Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of Kenneth Marcus to lead the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, a nomination we are going to vote on in just a few minutes. First of all, I want to say that I am pleased President Trump and Secretary DeVos have moved away from their original choice for this position. I believe the current Acting Assistant Secretary, Candice Jackson, is unfit for this role and should be removed from her current position, not just because of the callous, insensitive, and egregious comments she made regarding sexual assault on college campuses but also because of the way she has worked to narrow the role of this office and back away from enforcing transgender students' rights and take away the tools and resources it has as an office to protect our students and actually move it away from its core mission. So as I have said before, I am very glad President Trump and Secretary DeVos decided to nominate someone else to replace Ms. Jackson. Secondly, I want to thank this nominee, Kenneth Marcus, for his service over the years and for his commitment to the goal of halting discrimination on our college campuses, which is certainly an issue the OCR will face in light of incidents of hateful rhetoric and violence occurring on our campuses and in schools. I respect Mr. Marcus's commitment, but right now, in this administration, it is not enough. We are now just a bit more than 500 days into President Trump's term, and when it comes to his record and his rhetoric on civil rights, I haven't been surprised once. I want to start with his rhetoric. This is a President who kicked off his campaign by calling Mexicans criminals, who has called for a ban on all Muslims coming to America, who has openly ridiculed a journalist with a disability, who has openly demeaned women, who defended White supremacists rallying in Charlottesville by saying there were ``many fine people'' among them, who compared immigrants to ``animals'' and referred to entire countries with an expletive I will not repeat on the Senate floor. Sadly, I can go on. It goes beyond his hateful rhetoric. President Trump has tried to implement that Muslim ban. He has actually rolled back guidance on enforcing transgender students' rights. He revoked title IX guidance, which protects women and helps bring perpetrators of sexual assault to justice, halted investigations into systemic discrimination, and has pushed his administration to engage in appalling behavior on our border, dehumanizing immigrants and separating kids from their families. That list goes on. I feel very confident in saying that when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to the rights and safety of women, of people of color, of LGBTQ people, of people with disabilities, this President has purposefully fanned the flames of racism, ableism, bigotry, and sexism in ways that we have not seen in a generation, and anyone who cares about civil rights in America should be able to point that out. That is why I was so disappointed that President Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights could not answer one of my questions at his hearing. When I asked Mr. Marcus to name a single example of something President Trump has said or done that he disagrees with when it comes to discrimination or women's rights or civil rights, he couldn't say one--not a single example, and that is all I was looking for. He could have talked about how President Trump has stoked hatred and division of Muslims and Latinos; maybe he disagreed with that. He could have talked about how President Trump has downplayed hate crimes against minority communities here in America; maybe he could have said he disagreed with that. He could have talked about how President Trump nominated Jeff Sessions to lead his Justice Department, someone with a record of opposing civil rights protections; maybe he disagreed with that. He could have talked about how President Trump named someone hostile to LGBTQ rights to lead the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services; maybe he could have disagreed with that. He could have talked about any of the ways President Trump has tried to weaken and has actually weakened the office Mr. Marcus is nominated to lead; maybe he disagreed with that. Unfortunately, in this administration, there is almost no end to the options Mr. Marcus had when I asked him a simple question, but we do not know where he stands because he wouldn't name a single thing--not one. He said: ``I really couldn't say, Senator.'' That was his response to my question. There are reasons to oppose this nomination, but for me, this nonresponse to what should be an easy question was enough for me. We have to have someone in this position who is not only able to say that he disagrees with President Trump when it comes to civil rights; we need someone who is prepared to stand up to him. We need someone who is not only able to say they stand on the side of civil rights in the face of constant attacks; we need someone who is actually willing to disagree with their bosses--President Trump and Secretary DeVos--when civil rights are being threatened. But Mr. Marcus could not commit to me that he would do either, and that is something I simply cannot support. I will be opposing this nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. We yield back our time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I want to thank my colleagues from Minnesota and Missouri for all of their hard work on this issue. I would like to ask my colleagues through the chair about section 111 of the bill amending section 415 of the Congressional Accountability Act. A new subparagraph, which will become 415(d)(1)(D), describes certain violations for which reimbursement is required by a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator. I am interested in my colleagues' understanding regarding how that language should be interpreted?

