Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as Attorney General of the United States. I ask: Where are the Senators who will say no to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States? I hope there are at least enough Senators here who understand that America is careening over a constitutional cliff and that all of us, regardless of political party, need an Attorney General who can be relied on to enforce the laws fairly and fight back against lawless overreach by an out-of-control President. On January 27, the world turned upside down for tens of thousands of people directly affected by President Trump's Executive order turning America's back on refugees around the world and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. Last week, I recalled many of their stories. I spoke about students and professors, about mothers and children, about friends and neighbors, real people who were turned away, detained, or deported based solely on their religion or the simple fact that they were fleeing war. We all breathed a sigh of relief when a court temporarily halted that order, but we know the fight continues to permanently overturn this unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply immoral Executive order. That isn't all that happened last week. Last week, the Acting Attorney General of the United States refused to defend President Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive order so President Trump fired her. That is right, the President of the United States fired the Nation's top law enforcement officer for refusing to defend an unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply immoral order. Last week, after days of slow-walking or ignoring judicial decisions, President Trump went on the attack. He raged against the judge who temporarily halted his order, calling him a so-called judge and questioning his authority to act. That is right. The President of the United States attacked the legal authority of an individual district court judge, lawfully appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate, to pass judgment on Trump's Executive orders. These are dangerous times. At times like this, it is more important than ever that the Attorney General of the United States has the guts, the independence, and the good moral judgment to stand up to the President when he seeks to violate the Constitution and ignore the law. At his confirmation hearing last month, Senator Sessions claimed to be that person. I have to say, I wish it were true. I really do. I wish the President's campaign had been different. I wish his actions now were different. I wish we could give his nominees the benefit of the doubt, but I will not ignore the real world, as unpleasant as it is, and neither can anyone in this Senate. In the real world, Senator Sessions obviously isn't going to stand up to the President's campaign of bigotry. How could he? In the real world, Senator Sessions is one of the principal architects of that campaign. Senator Sessions made a special name for himself for being a particularly vitriolic opponent of commonsense immigration policies. He railed against legal immigrants. He attacked cities and States that focus on keeping their communities safe instead of serving as a national deportation force. He called Islam a toxic ideology and a threat to our Nation. Despite the plain language of the Constitution, Senator Sessions doesn't think that children born in the United States should automatically become citizens. He wants to round up and deport DREAMers, who were brought to the United States as kids. Does that all sound familiar? Well, it should because Senator Sessions was an early and energetic supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump, and the Senator played a key role in shaping what has become the most extreme, most divisive, and most dangerous immigration policies of any President in decades. Senator Sessions' radical views are not limited to immigration. On issue after issue, Senator Sessions has displayed open hostility to the rights of all Americans. He has made derogatory and racist comments that should have no place in our justice system. As a Federal prosecutor, he got involved in a voting rights case against those who were trying to help American citizens who were lawfully registered to vote. Yes, that is right--he brought a case against civil rights workers who helped African-American voters submit absentee ballots. While serving as Alabama's attorney general, he reportedly made numerous racist comments, including saying he thought the KKK was OK until he learned that they smoked weed. He called a White attorney representing Black clients in a civil rights case a disgrace to his race. He claimed that the NAACP and the ACLU were un-American. In a speech in 2006, he said: ``Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming here because they have a provable skill that would benefit us and that would indicate their likely success in our society.'' According to Sessions, Dominicans come to the United States by engaging in fraud. Senator Sessions is also extraordinarily hostile to any effort to root out discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. According to Senator Sessions, marriage equality is a threat to the American culture. Roe v. Wade is constitutionally unsound. Employers should be able to fire you because they don't like whom you love. He voted against equal pay for equal work. He even voted against the Violence Against Women Act. It doesn't stop there. On crime, Senator Sessions' solution is to lock up people for even minor, low-level offenses; throw away the key. He has advocated for expanding prisons for youth, aggressively prosecuting marijuana offenses, and eliminating parole or reduced prison time for good behavior. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, he heaped praise on then- candidate Donald Trump for having once taken out a racially tinged full-page newspaper ad advocating for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, the Black and Latino teenagers who were falsely accused and convicted of raping a young woman in New York's Central Park. Senator Sessions is not a plain-old conservative Republican. No. Senator Sessions occupies a place way out at the radical fringe of his party, regularly taking positions that are far more extreme than his other Republican colleagues. For example, when Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a commonsense, bipartisan immigration bill, Senator Sessions worked overtime to make sure the bill did not make it through the House. When Republicans and Democrats came together to propose legislation to reform our broken Federal criminal sentencing laws, Senator Sessions was part of the handful of Senators who ensured that the bill would not get a vote here in the Senate. Senator Sessions has been a public figure for decades. None of this-- none of this is secret, and much of it is completely indefensible, but President Trump wants this man. So the same Republican Senators who once fought Senator Sessions tooth and nail have now launched a massive PR campaign to try to repair his public image. That case against the civil rights workers helping Blacks in Alabama to vote? Hey, you go it all wrong. He was just trying to help out other African Americans who were concerned about voting irregularities. His vote against the Violence Against Women Act? His position on LGBTQ rights? His opposition to a woman's right to choose? Hey, don't worry about it. He says he will vigorously enforce the law once he becomes Attorney General. Give me a break. The law enforcement power of the United States of America is an awesome thing. In the right hands, in steady and impartial hands, it can be used to defend all of us, to defend our laws, to defend our Constitution. In the wrong hands, it can be used to bully and intimidate the defenseless, to destroy lives, to undermine American democracy itself. Senator Sessions is not misunderstood. Senator Sessions has never been misunderstood. For decades, it has been absolutely clear where he stands. Now the time is here for every Senator to make absolutely clear where they stand as well. Let's be clear. Winning a seat in the U.S. Senate does not exempt a Cabinet nominee from the close scrutiny that all nominees to lead our government deserve. It does not change the Senate's constitutional responsibility to examine a nominee to make certain that nominee will faithfully and fairly enforce the laws of the United States of America. It does not relieve the Senate of its duty to reject nominees whose records demonstrate that they will not stand up for American values and constitutional principles. When it comes to the Senate confirming someone to be Attorney General--the highest law enforcement officer in this country--we are all personally responsible for that choice. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an insult to African Americans. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is a direct threat to immigrants. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is a deliberate affront to every LGBTQ person. To put Senator Sessions in charge of the Department of Justice is an affront to women. I ask again, where are the Senators who will say no to Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States? Thirty years ago, a Republican-controlled Senate took the extraordinary step of rejecting Senator Sessions' nomination to serve as a Federal judge. They had the courage to stand up for the principles that transcend party affiliation--fairness, equality, justice for all. Their rejection sent a message that that kind of dangerous, toxic hatred has no place in our courts. I urge them again today to exert that moral leadership and to send a message that this kind of dangerous, toxic hatred has no place in our Justice Department. I urge them to set aside politics and do what they know is right. I wish to read two statements that really stood out to me as I was reviewing Senator Sessions' record on civil rights. One is the powerful speech that the late Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, gave in 1986, and the other is a very moving letter from Coretta Scott King, a letter she wrote to the Judiciary Committee that same year. I want to start with what Senator Kennedy said. He said: The confirmation of nominees for lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and the examination by the Senate of a nominee's fitness to serve as a Federal judge is the last opportunity to determine whether the candidate possesses the education, experience, skills, integrity, and, most importantly, the commitment to equal justice under law, which are essential attributes of a Federal judge. Once confirmed, a Federal judge literally has life and death authority over citizens that appear before him, with limited review of his decisions. Our Federal judiciary is the guardian of the rights and liberties guaranteed to all of us by the U.S. Constitution, and the decisions of fellow judges are constantly shaping and reshaping those rights and liberties. This committee has a duty to our citizens to carefully examine the qualifications of nominees for the Federal bench and to give our approval only to those who have demonstrated a personal commitment to the principle of equality for all Americans and a sensitivity to the long history of inequality which we are still struggling to overcome. Mr. Sessions, as a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, comes to this committee with a record which regrettably includes presiding over the now-infamous so-called Perry County voting fraud prosecutions. In the Perry County case, the government indicted three well-known and highly respected Black civil rights activists on charges of voter fraud and assisting elderly Black voters to vote by absentee ballot. But for the efforts of the defendants 20 years ago, these Black citizens would not have been allowed to vote. All three of the defendants were acquitted on all charges in the indictments, and some of the elderly Blacks have responded to their experiences during the prosecution, vowing never to vote again. Mr. Sessions' role in that case alone should bar him from serving on the Federal bench. There is more--much more. We just received a sworn statement from a Justice Department attorney I know--which will be the subject of a good deal of questioning during the course of this hearing--who has worked on civil rights cases with Mr. Sessions over the period Sessions was U.S. attorney. Mr. Huber has stated to the committee investigators that Mr. Sessions on more than one occasion has characterized the NAACP and the ACLU as un-American, Communist-inspired organizations. Mr. Huber reports that Mr. Sessions said that these organizations did more harm than good when they were trying to force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them. Mr. Huber also stated that Mr. Sessions suggested that a prominent White civil rights lawyer who litigated voting rights cases was a disgrace to his race for doing it. Mr. Sessions is a throwback to a shameful era which I know both Black and White Americans thought was in our past. It is inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a U.S. attorney, let alone a U.S. Federal judge. ``He is, I believe, a disgrace to the Justice Department, and he should withdraw his nomination and resign his position.'' Those were the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, and I will stand with Senator Kennedy, and, like he did, I will cast my vote against the nomination of Senator Sessions. Coretta Scott King also wrote to the Judiciary Committee about the Sessions nomination in 1986. This is what she wrote: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Sessions for a federal district judgeship for the Southern District of Alabama. My longstanding commitment, which I shared with my husband, Martin, to protect and enhance the rights of Black Americans, rights which include equal access to the democratic process, compels me to testify today. Civil rights leaders, including my husband and Albert Turner, have fought long and hard to achieve free and unfettered access to the ballot box. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his politically-motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge. The Voting Rights Act was, and still is, vitally important to the future of democracy in the United States. I was privileged to join Martin and many others during the Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965. Martin was particularly impressed by the determination to get the franchise of blacks in Selma and neighboring Perry County. As he wrote, ``Certainly no community in the history of the Negro struggle has responded with the enthusiasm of Selma and her neighboring town of Marion. Where Birmingham depended largely upon students and unemployed adults [to participate in non-violent protest of the denial of the franchise], Selma has involved fully 10 per cent of the Negro population in active demonstrations, and at least half the Negro population of Marion was arrested on one day.'' Mrs. King continues: Martin was referring of course to a group that included the defendants recently prosecuted for assisting elderly and illiterate blacks to exercise that franchise. In fact, Martin anticipated from the depth of their commitment twenty years ago, that a united political organization would remain in Perry County long after the other marchers had left. This organization, the Perry County Civic League, started by Mr. Turner, Mr. Hogue and others, as Martin predicted, continued ``to direct the drive for votes and other rights.'' In the years since the Voting Rights Act was passed, Black Americans in Marion, Selma and elsewhere, have made important strides in their struggle to participate actively in the electoral process. The number of Blacks registered to vote in key Southern states has doubled since 1965. This would not have been possible without the Voting Rights Act. However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the voters. It has been a long, up-hill struggle to keep alive the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the enforcement of those laws----

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I don't think I quite understand. I am reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee from 1986 that was admitted into the Record. I am simply reading what she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a Federal court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her.

Ms. WARREN. I think that may have been Senator Kennedy who said that in the record, although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words.

Ms. WARREN. So quoting Senator Kennedy, calling then-Nominee Sessions a disgrace, is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 1986.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. This week they are starting to roll out their legislative agenda. So now that they have complete control of the agenda, what do the Republicans have in store? Something to bump up wages for working families or something to create more jobs? Something to tackle the student debt crisis? Maybe something to deal with all the jobs that get shipped overseas? No, one of the Republican Party's first orders of business is a giveaway to ExxonMobil that will help corrupt and repressive foreign regimes and make it easier to funnel money to terrorists around the world. Here is the problem. Big corporations like Exxon--or other oil, gas, and mining companies--often pay millions of dollars to foreign governments to access natural resources located in these countries. Many of these foreign regimes are corrupt, and Exxon's massive payouts regularly end up in the pockets of government officials rather than in the hands of the people. These corrupt officials get filthy rich while their citizens face punishing poverty and dangerous working conditions. Worse still, some of these undisclosed payments can end up financing terrorists. Just over 6 years ago, Congress passed a bipartisan provision to help tackle this problem. With the strong support of Senator Dick Lugar, the leading Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Congress required oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose any payments they make to governments to extract natural resources. Republicans and Democrats agreed that shining a light on these payments would help combat corruption and terrorism around the globe and help citizens in some of the very poorest nations in the world hold their own governments accountable. Disclosing these foreign payments also helps investors right here in the United States so they can make more informed investment decisions. Some investors may want to stay away from companies that could face expensive lawsuits for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or other anti-corruption laws. Other investors, quite frankly, may just prefer not to invest in companies that could be helping prop up corrupt foreign governments or indirectly financing terrorism. Congress directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to write the rule, and the SEC spent years soliciting input from investors, from human rights advocates, from anti-corruption