Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life and legacy of Cecilia Zarate-Laun. Her passing leaves Wisconsin without one of its greatest advocates for justice and peace, and I am proud to pay tribute to this extraordinary woman.

Cecilia was born in Santander Province of Colombia. She was the oldest of five sisters and attended school in Bucaramanga and at the National University of Colombia. Following the completion of her studies, she took a position as a professor of nutrition, a job that led to her arrival in Madison, WI for graduate school.

Cecilia received a scholarship to attend the University of Wisconsin- Madison for her master's degree. While studying in Madison, Cecilia met her beloved husband, Jack. After completion of graduate school, Cecilia returned to Colombia, working as a nutritionist for the Colombian Government's National Nutrition Plan. In 1976, she married John ``Jack'' Laun and the following year returned to the United States.

In 1987, extended civil war in Colombia inspired Cecilia and Jack to cofound the Colombia Support Network CSN, a grassroots human rights organization based in Madison, WI. Cecilia's work with CSN was her pride and joy. As CSN program director, Cecilia worked tirelessly to connect Americans to Colombian communities affected by the war. She was inspired to help establish new chapters of CSN in locations ranging from the University of Wisconsin-Madison to central New York, connecting these communities through a ``sister cities'' program to rural Colombian communities facing violence during the Colombian civil war.

She led over 50 delegations of citizens, journalists, and public officials to Colombia so they could fully understand the effect of the civil war. After working with Cecilia and CSN to establish a sister community relationship between Dane County, WI and San Jose de Apartado, Colombia, I had the honor to accompany her on one of those delegations in 1993.

In addition to her public service through CSN, Cecilia was a member of the national board of directors of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. She was also a member of the Latin American Subcommittee of the American Friends Service Committee--Quakers--served on the board of directors of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, and, in October of 2015, received the Global Citizen of the Year Award from the Madison Chapter of the United Nations Association.

Regardless of the cause or project, Cecilia approached everything with unparalleled strength, courage, and a sense of selflessness. She approached her battle with cancer with the same attitude. Over the last 4 years, while Cecilia fought against her disease, she continued to fight for others. Her strength was truly amazing.

While Cecilia is greatly missed by her family, friends, and community, she leaves behind a legacy for future leaders to emulate. She will always be remembered for her courageous effort to fight for those who could not fight for themselves.

Cecilia had an incredibly big heart and an unwavering commitment to others. I am fortunate to have been able to call her my friend.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 175th anniversary of Case IH Agriculture and Farm Equipment and to recognize its outstanding commitment and contribution to Wisconsin's economy.

Mr. Jerome Increase Case, born in 1819 in western New York, was well acquainted with agricultural equipment even as a young man. Case provided threshing services to local farms and realized at the young age of 16 that farming techniques needed improvement after witnessing a demonstration of an early threshing machine that could thresh more in one hour than a man could all day. After settling in Wisconsin in the early 1840s, Case build his first thresher-separator in Rochester, WI, but when the town refused to let Case draw electricity from the local mill, Case loaded his invention into a wagon and headed to Racine, WI.

The J.I. Case Threshing Machine Company was founded in 1842 at a time when Racine's tallest building was the local grain elevator. By 1848, the company was Racine's largest employer. As a true pioneer in the field of agricultural equipment, J.I. Case manufactured the first steam engine tractor in 1869. The Old No. 1 is still on display at the Smithsonian Institution. Although it was mounted on wheels, it was still drawn by horses. The first self-propelled steam engine followed in 1876.

Case machines were first transported beyond U.S. borders in 1871 and won first prize at the Paris Exposition. By 1886, Case became the largest producer of steam engines in the world.

During World War II, the company's plants manufactured aircraft wings, aircraft towing tractors, artillery shells, and doors for the Sherman tank. In fact, the company's 1942 centennial was celebrated 7 years late because of the war.

In 1985, Case IH became the Nation's second-largest farm equipment manufacturer after J.I. Case purchased the agricultural division of International Harvest and the business legacies of two major equipment companies were united under one company. In 1999, Case IH merged with New Holland Ag to form a parent company, CNH Global, although equipment was still produced under the Case IH name. Since the merger, Case has remained at the forefront of the farming industry, seeking new ways to adapt to the changing trends. In 2010, Case IH created the world's first tractor to meet the tier 4 emissions requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency. Case IH Agriculture and Farm Equipment currently works with more than 4,900 dealers and distributes products in more than 160 countries.

As one of Wisconsin's founding manufacturers, Case has been a major contributor to Wisconsin's farming legacy. Over the past 175 years, this proud company has provided jobs for countless Wisconsin families and economic growth for the State I am so proud to represent.

I offer my sincere congratulations to Case leadership and workers as they celebrate 175 years of business, and I wish them the very best for many more years of success in Racine and around the world.

Mr. President, instead of focusing on bipartisan reforms to improve access to healthcare for the American people, Republicans are again pursuing divisive policies that jeopardize women's health and put politics, politicians, and the government between a woman and her doctor. This measure that we are debating this afternoon attacks a critical healthcare program known as the Title X Family Planning Program.

The Title X Family Planning Program provides basic healthcare, like cancer screenings, contraception, and HIV testing to more than 4 million women and men. This politically motivated provision that we have before us today would allow States to discriminate against trusted health providers like Planned Parenthood. In eight counties in Wisconsin, Planned Parenthood is the only health clinic that provides the full range of publicly funded contraceptive services.

I met with Laurie from Bristol, WI, who told me that as a young teacher, she went to Planned Parenthood and they discovered that she had cysts and tumors in her ovaries. The providers immediately helped her get the care she needed. She had quick surgery and was able to recover, which allowed her to eventually have a family.

Republicans are playing doctor and telling women they can't access basic primary and preventive healthcare services at the health center of their choice. This would cut off access to care for millions of men and women, prohibiting access to high-quality, preventive services just because of the sign on the door. They would prevent women like Laurie from accessing lifesaving services when they need it the most.

We have already seen too many States enact record numbers of laws and regulations that restrict a woman's access to reproductive health services and the freedom to make her own healthcare decisions. In my home State of Wisconsin, our Republican Governor has signed a number of laws that target healthcare providers and simply have left far too many Wisconsin women out in the cold. He signed a law that forces women to undergo unnecessary and invasive medical procedures, and he has imposed unreasonable requirements on the doctors that deliver care to women. He has worked to close health clinics, including several Planned Parenthood clinics. But he hasn't stopped there. He also signed two laws that would effectively defund Wisconsin Planned Parenthood, which could leave thousands of Wisconsinites without access to critical health services.

