Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am deeply frustrated that Republicans, in one of their first actions following their and President Trump's disastrous attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, have decided to bring to the floor yet another CRA that would hurt workers, hurt the middle class, and hurt our economy. Last week, millions of families sent a very clear message to President Trump and Republicans: Enough with the attempts to turn back the clock on progress for working families. Clearly, President Trump and Republicans are not getting the message because, today, in what can only be described as a truly shameless giveaway to Wall Street, Republicans are poised to roll back a rule that would, simply, allow cities to help small businesses provide their workers access to easy, affordable, and high-quality retirement savings programs. Before I continue, I want to reiterate what is at stake if Republicans roll back this rule. If Republicans pass this anti-worker resolution that is on the floor today, over 2 million workers in Philadelphia, in New York City, and in Seattle--in my home State of Washington--will lose the opportunity to access a retirement savings program. I expect my Republican colleagues to make several claims as to why they are pushing to repeal this rule, but I want to be very clear that this is a deliberate attempt by Republicans to deny millions of workers the opportunity to save for retirement just to ensure that Wall Street remains in charge of our retirement system and can continue to write its own rules. The 2 million workers who are at risk today in these three cities are part of the nearly 55 million workers across the country, which include 2 million workers in my home State of Washington, who do not have access to a workplace retirement plan through their employers. That is about one-third of all of the workers in our country. These are workers--particularly low-income and young workers--who are putting in long hours, meeting all of their responsibilities, but who lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Because Congress has been unable to come together to address our retirement savings crisis, cities and States have now stepped up to help more workers save for their own retirements. These programs vary, but they all generally include several things. First of all, they allow employers to automatically enroll workers while giving workers the opportunity to opt out. Several studies have made clear that, when workers are automatically enrolled, they are more likely to save simply because it is easier to save. We all want that, and that is a fact. Secondly, these programs apply only to businesses that do not currently offer retirement plans, and they, in no way, limit an employer's ability to seek out and offer its own employer-sponsored plan. Lastly, these programs are worker and business friendly. There is little paperwork required for workers to participate in the programs, and there are no added burdens to the small businesses. In fact, in these programs, employers are strictly required to serve only in an administrative capacity. Last year, Democrats, in their working with the previous administration, pushed for guidance to provide certainty to cities and States that have launched their own retirement programs. This guidance clarifies an existing safe harbor that allows employers to establish payroll deduction IRAs, which gives States the clarity that these programs will not be preempted by Federal retirement law while still retaining the protections under the Internal Revenue Code. These retirement programs are safe; they are secure. This guidance merely provides flexibility to cities and States to move forward with these programs. Again, this guidance provides clarity for small businesses, which facilitate these programs for their employees, in that they may only act in an administrative capacity in operating these plans. I think we all know what this repeal is truly about. President Trump is committed to doing everything he can to put the interests of Wall Street first. Unfortunately, with this action, Republicans in Congress are helping him do that. It does not seem to matter if Republicans need to vote against policies they are on the record as having previously supported, like these retirement programs. Apparently, it does not matter if they need to vote to undermine our States' rights, as this resolution will do. It is becoming increasingly clear, without having a legislative agenda of their own, that Republicans are working to undo any and all rules and protections that had been put forth by the Obama administration. It is not working. It is not leadership. It is not the kind of leadership our families deserve. After last week, I had hoped that President Trump and the Republicans would have dropped their extreme anti-worker agenda. Families nationwide are sending a clear message in marches and phone calls and letters and online and in their communities. They expect their representatives to be committed to working for them, and they are paying close attention--more than ever before--and are prepared to hold Members accountable. This CRA is a critical vote. Families are watching. If you stand with working families, vote against this resolution. If you say you believe in States' rights, vote against this resolution. If you want to meaningfully address our retirement crisis, vote against this resolution. I am here to urge all of our colleagues to reject this harmful repeal and to stand with our working families. That is what is at stake. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to start by addressing the news last night that Republican leaders have decided to try to make their awful TrumpCare legislation even worse. TrumpCare wasn't enough of a giveaway to insurance companies, and it didn't do enough harm to women, seniors, and people with preexisting conditions, so Republican leaders decided to double down in efforts to appeal to their extreme conservative base. They are now claiming that they can take away essential health benefits like maternity care, mental health care, and preexisting conditions through the reconciliation process, but here are the facts: Republican leaders know, just as Democrats do, that measures to take away these critically important protections cannot survive the reconciliation process and could never get 60 votes in the Senate. They are simply trying to sell conservatives a bill of goods today in the rush to jam this through, but the more they scramble, the more harmful this bill gets for patients and families and the worse it will be for any House Republican who will be held accountable for their votes on it. As we all know, today marks 7 years since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. While some here in Congress may view this as an ideal opportunity to ram through a reckless, harmful repeal of the law, I, for one, think about today a little differently. I remember 7 years ago, standing with a young constituent of mine from Seattle, Marci Owens, as we watched President Obama sign the Affordable Care Act into law. I had met Marci when she was about 11 years old, in the midst of some of the most heated moments of the healthcare reform debate, and to this day, I will never forget the story she told me about her mom, who all of a sudden had become sick, was forced to miss work, and because of that, she lost her job and lost her health insurance. Ultimately, because she wasn't even able to see a doctor or get any care, she died as a result of her illness. I took that story with me, along with countless other stories of families unable to access care, pay for medication, or see a doctor. I used them as motivation as my colleagues and I worked tirelessly to pass the Affordable Care Act. Just last month, I was proud to have Marci, who is now 18, attend President Trump's joint address to Congress as my guest. Today, Marci is still sharing her story and advocating for affordable healthcare, as well as transgender rights. She, along with millions of others across the country, is once again standing up, speaking out, and making it clear that we cannot go backward. I come to the Senate floor to share some of the stories of families