experts, and from oil, gas, and mining companies. The agency ultimately issued a ruling last year, and it worked. The rule gained the support of faith groups, human rights groups, development organizations, and anti-corruption advocates all around the world. The rule also earned the support of investors who collectively controlled more than $10 trillion in assets, and--we should really be proud--it set an international standard, with the European Union, Canada, and other countries adopting similar standards for companies in their own countries. But it didn't go down well with everyone. A handful of powerful oil and gas companies have been after this requirement from the start, and Exxon has been leading the pack on this. In fact, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon at the time, personally lobbied against the requirement back in 2010. His reason? What was his objection? The foreign payments rule would undermine Exxon's ability to do business in Russia. Listen to that again. If Exxon has to tell the world about the millions of dollars it hands over to the Russian Government, Exxon wouldn't be able to do as much business in Russia. So now the Republican Congress wants to rush in to help out poor Exxon so they can keep the secret money flowing to these Russian officials. This Exxon giveaway shows just how bankrupt the Republican agenda is. They don't have any ideas for helping working families. It is just one corporate giveaway after another--making their big business donors happy and keeping the campaign contributions flowing for the next election. But the economic lives of our working families, our moral leadership in the world, the safety of our financial system, and the water we drink and the air we breathe--all of those--are just afterthoughts to the corporate wish list. If you are a corrupt foreign dictator, Republicans rolling back the rules is great for you. If you are an oil company executive, Republicans rolling back the rules is great for you. But if you are anyone else, you should be outraged that the Republican Congress is so willing to throw you under the bus to please these groups. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we are in the second week of the Trump Presidency, and it is pretty clear that something is happening in our country. All across the Nation, Americans in quiet towns and boisterous cities are taking to the streets to fight for American values. They are protesting in the streets and calling their Representatives. They are getting involved in local organizations, and they are organizing around the causes they support. We know that American values are threatened when the President issues an order banning immigrants from the country based on their religion. We know that American values are threatened when politicians try to break apart a health care system that has extended medical benefits to millions of Americans, and we know that American values are threatened when a President tries to stack his government with billionaires and insiders who have a history of grinding working people into the dirt. Yesterday something happened that is a threat to our American values. President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. For years now, I have repeated this warning: America's promise of equal justice under the law is in danger. Over the last three decades, as the rich have grown richer and middle-class families have struggled, the scales of justice have also tilted, tilted in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. This is not an accident. It is part of a deliberate strategy to turn our courts into one more rigged game for folks at the top, and its effects have been devastating. Recent court decisions have protected giant businesses from accountability, made it harder for people who have been injured or cheated to get a hearing, gutted longstanding laws protecting consumers who have been swindled, and unleashed a flood of secret money into our politics that is rapidly tilting the entire government in favor of the wealthy. Billionaires and corporate giants have launched a full-scale attack on fair-minded, mainstream judges. It has happened at every level of our judiciary, but the best example was the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland was an obvious consensus nominee and a straight shooter who followed the law. Why block him? The problem was that Judge Garland's career didn't reflect a sufficient willingness to bend the law to suit the needs of the rich and powerful. And for that sin, far-right groups, financed by Big Business interests, spent millions of dollars attacking him, to torpedo his nomination and keep that seat open. They did something else that is even more damaging: Far-right groups also drew up a list of ``acceptable'' Supreme Court nominees, people who demonstrated they were sympathetic to the rich and the powerful. Judge Neil Gorsuch made the cut, and his nomination is their reward. Judge Gorsuch is intelligent and accomplished. He is polite, respectful, and articulate. Make no mistake, his professional record, which I have reviewed in detail, clearly and consistently favors the interests of big corporations over workers, big corporations over consumers, and big corporations over pretty much anybody else. Let's not mince words. The nomination of Judge Gorsuch is a huge gift to the giant corporations and wealthy individuals who have stolen a Supreme Court seat in order to make sure that the justice system works for them. What I am saying shouldn't be controversial. They haven't made a secret of what they were doing. This is exactly why Judge Gorsuch has been on their list for 4 months. He is the payoff for their multimillion-dollar investment. Throughout his professional career, Judge Gorsuch has shown a truly remarkable insensitivity to the struggles of working Americans and an eagerness to side with businesses that break the rules over workers who are seeking justice. Even before he became a judge, Judge Gorsuch famously argued in favor of limiting the ability of investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies commit fraud, whining about how annoying it is for billionaire corporations to have to face their investors when they cheat them. As a judge for more than a decade, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure that the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. Let me just count some of the ways. He has sided with employers who deny wages, employers who improperly fire workers, employers who retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has sided with employers who denied retirement benefits to their workers. He has sided with big insurance companies against disabled workers who were denied benefits. He has ruled against workers in all kinds of discrimination cases. He has even argued that the rights of corporations outweigh the rights of the people working for them, for example, allowing businesses to assert religious beliefs so they can limit their employees' access to health care. Listen to that one again. He thinks that a company can assert a religious belief and decide whether female employees get access to birth control. Let's be clear. That means a lot of employees will be living at the whim of their employers. Judge Gorsuch has written dismissively about lawsuits to vindicate the rights of vulnerable people. Equal marriage? Assisted suicide? Keep those issues out of his courtroom. He is willing to open the doors wide when big corporations show up in his court to challenge health and safety rules they don't like or regulations to prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining our public safety, or just plain cheating people. When that happens, Judge Gorsuch is ready to go, to override the rules with his own views. On that score, he is even more extreme than Justice Scalia. This is exactly the type of Supreme Court Justice that giant corporations want, but they have never been quite so brazen about it. Spending millions to slime a consensus straight shooter nominee like Merrick Garland and steal a Supreme Court seat, then drawing up a public list of ``acceptable'' alternatives and handing it over to a billionaire President so he can do his buddies a favor. That is bold. That is bold, and that is not how America is supposed to work. Our courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on the facts and the law, not people chosen to advance the interests of those at the top. Let's be clear. This fundamental principle might be more important today than it has ever been in modern history. Every day our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for an independent judiciary, for a civil society, and for the rule of law. That is precisely the reason that our Constitution gives us a neutral, independent judiciary. We don't need Justices who have been handpicked for their willingness to kowtow to those with money, power, and influence. We need Justices who will stand up to those with money, power, and influence. Judge Gorsuch may occasionally write in vague terms about the importance of the independent courts. Today, right now, that simply is not good enough. Now, more than ever, the United States needs a Supreme Court that puts the law first every single time. That means Justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans-- civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and all the protections guaranteed by our laws. We cannot stand down when American values and constitutional principles are attacked. We cannot stand down when the President of the United States hands our highest Court over to the highest bidder, and that is why I will oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination. Mr. President, I yield. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to President Trump's nomination of Rex Tillerson to be the next Secretary of State. There are many, many reasons to oppose this nomination, and my colleague from Washington has just listed several of them. But the main reason for me is as simple as it is disturbing: Tillerson's extensive and longstanding ties with Russia mean that the United States of America simply cannot trust him to be a strong advocate for the interests of our country. Here is what has been publicly reported. Our intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government conducted a successful series of cyber attacks on the United States designed to help Donald Trump get elected President. Intelligence chiefs have briefed the President on a dossier alleging that the Russian Government has collected compromising information on him. And in response, the President has attacked the intelligence community. This week, he installed his political crony, Steve Bannon, a man with ties to White nationalists, on the National Security Council while marginalizing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. Now, there is significant reason to believe that the President has extensive financial relationships with Russia, but nobody actually knows any of the details because he has refused to release his tax returns. And, apparently, the President's own national security adviser is currently under FBI investigation for his own interactions with the Russian Government. This is only the 12th day of the Trump Presidency, and this is what is going on right now--12 days. I wish this weren't happening. I wish things were normal, but this is not normal. We cannot simply ignore all of this as we evaluate the President's nominees to critical foreign policy and national security jobs. I have heard some people say that Rex Tillerson doesn't know anything about diplomacy or have any experience with foreign policy. I actually think that is wrong. For the last decade, Tillerson has served as the CEO of ExxonMobil, a massive company that would have roughly the 42nd largest economy in the entire world if it were its own country. As the leader of that giant oil company, Tillerson was an expert at diplomacy; specifically, how to advance the interests of his own fabulously wealthy oil company and himself, no matter the consequences for American foreign policy toward Russia. Russia has vast oil resources, and Exxon is one of the world's largest oil companies. Getting at that oil is a critical priority for Exxon--such a high priority, in fact, that when it came time to pick a new CEO, Exxon chose Tillerson, who had spent years managing the company's Russia efforts. This isn't just a passing coincidence. Tillerson has worked closely with Putin's senior lieutenants, and, in 2013, Tillerson received the highest honor that the Kremlin gives to foreigners. Tillerson's Russia projects ran into trouble the following year, however, because after Russia invaded Ukraine and started illegally annexing territory, Europe and the United States slapped sanctions on Russia. Those sanctions made life more difficult for Exxon, so Tillerson ignored them. He forged ahead despite the sanctions, signing more agreements with Russia, and then he used his army of well-funded lobbyists to undermine our sanctions with Russia. When confronted with the facts about this in his confirmation hearing, Tillerson first pretended that he didn't know if the company had lobbied at all. And then later, he said: Well, the company simply participated in discussions with lawmakers without actually taking a position. He is saying that they paid their lobbyists to show up and just talk generally, not to advance what the company wanted. You know, when you hear something that lame, you wonder just how dumb he thinks we are. Mr. Tillerson has argued that in his job at Exxon he was advocating for the interests of his giant oil company. And he understands that being Secretary of State is a different job. Really? At his hearing, Tillerson lamented that when sanctions are imposed, ``by their design, [they] are going to harm American businesses''--as though the principal question the Secretary of State should be asking when deciding whether to hold Russia accountable for hacking our elections or for annexing Crimea is whether it might dent the bottom line of a powerful oil company. And has Tillerson really separated himself from Exxon? Tillerson is receiving a massive $180 million golden parachute for becoming Secretary of State--$180 million. It is a special payout that he wouldn't get if he were taking some other job. He is getting it only because he is coming to work for the government. I have opposed these parachutes for many years now, and many of us have worked on legislation to make them criminally illegal--many of us. I have opposed nominees in my own party over them because if your employer offered you $180 million to go to work for the government, that looks an awful lot like a bribe for future services. This kind of payment raises questions about whether you work for the government, for a multinational oil company, or for both at the same time. America deserves a Secretary of State who works for the American people, period. Will Tillerson help Exxon while he is in office? Well, the law requires him to recuse himself from any matters involving this company for how long? For just 1 year. Common sense requires Tillerson, who, again, is receiving a $180 million special payment from the company where he has worked his entire adult life--common sense requires him to recuse himself from all matters involving Exxon for the entirety of his time in government. But when pressed by my Massachusetts colleague, Senator Markey, Tillerson flatly refused to do it. Mr. Tillerson's views, experiences, relationships, and compromising arrangements with Russia aren't my only problem with this nomination, not by a long shot. Mr. Tillerson's company has spent years lying about climate change. In Massachusetts, we have laws about consumer fraud: telling people lies about your product, lies that could make a difference about whether or not customers want to buy it. The Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healy, has been investigating whether Exxon deliberately misled people about the impact of climate change on our economy, on our environment, on our health, and on our future. Exxon didn't want to answer, so they bullied and stonewalled all the way. But it hadn't worked. In fact, our attorney general won a court ruling earlier this month, and Exxon is being forced to hand over 40 years' worth of internal documents that will show what the company knew about climate change, when they knew it, and whether they lied to their customers, their investors, and the American public. Tillerson bobbed and weaved on climate change at his confirmation hearing. I wonder if he is just trying to avoid accidentally saying anything that might help Massachusetts finally find out and hold his company accountable for massive fraud. Look, that may be OK for a CEO, but that is not good enough for someone who wants to be our Nation's Secretary of State. Climate change is a defining issue of our time, and the last thing we should do is hand our foreign policy over to someone who cares more about lining his own pockets than the survival of our planet. I could go on at length about the glaring problems with Mr. Tillerson's nomination. It is amazing how far we have fallen, to go from John Kerry, an accomplished statesman, combat veteran, Presidential candidate, long-time public servant, and son of Massachusetts, to a billionaire with a golden parachute and no record of public service or putting American foreign policy interests ahead of his own corporate interests. When we vote, Senators should understand this: Handing American foreign policy over to the leader of a giant oil company is not something we do in the United States; it is something Vladimir Putin would do in Russia. Donald Trump is building his Presidency in the image of Vladimir Putin, and that is good for Russia, but it is a real problem for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. President. I will continue with the story that was published this morning in the Boston Globe. This is from a veteran who was writing of his own experiences. He says: Trump's executive order, which seeks to ``keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States,'' will only embolden those very same people, who already had a near-zero chance of gaining entry to our country to begin with. This order proves too many ISIS and al-Qaeda talking points true about what the United States really is, and will serve as an excellent recruiting tool for those organizations and others. This executive order isn't about national security. It's about fear-mongering for ends we can only guess at. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. As my friend Phil Klay, winner of the National Book Award and a Marine veteran, pointed out last year, Ronald Reagan's ``city on a hill'' speech outlined an America ``For all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness toward home.'' ``I get that people are scared,'' Klay continued. ``But it's only during frightening times when you get to find out if your country really deserves to call itself the `home of the brave.' '' Donald Trump's zero-sum worldview and flimsy understanding of the intricacies of modern war and terrorism threaten to undermine our republic. His policy on Middle Eastern refugees and immigrants must be checked and resisted by citizens of all political stripes, legislators of both major parties and the judicial courts. After 16 years of war, much of my generation of military veterans stands with the Middle Eastern people we sweated, labored and bled with, and sometimes died for. It's going to be a fight, but it's one we're not going to lose. The legacy of America's past is at stake, as well as the soul of its future. Matt Gallagher is the author of the novel ``Youngblood'' and the memoir ``Kaboom: Embracing the Suck in a Savage Little War.'' He is an Iraq war veteran and a former US Army captain. And he wrote this morning in the Boston Globe. We are here tonight because this country is in crisis. We are here tonight because it is a constitutional crisis, because it is a moral crisis. We are here tonight to stand up and ask the rest of the U.S. Senate to overturn Donald Trump's Executive order. We have that power. All we need is the courage, the courage to stand up and do what is right. This is why we came to the U.S. Senate, to stand up and do what is right. I call on the rest of the Senate to overturn Donald Trump's illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral Executive order. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on Friday night, President Donald Trump issued an Executive order that strikes at the very heart of our democracy. I wish I were exaggerating. I wish this were some sort of game. But the ban that imposes religious tests and keeps refugees and immigrants from entering our country is illegal, it is unconstitutional, it is immoral, and it must be overturned. The effects of this order were immediate and terrifying for people in Massachusetts and all across this country. My office got a call from an Iranian citizen who was traveling to Massachusetts to see his daughter who is currently receiving treatment for cancer. He was denied boarding in Germany and sent back to Iran. We heard from a woman who already has an approved immigrant visa but still hasn't found an airline that will allow her to board a flight to the United States. A Massachusetts resident called because her cousin who holds a student visa was not allowed to board a flight either. Another Massachusetts resident called because her Iranian sisters were denied boarding at London Heathrow. Both have their valid J-1 visas. One is a visiting professor at Harvard, and the other is a postdoc fellow at Harvard Medical. We heard from an Iranian student studying at MIT. She was denied entry on Saturday, and when she tried to return on Sunday, after the temporary stay had been issued, she was denied boarding by Lufthansa. A Massachusetts student on a student visa called because his wife was denied boarding in Switzerland. None of these people are criminals. None of these people are threats. They are students at some of the world's top universities; they are doctors and scientists at some of the country's best hospitals. Most of them have already been vetted and granted the right to come to America. One is a father who wants to see his cancer-stricken daughter. They are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors. They are people. They are real people. They are part of what makes Massachusetts great, and they are part of what makes America great. Donald Trump's radical ban on Muslims isn't in line with American values or with our Constitution. It is also not in line with what the Republican Party stands for. In the months following the attacks of September 11, President George W. Bush made a point to remind the United States that we were not at war against Islam. In a speech in April of 2002, he said: America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith. America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths--Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practiced and protected here, because we are one country. Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because we're one country. Race and color should not divide us, because America is one country. Do Senate Republicans agree? If so, then come down here and say so. Where are you? Where are Senate Republicans when their Republican President issues an order targeting one religious group? Let's be clear about what happened here. Keeping the details secret, working with a small group of operatives inside the White House, consulting no experts in diplomacy or homeland security, and getting advice from outsiders with no actual legal authority, President Trump acted unilaterally to issue this order. Make no mistake, while it may not affect every Muslim in the world, Donald Trump's Executive order is a Muslim ban, and it is unconstitutional. This is a crisis. The Senate should take up and pass Senator Feinstein's bill to overturn this illegal order right now. What is happening is shocking. It is shocking, but it is not surprising. Donald Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. During his Presidential campaign, he promised ``a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' That is what he said. Last year, it seemed like pretty much everyone agreed that this was not acceptable in the United States of America. Speaker Paul Ryan declared: A religious test for entering our country is not reflective of America's fundamental values. I reject it. Where are you now, Paul Ryan? Have you rejected President Trump's order to impose a religious test for entering our country? Have you introduced a bill to overturn it? You have the power. Where are you? As Governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence said: ``Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.'' Where are you right now, Vice President Pence? Have you called to overturn President Trump's offensive and unconstitutional order? Have you asked Republicans to introduce a bill to overturn it? You have a platform. Where are you? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a Muslim ban ``completely and totally inconsistent with American values.'' Where are you right now, Mitch McConnell? Have you rejected President Trump's Muslim ban that is completely and totally inconsistent with American values? Have you introduced a bill to overturn it? You have the power. Where are you? President Trump ignored these Republican leaders. Today these Republican leaders will not stand up for what is right. President Trump may be willing to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and the Republican leadership in Congress may be willing to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, but the American people are not. This weekend, Americans across this country came together to reject this sort of fear and hate. The American people showed courage, even as the Republican leadership hid out. Crowds of people raced to airports across this country to welcome immigrants and refugees and to demand compliance with court rulings that gave individuals and families temporary relief and to demand that this reckless order be rescinded. I was proud to stand with hundreds of people at Logan Airport in Boston on Saturday night and then with more than 20,000 people in Copley Square on Sunday. We had one of the biggest demonstrations in the country. I also want to say I am in awe of the hundreds of lawyers and translators who dropped everything and spent sleepless nights in airport terminals and courts fighting for justice. Because of their tireless work, we have already been able to undo some of the damage caused by President Trump. While I am encouraged by our victories in the courts this weekend, the Trump administration has derided these judges and, in some instances, refused to follow these orders. This is shocking and unconstitutional. Congress must act. We must act now. Congress must stand up and say to President Trump that this is not who we are. Congress must say to Donald Trump and to the world: We will not turn our backs on lawful immigrants and refugees fleeing murderers. We will not turn our backs on people who risk their own lives to protect our soldiers in Iraq and in the fight against ISIS. We will not give ISIS more recruiting material. We will not promote an imagined religious war between America and Islam. We will stand for our values, for American values, for human values. We will not be divided by hate and fear. Fifteen months ago, I traveled to the Greek island of Lesbos. This is the first stop for many Syrian refugees as they flee from the terrorists of ISIS. That was where I saw the shoddy, paper-thin river rafts that people cram onto, with nothing more than a hope and a prayer that they will make it across a choppy sea. I saw the little plastic pool floaties that people put on small children, hoping it would be enough to save them if the raft went down. I met a 7-year-old girl who had been sent out on that perilous journey alone. I thought about what horrors her parents must have faced to hand a wad of cash to human smugglers with only the most desperate dream that their little girl would find something better on the other side. President Trump is trying to shut the door on that little girl and on countless others who are fleeing for their lives. He is trying to shut the door on children, on doctors, on students, on engineers, on husbands and wives, on grandmas and grandpas. That is not all. President Trump is trying to shut the door on people who risked their lives helping American soldiers, people who face execution in the hands of terrorists if they are sent back. President Trump is even trying to shut the door on legal immigrants, on students and faculty, on people who work in Massachusetts and across this country, on people who have already been thoroughly screened