The threat in Wisconsin and in States across the country--and right here in Congress--is clear: Politicians across the country are playing doctor, and this is a dangerous game for women and their families. The millions of Americans who rely on title X for primary care and their trusted providers are being held hostage. They are being used as a political punching bag by congressional Republicans. Their agenda is to attack women's health.

Women's access to comprehensive healthcare--the healthcare they need and deserve--should never depend upon their ZIP Code. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous measure and to protect title X programs for all of our families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor John Medinger on his retirement from Federal and public service. John has dedicated his career to improving the lives of individuals in the La Crosse community and across the State of Wisconsin, most recently as my southwestern Wisconsin regional representative. I am so pleased to celebrate John's legacy of dedicated public service and positive social change.

John was born in La Crosse, WI, and has been the community's strongest advocate ever since. He graduated from Aquinas High School and went on to receive his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

John's public service career began in 1972 with his work at Volunteers in Service to America, VISTA to combat poverty and racial inequality in Virginia. During his time in Virginia, John developed a passion for social justice that guided his future work as a public servant.

In 1976, John was elected to represent the 95th district in the Wisconsin State Legislature, where he ultimately served as assistant majority leader of the assembly. As a State representative, John became known for fighting domestic abuse. He authored one of Wisconsin's first domestic violence bills to create safe houses for victims and worked with Wisconsin police departments to make combating domestic abuse a top priority. He was also known for his early leadership on gay rights issues, fighting for marriage equality, and proudly participating in La Crosse's first PRIDE Fest.

I have known few public servants as dedicated as John in serving the people he represents. He embodies the true meaning of public service. No request was too small for his devoted attention. In fact, John was famous for coming to work on Monday after a weekend of local events with a fist full of paper scraps covered in scribbled notes from people he ran into, describing their concerns. John remembered every one of those concerns as he advocated for his constituents on the assembly floor. During a time of increasing partisanship, he had a knack for bringing opposing sides together in the interest of bettering the lives of Wisconsinites.

After 16 years, John left the State legislature. Although he claimed his departure was to get away from long legislative speeches, it was clear he wanted to be closer to the people he cared so much about in his hometown. Unable to stay out of public service for long, John announced his campaign for mayor in the Spring of 1997. As mayor of La Crosse, John adhered to his fundamental belief that he was there to serve all residents of La Crosse--not just those who supported him. Guided by his VISTA experience, John created the city's first anti- racism task force and encouraged people of color to run for local office. He is especially well-loved by the African-American and Hmong communities in La Crosse.

Three U.S. Senators, myself included, had the privilege of having John represent us in southwestern Wisconsin. Although times have changed and technology has advanced--much to John's chagrin--his knowledge, dedication, and connections are irreplaceable.

John has taught those lucky enough to have worked with him what it means to be a true representative of the people: take your work--but not yourself--seriously, don't hold a grudge, keep your word, and, above all, put constituents first. I will miss John a great deal, but I am delighted to wish him and his wife Dee the very best in this new chapter.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of my friend Edward ``Ed'' Garvey. Ed spent his lifetime fighting for equality, justice, and fairness for all Wisconsinites and Americans and did so with passion, joy, and a great Irish wit.

Ed was born in 1940 in Burlington, WI, to Edward and June Garvey. His legacy of leadership and service began at a young age. He emerged as a young leader in Wisconsin through Badger Boys State and as student body president at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Ed's lifelong commitment to social justice and racial equality began in college. As a member of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Council, Ed traveled to the South to join the African American civil rights movement. Following 2 years serving our Nation in the Army, Ed attended the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 1969.

Thereafter, Ed joined the Minneapolis law firm Lindquist and Vennum and worked for the newly formed National Football League Players Association--NFLPA. For 12 years, Ed fought for labor rights for NFL players and workers, first as the NFLPA's attorney and eventually as its first executive director. He won greater freedom and economic fairness for the players, securing a fair share of profits for players who at the time needed second jobs to supplement their $35,000 salaries.

Ed was never shy or deferential. He spoke truth to power and challenged the system anywhere he found an injustice. He loved a good fight, and he took great pleasure in the battles, but he was always respectful and driven by the progressive values that guided him. In moments of the greatest conflict, Ed would often use humor to disarm others while making a point. Even his greatest adversaries appreciated his principled positions and enjoyed his wit and intellect.

After more than a decade with the NFL, Ed returned home and was named Wisconsin Deputy Attorney General, where he took on big polluters and fought for environmental protections. He ran for the Senate twice, and in his bid for Governor in 1998, Ed not only fought for campaign finance reform, he led by example because he has always been deeply committed to changing a system where powerful interests have too much influence over public policy. While Ed came up short in his campaigns, he never gave up his fight for the ``little guy'' as a respected lawyer and as a leading progressive voice in our State.

Ed understood how important it is to pass on to the next generation our proud, progressive tradition in Wisconsin. He founded ``Fighting Bob Fest'' to honor the legacy of former progressive Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator Robert ``Fighting Bob'' LaFollette. Each year, Ed brought progressives together from across the country to share this tradition and give people a voice.

Ed's list of accomplishments and successes is long and has one thing common: He was committed to something bigger than he was. If you asked him, he would say his greatest accomplishment was his family. He spent more than five wonderful decades filled with adventures with his wife, Betty, and their three daughters, Pam, Kathleen, and Lizzy. In recent years, his four grandchildren were his greatest joy. I know that their wonderful memories of him will stay with them always.

I feel so privileged to have known and worked with Ed since my early years in public service. Ed lived his life and pursued his work with persistence and purpose. He loved Wisconsin and stood up for people from different walks of life because he wanted to make a difference in people's lives.

Perhaps most important, Ed inspired generations of young people to enter politics and law, to engage in our democracy, to let their voices be heard, and to never be intimidated by those of wealth, power, and privilege. I am a better person for having fought with him in support of a more progressive Wisconsin, and I am honored to work to continue his important legacy. ``Forward!''