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. That clarification is helpful for my understanding and for my colleagues' understanding as we take important steps to better address harassment in the U.S. Congress.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to bring attention to a particular provision of the bill now before the Senate-- a provision that would do so much to help our country fulfill its promise to our veterans--and that is to expand and strengthen the VA's caregiver program. This program may not be well known outside of military family circles, but, make no mistake, the caregiver program could be a game changer for the estimated 5.5 million people across this country who put their lives on hold to care for a loved one who returned from service with illness or injury. I met one of those caregivers not too long ago in my home State of Washington. Tiffany Smiley wears many hats. She is a mother, a wife, a nurse, and a veteran caregiver. She and her husband Scotty first met back in junior high, and years later they were married. He signed up to serve our country and Tiffany became a military spouse. Then, in 2005, she got the call every military family fears. Scotty had been severely injured in a suicide bombing in Iraq. He was alive, but he lost his eyesight permanently. As Tiffany describes it, her world was shaken to its core, and their lives were never the same again. But Tiffany, like so many other military spouses, didn't think twice about whether she would care for her husband and their growing family. It was just a matter of how she could do it. To this day, Tiffany is an amazing advocate for the caregiver program and what it has meant to her and to her family. She describes both the good days and the bad days, so those of us not in her shoes can understand some of the challenges they face. She does it because she knows she is not alone. She knows that sharing her experience is making a difference to educate the rest of the country about what it means to be a veteran's caregiver. It is so true. I heard from countless people who, when their loved one came home from service with an injury or illness, made big life changes by quitting a job, scaling back their hours, or taking leave from college. They put big purchases, retirements, and dream vacations on hold or they took on more parenting responsibilities. You name it. They sprang into action and did what they needed to do, because that is just what you do when it is someone you love. We know that the care military caregivers provide comes at a cost. Several years ago, the Dole Foundation commissioned the largest ever study of its kind to examine the sacrifice of military caregivers. It showed that some caregivers spend more than 40 hours a week caring for veterans. That is the equivalent of a full-time job, and that takes a toll. The study showed that caregivers have significantly worse health than noncaregivers. They run a higher risk of depression because they put their own physical and mental well-being on hold. The stress of providing care can strain relationships and increase divorce rates. So caregivers--or, as they are often called, our hidden heroes--don't necessarily wear a uniform or go overseas, but they sacrifice a whole lot and they serve our country in ways most people find unimaginable. That is why expanding the caregiver program to veterans of all eras is so important, because the program provides resources and support, including training and counseling, a stipend, access to healthcare, respite, and more. This bill expands the support services for caregivers to address their still unmet needs. That includes offering financial and legal advice to deal with the many complex and difficult challenges that arise that are unique to being a caregiver. Not only does the caregiver program recognize the sacrifice of caregivers, but it also puts decisions about care into the hands of the veterans and their loved ones. They can decide to be at home with onsite care or on their own terms and as independent as possible. That is really important. The fact that we are so close to getting this program expansion across the finish line goes to show how far we have moved this conversation. That is also why we have to keep pushing it forward--so veterans and military caregivers never feel like they have to face these problems alone, because the reality is that if a servicemember is hurt while fighting for our country, the responsibility of care should never fall to only one family. It is the responsibility and the duty of our entire Nation to have their backs and give them what they need. We can't stop until we get this done. We can't stop until every veteran and military caregiver knows that their country is there for them on their terms, no matter what. I am so proud that the caregivers program expansion is front and center in the VA MISSION Act now before the Senate. On behalf of Tiffany and Scotty and all of the other military families out there, I urge my colleagues to express their support for this critically important program. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here to lift up the voices of the families I represent in the State of Washington who, like so many other Americans, agree the internet should be free and open; who agree our country should support small business owners and entrepreneurs and students and middle-class families, not big corporations and special interests; who agree that consumers, not broadband providers, should get to pick the websites they visit or applications they use; who agree the internet should be a level playing field that benefits end users and not slanted by broadband providers blocking content or charging for prioritized access. That is why so many of us are on the floor today, to give a voice to the vast majority of Americans who want the internet to remain a place that fosters innovation, economic opportunity, robust consumer choice, and the free flow of knowledge. These things are not a luxury. They are what make American ingenuity possible. As a former preschool teacher, I support net neutrality because it helps the next generation of innovators--our students, especially those in rural and low-income areas. Schools have worked very hard to improve access to high-speed connectivity for all students because they know, from early education through higher education, and through workforce training, students need high-speed internet in order to learn and get the skills they need. Their teachers need the internet to collaborate with colleagues, access educational materials, help students learn valuable research and internet safety skills, and expand access to a high-quality education for students with disabilities and English learners. Rolling back net neutrality threatens that educational equity and worsens the digital divide. So let's protect the free and open internet, not just for today's consumers but for our students--the next generation of American innovators. The choice could not be easier. Either we stand with everyday Americans or with the massive corporations that have found a new way to make more money off of them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to