in my home State of Washington who are worried, who are afraid, and whose lives will be at risk if President Trump and Republicans take us down this dangerous path to repeal, people whose voices need to be heard more than ever. I want to make it very clear why we are here and what is at stake. The House Republican TrumpCare bill would have a profoundly negative impact on the lives and the well-being and the financial security of people across the country, people who are truly terrified about the uncertain path forward. Yet, for having such a profound impact, Republicans are seemingly doing everything they can to limit public discussion on TrumpCare. This bill was rushed through four House committees without a single public hearing, no testimony, no expert view. House Republicans voted the bill out of two of these committees without a CBO score, without knowing how many people would be impacted. In the Senate this week, every Senate Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee called on the chairman to allow for a hearing to talk about this bill, but he refused. He ignored the request, and he held a hearing on other health policy instead. That the Health Committee--the Health Committee--has not been allowed to hold a single hearing to talk about and debate TrumpCare is appalling and shameful. Not to be outdone, of course, the majority leader, instead of committing to give all Senators time to review and evaluate the bill, has now said the bill will go straight to the floor for a vote as soon as next week, prompting even Members of his own party to come out against this plan. In all, these efforts are unprecedented. They are wrong, and they speak volumes about the kind of bill they are trying to ram through, because we now know many of the facts of the bill. This bill will kick 24 million people off their coverage. It will cause premiums to skyrocket. Seniors will pay more for their care. It will put at risk those who are struggling with mental illness and substance use disorders, including opioid addiction. It would end Medicaid as we know it. Predictively, it attacks women's constitutionally protected healthcare and rights. It defunds Planned Parenthood and puts insurance companies back in charge of other critical parts of women's healthcare, including maternity care, cancer screenings, and contraception. This bill undermines women's access to healthcare and women's ability to make their own healthcare decisions in virtually every way a piece of legislation could. I oppose this bill in the strongest terms. I am going to be doing everything I can to fight back against it, and I know Senate Democrats will as well. Families across the country are looking to us, and they have nowhere else to turn. Like many of my colleagues, I have constituents coming up to me constantly when I am at home, asking me what is going to happen if TrumpCare becomes law. They are bravely sharing deeply personal stories about their health, their families, and their fears--something they should not have to do. They deserve to be heard. Erin Zerba from my home State of Washington deserves to be heard. She has been a teacher for 19 years and teaches in two rural school districts, but because of her part-time standing in both districts, she is ineligible for insurance. If it weren't for the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, she would have no options. As Erin puts it, she is ``terrified'' to learn that Medicaid would be gutted under TrumpCare. She has multiple disabilities, including autism and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She has had repeated surgeries following a difficult pregnancy. The medication she has to take every day is very expensive. There is no generic form. She is one of those millions of people. I have to say that we are going to fight back in every way we can because the TrumpCare bill that is being rushed through the House with giveaways being given to Senators for their votes is not the way we take care of people in this country. I am deeply worried about the process of this bill. I see the Democratic leader on the floor, and I know how important it is for him to speak. I just want to say, as the ranking member on the Health Committee, it is appalling to me that we have had no hearings, no expert witnesses, no markup. We have not seen this bill, and it is being rushed through. It will impact every single American and deserves the time of day, not some created chaos and deadline timeline that was created simply to fulfill a campaign promise and not to do the right thing for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when President Trump was running for office, he made a lot of promises to the American people. He promised the middle class he would stand up for them. He promised workers he would bring good jobs back to their communities, and he promised to drain the swamp of corporate lobbyists that muck up our democracy with dysfunction. Well, we are just over 2 months into this Presidency, and all we have seen from this administration is a series of broken promises, whether it is Cabinet picks who are billionaires, Wall Street bankers, and corporate CEOs; or his plan to jam through a healthcare bill that the President himself admits will hurt middle- and working-class families; or his proposed budget, which guts everything from job-training programs to assistance for low-income families who pay their heating bills, to meals on wheels, which provides hot meals to low-income grandparents. It is clear President Trump is standing with his billionaire and corporate lobbyist friends at the expense of the people he promised to stand up and fight for. While we have made many improvements in our economy in the last 8 years, we have a lot of work left to do. Too many people in our country today are working multiple jobs trying to support their families and pay their bills, and they are still struggling to make ends meet. That is what we should be talking about today on the Senate floor--how to build an economy that works for everyone. We should be working together to make sure that people are making a decent wage to support their families, that corporations aren't getting rich at the expense of their workers, and that hard-working people aren't risking their lives in dangerous conditions at work. Instead, what we are doing today is that my Republican colleagues, with the backing of President Trump, are trying to roll back a rule that protects workers and prevents work-related deaths and injuries. This rule allows the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA--an agency whose sole purpose is to keep workers safe on the job-- to accurately monitor and prevent workplace injuries and fatalities in our Nation's most dangerous industries. Dangerous businesses have been recording serious workplace injuries and deaths for more than four decades, and this rule simply affirms the policy enshrined in the OSHA law itself of 1970 that these records have to be accurate--a precedent of keeping workers safe and monitoring dangerous workplaces. After a recent court case put this important safety practice at risk, OSHA issued this rule to clarify their recordkeeping practices. This rule is not new. It does not impose added obligations or costs on employers, and it was actually suggested by the court in its decision. And it does not cover small businesses with 10 employees or fewer. We should be trying to make workplaces safer, but in rolling back this rule, President Trump and my Republican colleagues are doing exactly the opposite. This is not something we should be playing politics with. Without this rule--if it is overturned today by the Senate Republicans--some of the most dangerous industries will then be able to hide worker injuries and keep falsified records of injuries and workplace deaths, and it will make it more difficult for OSHA to punish low-road companies that are putting their workers' lives in danger. Every year, more than 4,800 workers are killed on the job in America, and 3 million more suffer serious injuries and illnesses. We have found that it is often the same companies that are repeat offenders. Without this rule, OSHA cannot sanction employers for keeping fraudulent injury records for multiple years before OSHA walks in the door to conduct an inspection. So many people in this country get up every day and go to work at tough, dangerous jobs to support their families and drive the economy. Those workers deserve to be able to trust that their employer isn't knowingly putting their life at risk. Without this rule, corporations and dangerous industries can take advantage of their workers, and OSHA will not have the tools it needs to stop it. We should not overturn this rule. If we do, recordkeeping will become elective. This goes against everything President Trump promised to middle- and working-class families on the campaign trail. He promised to stand up for them, to bring back good, respectable jobs to their communities. Instead, he wants to allow his billionaire corporate friends to take advantage of workers and threaten their safety, and, unfortunately, it appears my Republican colleagues are now onboard. Instead of doing President Trump's bidding, I urge my Republican colleagues to do what President Trump promised and start putting workers first by abandoning this deeply harmful effort. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 for 7 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to once again urge my fellow Senators to vote against this resolution, which will weaken our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and will hurt students and schools across the country. I wish to quickly run through the reasons why passing this resolution will hurt our students. First, voting for this resolution will throw States and school districts into chaos just as they are beginning to implement this law. Secretary DeVos has already sent a letter to State chiefs suggesting that a new State template for plan submission would be coming, less than a month before approximately 18 States and the District of Columbia intend to submit their plans. This timeline will not allow enough time for the stakeholder review process that is required in the law and may force States to reopen their plans and delay implementation of the law. Secondly, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a civil rights law at its core. We know from experience that without strong accountability, kids from low-income neighborhoods, students of color, kids with disabilities, and students learning English too often fall through the cracks, and now it is up to all of us to uphold the civil rights legacy of the law and its promise for students by voting against this resolution. I wish to spend a little more time on the third reason. It should concern all of us that if this resolution passes, it will give Secretary DeVos a blank check to promote her anti-public school agenda. During her confirmation process, my colleagues and millions of Americans saw that Secretary DeVos lacks a basic understanding of key concepts in public education policy, and even more concerning, she has openly questioned the role of the Federal Government in protecting our most vulnerable students. After her hearings, millions of people across the country stood up, made their voices heard, and called on the Senate to reject her confirmation. Although she squeaked through with an unprecedented tie-- the breaking vote from Vice President Pence--it was clear that Democrats, Republicans, and people across the country rejected her anti-public school agenda. Instead, they want the Department of Education to stand with students and with schools. We cannot in good conscience, through this rule, give Secretary DeVos another tool to promote her anti-public school agenda in ESSA implementation, and that is exactly what passing this resolution will do. My colleagues across the aisle--the senior Senator from Tennessee made a number of claims in his remarks yesterday about this rule, and I want to go through a few of them because I believe they were off base on a number of levels. First, the way my friend talked about what the law allows, or doesn't allow, in terms of rulemaking is absolutely wrong. Major laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act allow for and depend on Federal agencies to issue rules that help implement and clarify said laws. The Every Student Succeeds Act maintains the Secretary's overall authority to issue rules and clarifications that are consistent with the law. This rule before us today is consistent with ESSA, and it provides important clarity to our States, our school districts, and our schools. Secondly, the senior Senator from Tennessee misrepresented how this rule requires States to rate schools. While the Department's initial rule did require States to provide schools with a ``summative rating,'' my colleague across the aisle, as well as a number of education stakeholder groups, requested that the Department provide States more flexibility. The Department listened and took this out of the final rule which we are talking about today. In fact, the Council of Chief State School Officers, one of the groups who was concerned with the summative rating, said in a statement in response to this rule: ``It is clear the U.S. Department of Education listened to the feedback from state education chiefs across the country and made several important changes to ensure the accountability provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act can be implemented in all States.'' And now the final rule only requires States to comply with ESSA in this area. Finally, I want to say that my colleague was simply wrong in the way he talked about the impact of this rule on schools that are struggling. ESSA provides guardrails to make sure that grant sizes are sufficient to meet the needs of students, but it provides States with the flexibility to allot smaller grants to smaller sized districts and schools if that is what works best for them. But this rule in no way limits State decisionmaking in this area. Those are just a few of the ways this rule was mischaracterized over the course of the debate. There were many others. I just have to say that it is disappointing because Democrats and Republicans worked together on this law. I thought there was a clear understanding of what the law intended. I assumed my colleagues understood what the Department was doing to implement our law in an open and collaborative way, and it is very concerning to me to hear such partisanship and false representations of our bipartisan law. This rule does not dictate what States have to do in struggling schools. Instead, it balances the goals of ESSA--flexibility with Federal guardrails--and provides important clarity for our States. A vote for this resolution is a vote to run away from the bipartisan nature of the Every Student Succeeds Act. It is a blunt instrument and a significant step in the wrong direction, and it will have a serious impact on our students, our schools, and our districts across the country. I am disheartened to see that my Republican colleagues are jamming this partisan play through in the same fashion they did with Secretary DeVos's nomination. Over the past few months, millions of students, parents, and teachers have made their voices heard about the importance of public education to them. They want us to work together, and they want us to build on the bipartisan law. This resolution does exactly the opposite. I urge our colleagues to vote against this resolution and vote for our schools and our students and to vote for the bipartisan ESSA law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Mary Schuh, a fellow in my Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today on behalf of students, parents, teachers, and communities around the country to urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and to oppose this resolution today. This resolution will roll back a rule issued by the Department of Education that is critical to the effective and intended implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. I am urging my fellow Senators to vote against this resolution for the following reasons, and I will go through each one of them: First of all, this legislation will throw our States and school districts into chaos just as they are beginning to implement our new law. Secondly, it will give Secretary DeVos a blank check to promote her anti-public school agenda. Third, passing