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the confirmation of Congressman Tom Price to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Congressman Price has a long political record in Washington of siding with Big Business and not American families. He has led efforts that would force families to lose their health care coverage, that would end Medicare as we know it, and increase costs for our seniors, and that would let politicians choose what health care is best for women and their doctors. Perhaps most troubling, though, are recent revelations about Congressman Price's deep and ethically questionable financial ties to health companies that are looking to turn a profit.

The people of Wisconsin elected me to the United States Senate to stand up to powerful interests, to stand up for the working people of my State. They surely did not send me to the Senate to take away people's health care. That is why I simply cannot vote for a nominee whose financial activities with health companies raise such serious ethical questions and who has repeatedly opposed measures that would improve the health of our hard-working middle-class families in America.

During his time in Congress, reports show that Congressman Price traded more than $300,000 in shares of health companies while he was advancing health-related legislation which could directly impact these companies' profitability. Congressman Price's financial disclosures show that he has purchased stock in medical device companies, leading pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment companies. He also led a number of legislative efforts to restrict or delay implementation of several Medicare programs that would have impacted reimbursement for these very industries.

I don't know who Congressman Price is working for. Is he working for the American people or is he working for the powerful corporations to help advance his financial interests and his investments in them? This ethically questionable activity raises too many unanswered questions about his professional judgment and his ability to fairly lead a department that is charged with protecting the health of all Americans.

Even more troubling are reports that he had access to a special private deal to buy discounted stock in an Australian biomedical firm, Innate Immunotherapeutics. Reports show he received this special deal from his colleague in the House, Congressman Chris Collins, who sits on the company's board and is their largest investor. I sent a letter asking Congressman Price to explain his relationship, his involvement with Innate Immuno, and how his relationship with Congressman Collins influenced those purchasing decisions, but he hasn't responded. His financial dealings raise serious concerns about potential STOCK Act and insider trading law violations. That is why I have called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate his stock market trading activities. These questions must be answered and his stock trading should be fully investigated before the Senate is able to adequately consider his nomination. Yet we are probably hours from the vote without all the information.

While there are so many unanswered questions about Congressman Price's ethical judgment, there is a lot we do know about his record as a politician that is deeply concerning.

We know Congressman Price wants to end Medicare as we know it and raise costs for our senior citizens. Medicare is a promise, a promise to current and future generations that guaranteed health care will be there for them when they need it. Congressman Price wants to break that promise, that promise to millions of seniors across this country. He has spearheaded proposals that would convert Medicare into a voucher system, essentially privatizing Medicare. He also supports raising the eligibility age for participation in Medicare, forcing hard-working Americans to wait to receive the benefits they have already earned. His dangerous proposals would force seniors to pay more and would jeopardize guaranteed access to the Medicare benefits they have today, but we don't need to take my word for it. Listen to the thousands of Wisconsinites who have written to me just since the start of this year, urging me to oppose Congressman Price's confirmation and to fight against any efforts that would take away their Medicare benefits.

Richard from Fond du Lac, WI, is just one of those Wisconsinites. Richard and his wife are now retired and on Medicare. He wrote to say:

We both spent decades in teaching and while we knew we

would never get rich, we believed we were doing important

work with our students.

Both of us felt secure in knowing that Medicare would be

there for us when we left the profession and moved on to our

retirement years.

Richard cannot understand why politicians like Congressman Price are proposing to fundamentally change a system that has worked well for decades. He told me: ``Now we feel as if our world is being turned upside down.''

Congressman Price's views are not only out of touch with America's seniors, but they are also, interestingly, in conflict with President Trump's promise not to cut Medicare. Price's legislative record also conflicts with President Trump's public commitments to improve this program by allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors. Just this week, the White House confirmed the President's support for this proposal again. Yet, during his hearing before the Senate Health Committee, Congressman Price refused to answer my questions when I repeatedly asked him if he would commit to standing with the President and with American seniors by supporting Medicare negotiation of better prescription drug prices. We don't know where he stands on this issue, but we do know Congressman Price does not stand with seniors, and he does not stand for protecting the guarantee of Medicare coverage that our families rely on.

We also know that Congressman Price does not stand for the millions of Americans who rely on the health care coverage and protections available under the Affordable Care Act. Congressman Price almost personifies the Republican agenda and battle to repeal the Affordable Care Act and all of its benefits and protections, which would force 30 million Americans to lose their current insurance through participation in the program. He has led the effort in the House to take away guaranteed health care coverage and has championed dangerous measures that would put insurance companies back in charge of health care and lead to higher costs and more uncertainty for American families. Congressman Price's agenda is putting the health care coverage of over 200,000 Wisconsinites at risk.

I wish to share the story of Sheila from Neenah, WI. She is a small business owner and relies on the premium tax credits that helped her purchase her health plan through the marketplace. She wrote:

I just wanted to let you know how devastating it would be

for my family if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. To take

away the subsidies would pretty much turn the plan into the

Unaffordable Care Act.

Sheila said that premium tax credits under the law have made it possible for her to buy decent insurance for the first time in her whole career.

I am listening to Chelsea from Shelby, WI. Her daughter Zoe was born with a congenital heart defect. At just 5 days old, Zoe needed to have open heart surgery. Chelsea said:

The Affordable Health Care Act protects my daughter. . . .

I'm pleading to you as a mother to fight for that and follow

through on that promise. There are so many kids in Wisconsin

with heart defects (as well as other kids with pre-existing

conditions) that are counting on you to protect that right.

I am listening to Maggie, who attends college in DePere, WI. Maggie was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she was able to stay on her parents' health insurance, which covered most of her

care. The Affordable Care Act also ensured that Maggie did not face lifetime limits on coverage for her multiple rounds of chemotherapy and radiation. Thankfully, Maggie is now cancer-free, but Maggie is terrified--terrified that if the law's benefits are repealed, she could face a situation where her chemo isn't covered if she ever needs it again. She also fears being denied coverage because of her preexisting condition or not being able to stay on her parents' plan.

During my time serving in the House of Representatives, I championed the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows young adults like Maggie to remain on their parents' health care plan until age 26. Congressman Price would take that away, as well as other protections that Maggie relies on, and instead go back to letting the insurance companies decide what to do.

During his HELP Committee hearing, I asked him directly if he supports the current requirement that insurance companies cover young adults until age 26. Essentially, he refused to answer my question but instead said that he trusts insurance companies to do this on their own. He said: ``I think it's baked into insurance programs.''