oppose the nomination of GEN Mitchell Zais, who has been nominated to serve as Secretary DeVos's Deputy Secretary at the Department of Education. I am opposing this nomination because those who work at the top of the Department of Education should be committed to its top priority, which is helping educate our next generation of students. They should not be focused on demonizing teachers or public schools or the Federal Government's role in public education, and they should not be promoting their extreme ideological agendas at the expense of our students. We need a Department of Education with a positive vision for our neighborhood public schools that believes that everyone has the right to a high-quality public education no matter where they live or how they learn or how much money their parents make. That is what millions of parents and teachers and students stood up for during Secretary DeVos's confirmation hearing. Despite the public rejection of her extreme ideology and her unprecedented tie-breaking confirmation vote by Vice President Pence, it is clear Secretary DeVos has led the Department of Education in the opposite direction. She has continued to push her privatization agenda, trying to siphon taxpayer funds away from our public schools. She has ignored key parts of our Nation's K-12 laws, refusing to hold States accountable for the success of our most vulnerable students. She has made it easier for predatory, for-profit companies to take advantage of students, rolling back protections for students and dismantling the unit that investigates claims of fraud and abuse. Time and again, she has failed to protect students' civil rights. She tried to shrink the Office of Civil Rights. She rolled back protections for transgender students. She rescinded guidance for schools on how to investigate claims of campus sexual assault. With Secretary DeVos's ideological agenda steering this ship, it is clear to me that the Department of Education needs a strong and independent Deputy Secretary of Education to once again start putting students first. Unfortunately, General Zais made it clear that he would be proud to be Secretary DeVos's right-hand man and shares her position on a number of concerning issues. He agrees with Secretary DeVos's extreme privatization agenda to siphon taxpayer funds from our public schools. He largely opposes the Federal role in education and, like Secretary DeVos, seems to lack even an understanding of key issues important to public schools. As the State superintendent of education, General Zais allowed his partisan ideology to hurt South Carolina students. He refused Federal funding that could have saved teachers' jobs--the only State to do that--and he objected to plans to expand access to universal pre-K, calling 5-year-olds ``too young to learn.'' That is a particularly shocking comment to those of us who understand the importance of the first 5 years for children's development. I come to the floor today on behalf of millions of parents and students and teachers who so loudly objected to Secretary DeVos's agenda during her confirmation, and I ask my colleagues to vote against this nomination and not allow another DeVos-like nominee into the Department of Education. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill, which is at the desk, that provides alternative minimum funding rules for certain single-employer plans maintained by a community newspaper; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my strong opposition to Director Pompeo's nomination to be our next Secretary of State. This position is too important. The stakes are too high to let this nominee slide by without full consideration of what it would mean for Director Pompeo to be our Nation's top diplomat--the person whose every word and action broadcasts America's values to the rest of the world. Some of my opposition concerns Director Pompeo's harsh views on matters of war and peace, and his blatantly false accusations regarding members of the Muslim community. Some of my opposition surrounds my deep concern about Director Pompeo's ability to stand strong against President Trump's erratic and uninformed foreign policy positions. But what I wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to do is to express my serious concern about what Director Pompeo's ideological, extreme positions on women's rights and reproductive freedom would mean for women across the world. Our Nation has an important role to uphold as a global champion of women's rights. We need a Secretary of State who will be a strong advocate and continue our legacy of leadership in fighting for women's health and reproductive freedom and the rights of women and girls around the world. Instead, I am afraid Director Pompeo would undo much of that legacy and undermine much of the global progress we have made. An advocate for women doesn't repeatedly support the global gag rule, which keeps funding from clinics and programs that provide women important medical care. Director Pompeo did. An advocate for women doesn't vote to defund the United Nations Population Fund, which provides family planning services for women around the world who live in poverty. Director Pompeo did. When it comes to fighting for the survivors of rape and against those who would use rape as a tool of war, it is clear we should stand by survivors, fight for them, and work to make sure they have access to the medical care they need. However, Director Pompeo has said he would prevent women who have been raped from access to abortions. That is an unacceptably cruel response to women and war survivors, and it is one of the many clear indicators that Director Pompeo is an unacceptable choice to serve as Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is always a critically important position, but it takes on even more important meaning in 2018. The President not only needs good counsel in navigating our complex global relationships, but he also desperately needs someone who can tell him when he is wrong and who can stand up to him and be a check on this President's worse impulses. Throughout his nomination process, Director Pompeo failed to convince me that he is that person. So I will be voting no on his nomination to be Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose Kyle Duncan's nomination to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A review of Mr. Duncan's record--his cases and chosen causes--shows he is a dangerous, ideological nominee who has consistently been on the wrong side of women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and