for entry into the United States and have been granted permanent status to live and work in our country. This has nothing to do with security-- nothing. Little girls fleeing from murderers are not a threat. Elderly grandparents detained at airports are not a threat. Students and teachers and people who work in Massachusetts and across the country are not a threat. Iraqi translators who put their own lives at risk to protect American soldiers are not a threat. We should welcome them. We should welcome them with open arms. That is who we are. Voices from across the political spectrum, including many of my friends from across the aisle, have already stepped forward to criticize this order, but criticism is not enough. President Trump's Executive order must be overturned. We must overturn it. For those who remain unconvinced, I would like to take some time this evening to talk about some of the people who are hurt by the President's reckless, heartless, illegal, and unconstitutional actions. As stories have poured into my office, on the evening news, on social media, we have heard time and again about the consequences of President Trump's reckless and illegal order, and I would like to share some of those stories in my time tonight. I want to read one. My staff and I have spent the weekend listening to and meeting with people who have been affected. I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of President Trump's actions. I want to start with a story of someone I met at Logan Airport on Saturday night. The story I want to read is from CBS Boston, ``Detainee Released After Federal Judge Grants Stay On Trump's Immigration Freeze.'' Hamed Hosseini Bay was questioned at Logan Airport Saturday while trying to get back into America after caring for his sick father in his native Iran. Hosseini Bay has lived in the Boston area for approximately nine years. After a judge granted a case brought by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union Saturday night, Hosseini Bay was reunited with his wife and daughter, who had traveled with him to Iran but returned two weeks earlier. He was not angry about his questioning. ``Everybody was friendly,'' Hosseini Bay told WBZ-TV's Jim Smith. ``They had to do what they had to do. I'm grateful for all the people back there, but it was chaotic.'' Hosseini Bay's wife is now questioning what the future will be like for her family in America. ``It's just terrifying how my life has changed in two days, in three days,'' she said. ``I don't know (about the future). Last week everything was normal. I would pick up my daughter from preschool, she was like everyone else, I was like everyone else. But now we're different.'' I met with this family. This is what President Trump's order means. It means stopping people like this and telling them that their future is different now in America. I am going to read another story. This one is from NBC Boston. ``Protesters Rally as Doctors, Students Blocked From Entering Country After Trump's Orders.'' At Boston's Logan International Airport, at least six people from Iran were detained Saturday after their flights landed in the U.S. A Federal judge in New York issued a temporary stay late Saturday for all detainees affected by Trump's executive orders, which barred all refugees from entering the United States for four months, and indefinitely halted any from Syria. Trump argued the ban is needed to keep out ``radical Islamic terrorists.'' A tweet by Samira Asgari, an Iranian doctor, stated that she was denied boarding when she arrived for her flight to the U.S. from Germany. In a Skype interview from Switzerland, Asgari told us she had planned to come to the U.S. to start a study at Harvard Medical School analyzing tuberculosis. ``My view of America of course, doesn't change because of a decision a politician makes. My view of America changes because the land that used to be the land of those who want to be there, who want to do something good to the community and take something good from the community--that picture of America has changed for me,'' she said. Several students at Massachusetts colleges also tweeted that they were being blocked from entering the country. In a statement, MIT officials said they're ``very troubled'' that Trump's executive order is affecting the university's community and are exploring options for helping impacted students. Northeastern University in a statement to their community offered support to their students, faculty and staff reminding them of ``their commitment to each other.'' We believe in the commitment to inform each other, but that is what it is that Donald Trump is trying to destroy. Another story, from WBUR, a ``Somali Family Resettling In Lowell Worries For Other Refugees As Trump Promises Restrictions.'' The order will have global implications, including for one newly arrived Somali family now living in Lowell. The three Ahmed sisters from Somalia huddled on a couch with their mother in a lobby of a busy office. Each woman wore a brightly colored head scarf and winter jacket, and each clutched a plastic bag carrying their personal documents. They are the most recent refugees to be welcomed at the International Institute of New England's Lowell resettlement office. And, with Trump's refugee restrictions hanging in the balance, they are likely the last Somali family to enter the state for some time. ``My mom and dad fled from the conflict in Mogadishu,'' explained Hawo Ahmed, 24. She and her twin sister were only 4 months old when their parents fled for Kenya. Hawo retold the story of her mother, Fatuma, and why she and Hawo's father left in 1993 amid the Somali Civil War. ``She said that it was, like, conflict all over the country,'' Hawo said. ``People were killing each other, like tribes, different tribes were killing each other. Whenever they see you, they kill you, and they even used to come in the houses to rape the girls and kill them. So they had to move.'' The youngest daughter, Asha, was born in Kenya, where the girls grew up, and went to school and learned English. Still, they all very much consider themselves Somali. When asked about their father, one of the young women said she watched him die in 2006 from an asthma attack. She said the family didn't have enough money for a new inhaler. After beginning the refugee application process in Kenya 6 years ago, the family arrived in Manchester, NH, only a few days ago. Hawo and Muna said their arrival barely felt real, like a dream come true. And then, Hawo said, as soon as they got off the plane, they saw the news about Trump's executive orders on the airport television. ``Even tears were filled up in my eyes, because I felt very bad for others,'' she said. ``They have more expectations, some were even told where they are going, which city they are going, and if they stop all the things, it's going to be very painful. I just have a very sincere request to the President, that he should drop out that idea. That is all.'' Hawo said that they know many fellow refugees in Kenya who are in the final phases of their application process. She said her aunt and cousin, who live in a refugee camp in Kampala, Uganda, had only one more interview to complete before they were hoping to meet them in Massachusetts. Now they're not sure what will happen. ``I couldn't sleep last night just thinking about them, and she has been in the process for so long, and we want, if you can help her,'' Hawo said. That is what Donald Trump is doing to people around the world. Another story--WCVB TV. Trump's executive order worries Massachusetts family awaiting loved one. With the stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump fulfilled a campaign promise that temporarily bans more than 130 million people from entering the United States. Several people were prevented from entering Boston due to Trump's executive order. ``We are very worried. We are very concerned,'' Omar Salem, of Canton, said. ``I'm hoping for the best. I'm hoping that I could get a text from him saying, `I'm here.''' Salem is anxiously awaiting his brother's arrival back in Massachusetts. The Syrian-born, Boston-based orthodontist was on vacation when the President signed the executive order suspending visa entry from seven countries. ``We didn't know it was going to be that bad and that shameful,'' Salem said. Salem's brother thought his green card would be enough to secure his return, but the business owner is now facing uncertainty. ``It always starts somewhere and we see it evolving to become much bigger and much more sophisticated,'' Salem said. While Salem is hoping to see his brother soon, his heart is heavy for the millions of refugees and visa holders, who see the U.S. as a sanctuary of freedom and acceptance. ``I really call it un-American to do this with the stroke of a pen,'' Salem said. The seven countries included in the executive order may be just a starting point as the order left room for a broader ban. That is what Donald Trump is doing around the world. Another story--this is a Facebook post from Niki Rhamati, a student at MIT. I just got back home (Tehran) and I figured I should break the silence. I want to start by saying how grateful I am to all the friends, faculty, alums, sorority sisters, staff and admin at MIT and other parts of the US who have contacted me in the past couple of hours. My inbox is flooded with messages and emails of love and support. I am truly speechless, grateful and proud to be part of the MIT community. I have never been subjected to any form of religious or racial discrimination at MIT. Our community is extremely diverse, inclusive, supportive and accepting of individuals and