Our future leaders like Maggie can't afford to take his word for it that insurance companies will choose to protect their care. The stakes are too high when it comes to accessing the lifesaving health care for cancer or other serious conditions.

As I travel my State, I listen and I hear the voices of people who are struggling. Too many people feel that Washington is broken and it isn't working for them. People are scared because they can't make ends meet and provide a better future for their children. We need to change that. Our work here should be focused on making a difference in people's everyday lives.

I am concerned that if confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Congressman Price would make it harder for people to get ahead. I am concerned that he will work with special interests who already have too much power here in Washington instead of working for the Wisconsin families I was sent here to serve.

For all these reasons, Congressman Price is not the right choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I urge my colleagues to oppose his confirmation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education. Simply put, Betsy DeVos is completely unqualified to serve as Secretary of Education in this great Nation.

Many others share this view. I have heard from thousands of parents, teachers, and other citizens of Wisconsin who are concerned about the future of our education system urging me to oppose Mrs. DeVos and certainly opposing her vision for America's students. As of today, over 20,000 Wisconsinites have emailed me, and we have had over 7,000 phone calls opposing the confirmation of Mrs. DeVos, and Senate Democrats are unified in our opposition to Mrs. DeVos serving in this capacity. Even two Senate Republicans have announced that they cannot support Betsy DeVos. If just one more of my Republican colleagues were to announce their opposition and were to vote no, we could do the right thing and tell President Trump that he really needs to find a new candidate, a new candidate for Secretary of Education who is qualified to run that Department.

While Betsy DeVos has spent decades advocating for a particular vision for education, she has never actually worked as a teacher or as an administrator. Her career has involved investing hers and her family's considerable

wealth and using those resources to advance the privatization of our K- 12 education system. She did not attend a public school either for grade school, high school, or college, and nor did her children. She has never worked as a teacher, principal, professor, counselor, or in any other formal role in our education system.

Her confirmation hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee clearly demonstrated how little she knows about Federal education law and policy. It was startling to see her ignorance about critical measures like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or the debate over growth versus proficiency as a measure of student achievement. Betsy DeVos has demonstrated that she has neither the knowledge nor the experience in education that would allow her to be a successful leader of the Department of Education. Mrs. DeVos has worked to advance a vision of K-12 education that is fundamentally hostile to our public education system.

My home State of Wisconsin has a long and very proud tradition of support for public education. Back at the founding of our State, we wrote the guarantee that every child should receive a free public education into our very founding document, our State Constitution. Wisconsin had the first kindergarten in the United States. Wisconsin is proud of something that we actually call the Wisconsin idea in higher education; that the walls of the classroom should be the borders of the State, if not the borders of this Nation or the entire world.

Mrs. DeVos's experience in education, however, has been a decades- long effort to privatize it. Her record of support for vouchers as well as charter schools that lack adequate accountability and oversight is very troubling and could lead to diversion of public dollars in even greater amounts out of public education.

Regardless of any vision or experience on education, Mrs. DeVos is a nominee with, let's say, complex and opaque finances. She has a very opaque record of financial dealings and political giving, including on matters directly related to the work that the Department does which she seeks to lead. Given her and her family's investments in companies that benefit directly from Federal education programs, I remain very concerned about what we simply still don't know.

I am also troubled by Mrs. DeVos's and her family's long history of contributing to organizations that have been hostile to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, even promoting the discredited idea that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through conversion therapy.

While she told me and several of my colleagues at her hearing that she believes all students should be treated equally, I really remain concerned about how this long history of support for these anti-LGBTQ organizations will influence a Department which, over the last 8 years, has shown some tremendous leadership in supporting LGBTQ students and parents in the education system.

The Federal Government's primary role in elementary and secondary education is to promote equity. I am not convinced that Mrs. DeVos will be the leader the Department needs to do just that. Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 as a civil rights measure. It was designed to ensure that every student, regardless of ZIP Code or parents' income, has access to a quality public education.

We continued that important tradition in reauthorizing this law, which is now in the form of a very strongly bipartisan bill, the Every Student Succeeds Act. The next Secretary of Education will have to implement that act.

I fear that Mrs. DeVos, as a vocal proponent of State and local control, will not be the strong voice we need to hold States accountable for serving all students, particularly those who have been historically left behind.

When we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, we made sure there were strong Federal guardrails to assure that we never forget why there is a Federal role in education to begin with, for equity and civil rights and to make sure that every child can succeed. Furthermore, I am very concerned that Mrs. DeVos would not commit to robustly supporting the Department's Office for Civil Rights or enforcing the very guidance that protects transgender students from discrimination.

Betsy DeVos lacks knowledge about and commitment to the Federal laws that ensure students with disabilities have access to the various supports that they need to receive and benefit from a quality public education.

As I noted, she has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about our Federal obligations to these students. I have heard from numerous parents in Wisconsin, parents of students with disabilities who were appalled by her inadequate answers to questions at our education panel hearing. She was unprepared to answer questions about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and these parents have written to express their distress about what her filling the role of Secretary of Education could mean for their children if she were to be confirmed.

One Wisconsin mother of three special needs children wrote to me about how this Federal law provided the legal rights that she needed to advocate for them, to advocate for the best possible educational environment for her three sons with special needs.

I heard from another mother, Melissa from Beloit, who detailed how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act makes it possible for her daughter, Rowenna, who has Down Syndrome and autism, to actually thrive in a public education setting, along with her peers.

Finally, as a strong proponent of making college more accessible and affordable, I do not believe that Mrs. DeVos has the experience or vision that will allow her to successfully lead the Department in supporting higher learning.

There is a student debt crisis in this country, but Mrs. DeVos doesn't have a plan to address it and has even expressed skepticism about a Federal role.

While she has acknowledged that there are some bad actors in higher education, she has also refused to commit to enforcing regulations that help students who are defrauded by dishonest schools like Corinthian Colleges. We need a Secretary of Education who is an advocate for those students, not one who is looking for ways to shirk that responsibility.

Despite the fact that the Department oversees billions of dollars in grants and loans that allow students to pursue higher education, she has expressed skepticism about any Federal role in making college more affordable. She has even refused to oppose cuts to a program that helps students who commit to a career in public service or to support efforts to ensure that the value of the Pell grant keeps pace with the cost of college.