civil rights. Let's start with Mr. Duncan's record that argues against women's rights and reproductive freedom. When he served as the lead counsel in the infamous Hobby Lobby case, he argued that an employer can interfere with a woman's personal healthcare choices. In Texas, he filed a brief that was in favor of abortion restrictions that would have shut down the vast majority of clinics in that State-- restrictions the Supreme Court, ultimately, ruled an ``undue burden'' on a woman's constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion. In my home State of Washington, he filed a brief that argued pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for ideological reasons. Fortunately, his views did not prevail. Then there is Mr. Duncan's long record of opposing LGBTQ rights. When it comes to the rights of same-sex couples, he argued against two loving parents who wanted to change their baby's birth certificate so they could add him to their insurance plan. He argued for denying a same-sex spouse her parental visiting rights to the children she had raised for 8 years. He also defended bans on same-sex marriages in Louisiana and Virginia. When the Supreme Court was considering whether to strike down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide, he said the harm of doing this would be ``severe, unavoidable, and irreversible,'' and he filed an amicus brief against it. When the Court then made its historic decision to recognize same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, Mr. Duncan said it ``raises questions about the legitimacy of the Court.'' He said it might ``imperil civic peace.'' When it comes to the rights of transgender people, he fought for the intolerant, harmful bathroom ban in North Carolina and against Gavin, a young boy in Virginia who simply wanted his school to allow him to use the men's restroom. He did it by using bigoted remarks that were nothing short of appalling. In defending the outrageous ban in North Carolina, he relied on bogus testimony from a self-proclaimed expert who suggested that transgender people are delusional. In his opposing Gavin in Virginia, Mr. Duncan advanced the offensive and discredited conspiracy theory that schools need to fear athletes who pretend to be transgender in order to gain a competitive advantage. Outside of the court, outside of his client work, he has repeatedly addressed an organization that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center--an organization that calls marriage equality an ``oxymoronic institution if ever there was one.'' There are other red flags about his commitment to defending civil rights. For example, when the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for minors were unconstitutional, he argued the ruling shouldn't apply retroactively. He argued that prisons that are packed to double their capacity were not in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting the problem caused ``needless suffering and death.'' In a case involving an innocent man who had spent 14 years on death row--an innocent man--Mr. Duncan argued that the district attorney's office was not at fault for failing to train a staff member who had withheld evidence. When it comes to one of the fundamental rights in a democracy--the right to vote, the right of the people to choose their government officials--Mr. Duncan defended a racially tailored voter ID law in North Carolina, which the courts ultimately struck down for targeting African Americans with ``almost surgical precision.'' Any one of these cases Mr. Duncan has chosen to take should raise alarm, and any one of the ideological arguments he has made should cause concern. Yet all of them together paint an unmistakable picture of a nominee who would not uphold women's rights, LGBTQ rights, or civil rights. To paraphrase one of his own statements, if confirmed, I believe the damage Mr. Duncan will do to people by putting his ideology over their rights will be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible. I oppose his nomination. I urge all of my colleagues to join me. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Carlos Muniz to be the Department of Education's general counsel. The Department of Education's primary responsibility is to help schools educate our students and prepare them to be successful in life. A good education can open doors of opportunity for children who may not have thought that their dreams were possible, and a good education can lift millions of families out of poverty and into the middle class. That is certainly what a good education did for me and for my family. As many working families are struggling today, we should be working to make sure every child can attend a good public school in their own neighborhood. We need to do more to ensure that every student who wants to attend college can afford it, graduate, and find a good-paying job and is not saddled with a mountain of debt. It is critical that every student, no matter what age, learn in a safe environment, free from discrimination, harassment, and violence. This should be at the core of our Nation--that everyone has the right to a high-quality education, no matter where they live or how they learn or how much money their parents make. As general counsel to the Department of Education, Mr. Muniz would be responsible for providing legal advice and assistance to Secretary DeVos. Her first year in office has shown how much she needs it. Secretary DeVos continues to push her extreme privatization agenda even though millions of students, parents, and teachers have stood up and rejected it. Despite bipartisan agreement in Congress on our Nation's K-12 law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, Secretary DeVos is approving State plans that do not comply with all of ESSA's guardrails--guardrails that were agreed to by Republicans and Democrats in Congress to help ensure that no student falls through the cracks. Secretary DeVos has rolled back protections for students and student loan borrowers, making it easier for predatory, for-profit colleges to take advantage of students. Time and again, she has failed to uphold civil rights protections for students. She has tried to scale back the Office for Civil Rights, opened the doors for schools to once again discriminate against transgender students, and rolled back guidance for schools on how to investigate campus sexual assault. Especially in this moment when more and more women are coming forward and sharing their stories of harassment and assault, there