their backgrounds. But I cannot believe all this love is coming from the same country that banned me from entering its borders just a couple of hours ago. I don't want to get to the political mess that has created this situation for me and many others. I just want to share what millions of other people and I are going through, and simply what it feels like to be an Iranian and targeted to such racism and discrimination--things I have been very familiar with most of my life. I currently have a valid multiple entry student visa that I've used for the past year and a half and have traveled very smoothly (thank you Obama!). I came home (Tehran) to visit my parents and family. I suspected I would not be able to travel as easily as before with the new President, so I extended my stay. Here's the story of what happened this past week. On Wednesday, I woke up to the announcement of the new Executive Order by President Trump that would restrict entry for Syrian refugees and citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen) for 30 days. As BBC Persian, one of the reliable sources here, contacted immigration attorneys and Politicians, this order was read and interpreted as, ``issuance of any types of immigrant and non-immigrant visas would be banned for citizens of those countries for 30 days.'' The President had not yet signed this order so the ban was not yet effective. I changed my flight to another one that would get me to Boston on Saturday night with a transfer in Qatar. It was rumored that the President signed the Order once I was on my way to the airport, and it was executed while I was in my first flight to Doha. But I looked on the White House website, BBC and Washington Post and nothing had been published yet. When I got to Doha, I was stopped at the gate for my U.S. flight. We found out that the ban (which is effective for 90 days now instead of 30), included everyone currently holding an immigrant, student or tourist visa as well as Green Card holders. We heard a lot of people were deported at the American border in different cities. About 30 other Iranians and I were stuck in Doha, waiting for flights back to Tehran. Among them were old couples trying to go and see their children in the US, 2 old women trying to be with and help their pregnant daughters there for their third trimesters, students who had just gotten their visas and families who had sold their belongings back home so they could build a better life in the US. All these people had gotten visas legally and had gone through background checks. The President had said that the goal of this Order was dealing with illegal immigration. Do any of the people sound like illegal immigrants? This will not secure the borders from the terrorism and illegal immigrants. It will only increase racism in the American society. The President is trying to make Islamophobia a norm and policy by which he wants to lead the country. There has not been a single terrorist activity from those 7 countries listed above, in the US. If you feel like helping millions of people facing this, please contact your representatives or senators in your areas and ask them to fight against this absurd ban. Reach out to friends and ask them to do the same. Please also let me and everyone else know how we can contribute to this. As I was stuck in Doha, with other Iranians, I was telling stories of interactions with many of the Americans I know. Please know that I love and respect all of you because you have always treated me with love and respect. This is who Donald Trump is trying to keep out of the country. Another story--this time from CNN. A Syrian teen was headed to MIT and then came the ban. Mahmoud Hassan was ecstatic when he got the acceptance letter. All through high school, the 18-year-old had one goal in mind: get an engineering degree from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But Hassan is from Damascus, Syria. And Friday, he had his hopes crushed through no fault of his own. When President Trump signed the executive order on immigration, temporarily banning citizens from certain Muslim-majority countries, Syria was one of the seven. ``Now Trump's orders will prevent me from going there,'' he told CNN. ``My dreams are basically ruined.'' Hassan had been looking forward to his journey to the Cambridge campus in the fall. He says he had been offered a scholarship. He's read and reread that letter from MIT dozens of times. ``Dear Mahmoud, On behalf of the Admissions Committee, it is my pleasure to offer you admission to the MIT Class of 2021! You stood out as one of the most talented and promising students in one of the most competitive applicant pools in the history of the Institute.'' Hassan doesn't know what he'll do next. This is who Donald Trump is determined to keep out of America. Another story. This one is from our office. A constituent from Concord, MA, came into my office in Boston just this morning--Monday, January 30, 2017. She came looking for more information on the current status of the Muslim ban, on behalf of her husband, who was originally born in Iran. She explained that when he was young, he received refugee status in Australia for religious persecution, as he was raised in the Baha'i faith. He now has dual citizenship in Iran and Australia and is a green card holder of 10 years here in the United States. He is the vice president of a startup company that requires him to travel outside the country often but has decided that, because of the latest Executive orders, to stay grounded in the United States until further notice. He is currently safe in the United States. Emam has also decided to begin his U.S. citizenship application, and the couple have two young children whom they are raising in the United States, afraid to travel outside the United States on business because of President Trump's ban. Another story. This is a story via the Wall Street Journal. Iraqi interpreter Laith al-Haydar received multiple death threats for working with the American military at the height of the war in his country. In return for helping the U.S., he and tens of thousands of other Iraqis were promised U.S. immigration visas. Nearly four years after he applied, the 41-year-old father of two is still waiting for a visa--and now he faces a new setback: President Donald Trump signed an order suspending immigration from several countries with a Muslim majority, including Iraq, and a temporary ban on all refugees. Mr. Haydar is among roughly 58,000 Iraqi applicants for U.S. immigrant visas and refugee resettlement under the federal programs that promised to fast-track entry for Iraqis who worked with the U.S. government and other institutions deemed critical to the U.S.-led effort in Iraq, according to the State Department. A similar program for Afghans who've worked with the U.S. government may also be at risk. At least one Iraqi and two Afghans who worked with the U.S. government and also qualify for expedited immigration visas were turned away from American ports of entry on Friday and Saturday, a State Department official said, adding that several more were prevented from boarding planes to the U.S. A substantial backlog of applications remains in part because Congress limits the number of visas that can be granted each year. Frustration with visa delays has now been aggravated by Mr. Trump's executive orders. Critics of the visa ban say it abandons thousands of valuable allies abroad and risks deterring such people from working with the United States in the future at a time when Mr. Trump is promising a more aggressive military posture abroad. ``These guys laid their lives on the line alongside American soldiers and got paid a fraction of what I made,'' said Jake Thomas, a U.S. Army veteran who worked with Mr. Haydar in Iraq and who now lives in Georgia. If they want out, we need to honor our promises and get them out. Mr. Thomas is one of several U.S. military officers who have written letters to the State Department appealing for Mr. Haydar to get a visa. He said he sympathizes with some of the views regarding immigration that Mr. Trump campaigned on, but he added that Iraqis like Mr. Haydar ``were singled out and shot at for serving the United States and we made a promise.'' Mr. Thomas said he knew of five Iraqi interpreters who were killed in the 15 months of his last tour in Iraq, including 3 who were gunned down in their homes for working with the U.S. military. President Trump continues to ignore the damage he is doing to the safety of our country and our servicemen and servicewomen overseas. Brave men and women who risked their lives to help U.S. soldiers in Iraq have already been caught up in the President's unconstitutional order. I just want to associate myself with the man who said--who had been there, the soldier who had been there--that America made a promise. I believe in an America that keeps its promises. Donald Trump's order breaks our promises. Another story, this one from Marcolla via PRI: The Iraqi linguist who worked side by side with US troops in Baghdad put her life on the line for America's war effort. Now her family is in danger back in Iraq and she fears her efforts to get them to safety in America are all but doomed. ``I'm scared. The chance to see my family reunited again is very slim now,'' she says. ``People like me and my family who helped and supported America, I believe we should be reunited. The history of the United States is to support people and help them, not to separate the families.'' Marcolla was just 18 and living in Baghdad shortly after American tanks rolled into the Iraqi capital in 2003. She was recruited to work for the US military. Her