For all of these reasons and many others, Betsy DeVos is not the right choice for Secretary of Education. I call on my colleagues to defeat her on the question of confirmation and to afford this new President the chance to send us a nominee who is prepared to be an advocate for all students and public education in this country.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the confirmation of our colleague Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States.

I have great respect for Senator Sessions' long history of public service, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with him where we have found common ground. However, Senator Sessions and I have frequently and sometimes vehemently disagreed on important issues, including matters like civil rights and voting rights, hate crimes laws, immigration, and criminal justice reform.

I want to acknowledge that Senator Sessions' nomination is supported by many, including many in the law enforcement community in my home State of Wisconsin. It is vital that the Attorney General have a good working relationship with the law enforcement community, and I have no doubt that Senator Sessions will be a strong voice for law enforcement, if he is confirmed.

But the role and the responsibility of our Attorney General is bigger than any one group. Our Attorney General must work on behalf of all Americans. The Department of Justice has a broad jurisdiction. So I have also heard from over 16,000 Wisconsinites who are opposed to his confirmation, many of whom expressed profound concerns about what it would mean for racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, including DREAMers, and others, were he to become our Attorney General. Hundreds of national civil and human rights organizations have expressed their opposition on similar grounds.

After reviewing his record, getting a chance to meet with him in my office, and considering everything that I have heard from my constituents, I simply do not believe that Senator Sessions is the right choice to be Attorney General of the United States. I have that belief for a number of reasons.

First, I am concerned that Senator Sessions will not be the independent

champion for the rule of law that we need with Donald Trump in the White House. In any administration, the Attorney General's first duty is to the Constitution and to the people of the United States. This President has already issued a number of orders--legally questionable orders--including one affecting our visa and refugee programs that a number of Federal courts have already temporarily blocked. We need an Attorney General who will ensure that the President's actions do not run roughshod over protections guaranteed by our Nation's laws and Constitution. I am not convinced that Senator Sessions will be that kind of Attorney General.

Second, I do not believe that Senator Sessions will be the champion of the civil rights of all Americans that an Attorney General must be. The Department of Justice plays a central role in enforcing our Nation's civil rights laws, from investigating hate crimes to safeguarding the right to vote, to fighting discrimination against women, racial and religious minorities, and people with disabilities. At a time when there has been a disturbing increase in hate-motivated crimes, discrimination, and harassment, including, particularly, against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and people of the Muslim faith, it is even more important that the Department of Justice be strong and proactive.

I have heard from constituents in Wisconsin who have faced bigotry and hate-motivated speech in the wake of the election of Donald Trump. Among them is a family from Fitchburg, WI, with 11 adopted children, including children from Ghana and China.

This family received an anonymous letter proclaiming ``Trump won'' and calling them race traitors and telling them to go home. This and other reports from Wisconsinites and, frankly, from people throughout the United States breaks our hearts.

Senator Sessions fought against efforts to strengthen and make more inclusive Federal hate crimes laws and criticized voting rights laws as ``intrusive.'' He has shown hostility to the rights of LGBT individuals and attacked the reproductive health care rights of women.

Now more than ever we need a Justice Department that places a priority on enforcing our civil rights and voting rights laws, proactively combatting hate violence and fighting for the equality of all Americans. I am simply not convinced that Senator Sessions will be the champion vulnerable Americans need as Attorney General with an unflagging commitment to make our country a fairer and more equal place.

Third, I believe Senator Sessions will not take a fair or humane approach as Attorney General with regard to immigration. I was deeply troubled by candidate Trump's ugly and divisive rhetoric on immigration, and I am appalled by the actions that he has taken thus far as President.

Senator Sessions was one of his campaign's key advisers on immigration and has been a vocal opponent of bipartisan, comprehensive reforms that would address our broken immigration system.

The Department of Justice is responsible for adjudicating immigration cases and ensuring fairness and due process in the treatment of undocumented individuals and refugees.

The Department also plays a key role in our national security apparatus, helping to fight terrorism, and keeping the homeland safe.

The President's recent orders on immigration have furthered divisions, created chaos and confusion, proven to be legally and constitutionally questionable, and are inconsistent with core American values. In the opinion of many national security experts, they will make our Nation less safe, not more.

I simply do not believe that Senator Sessions, with his history of hostility to immigration and support for this President's approach, is the right person to lead the Department of Justice, as it discharges its critical duties on immigration and national security.

America has made great progress over the last 8 years with an administration that has taken seriously a shared responsibility to pass on to the next generation a country that is more equal, not less.

All Americans deserve a strong commitment from America's top law enforcement official to act on violence born out of hatred based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other characteristic.

At a time when voting rights and the constitutional right of women to make their own health care decisions are under attack across our country, we need an Attorney General who will stay true to these constitutional freedoms and not be driven by politics.

For me, the vote on Senator Sessions' confirmation is a moral choice. I am guided by my strong belief that all Americans deserve equal opportunity and freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams. I cannot support this nomination for Senator Sessions to be Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to oppose him.

Now I would like to take a moment to discuss what happened last night here on the Senate floor. Last night, the Republican leadership of this Chamber stopped one of my colleagues from reading the words of Coretta Scott King.

Coretta Scott King wrote a letter and a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 1986, expressing her opposition to Jeff Sessions' nomination to serve as a Federal judge.

Coretta Scott King believed, as I do, that the right to vote is a fundamental right afforded to every American. It is a right that people have lost their lives seeking and defending.

Mrs. King wrote in her testimony regarding Jeff Sessions' record:

Blacks still fall far short of having equal participation

in the electoral process. Particularly in the South, efforts

continue to be made to deny Blacks access to the polls, even

where Blacks constitute the majority of the voters. It has

been a long up-hill struggle to keep alive the vital

legislation that protects the most fundamental right to vote.

A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the

enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those

rights by Black people should not be elevated to the Federal

bench.

Mrs. King's words matter. They matter to me, and they matter to millions of Americans. Mrs. King's words should matter in this debate, and they deserve to be heard. I believe it is simply wrong to silence legitimate questions about a nominee for U.S. Attorney General, and I hope that her words can be heard as this debate continues.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of Rex Tillerson to serve as Secretary of State. Shortly after President Trump's election, I wrote to him about what I thought was a mutual interest, taking on a rigged system in Washington where powerful interests call the shots. For too long, I have heard from Wisconsinites who feel that Washington's economic and political system is broken. People are angry because they feel that our government institutions seem to work for Big Banks or Big Oil but not for them.