is no excuse for those in power to attempt to sweep their stories under the rug. By rolling back this guidance, Secretary DeVos allowed schools to put the burden back on survivors. By making it harder for them to trust they will be believed, I am concerned that fewer women will come forward. Mr. President, it is clear that Secretary DeVos needs an independent general counsel who will stand up to her when laws are being bent or broken. I am afraid Mr. Muniz has failed to convince me that is the kind of general counsel he would be. He worked for a for-profit college company that preyed upon students and cheated them out of their education and their savings. He has a record of putting politics before students. He worked for the Florida attorney general, who came under fire for accepting a political donation from President Trump at the very time she decided against investigating Trump University--a sham university that defrauded countless students by promising them everything and leaving them with nothing. Although Mr. Muniz and the Florida attorney general didn't stand up for students who were misled and defrauded by President Trump, many other States sued. Just last week--8 years after Trump University closed its doors--the $25 million settlement the President agreed to pay to his victims was finalized, meaning some of those cheated by the President will now start seeing relief. However, Mr. Muniz's involvement in the Trump University case gives me great concern that at the Department of Education, he will once again not stand up for student loan borrowers defrauded by other predatory for-profit colleges. I am afraid Mr. Muniz at the Department of Education will only be more of the same. For those reasons, I will be voting against his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose in the strongest terms the nomination of Patrick Pizzella as Deputy Secretary of Labor. With this nomination President Trump is once again breaking his promise to put workers first. Mr. Pizzella has a record that is time and again at odds with the goals of the very Department he would help to lead as Deputy Secretary. His track record is one of not merely failing workers but of failing to enforce laws to protect the health and safety of workers, seeking to diminish workers' rights and protections, and undermining the unions that represent and fight for them. In fact, his record includes working with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff on behalf of causes that are counter to the mission of the Department of Labor. In the 1990s, Congress was moving to expand labor and immigration protections to the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. Territory, to end the operation of sweatshops that did not follow Federal labor laws. The law at the time let companies bring in foreign workers to toil under inhumane conditions. The workers were underpaid. They were forced to sign contracts signing away their rights to protest labor conditions, and some were even coerced to have abortions. The companies operating under these inhumane conditions were able to print the words ``Made in the U.S.A.'' on their products. While Congress was looking to take action to change the law so we could better protect workers, Pizzella was working with Abramoff to coordinate all-expense-paid trips for dozens of Republican lawmakers and staff and seeking to maintain the sweatshop status quo. Patrick Pizzella chose not to work for workers but for corporations. These efforts are not just counter to the mission of the Department of Labor, they are counter to our national values. The rest of Mr. Pizzella's record shows that he has taken equally extreme positions throughout his career. Take, for example, his radical record as the sole employee of the Conservative Action Project, a far- right group funded by billionaire donors like the DeVos family, or his record when he last served in the Department of Labor. Under his leadership, the Department of Labor cut its budget in part by cutting down its own employees' collective bargaining rights and decreasing official time. Then there is his long record championing anti-union policies and arguing to limit collective bargaining rights. At the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Pizzella not only ruled consistently against workers and unions, but he repeatedly broke with longstanding policy by calling out the names of individual workers in his decisions. He chose to call out defendants by name and put them in the public spotlight. The pattern of Mr. Pizzella's anti-worker ideology is clearly unchanged today. Throughout his career, Mr. Pizzella's record has been alarmingly consistent. From his years serving as the right hand to Jack Abramoff until now, he has shown that he is not going to fight for workers. He will fight against them. It would be irresponsible to put a man with such a strong track record of anti-worker conviction a tweet away from leading the Department of Labor. It is unconscionable that someone of Mr. Pizzella's background would be the No. 2 leader at the Department of Labor. It is unacceptable that he could be in line to serve as Acting Secretary should Secretary Acosta leave the Department. I strongly oppose his nomination. I will be voting against him, and I encourage our colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today for two reasons. Before discussing the nomination at hand--John Ring for the National Labor Relations Board--I do want to take a couple of minutes to mark Equal Pay Day. Today, it takes women more than 3 additional months to make what their male colleagues made in 2017. In the 21st century, there is absolutely no excuse for the reality that women are still being paid less than men for the same work. It is wrong, it is harmful, and it has to change. What is even more unacceptable is that for women of color, the pay gap is even worse. African-American women, working full time, only make 63 cents for every dollar their White male colleagues make, and on average, Latinas earn 54 cents for every dollar their White male colleagues make. The wage gap doesn't hurt just women; it hurts families and our economy. Women are actually the sole or cobreadwinner in two-thirds of families with children. Families increasingly rely on women's wages to help make ends meet--to buy groceries, pay the bills, or pay for childcare. In order to help women and all working families get ahead, I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act provides transparency and support for women who are being paid less than their