this resolution would be a retreat from the bipartisan law President Obama called a Christmas miracle, one that takes us down a strong partisan path instead, which could undermine ESSA's civil rights protections and guardrails. But before I go into that, I want to remind my colleagues of what we are working on here and what this resolution would unwind. As many of my colleagues remember well, in 2015, the senior Senator from Tennessee and I came together, with so many others in this body, to fix No Child Left Behind. We both agreed--in fact, nearly everyone in the country agreed--the law was badly broken. No Child Left Behind relied too much on high stakes standardized testing. It gave schools unrealistic goals but failed to give them the resources to meet those goals. And it included a one-size-fits-all punishment if those goals weren't met. We knew overhauling our public education law was not going to be easy, but we took the time to listen to teachers, to parents, and to students around the country, to make sure their voices were heard. And I am proud that we were then able to break through the partisan gridlock in Congress, find common ground, and pass the Every Student Succeeds Act with strong bipartisan support. After a major law like the Every Student Succeeds Act passes, Federal agencies usually issue rules to implement and clarify that law. The Every Student Succeeds Act maintains the Secretary's authority to issue rules and clarifications that are consistent with the law. This rule before us today is consistent with ESSA, and it provides important clarity to States, school districts, and schools. Using such a blunt instrument like this resolution to overturn the entire rule will be a retreat from bipartisanship. Here is how: This resolution would roll back a critical Department of Education rule that gives States more flexibility in key areas while at the same time maintaining strong Federal guardrails to ensure our most vulnerable children don't fall through the cracks. This rule provides clarity on accountability, on reporting requirements, and State plan requirements. It helps ensure that no student, no matter where they live, can fall through those cracks. In other words, this is a rule that gets at the heart and soul of what we are trying to accomplish with our bipartisan law. The Department of Education did not simply come up with this rule on its own. It incorporated over 20,000 comments from education stakeholders, State chiefs, and district superintendents, many of whom--including the State chiefs and superintendents--applauded the Department of Education for listening to their concerns and incorporating those comments into the final rule that was then released last fall. During the debate around the Every Student Succeeds Act, there was some division about what accountability should mean in the law, but the final law showed that we can balance flexibility with strong Federal guardrails, until this point, when Republicans now want to tear down the rule that ensures those guardrails go into effect. Now I want to get into some of the challenges that would be created if this resolution passes and this rule was eliminated. One important thing this rule did was clarify State submission plan requirements and set deadlines for the submission of those plans. Based on this, States have been working now with the Department of Education for months on their State plans. Approximately 18 States and the District of Columbia intend to submit their plans in the beginning of April, but if this rule goes away now, if the rug gets pulled out from under these States, there could be chaos and confusion and the undermining of confidence in this new law. By the way, we are already seeing this start. In February, Secretary DeVos sent a letter to our State chiefs suggesting a new template for their State submission plans would be ``coming,'' even before the Senate voted on this resolution, and that the new template would be available less than a month before State plans are due. This could force those impacted States to abandon their plans and start from scratch, and it does not allow enough time for the stakeholder review process that is required in the law. So that is the first reason we should oppose this legislation because there is simply no reason to insert more chaos into a system that is finally settling into our new law. The second reason is, passing this legislation would then give Secretary DeVos a blank check over implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act to promote her anti- public school agenda. As we saw in her confirmation hearing, Secretary DeVos, we know, has dedicated her career to privatizing public education. She has a long record of fighting to cut investments in public schools and shift taxpayer dollars toward private school vouchers. In her hearing, she showed a lack of even basic understanding of key concepts in public education policy, and she has openly questioned the role of the Federal Government in protecting our most vulnerable students. After her hearing, millions of people across the country stood up, made their voices heard, and called on the Senate to reject her confirmation. Although she squeaked through with a historic tie- breaking vote from Vice President Pence, it was clear people across the country rejected her anti-public school agenda. Instead, they want the Department of Education to stand with students and with our schools. One month into her tenure as Secretary of Education, Secretary DeVos has not done a lot to reassure parents who had serious concerns. She has made mistake after mistake, from grossly misrepresenting the origins of the HBCUs to failing to protect transgender students in schools, proving what the American people saw at her confirmation hearing; that her lack of understanding of public education is hurting our students. We cannot, in good conscience, provide Secretary DeVos another potential tool to implement ESSA, our bipartisan bill, with her anti-public education slant, and that is exactly what passing this resolution would do. If this resolution passes, make no mistake, I will do everything I can to ensure that Secretary DeVos implements ESSA, as Congress intended. Let me be clear. Congress did not intend that DeVos or any future Secretary of Education could use this law to encourage, prioritize, or even require States to incentivize private school choice. We will work to ensure that she does not take advantage of the chaos that will follow, if this rule is overturned. Providing Secretary DeVos a blank check would absolutely be the wrong way to go in the early stages of this law's implementation. So that is the second reason. The third reason is, at its heart, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a civil rights law, and the rule that this resolution would eliminate reflects that reality. We know from experience that without strong accountability, kids from low-income neighborhoods, students of color, kids with disabilities, and students learning English too often fall through the cracks. Now it is up to all of us to uphold the civil rights legacy of this law and its promise for all of our students. I was proud to work with my colleague, the senior Senator from Tennessee, on this law. I know he is proud of what we accomplished, but I am disheartened to see my Republican colleagues jamming this partisan play through in the same fashion they did with Secretary DeVos's nomination. Voting for this resolution will ruin the bipartisan nature of our Every Student Succeeds Act, and it will hurt our students, but by voting against this resolution, we can make sure ESSA works for all of our students, regardless of where they live, how they learn, or how much money their parents make. Finally, I want to make one more point. Even people who had concerns with the final rule do not--do not--want to see it overturned. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers, civil rights groups, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--groups that aren't always actually on the same side of education issues--are all speaking out against rolling back this rule, and parents, teachers, and community leaders are all on the same page. In a letter to the Senate, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers union said: ``Repealing these regulations now would not just be counterproductive and disruptive but would demonstrate a disregard by Congress of school districts' operation and timelines.'' In a letter to my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various education groups, including the National Center for Learning Disabilities, wrote that rolling back this rule ``will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the work in states and wasting time that we cannot afford to waste.'' So if unions, business, and civil rights groups, disability advocate organizations, and the States are not asking for this, we must ask the questions, Why are my colleagues jamming this resolution through? What perceived problem are we trying to solve? Millions of students, parents, and teachers have made their voices heard about the importance of public education. They want us to work together to uphold and build on our bipartisan law, not for it to become just the latest partisan exercise that only hurts our students. A vote against this resolution is a vote for our students, it is a vote for our schools, it is a vote not to give Secretary DeVos power she can abuse, and it is a vote to keep working together to build on this bipartisan law, not tear it apart. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to once again urge my fellow Senators to vote against the pending resolution and support strong and accountable teacher preparation programs in America today. There are so many great teacher prep programs across the country that are supplying our teaching students with the tools they need to succeed in the classroom, but there are also teacher prep programs that are struggling and need support to make sure they are producing great teachers for our schools. This rule ensures that students can make informed decisions about teacher preparation programs and that they have access to this information before they take out massive amounts of student debt. It gives States information about the schools that are struggling so States can provide those schools the tools and resources they need to improve their teaching preparation programs. Finally, eliminating this rule will give Secretary DeVos more power over our higher education programs--a risk we should not be willing to take without learning more about Secretary DeVos's vision for our higher education system. Every student deserves to have an amazing teacher in the classroom. This rule helps ensure that is possible. So I urge Senators to think of the future teachers and students who will be impacted if this resolution passes. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to take a few minutes to address the deeply harmful bill House Republicans announced yesterday to be put in place, TrumpCare. Since the election, I have had constituent after constituent come up to me with tears in their eyes wondering what the future holds for their healthcare. They are worried about losing coverage, wondering how they are going to make ends meet if their premiums spike, and they are worried that without protections laid out in the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies will once again have more power to decide what kinds of care are and are not covered. My constituents and people across the country were listening when President Trump said he would provide ``insurance for everybody'' that would be higher quality and lower cost. They heard Senate Republicans say it is important any new healthcare plan ``do no harm.'' They even saw House Republicans reassure them that they wouldn't ``pull the rug out'' from under anyone on ObamaCare. This legislation that has now been rolled out represents a broken promise to patients and families. It will leave them sicker, more vulnerable to the chaos Republicans are creating within our healthcare system, and less financially secure. Millions of people who only just gained Medicaid coverage will lose it. Premiums could increase as much as 30 percent for people who lose coverage because they are too sick to work or become unemployed. People struggling with mental illness and substance abuse disorders, including opioid addiction, which is ravaging States nationwide, may find their insurance no longer has to cover the treatment they need. Key public health programs that families across the country rely on would be slashed. TrumpCare would be a disaster for our workers and our families, but let's be clear about whom it does work for: those at the top. TrumpCare not only harms the same workers and families Republicans promised to help, it does so in order to reduce the tax burden for the wealthiest and for the insurance companies. In fact, this bill even includes a payout for insurance company executives. This is the definition of taking our healthcare system backward. I also want to make it clear what TrumpCare will mean specifically for women. As someone who has fought time after time to protect women's ability to make their own healthcare decisions, I can tell you, this bill is a wish list by and for the extreme politicians who insist on telling women what to do with their own bodies. It will defund Planned Parenthood. It will undermine key protections for women's healthcare that were included in the Affordable Care Act. By slashing Medicaid, this bill will take coverage away from low-income women and women of color who disproportionately rely on Medicaid to get the care they need. I cannot oppose this bill more strongly, and I am going to be doing everything I can to fight back against it. I know Senate Democrats are ready to do so as well, and I urge any Republican who is truly concerned about their constituent's health, their well-being, and their financial security, rather than just partisan politics, to do the right thing and join us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor actually on behalf of students across the country, and for those who are so passionate about their education that they want to dedicate themselves to teaching, and to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and support strong and accountable teacher preparation in America today. While this rule may not be the rule that any of us would have written on our own, it is important. Let me say at the outset that there are many great teacher prep programs that exist around our country, and they are doing a great job preparing our teachers to succeed in the classroom, but there are also teacher preparation programs out there that are struggling and need support to help make sure they produce great teachers for our schools. Now, as a former preschool teacher and as a mom, I know how important it is to have great teachers in our classrooms, and I understand how a good education, with an amazing teacher, can change a child's life. I am sure all of our colleagues think back on that one special teacher they had who shaped their mind and changed their life. They teach us not only how to read and write and do arithmetic, but good teachers teach us how to think critically, how to be creative, how to form an argument. I know I am not alone in saying that I owe much of what I have to the quality of the public education I received growing up, and I have spent my career fighting to make sure every child in America has the same opportunity I did. Unfortunately, too many teaching students today are forced to take out huge amounts of student loans to afford continuing their education so they can realize their dream. They are willing to make this sacrifice. They don't complain. The very least we can do for those who want to become teachers is to make sure they are actually getting their money's worth when they make an investment in themselves. That is what this rule does. It helps make sure students can make informed decisions about the quality and preparedness of their education. Here are a few of the ways this rule does that--and I am hoping my colleagues will see that this shouldn't be controversial. This rule strengthens and streamlines reporting requirements of teacher prep programs to focus on employment placement and retention of graduates. It provides information from employers to future teacher candidates so they can make an informed