to work together to make health care more affordable and more successful and better for our families.

I hope Republicans reverse course right now and agree to work with us on improvements to the health care system. That is the path to take if they are truly serious about helping families. If they don't, and if they continue rushing to take away families' health care with no alternative plan, they will be fully responsible, and they certainly will be held accountable. The real impact will be on millions of families across our country, families like the ones I just talked about and those you are going to hear about throughout tonight--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who do not want to see this law repealed and want us to work together to improve it instead.

I hope Republicans are listening. I urge them to make the right choice.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an exceptional public servant, Dr. Beth Bell, who is retiring from the directorship of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, NCEZID, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC.

Dr. Bell began her career with the CDC in 1992, in my home State, as an epidemic intelligence service, EIS, officer assigned to the Washington State Department of Health, where she led a seminal investigation into E. coli infections. After completing her EIS training, she moved to CDC Atlanta to join the hepatitis branch in the division of viral and rickettsial diseases, later serving as chief of the epidemiology branch in the division of viral hepatitis. During her 13 years working on viral hepatitis, she led important efforts to better understand the epidemiology of hepatitis A in the United States, applying this knowledge to the development and implementation of hepatitis A vaccination policy. These extraordinary efforts contributed to reductions in national hepatitis A incidence of more than 95 percent. She also worked on implementation of global infant hepatitis A and B vaccination programs during the early days of the Global Alliance for Vaccines Initiative. She later served as the acting deputy director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases during the H1N1 influenza pandemic before being appointed director of the newly formed Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, NCEZID, in 2010.

In that role, Dr. Bell has been at the forefront of the agency's critical and complex emergency response efforts. In 2014-2015, Dr. Bell was called upon to lead the center through the largest Ebola epidemic in history. After reaching a near breaking point where, according to CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, it was ``spiraling out of control'' in late 2014, the epidemic was contained through the aggressive use of proven outbreak-control measures such as patient isolation and contact tracing.

In 2016, Dr. Bell found herself leading the response to yet another pandemic as Zika exploded in South and Central America, Puerto Rico and the Caribbean, and Florida. The impact of Zika on women and children through microcephaly, a life-threatening condition in which children are born with unusually small heads, was heartbreaking and historically significant--never before has a mosquito-borne infection caused such devastating birth defects. CDC's early alert--under Dr. Bell's leadership--to people traveling to countries with Zika likely prevented an untold number of infections among women of child-bearing age; and, continuing through her very last day of Federal service, Dr. Bell was critical in CDC's support for U.S. territories, cities, and States--as well as other impacted countries.

In addition, Dr. Bell oversaw the Center's response to chikungunya spreading throughout the Americas in 2013-14, the second-largest outbreak of West Nile virus disease in the United States in 2012, and hundreds of outbreaks of foodborne disease. Her leadership of the Center during each of these outbreaks has been remarkable, and all Americans have benefited from her steady hand and commitment to service. Dr. Bell also held leadership roles during CDC responses to the 2001 anthrax attacks and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Her outstanding leadership, scientific judgment, and expertise have been critical to the success of the Center in these endeavors.

In 2012, she was called upon to lead the Center's response to the fungal meningitis outbreak associated with contaminated steroid products--America's largest healthcare related outbreak ever. The New York Times called it ``one of the most shocking outbreaks in the annals of American medicine.'' Following her testimony before the Senate HELP committee, Dr. Bell was lauded for CDC's prompt and decisive role in the response, which likely prevented many hundreds of infections and deaths among patients who would otherwise have received injections of fungus-contaminated medication.

She also directed two new cross-cutting infectious disease initiatives that have already shown benefits to the field of public health: the Advanced Molecular Detection, AMD, and the Antibiotic Resistance Solutions Initiatives, Together, these initiatives are helping scientists better understand how infections spread and transforming our national capacity to detect, respond, contain, and prevent drug-resistant infections. Because of Dr. Bell's leadership, our Nation will be better equipped to address the growing threat of antibiotic resistance, as well as a myriad of other public health threats.

Dr. Bell exemplifies steadfastness and courage in protecting the Nation's health. She has demonstrated an unwavering level of dedication and passion for public health at all levels, recognizing the important roles of State, local, county, tribal, and Federal partners.