male colleagues. It protects women from retaliation for discussing salary information with their coworkers, it allows women to join together in class action lawsuits, and it prohibits employers from seeking salary history, so the cycle of pay discrimination cannot continue. As President Trump now continues to roll back worker protections and prioritize corporate profits over working families' wages, I think it is time for Congress to act and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act because workers do deserve to be paid fairly, end of story, no matter their gender. Mr. President, I want to turn to the nomination before the Senate today, the nomination of John Ring for the National Labor Relations Board. First, I have to object to the unprecedented nature in which we are jamming this nominee through. It is standard practice that Board nominees are always confirmed in pairs--one Democrat and one Republican. We do this to keep the Board as fair and balanced as possible in hopes that workers have a fair hearing when corporations violate their rights or bargain in bad faith, because the Board is the only place to which workers can turn to enforce their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Workers cannot sue in court. So I must ask, why is this nominee being forced through without also filling the Democratic seat that is about to be vacated, especially at a time when so many other nominees have been waiting significantly longer--some more than 6 months--to be confirmed? I have to believe that it is because special corporate interests are putting immense pressure on my colleagues across the aisle to confirm someone who will advocate for corporations, no matter the cost to workers. Right now, the Board's credibility is damaged because another Trump- appointed Board member, William Emanuel, chose to cast aside his ethics pledge and commitment to me by participating in Board actions that would directly benefit his former employer. Because of those actions, Mr. Emanuel--the Board's independent watchdog--opened an investigation, and because there was a clear conflict of interest, the Board was forced to vacate the decision that overruled Obama-era worker protections. With a cloud of ethics controversies surrounding the current Board members, it is clear to me why corporations and special interests are trying to get Mr. Ring confirmed so quickly. Mr. Ring has spent his career as a corporate lawyer representing the interests of companies, not workers. He has opposed the Board's reforms that stop companies from unnecessarily delaying union elections. He has encouraged the Board to undermine long-established rights, including the right for workers to have coworker representation in disciplinary interviews. I find it difficult to believe he will advocate now for workers, as this Board desperately needs to be doing. This administration has spent more than a year undermining workers' rights and making it easier for corporations to take advantage of them, and the Board, under Republican control, has been leading that charge by ignoring longstanding practices in a rush to overturn precedents that protect workers. At a time when corporations in this country and the richest among us are getting richer and working families are left behind, it is so critical today that the Board be independent and able to advocate for workers. Now is not the time to break precedent and vote on a nominee without the Democratic pair. For all these reasons, I will be voting no on this nominee. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. I yield the floor. (Mr. JOHNSON assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to take a moment to talk about how we got to this point and why I am hopeful that, despite the Republican leader's decision to once again scuttle bipartisan negotiations on health stabilization, we can return to the table and work together to do what patients and families want; that is, to strengthen healthcare and lower the premiums next year. Chairman Alexander had said that in September every Democrat in the Senate was ready to pass the original Alexander-Murray legislation, and he is right. We wanted to work with Republicans to undo as much of President Trump's healthcare sabotage as possible because of how it is hurting families and forcing them to pay more for care. Unfortunately, Senator McConnell blocked our bipartisan agreement because he wanted to pressure his caucus into supporting yet another harmful Republican repeal bill. That TrumpCare bill failed, and I was again hopeful that after it did, we could make progress on our bipartisan legislation. Instead, Senate Republican leaders opted to do the exact opposite. They jammed through a terrible tax bill that actually raises families' premiums to pay for tax cuts for massive corporations. Even after that, I and Democrats were still at the table and ready to do what we could to stabilize markets and lower families' healthcare costs. Imagine my frustration when, at the very last minute--just days ago-- Republicans leaders once again made clear that they didn't want to lower families' premiums. They didn't want to stabilize a healthcare system that, as one House Republican said, they never supported anyway. Senate Republicans opted, instead, to surprise Democrats with a new, last-minute partisan proposal, the so-called stabilization bill, which included poison pills that Republicans knew Democrats would never agree to. The partisan bill that Republicans surprised us with would undermine access to care for people with preexisting conditions by writing President Trump's junk plans rule into law and by taking away protections included in our original agreement with Chairman Alexander to make sure that the sickest patients don't find themselves in a dramatically more expensive market. This partisan bill also pulled the most worn page out of the Republicans' ideological playbook--making extreme, political attacks on women's healthcare. This partisan bill would take huge steps beyond current law, making it so women can't even buy abortion coverage using their own money. From the start of negotiations last fall, I made it abundantly clear I will not allow women's reproductive freedoms to become a political football in these conversations. I also made clear that I understood, like it or not, that current prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion services would apply to our agreement. But that is not what this is--not at all. I think that was made pretty clear when Republicans surprised us with this last-minute