decision about their education by choosing a school that improves the likelihood they will find employment after graduation. It makes sure that prospective teachers can access this information they need before they take out massive amounts of student debt. When teacher programs are struggling, this rule helps States identify at-risk and low-performing programs so States can provide them the support they need to adapt or adjust their programs and help their teaching students succeed. There is one more reason I would urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution today. Simply put, it would put more power into the hands of Secretary DeVos, and many of us don't yet have the trust that she would use that power to promote the best interests of students in higher education. Secretary DeVos does not come from a higher education background. We don't know whether she supports providing information on teacher placement rates and retention rates before prospective teachers take out student loans. We have no idea what she would do if this rule went away, and I believe it would be too risky to find out. By investing in our teachers, we are investing in our future generations. Our future teachers have the right to know whether they are receiving a quality education, and they deserve to know that before they take out massive amounts of student debt. It helps to improve teacher prep program accountability and gives prospective teachers the information they need to make an accurate decision on which program is most likely to make them a successful teacher in the classroom. It ensures that Secretary DeVos does not have more power to implement unknown policies that could hurt students and reduce the number of qualified great teachers in our public schools. Without this rule and the information that it ensures, students will have a hard time finding a quality teacher prep program that will help them get a job after they graduate. I think that is simply wrong. We should be working to make sure teaching students have full access to information and options. This rule would give them less. For all the future teachers out there, I urge my fellow Senators to vote against this CRA because every young adult deserves to know that the program they enroll in is actually preparing them to be a successful teacher in the classroom, and every student deserves to have an amazing teacher in every classroom. Every Student Succeeds Bill Finally, Mr. President, I wish to bring up one more thing that is very important to me--the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act--and a potential serious threat to it. It seems that Republicans are thinking about bringing to the floor another CRA that would eliminate the rule that provides States with flexibility and guidelines to create their State plans. I want to be very clear. I hope Republicans reconsider that approach. The Every Student Succeeds Act is a critical part of our bipartisan education law. It is an important part of the civil rights protections it offers, as well as the assurances it made that every student would have an opportunity to succeed, no matter where they live or how they learn or how much money parents make. Jamming through that resolution would weaken it, and it would be a major step toward turning our bipartisan law into another partisan fight. Rolling back the Every Student Succeeds Act rule less than a month before States have to submit their plans to the Department of Education will cause chaos and confusion in the States, and it will hurt our students, our teachers, and our schools. It will also give Secretary DeVos greater control over that bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and give her the tools to implement her anti-public education agenda. Secretary DeVos's lack of experience and expertise, as well as her damaging track record on school privatization, leaves her unqualified to implement this bipartisan law that governs public education and public schools without the important guardrails that rule ensures. Given her record and her comments, she would almost certainly push for measures that disregard key civil rights protections in the Every Student Succeeds Act and could allow unequal, unfair, and unreliable accountability for schools across the country. The Every Student Succeeds Act rule is supported by Democrats and Republicans, by teachers and businesses, and by parents and communities. We should not go backward. I urge my colleagues to reconsider moving forward with that resolution, which I understand they want to bring up later this week, and work with us to continue building on that bipartisan progress that we all worked toward for our students. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 for 7 minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before I talk about the Republican's reckless move tonight to roll back important worker protections, I do want to address the President's revised immigration Executive order that he signed just hours ago. He may have rearranged some words, but make no mistake, this is still a ban on Muslims. It still flies in the face of everything this country is about and what we stand for. Slamming the door shut on refugees and immigrants, no questions asked, is un-American. Just like we saw in January, people across this country are already standing up and saying once again this is wrong, and we will not tolerate broad orders that target some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I urge the President, if you truly want to keep our country safe, work with us, but we will not sit idly by as you continue to push a hateful agenda that betrays our American values. Mr. President, I want to turn to the vote that is going to occur shortly here on the floor. I thank all of my colleagues who will be joining me this evening. When President Trump was running for office, he claimed he was going to be a President who fought for the middle class. He made a promise that he wasn't going to do what most Republicans have done in recent years and simply work for millionaires and billionaires. He was going to be different. He would be someone workers could count on. We are just over a month into this Presidency, and it couldn't be clearer; President Trump is breaking that promise, whether it is his Cabinet picks or billionaires and Wall Street bankers and corporate CEOs or his rush to destroy our healthcare system and create chaos for families across our country or what Republicans have chosen to bring to the floor tonight: another effort that would hurt our workers, hurt the middle class, and hurt our economy. Here is what I think we should be doing in Congress. We should be working on ways to boost economic security for more working families, and we should be helping our economy grow in the way that we know is strongest: from the middle out, not from the top down. We have made some important progress over the last several years, but I think all of us on either side of the aisle agree there is a lot of work left to be done. That is certainly what has been clear to me as I have traveled across my home State of Washington, listening and meeting with workers and their families. Families are working hard. They are meeting their responsibilities, but far too many are still unable to get ahead. Again, that is the topic we should be discussing tonight: how to support and empower more workers. Instead, we are here today because President Trump and my Republican colleagues either simply are not getting that message or they are too busy focusing on what is best for the folks already at the top, because today Republicans are poised to roll back a rule which helps protect our workers from wage theft, from discrimination, from unsafe workplaces, and more. I want to take just a few minutes to make very clear what is at stake for millions of working families if Republicans roll back this rule. Each year, far too many workers are deprived of overtime wages or they are denied basic workplace protections. They have endured illegal discrimination, and they face unwarranted health or safety risks. That is unacceptable, and it has to come to an end. Last year, Democrats, working with the previous administration, pushed to finalize what is now known