President Trump clearly tapped into this widely held dissatisfaction when he announced his plan to reduce the influence of special interests in government by draining the swamp. Yet with appointment after appointment, it has been made clear that President Trump is not interested in ridding the government of powerful interests. In fact, he continues to appoint and nominate foxes to guard the henhouse.

We don't need to look back very far to know what can happen when we let industry insiders run our government. The 2008 financial crisis was a result of years of deregulation pushed by Wall Street from both inside and outside the government. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to slow the revolving door and ensure that our public servants are working for the public interest, not their former--or future, for that matter--employers. I was inspired to introduce this legislation when I saw several Obama administration appointees receive multimillion-dollar bonuses for leaving their private sector jobs to join the government. These government service golden parachutes, as they are known, demonstrate how valuable some companies believe it is to have friends in high places.

Rex Tillerson, the President's nominee to serve as Secretary of State, received a $180 million payout from ExxonMobil that he would have to forfeit had he taken a job elsewhere. What is more, reports indicate that the deal he struck allows him to defer paying 71 million in taxes. It is hard to imagine that our Nation's top diplomat will forget such an incredible favor, but Rex Tillerson isn't the only Trump appointee who will be rewarded with a golden parachute as he enters government. Gary Cohn, the President's pick to run the National Economic Council, will receive over 100 million from his former employer, Goldman Sachs, before he starts to coordinate an administration-wide economic policy.

I remain as opposed to this practice under the Trump administration as I was during the Obama administration. Wisconsin families cannot afford to have corporate insiders running our government to rig the rules on behalf of their former corporations. That is why I am reintroducing the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, to ensure that our government is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people of the United States, to ensure that President Trump's Cabinet officials are working in the national interests instead of their own interests, to ensure that they are working for their current employers, the American people, instead of their former bosses.

In the case of Mr. Tillerson, whose nomination the Senate is voting on this week, these questions of influence, of favoritism and priorities are particularly troubling, troubling because during his tenure leading Exxon, Mr. Tillerson showed a disregard, if not outright contempt at times, for putting U.S. policy first. Whether in the Middle East, Africa or Russia, Exxon's bottom line was his overriding priority. Now, with 180 million of Exxon's money in his pocket--and after 40 years with the company--should we take it on faith that his priorities will suddenly change? Should we blindly accept that the 180 million will not ever influence his decisionmaking or should we continue to ask questions, questions that Rex Tillerson has yet to answer?

For example, how will Exxon and Big Business influence U.S. policy in strategically important but democratically fragile oil-producing African states? How about U.S. international commitments to combatting climate change, one of our greatest national security challenges but also a challenge that Big Oil has dismissed as a hoax. Perhaps most concerning, what influence will Exxon have in matters relating to Russia, where its long record of doing business at the expense of U.S. national security interests seems to be right at home in the Trump administration?

We also need to hear what Rex Tillerson thinks about President Trump's actions this weekend. On Friday, President Trump issued anti- refugee and anti-immigrant Executive orders. I am outraged by the way these orders were hastily thrown together late Friday. The President's sloppy actions created chaos, disorder, and confusion at our airports, and it left families, including permanent legal residents, wondering what it meant for them. There have been media reports that relevant agencies, including the State Department, were not consulted before this order was signed by President Trump. President Trump says we need extreme vetting of refugees fleeing war-torn nations. The refugees--the vast majority of whom are women and children--already go through an extremely strict screening process before they are allowed to enter the country.

What we really need extreme vetting of is President Trump's Executive orders before he signs them. With the stroke of a pen, President Trump's orders will make ISIS stronger, weaken America's counterterrorism efforts, and likely cost lives. It is wrong to turn our back on our American values and the rest of the world. We are better than this.

President Trump and Republicans in Congress should reverse these shameful actions immediately. I am proud to be cosponsoring legislation that would do just that. We need to know where Rex Tillerson stands on those very same issues. Does he oppose welcoming refugees into the country, which strengthens America's connection with freedom, the foundation of who we are as a people? Was Mr. Tillerson consulted by the President before these orders were issued? Mr. Tillerson owes it to the American people to answer those questions before the Senate votes on his confirmation.

What happened the day after President Trump issued these Executive orders? On Saturday, President Trump called Vladimir Putin to discuss a more cozy relationship with Russia. What does Mr. Tillerson think about this call? According to reports, it was a warm conversation and resulted in preparations for a meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin, the same Vladimir Putin who illegally invaded Ukraine and actively seeks to divide and destroy NATO, our most important security alliance; the same Vladimir Putin who is responsible for directing cyber attacks meant to influence and undermine our elections and our Democratic process; the same Vladimir Putin who fights alongside the murderous Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and is responsible for war crimes, indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians in Aleppo; the same Vladimir Putin who gave Rex Tillerson the Order of Friendship following his business dealings in Russia.

We need a Secretary of State who understands the threats posed by nations like Russia, not someone who is cozy with Vladimir Putin. We need a nominee with experience in foreign affairs and foreign policy, not a billionaire oil tycoon who has spent his career fighting to ensure that government policies help the oil industry. Rex Tillerson is not this nominee.

For all these reasons, I oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to serve as U.S. Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I would like to divide the time, claim 30 seconds, and then yield to Senator Sanders.

Mr. President, if Members of this body care about insurance coverage for young people, young adults up to age 26, then they should vote no on the Heller side-by-side and take the opportunity to support my amendment that we will vote on immediately following the disposal of this amendment.

In this Nation, we had an uninsurance crisis among young people before the Affordable Care Act was passed--one of the most uninsured demographics in America, and we have an opportunity to protect those young people through my amendment later this evening, but I urge a ``no'' vote on an amendment that would do nothing to protect these young people.

Mr. President, my amendment protects the Affordable Care Act benefits for young people, including the provision that allows young adults to remain on their parents' health plan until age 26. It will safeguard our future generations by blocking Republican efforts that would weaken dependent coverage, increase premiums or out-of- pocket costs, including the premium tax credits, or reduce the number of young adults who are currently insured.

As someone who didn't have access to quality health insurance until I was in my 20s, I championed the provision that allows young people to stay on their parents' health insurance during my time in the House of Representatives. Before we passed health care reform, I heard from countless young adults and college-age students in Wisconsin who are just starting out in the workforce, many of them in jobs that had no health care.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me and vote in support of this amendment to protect our future generations with health care coverage.