Dr. Bell has been a true public servant. I ask that we honor Dr. Bell today for her invaluable leadership to the CDC and America's public health efforts.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his passionate remarks. That rings so true to all of us. I thank him for all his work on the DREAM Act and making sure young people who are raised in this country have the opportunities that all of us do.

As we count down the final days before funding for the Department of Homeland Security potentially runs out, I want to take a few minutes to talk about how we got to this point. As this deadline gets closer and closer, I have been continually reminded we have been down this road many times before. This is a manufactured crisis, and it is no different than so many others we have faced in Congress over the last few years. What is happening in Congress right now is not a debate over government spending policies or priorities. That much is certain. This is not a debate over how the Department of Homeland Security should function. It is certainly not a debate about our national security. This is, pure and simple, a political fight Republicans are having with themselves across the two Chambers of the Capitol and across the different factions of the Republican Party. That is not the case for every Republican in the Senate. Several Members have said clearly we should fund the Department of Homeland Security without any strings attached.

The fact remains some Republicans are making it clear they are willing to hold hostage the basic operation of our government over rightwing politics and nothing else. While this process might seem complicated, it is actually very simple.

Democrats--along with national security experts, law enforcement experts, State and local officials, and three former Secretaries of Homeland Security, including two Republicans--want to do nothing more than fund the Department of Homeland Security cleanly, no strings or unrelated political amendments attached. But because they are so angry about the President's actions months ago to improve our country's immigration laws, some Republicans are demanding to pass a bill that will tear apart families who are working hard to make it in America, put our security at risk, and seriously threaten all of the work we have done recently--including the budget agreement I reached with Congressman Paul Ryan--to keep our government functioning. That is not only bad policy. It doesn't make any sense.

The bill passed by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans would be devastating to families across the country, and it would make day-to- day operations for the Department of Homeland Security needlessly difficult. For example, TSA agents who work to keep our airports safe and secure would be forced to work without pay. These men and women should be worrying about doing their jobs, not knowing whether they are going to be able to pay their bills and put food on their table. That is not what we want them worrying about. But because of political pressure from the extreme anti-immigration, rightwing party, that is what Republican leaders in the House are demanding.

This looming shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security has become to them nothing more than collateral damage. The national impacts of not funding the Department of Homeland Security have been discussed for weeks now. This would also cause problems all the way down to individual fire departments in our local communities.

Right now the Whatcom County Fire District 18 located in my State-- close to the northern Canadian border and it is about an hour north of Seattle--is applying for an assistance to firefighters grant which is funded through the Department of Homeland Security. This is a very rural fire district. They only have one paid employee--it happens to be the fire chief--along with a volunteer firefighting force of 16 and a volunteer EMT force of 6.

They have applied for a very small $24,000 Federal grant to replace their heavily used and outdated equipment--everything from boots and helmets to gloves and fire hoods--that are now over 11 years old. I have been working with them to help them get that needed equipment which protects those volunteers who put their lives on the line to save others, but if Congress does not fund this department those grants are at risk. That is unacceptable. It is proof this political mess the Republicans have made is not a hypothetical problem. It is something that will have real impacts on every one of our communities across the country.

My colleagues are not going to give in and let the Republicans play politics with the Department of Homeland Security. For years now we have seen that strategy doesn't work. It holds us back. I am encouraged the majority leader has said they are willing to bring up a clean Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill to the floor. We need the same commitment from the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Time is running out. The country is waiting. We need to fund Homeland Security.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss a piece of legislation I am introducing today--legislation I have written to improve access to health care for our Nation's veterans, because there is no more solemn promise we make as a nation than our commitment to care for the men and women who serve in the U.S. military. These men and women put life and limb on the line to protect our country, to protect our freedoms, and to protect our way of life. In return, we as a country make a promise to care for them, no matter what. Just

as important, we make a promise to care for their families--their wives, their husbands, and their children.

Many of the young men and women who serve in the military enter at a very young age, often before they have children of their own. Like so many other Americans, they have big plans for their lives after their service. Many of them plan to buy a house, go back to school, and eventually have a family.