as the fair pay and safe workplaces rule. For far too long, the government has awarded billions of taxpayer dollars to companies that rob workers of their paychecks and fail to maintain safe working conditions. This rule helps to right that wrong. Under this rule, when a company applies for a Federal contract, they will need to be upfront about their safety, health, and labor violations over the past 3 years. That way, government agencies can consider an employer's record of providing workers with a safe workplace and paying workers what they have earned before they grant or renew a Federal contract. To be clear, this does not prevent companies from winning Federal contracts. It does not single out companies. It does not deny companies the right to be heard. It simply improves transparency and coordination so government agencies are aware of companies' violations and can work with them to make sure they come into compliance with essential labor laws. Again, the emphasis on this is not punishment but on helping bring more and more companies into compliance with the law and zeroing in on violations that are, and I quote from the rule: ``Serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive.'' Not only are these measures common sense, but they would have major benefits for our workers, our businesses and, by the way, our taxpayers. It would help hold the worst violators accountable. American taxpayers should have the basic guarantee that their dollars are going to responsible contractors that will not steal from their workers or expose their workers to safety hazards. It would protect basic worker rights, and that, in turn, will help expand economic security for all working families, and it will level the playing field for businesses that do follow the law. I think we can all agree that businesses shouldn't have to compete with bad actors that cut corners and put their workers' safety at risk or cheat their workers on their paychecks. All of this, frankly, is pretty simple. When workers arrive on the job, they deserve to know they will be treated fairly, that they will be provided with a safe and healthy workplace, that their right to collective bargaining will be respected, and they will be paid all the wages they earned. Businesses that contract with the government should set an example when it comes to each of these concerns, and taxpayer dollars should only go to businesses that respect these fundamental worker protections. As I said, time and again, families nationwide are sending a very clear message at marches, with phone calls and letters, online, and in their communities. They expect and are demanding that their representatives are truly committed to working for them. I, for one, am committed to standing with them. I know my colleagues are committed, and we are prepared to fight back. Let's be clear, in rolling back these protections, President Trump and his party are yet again breaking their campaign promise to put our workers first. Workers will be hurt, wages will go down, rights will be undermined, lives will be put at risk. Tonight I am here to urge my Republican colleagues to drop this deeply harmful effort, reverse course, and stand with working families once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington State, who has made a really important case. I want to be here today to add my opinion, as well, because over the past 2 months we have heard a lot about President Trump's plan to drain the swamp, which is to reject special interests and the corporate elite and, instead, fight for workers across our country. There are a whole lot of claims, a whole lot of promises--all great. Fighting for workers is what this Congress should be doing, but the President's actions speak a lot louder than his words. I find it telling that we are here again debating yet another Cabinet nominee sent over from the White House--this time Gov. Rick Perry--whose interests have been more closely aligned with those of Big Oil and corporations rather than advancing our country's energy challenges or fighting for the working families we represent. So let me be clear. If confirmed to head up the Department of Energy, Governor Perry would join the ranks of other unqualified candidates chosen by this President to lead critically important agencies with very specific and complex functions. It is a big job. I believe that getting the top spot at the Department of Energy--or anywhere else in the President's Cabinet--should not simply be a prize for demonstrating loyalty during an election. Getting the job should be borne of a solid understanding of the agency, a respect for the tens of thousands of workers they would lead, and, most importantly, a commitment to putting families across the country first. So as a voice from my home State of Washington, where DOE's presence is extremely important, I will vote no on Governor Perry's nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Washington State is home to the Hanford nuclear reservation near the Tri-Cities. Nearly 75 years ago, this region underwent a dramatic transformation, practically overnight and under top-secret conditions, to help the United States win World War II and later the Cold War. Families and workers in this region of our State sacrificed immensely for the good of our country and the safety of our world. To this day, there is a massive environmental impact in the Tri-Cities created by decades of nuclear weapons production. Now this cleanup effort is vital, not only to the health and safety of families and workers and the economy in Central Washington but also for communities along the Colombia River. As I have told anyone elected as President, whether Democrat or Republican, it is the Federal Government's moral and legal obligation and responsibility to clean up Hanford. I know that is not an easy feat, but it is essential. It requires a very deep understanding of a very large and complex cleanup project and a great deal of respect for the workers who show up each day to make progress on this massive project. I remain deeply concerned that Governor Perry and this administration fail to grasp what is at stake. I am also concerned that they don't get the importance of another national asset not far from Hanford, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. For more than 50 years, the men and women at PNNL have been on the forefront of scientific discovery. It was originally created to support research and development at Hanford, but PNNL has become DOE's premiere chemistry, environmental sciences, and data analytics national lab, tackling some of our Nation's most complex and urgent challenges. PNNL is a leader in atmospheric research, nuclear detection and nonproliferation, and the Nation's electric grid. Its researchers have taken on everything from high-performance computing to advanced biofuels to analyzing lunar samples from NASA. These are critically important functions that advance our Nation. I have worked hard with the entire Washington State congressional delegation, not to mention a whole host of leaders at the local and State level, to support this vital research and development hub and its incredible workforce. Just like the workers at Hanford, they also deserve leaders in this administration who respect and value their work. So, if President Trump were truly looking out for workers across our country, he would take this nomination to the Energy Department very seriously. I understand Governor Perry gave his word during his confirmation hearing that he would work with us and even come to Washington State to visit Hanford and PNNL. If he is confirmed by the Senate, you can bet I will hold him to that because one I thing I have learned in the short 40-plus days of this administration is that we do get a lot of words. But it is the action that truly matters. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, thank you, and thank you to some of my colleagues who are going to be joining me on the floor this afternoon. The day after President Trump was inaugurated was one of the most inspiring I have ever gotten a chance to be part of. Millions of people, men and women, marched in Seattle, in Washington, DC, and in cities and towns in between. They carried signs, they chanted, and they made it absolutely undeniably clear that when it comes to women's rights and healthcare, people across the country do not want to go backward. Since then, they have continued to speak up and stand up. But we are here today because Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress simply are not getting the message. I want to discuss one crucial example in particular--the possibility that in a matter of days, Senate Republicans could roll back a rule protecting family planning providers from being discriminated against and denied Federal funding. Let me start by explaining a bit about what family planning providers mean to our community. These providers--part of the Title X program, which has bipartisan history--deliver critical healthcare services nationwide but are especially needed in rural and frontier areas. In 2015 alone, Title X provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services, such as Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, and HIV testing, to more than 4 million low-income women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers. In my home State of Washington, tens of thousands of patients are able to receive care at these centers each year. They often have nowhere else to turn for healthcare. In fact, 4 out of 10 woman who receive care at health centers funded by Title X consider it to be their only source of healthcare. Taking resources away from these providers would be cruel. It would have the greatest impact on women and families who are most in need. But that is exactly what the law passed in the House, which is now on its way to the Senate, would mean. It would undo a valuable effort by the Obama administration to ensure that healthcare providers are evaluated for Federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not ideology. In doing so, the bill would make it even easier for States, led by extreme politicians, to deny family planning providers Federal funding, not because of the quality of the care they provide or the value to the communities they serve but based on whether the politicians in charge agree that women should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to safe, legal abortion. It is the 21st century. It is time for politicians to stop telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. That is what the women and men who have been marching and speaking up all over our country believe. That is what I believe. It is what Democrats believe. If Leader McConnell thinks he can rush this harmful legislative effort through without a fight, we are here to say he is wrong. He can expect Democrats and maybe even some Republicans who are concerned about losing healthcare providers in their own States to fight back. So today I am calling on the leader to commit right now to drop this effort and agree not to bring this bill to the floor. It is well past time that extreme Republicans end their damaging political attacks on women. I think the opportunity to start that is right this minute. So we urge him to take this action and not bring this to the floor. We want him to know that we are going to fight back every step of the way if he does. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, a nomination that marks yet another broken promise from the new President to put the needs of American families first over the wishes of big corporations and special interests. And just like we have seen with Betsy DeVos at the Department of Education or Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, we have yet another Trump nominee whose record demonstrates a direct conflict with the mission of the agency they wish to lead. On the EPA's website, that mission is pretty clear--``to protect human health and the environment''--and EPA achieves that by enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. So I will be voting no on this nomination. I want to make two points on why Mr. Pruitt heading up the EPA would be wrong for our country and why it would be wrong for the families I represent in Washington State. It starts with his record and clear conflicts of interest. During Mr. Pruitt's term as the attorney general for Oklahoma, he filed no less than 19 cases to overturn environmental regulations, including one to topple the EPA's Clean Power Plan. These regulations specifically seek to protect public health by reducing harmful air and water pollution and are projected to save tens of thousands of lives each year. As if it wasn't bad enough that Mr. Pruitt spent so much time filing lawsuits in court and fighting policies designed to protect the health of the environment as well as people, it is pretty shocking that at the same time, he was collecting millions of dollars from the very industries he will regulate if he is confirmed. This is no small conflict of interest between his former and potentially future position, and that he was still nominated to be EPA Administrator is mind-blowing to me. I echo the sentiments of so many who have expressed serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's conflict of interest, that his ties to the fossil fuel industry make him more indebted to backing policies that loosen environmental regulations, benefiting big oil and gas companies, rather than backing policies that protect the American people. Mr. President, I want to voice another concern my constituents have shared with me. It is unnerving to think the President would choose a climate change denier to set our national environmental policy. I don't see how someone who has openly denied the existence of climate change-- the devastating effects of which we are already beginning to see in Washington State and around the country--will effectively protect human health or the environment. This is about more than just the environment. A report by the Congressional Budget Office last year found that climate change is a serious threat to our economic stability. As the occurrence of national disasters continues to rise, the cost of disaster assistance and rebuilding rises too. If we want to be responsible about tackling our fiscal challenges-- which I would think the President and Mr. Pruitt would agree on--we need to take the impacts of climate change seriously. At a time when we are already seeing the very real effects of climate change in my home State, from longer, more devastating wildfire seasons to ocean acidification and rising sea levels, it is more important than ever. This brings me to how Mr. Pruitt's confirmation would be devastating for my home State of Washington. As someone who personally spends a great deal of time fishing and hiking in my home State of Washington, I am committed to conservation and preservation efforts so generations to come can appreciate the high quality of life we enjoy and experience the splendor of America's natural spaces, one of the most important being the restoration and recovery of salmon runs and habitat throughout the Pacific Northwest, which is a vital part of our Northwest economy and its heritage. I am deeply concerned about whether this support would continue under an EPA Administrator like Mr. Pruitt. I have similar concerns about the Hanford cleanup, a critical part of our State's history that EPA plays a very important role in to protect the health and safety of our Tri- Cities community, Columbia River, and Washington State. I will fight against any EPA nominee or an Administrator who will not join us in the fight for a better future for generations to come. I sincerely hope the President and Mr. Pruitt truly understand the enormous responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency, not only in protecting our environment for future generations but for the families we represent who rely on clean air and clean water right now. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we need to act now to avoid lasting, irreversible damage to our health, our environment, our economy, and our country's future. I am not confident in putting that future in Scott Pruitt's hands. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Carper.

Mrs. MURRAY. Additionally, I yield the remainder of my time beyond that, of my postcloture debate time, to Senator Schumer.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.