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

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

I vote no because--

--the people of Wisconsin did not send me here to take away their health care.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to join my colleagues--Democrats, Independents--to fight together to protect the health and economic security of the American people.

In 2012, when I was elected to the Senate, I can assure you that the people of Wisconsin did not send me here to take their health care away.

We are barely into the second week of the new Congress, and the Republican establishment is already wielding its power to accomplish just one thing, making America sick again.

The budget resolution that we are considering this week will repeal the Affordable Care Act, put insurance companies back in charge of people's health care, strip health care away from millions of Americans, and raise premiums. It will take us from affordable coverage to chaos.

This is the first step toward higher costs, fewer people with health insurance, and more uncertainty for American families. In short, the Republicans believe they have a mandate to make America sick. By repealing the law and taking away the health care that families already have, Republicans are forcing 30 million Americans to lose their insurance.

Republicans are putting the health care coverage of over 200,000 Wisconsinites at risk, and they are raising taxes on more than 190,000 Wisconsinites who rely on and receive premium tax credits to help them afford high quality health insurance.

Instead, they are giving tax breaks to big corporations and handing over control to the insurance companies, which will be free, once again, to deny coverage if you have a preexisting condition, to jack up premiums simply because you are a woman, and to drop your coverage if you get sick or have a baby.

I could continue to list some very disturbing facts and statistics of what this Republican repeal of health care reform will do to our working class and what it will mean to rip away protections from families struggling with cancer or other serious illnesses, but these facts seem to fall flat on the other side of the aisle. So, instead, I am demanding that my Republican colleagues listen--not to me but to the calls from the real people who we are here to represent and fight for, our constituents back home.

I demand that they listen to Randy. Randy is from Rhinelander, WI. Randy told me that the Affordable Care Act has been a ``savior'' for his wife, who was diagnosed with kidney failure more than 2 years ago as a result of an autoimmune disease. She has to have dialysis three times a week.

The law eliminated her lifetime maximum limit, and that helps them afford her lifesaving care, and it prevents her from being denied coverage because of her preexisting condition.

Randy said that repealing the law will force them to face the harsh reality of not only losing insurance but also declaring bankruptcy.

I also heard from Sheila, from Neenah, WI. Sheila is a small business owner who relies on the premium tax credits that helped her purchase her health plan through the marketplace. She writes:

I just wanted to let you know how devastating it will be

for my family if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. To take

away the subsidies would pretty much turn the plan into the

Unaffordable Care Act.

Sheila has owned a small hair salon for 35 years and said that the premium tax credits under the law have made it possible for her to buy decent health insurance for the first time in her whole career.

I want my Republican colleagues to listen to Joel. Joel is a physician from Milwaukee. He is on the frontlines of delivering high quality health care, and he told me that he had witnessed tremendous good that has occurred as a result of the health care law. He has been able to provide his patients with better care because they have increased coverage. He is especially aware of the positive impact of allowing children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

But Joel remembers the days before the Affordable Care Act. He said that he has seen firsthand the insurance companies callously denying or dropping coverage for families with preexisting conditions or those struggling with a new diagnosis. He doesn't want to go back to the days when insurance companies were in charge and literally dictated his patients' health.

I want my Republican colleagues to listen to Chelsea from Shelby, WI. When Chelsea was pregnant with her daughter Zoe, she learned that Zoe would be born with a congenital heart defect. At just 5 days old, Zoe had to have open heart surgery. She had it at Children's Hospital in Wauwatosa, WI, and was fighting for her life. Thankfully, she is recovering, and she is living a healthy life.

Chelsea wrote to me:

The Affordable Care Act protects my daughter, it allows her

to have health care access and not be denied. I'm pleading to

you as a mother to fight for that and follow through on that

promise. There are so many kids in Wisconsin with heart

defects (as well as other kids with pre-existing conditions)

that are counting on you to protect that right.

So for Zoe, I want to call on my Republican colleagues to stand with me--with all of us--to protect these health care rights and benefits for all of our families.

These are our families who are benefitting right now from the protections in the law and the quality, affordable health care options it provides. They are calling on Congress, calling on the Republican majority to stop their plot that is going to take this all away.

I could continue to share stories of real Wisconsinites whose coverage is at risk today, but I want to take a moment to illustrate what life was like before the Affordable Care Act was the law of the land, before these sweeping reforms and protections had been put in place.

Now, during my time in the House of Representatives, Sue from Beloit, WI, reached out to me. She told me:

My husband was diagnosed with lung cancer. After treatment

began, we found out that the insurance company had a small

loophole. Under our insurance, they have a $13,000 limit per

year on radiation and chemotherapy.

That amount did not even cover the first treatment of

either radiation or chemo.

I was not going to have my husband die for lack of

treatment, so we started to use our savings and our available

credit to pay for medical expenses.

My husband later died.

She told me:

After having completely depleted our savings and facing

insurmountable credit card debt, I had no choice but to file

bankruptcy. . . .

Sue's devastating ordeal was a common story all across our country, almost 8 years ago, before health care reform was enacted to prohibit lifetime caps and to restrict annual limits on care.

Before the health law, I heard from too many working Wisconsin families that went bankrupt, sold their homes, and even spent their entire life's savings just to get the health care that they needed. This was when America was sick and when lawmakers prioritized the health of insurance companies over the health of the American people. Republicans will take us back to those days when they vote to make America sick again.

I want to share one last story about life before the Affordable Care Act, and that is my own. As many of you may know, I was raised by my maternal grandparents in Madison, WI. When I was just 9 years old, I was diagnosed with a serious childhood illness similar to spinal meningitis, and I spent 3 months at the age of 9 years old in the hospital. My grandparents had health insurance but learned that their plan didn't cover me. Since their insurance didn't cover me, they made incredible sacrifices to pay for the care that I needed. When I got better, my grandparents did what any responsible parent or grandparent would do: They looked for an insurance policy that would cover me into the future, but look as they might, they discovered that because of my previous illness, they couldn't find a policy. They couldn't find it from any insurer at any price, and at 9 years old I had been branded with those magic words: preexisting condition.

Well, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, children today have new protections, and no one can be denied insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition. My family experience helped inspire me to enter public service and to fight to ensure that every American has quality, affordable health care as a right, not a privilege. This is what I fought for and will continue to fight with my colleagues to protect, these vital benefits that the health care law guarantees to all Wisconsinites and families across this great country.