But in a time when our military conflicts involve roadside bombs, makeshift explosives, and life-threatening danger around every corner, many of our service men and women are coming home with injuries that leave them unable to start their own family.

In fact, military data shows that over the last decade, thousands of servicemembers have suffered injuries that make it nearly impossible to have children. We should be doing everything we can, with the best science and health services available, to help our veterans and their loved ones have children, despite their injuries.

But instead, outdated policies at the Pentagon and the VA are making it harder, not easier, for seriously injured veterans to have children. That is because when severely injured service men and women and veterans seek reproductive health services, such as in vitro fertilization, their military and VA health insurance simply doesn't cover this often very expensive procedure. As a result, the only option for these heroes and their partners to have children is to pay out of their own pocket, often tens of thousands of dollars, to try and conceive.

So today I am introducing The Women Veterans and Families Health Services Act of 2015.

It would basically do two things: First, it would expand the reproductive health services available for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families.

Second, it would finally end the ban on in vitro fertilization services at the VA. I have introduced similar legislation in the past, and, as I have done before, I am going to share the story of SSG Matt Keil and his wife Tracy.

Staff Sergeant Keil was shot in the neck while on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq, on February 24, 2007, just 6 weeks after he married the love of his life, Tracy. The bullet went through the right side of his neck, hit a major artery, went through his spinal cord, and exited through his left shoulder blade. He instantly became a quadriplegic. Doctors informed Tracy her husband would be on a ventilator for the rest of his life, and would never move his arms or legs.

Staff Sergeant Keil eventually defied the odds and found himself off the ventilator and beginning a very long journey of physical rehabilitation.

Around that same time, Tracy and her husband started exploring the possibilities of starting a family together. Having children was all they could talk about, once they adjusted to their ``new normal.''

With Staff Sergeant Keil's injuries preventing him from having children naturally, Tracy turned to the VA for assistance and began to explore her options for fertility treatments. Feeling defeated after being told the VA had no such programs in place for her situation, Tracy and Staff Sergeant Keil decided to pursue IVF through the private sector.

While they were anxious to begin this chapter of their lives, they were confronted with the reality that TRICARE did not cover any of the costs related to Tracy's treatments, because she did not have fertility issues beyond her husband's injury.

Left with no further options, the Keils decided this was important enough to them that they were willing to pay out of pocket to the tune of almost $32,000 per round of treatment. Thankfully, on November 9, 2010, just after their first round of IVF, Staff Sergeant Keil and Tracy welcomed their twins Matthew and Faith into the world.

Tracy told me:

The day we had our children something changed in both of

us. This is exactly what we had always wanted, our dreams had

arrived.

The VA, Congress and the American People have said

countless times that they want to do everything they can to

support my husband or make him feel whole again and this is

your chance.

Having a family is exactly what we needed to feel whole

again. Please help us make these changes so that other

families can share in this experience.

Tracy does not want to see other servicemembers and their families go through the struggle she and Matt did because of outdated policies that don't reflect modern medicine.

While the Keils' story may be unique, they are not alone. Thousands of servicemembers and veterans have returned from their service hoping to have children, only to find that, despite their sacrifices for our country, they are unable to obtain the kind of assistance they need. Some have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector, like Tracy and her husband did, to get the advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family. Others have, sadly, watched their marriages dissolve because of the stress of infertility, in combination with the stress of readjusting to a new life after a severe injury, driving their relationship to a breaking point.

Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves so much more. They deserve our support to help them start a family, and our support to raise that family.

This bill is so important because access to childcare is one of the most significant barriers to care for women veterans and younger veterans. This bill makes permanent the highly successful pilot program in VA and expands it across the country. I am very hopeful today that both Republicans and Democrats can come together to support this bill.

Just a few years ago we were able to pass similar legislation through the Senate, but, unfortunately, it didn't pass the House in time to get the President's signature and become signed into law. This time has to be different, because this bill is about nothing more than giving veterans who have sacrificed so much the option to fulfill the dream of starting a family. It is a bill that shows when we tell our servicemembers deploying to a war zone that we have their back, we mean it. It is a bill that recognizes the men and women who are harmed in the service of this country have bright, full lives ahead of them.