change in a press release without inviting any Democrats to join. I believe, and I think most people would agree, that the massive expansion of restrictions on women's access to safe, legal abortion we see in this partisan bill has nothing to do with lowering families' premiums or making healthcare work better in our country. That is not something that was in our original deal that had bipartisan support, and it is not something that should be in this bill now. I am extremely disappointed that we have reached this point, but it does not mean I am giving up on getting this done. I know many Republicans have said that this is the end of the road for bipartisan negotiations on healthcare, but it is only if they choose that route. Today I am laying out what I hope Republicans and Democrats will ultimately be able to agree on. This is legislation that includes current law prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion--what Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed was acceptable months ago. It would take strong steps to lower premiums and make healthcare more affordable for patients. It would hold protections for people with preexisting conditions, as so many Republicans and Democrats have said we need to do. We are frustratingly close to an agreement, and I still do believe we can get there. This shouldn't be about the blame game. It should not be about pointing fingers. This has to be about getting results. I hope Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting the amendment I am offering today, and even if they don't, I hope we can get back to the table and resume talks. I truly believe there are Republicans who want to do the right thing for patients and families, even if their leadership is determined to avoid a real debate and vote on the so-called ObamaCare bailout. Our work last fall showed that we can reach an agreement when we put aside partisan politics and focus on what is best for our families. I am ready to get back to work to get that done. I object to the pending unanimous consent request. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1625 I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 1625, the omnibus appropriations bill, the Murray amendment that is now at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the chairman of our committee, the Senator from Tennessee, through the Chair, that I greatly respect the rapport I have with him, the working ability we have shown time and again through issues like Cures and ESSA and all the bills we have worked on and will continue to work on. I have that respect and admiration for him, and I want him to know I will continue to do that because I believe in legislating, and I know he does as well. I share that respect. To the Senator from Maine, through the Chair, I would also say I have a lot of respect for the Senator from Maine and her passions and her goals on this as well. I say to both of them, this is an issue I care about deeply. I would not have sat down with any one of them to work on a bipartisan solution to the dilemma we found ourselves in throughout the last year as repeated decisions were made that undermine the security of people in terms of their ability to afford quality healthcare and a marketplace that was increasingly seeing uncertainty. I believe in those goals, and I know they do as well. I remain committed to getting this done. I agree timing is everything, and we have been working on this since September. I regret the actions that were taken that we were not able to put this forward in September or December, and we are here now at this point. I will state, as to the language that has been added, obviously and clearly, there is a real divide on how it is read, how it is interpreted, and how it could be applicable. That is our objection. I say to my colleague, my chairman, through the Chair as well, that we had offered him language on Friday that did indeed deal with the Hyde amendment. No one here said we cannot have that, but we have language that exceeds, in my opinion--I know that is not shared on the other side--but in my opinion extends well beyond into the private marketplace, where I think there is a line the people would not support, and I certainly can't myself. In addition to the other language dealing with people's ability to protect their preexisting conditions, we clearly have a divide on how that is interpreted, but that does not preclude our ability, if we agree on the goal of stabilizing the marketplace and ensuring that we can do the CSR payments, that we can do the reinsurance program the Senator from Maine has championed, and rightfully so--and I hope we can all agree that moving on from here, we would return to that bipartisan proposal, not partisan proposals, and move to get this done. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to LTC Charcillea ``Charcy'' Schaefer for her exemplary dedication to duty and service as an Army congressional fellow and congressional budget liaison for the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller. Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer is transitioning from her present assignment to serve as a battalion commander for the 19th Military Police Battalion of the 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, HI. Born in Ipswich, England, into an Air Force family, Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer was commissioned as a military police officer after her graduation from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point with a bachelor of science degree. She then went on to earn a master's degree in administration with a focus in leadership from Central Michigan University and another in legislative affairs from the George Washington University. Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer has served in a broad range of assignments during her 15-year Army career. Her assignments took her across the country including Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Leonard Wood, MO; Fort Bragg, NC; and Fort Campbell, KY. She has four combat deployments encompassing over 45 months in theater, with 23 months advising host nation forces in policing and Army tactics and operations. Three of Charcy's deployments were to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the fourth was to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I had the privilege of working with Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer in my office in 2016 during her year as an Army congressional fellow, as well as during her subsequent assignment as a congressional budget liaison for the U.S. Army. Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer worked tirelessly with Members of Congress and their staff to accurately articulate the Army's budget positions to the Appropriations Committees. Her professionalism, diligence, and commitment to the mission are unmatched, and her work both as a fellow and as a liaison exemplify the best of the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense to the U.S. Congress. The foundation of Charcy's military success is her family. Her parents, Parks and Mary Schaefer of New Bern, NC, provided the base of selfless service evident in all that she and her siblings, Chas and MaryLynne, do. Charcy is a devoted wife to Rachel Brant, an accomplished attorney and herself a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate Corps. Rachel anxiously awaits their family's reunion, to include dogs Rocco and Stevie, in Honolulu. Their attitude of service and care for others permeates in each organization and activity they participate in, and they are both truly examples of extraordinary leaders in the Army and the communities they serve. Throughout her career, Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer has positively impacted the soldiers, peers, and superiors around her. Our country has benefited tremendously from her extraordinary leadership, judgment, and passion. I join my colleagues today in honoring her dedication to our Nation and invaluable service to the U.S. Congress as an Army congressional liaison. It has been a genuine pleasure to have worked with Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer over the last 2\1/2\ years. On behalf of a grateful nation, I proudly recognize and commend Charcy for her service to our country and wish her all the best as she continues her service in the U.S. Army.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, time and again, President Trump and Vice President Pence have made clear they will put extreme ideology ahead of women's health and constitutional freedoms. We have seen it in their efforts to undermine women's ability to get reproductive healthcare from providers they trust. We have seen it in their efforts to let employers deny women birth control coverage based on what they believe and regardless of what the women who work for them believe. We have seen it in the administration's close coordination with a hate group on tailoring policies to undermine Planned Parenthood. We heard it loud and clear when Vice President Pence laid out his far-right vision that women's freedom to have safe and legal abortions could end in our time. We have also seen it implemented to an appalling extreme in Scott Lloyd's inexcusably harmful and ideologically driven actions as Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The Office of Refugee Resettlement is a little-known but very important office inside the Department of Health and Human Services. They are supposed to be helping resettle refugees who are fleeing violence, to resettle and integrate Iraqis and Afghans whose lives are actually in danger because they work for the U.S. Government. They provide rehabilitative, social, and legal services to survivors of torture, and they are charged with overseeing a network of providers across the United States who care for unaccompanied children who arrive at our Nation's borders--children and youth--seeking safety in our country. However, under Director Lloyd, it has become a testing ground for the radical Trump-Pence agenda to interfere with women's health choices. Repeatedly, under the supervision of Director Lloyd's office, when young women--some of whom are survivors of sexual abuse--have sought safe and legal abortions, his response has been to personally step in and put up barriers to their care. He worked to prevent young women in his custody from speaking with lawyers about their rights. He personally interfered to try to pressure women out of their decisions to have abortions. Director Lloyd even had his office explore the possibility of reversing an abortion once the medical procedure was underway--a practice that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has noted is ``unproven and unethical.'' A deposition from ongoing litigation shows just how reckless and irresponsible Scott Lloyd has been. In emails, he admitted he was making these decisions on an ad hoc basis. In other words, Director Lloyd wasn't concerned with fulfilling his duty as the head of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. He wasn't concerned with the well-being of women. He wasn't concerned with their personal decisions or their freedoms. He was only concerned with furthering an extreme, ideological agenda. Women and men across the country are not having it. They are standing up and standing against Scott Lloyd's extreme policies. Many have signed a petition calling for his removal, and they are just the latest addition to a growing outcry against Director Lloyd's willful disregard for women's rights. Many Senate and House Democrats have called for him to step down. I am again calling on Secretary Azar to fire Scott Lloyd as Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement because Scott Lloyd's actions and his personal beliefs about what women can and can't do with their bodies show a fundamental disrespect for the rights and equality of women, as does setting policy that has huge implications for women's health and lives through an ``ad hoc'' process. Scott Lloyd's actions to undermine women's health and to deny women's rights are utterly unacceptable, and they cannot go unchecked. We cannot permit bullies to try to intimidate vulnerable young women who are making the healthcare decisions that are right for them--not President Trump, not Vice President Pence, and not Scott Lloyd. I am going to keep standing up and fighting for the rights of these women and immigrants across the country and for the rule of law that ensures those rights. I am going to keep fighting against those who think they are above the law and who want to roll back the clock on these freedoms. I urge my colleagues to join me today in standing with women, standing for the rule of law, and calling for Scott Lloyd's immediate removal from office. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to remind all of us of those who have been lost due to gun violence from Washington State. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names be printed in the Record to remind all of us that this is just a fraction of those we know have been lost.