But we cannot fight alone. Republicans are hard at work making America sick again, taking us back from affordable care to chaos, handing over the reins to insurance companies and driving up health care costs for all Americans. I call on them to stand accountable to our families. It is the American people that we are charged to represent. I call on them to join us to fight for Sue who was forced into medical bankruptcy. I call on them to fight to protect Zoe from predatory insurance companies who want to deny her coverage because of her heart condition, to fight for Sheila and other entrepreneurs like her, and to fight for our health care professionals, nurse's aides, occupational therapists, physical therapists like Joel, and to fight for Randy and his wife as they battle her kidney failure.

We have been ready for over 6 years to work together to keep all that works with the Affordable Care Act and to fix what doesn't, but instead of working on bipartisan reforms to improve the Affordable Care Act, this Republican plan to repeal historic health care reforms will create nothing short of chaos. I know I speak for my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues and Independent colleagues, in saying that we are here and we will stay here on the floor because we are ready. We are ready to work across the aisle to protect coverage and to improve the Affordable Care Act, but we will not help you make America sick again and we will not help you take away people's health care.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is no secret we are living in dangerous times and that we face a variety of threats. We face the threat of ISIL, a barbaric and despicable terrorist organization. We face threats to the security of our personal information both online and in our daily life. We still face threats from Al Qaeda and rogue nations such as North Korea. With all of these ongoing threats to our Nation and its citizens, shouldn't our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to work together in a bipartisan manner in order to fund the government agency responsible for protecting us from those threats?

Evidently they do not. Instead, they are playing a partisan game while threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. They are playing politics with our homeland security. The vote the Senate just took relates to a bill that put partisan politics ahead of our national security while also needlessly creating another manufactured budget crisis, and that is why I voted no.

I understand our Republican colleagues have concerns about the President's Executive actions on immigration, and I believe there is a time and place for this body to debate those issues, as we have in the past and we must in the future. But to jeopardize our Nation's security by playing politics with this vital funding measure is extremely disappointing.

I would actually like to remind our colleagues that the President's actions on immigration reform devote even more resources to securing our Southwest border and to deporting felons, not families, and identifying threats to our national security.

The President's Executive action on immigration also provides certain undocumented immigrants temporary relief, after background checks and other security measures are passed, bringing families out of the shadows so they can work and pay taxes like everyone else.

I remain committed to finishing the job on bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform here in Congress, but until we can achieve that goal, I support the President keeping his promise to take action and do what he legally can to fix our broken system.

Consistent with the actions by previous Presidents of both parties, President Obama is right to follow in the footsteps of every President since Eisenhower to address as much of this problem as he can through Executive action. The status quo is simply unacceptable.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office--also known as the nonpartisan scorekeeper--recently found that including a reversal of these Executive orders in the homeland security funding bill would actually increase our deficit.

Instead of attaching these transparent attacks on the President, the Congress should pass a clean, straightforward, bipartisan bill. And there is such a bill. That bill was previously negotiated and it was just introduced by the vice chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations, Barbara Mikulski, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Senator Shaheen.

As a new member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, I am a strong supporter of the Mikulski- Shaheen bill because it would fund programs that are critical to our Nation and to my home State of Wisconsin. Their straightforward funding bill funds essential Departments such as the Coast Guard, which keeps the Great Lakes safe and open for business; and it funds FEMA grants, which have helped communities in western Wisconsin, for example, plan and prepare for floods; and it funds fire grants that help rural fire departments with equipment they could never afford through the proceeds of annual pancake breakfasts. These are critical assets that my constituents rely on, and putting them at risk is simply irresponsible.

It is time for our colleagues to drop this dangerous political stunt and to join with Democrats to pass a bipartisan bill that gives the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to keep Americans safe.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this is not the time for another government shutdown. The American people have had enough of Washington's dysfunction. They want us to do our job and work together to get the job done. Since the Budget Committee, on which I serve, crafted a bipartisan agreement that ended last year's government shutdown and paved the way for a cease-fire on recent budget wars, the economy has gained an average of 240,000 jobs per month. In Wisconsin, our economy continues to lag behind, so we need to build on this progress and strengthen the economic security of families and businesses that are working hard to move our economy forward.

This bipartisan appropriations bill will help do that by increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grant funding by $75 million; increasing the maximum Pell grant award; providing a cost of living pay raise for our men and women in the Armed Forces; increasing funding for science and research at the National Institutes of Health by $150 million; providing grants to States for job training and assistance to dislocated workers; extending Trade Adjustments Assistance for workers who lose their jobs due to international trade; and moving bipartisan Manufacturing Hubs legislation forward that I support to keep our country on the leading edge of advanced manufacturing.

I also fought to include in this legislation a number of provisions that will help us build a stronger made in Wisconsin economy, including support for our shipbuilding industry and transportation infrastructure.

With all of these benefits, I am the first to admit that this bill is far from perfect. But we have a divided government and I recognize that I can't get everything I want in this bill, just as my colleagues across the aisle can't get everything they want in this bill. This bill is a compromise.

Let me be very clear here: Republicans' insistence on including a Wall Street giveaway is extremely objectionable to me. I also strongly oppose a provision that weakens our already loose campaign laws and the changes made to multiemployer pensions deserved a full debate in the Senate, as separate legislation, not tucked into an appropriations bill by the House of Representatives at the last minute. I agree with my colleagues who have said these provisions represent the very worst of creating an uneven playing field for those hard working Americans who ask for nothing more than a voice in Washington and fair shot at getting ahead. I would also add that these provisions in particular are a direct assault on our proud progressive traditions in Wisconsin.

But what would have happened if we did not pass this bill now? I can tell you what will happen because we saw the path the Republican controlled House of Representatives wanted to take. Republicans tried to add more than 30 additional harmful policy provisions--from more Wall Street giveaways to rolling back workers' rights to eroding environmental policy--but Senate Democrats were able to use their current leverage as the majority party in the Senate to keep them out. If this bill did not pass now, Republicans would have had the power to add more objectionable provisions when they will hold majorities in both the House and Senate next year.

I supported this bipartisan compromise because I believe it is our job to deliver progress for the American people, not an endless drift from one crisis to the next or a government shutdown.