role caught the attention of Iraqi militants. They sought revenge. They burned down Marcolla's house, kidnapped her father and murdered her husband. Fearing for her life, she applied for a US visa. And in 2013, after seven years of waiting, she received the permission she had been waiting for. But Marcolla had to leave her parents and siblings behind, even though she says they too were in danger because of her service with US troops. She says she tries to talk with her family in Baghdad daily. ``Every day their lives are in danger,'' she says. ``They have to change their address, move from place to place. They live in the unknown.'' Marcolla is worried that the refugee ban proposed Wednesday means her parents and siblings will never reach American soil. ``We already been in extreme vetting,'' she says. ``I understand and I respect the US rules and the safety and national security. . . . I understand that and I respect that. However, there are people in Iraq who have a long history of supporting America in Iraq and Afghanistan--the linguists, the translators--they deserve and they need their papers to be expedited.'' These are the people Donald Trump is keeping out of America. Another story from Mother Jones: ``Immoral,'' ``Stupid,'' and ``Counterproductive'': National Security Experts Slam Trump's ``Muslim Ban.'' ``At the moment we need them most, we're telling these people, `Get screwed.' '' While Trump's executive order claims to be in the interest of ``protecting the nation,'' experts in national security and counterterrorism who spoke with Mother Jones argue that it poses potentially disastrous immediate and long-term security threats to the nation and US personnel overseas. ``Not only is it immoral and stupid, it's also counterproductive,'' says Patrick Skinner, a former CIA terrorism case officer who now works at Soufan Group, a security consulting firm. ``We've got military intelligence and diplomatic personnel on the ground right now in Syria, Libya, and Iraq who are working side by side with the people imbedded in combat and training and advising. At no time in the US's history have we depended more on local--and I mean local--partnerships for counterterrorism. We need people in Al Bab, Syria; we depend on people in certain parts of eastern Mosul, Iraq; in Cert, Libya. At the exact moment we need them most, we're telling those people, `Get screwed.' '' Kirk W. Johnson, who spent a year on reconstruction in Fallujah in Iraq with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) echoes Skinner's fears: ``This will have immediate national security implications, in that we are not going to be able to recruit people to help us right now, and people are not going to step forward to help us in any future wars if this is our stance.'' The US-led war on ISIS is but one front of a constellation of fights against extremist groups that could be hampered by Trump's decision. ``The US is officially banning people in these countries at the same time we are trying to build up local support to fight ISIS,'' Skinner said. ``It takes a long time to build trust with these people. You have to start over, say, `Okay, starting now, trust me.' How many times can you get away with that?'' It also sends a message that groups like the so-called Islamic State can exploit. Elizabeth Goitein, the codirector of the Brennan Center's Liberty & National Security Program, says, ``The message this projects is that America sees Muslims as a threat--not specific actors who are intent on committing terrorist acts. The message that America really is at war with Islam will be ISIS's best friend.'' BuzzFeed reporters Mike Giglio and Munzer Al-Awad spoke with five current or former ISIS fighters who cited Trump's divisiveness as a factor that will weaken America. They added that his rhetoric against Muslims will help them reinforce their narrative that America and the West are fighting not just terrorism, but Islam itself. ``Trump will shorten the time it takes for us to achieve our goals,'' said one. Meanwhile, the very allies who have operated alongside US personnel in war zones for years--contractors and translators like Darweesh--are once again being abandoned. For the past decade, Johnson has been leading an effort to resettle Iraqi allies, many of whom, he says, face torture, kidnapping, and death after collaborating with American soldiers. It all started in 2006 when he heard from an Iraqi USAID colleague who had been identified by a militia. The militia left a severed pig's head on his door step, along with a message saying that it would be his head next. Despite his years of helping the United States, the US government offered no help, and he had to flee the country with his wife. ``We are not going to be able to recruit people to help us right now, and people are not going to step forward to help us in any future wars if this is our stance.'' This is what Donald Trump's Executive order is doing. It is putting Americans at risk around the world. Another story from Newsweek: ``Spy Veterans Say Trump's Muslim- Country Visa Ban Will Hurt Recruitment. President Donald Trump's temporary ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations takes a major recruiting tool out of the hands of US spy handlers, say a growing number of intelligence veterans. For decades, CIA and US military spy recruiters have held out the promise of eventual resettlement in America to induce foreigners to turn coat and work secretly for the United States against terrorist groups or repressive governments. In reality, many were caught before they ever made it, but during the Cold War countless Eastern Europeans living under communist rule, and more recently, Muslims across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, have worked secretly for US spy agencies on the promise that they or their children would eventually be extracted. Another effective recruiting tool for US operatives has been to offer their agents' families medical care or education in the United States. Those inducements, a primary recruiting tool in Muslim land, were effectively suspended with Trump's executive order Friday to temporarily ban immigration from seven critical targets of the U.S. spy agencies--Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. The departments of State and Homeland Security, the order stipulates, may allow entry from those countries on ``a case-by-case basis,'' but it's a balky arrangement not likely to appeal to the managers of the CIA's highly secretive operations directorate, its espionage and covert action arm. Intelligence veterans with vast counterterrorism experience are expressing dismay about how the order will affect their spy operations. ``These individuals often put themselves at the risk of death for working with the U.S., and without the ability to offer them safety, we will be reducing the likelihood that those in countries targeted by the ban will work with us in the future,'' Phillip Lohaus, a decorated veteran of the U.S. Special Operations Command and CIA, tells Newsweek. ``We relied heavily on local translators, many of whom have gone on to forge productive lives for themselves here in the States,'' Lohaus added. ``Why would they take such a risk if they knew that they would face retribution or death by staying in their home countries?'' ``Absolutely,'' agreed Cindy Storer, a former member of the CIA intelligence team that tracked al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. ``It hurts,'' she said in a brief interview. ``Capital h-u-r-t-s.'' Imagine, she said, if the ban had been in place when Jamal al Fadl, a Sudanese Muslim and key al-Qaeda operative, showed up at the American embassy in the mid-1990s and volunteered to defect to the United States. FBI counterterror agents brought him into the U.S., where he provided ``a major breakthrough of intelligence on the creation, character, direction, and intentions of al-Qaeda,'' according to the official 9/11 Commission report. And that is what Donald Trump is putting an end to. Another story from the Washington Post: ``Dissent memo circulating in the State Department over Trump's policy on refugees and immigrants.'' For this one, Foreign Service officers have written a memo--and they shared it with the Washington Post--in opposition to President Trump's Executive order. Here are excerpts from a leaked dissent memo by U.S. Foreign Service officers regarding the Executive orders: It will immediately sour relations with these seven countries, as well as much of the Muslim world, which sees the ban as religiously motivated. These governments of these countries are important allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, regionally and globally. By alienating them, we lose access to the intelligence and resources we need to fight the root causes of terror abroad before the attack occurs within our borders. It will increase anti-American sentiment. It will have an immediate and clear humanitarian impact. It will have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. Looking beyond its effectiveness, this ban stands in opposition to the core American and constitutional values. This ban stands in opposition to the core American and constitutional values that we, as Federal employees, took an oath to uphold. The United States is a nation of immigrants, starting from its very origins. The concept that immigrants and foreigners are welcome is an essential element of our society, our government, and our foreign policy. So, too, is the concept that we are all equal under the law and that we, as a nation, abhor discrimination, whether it is based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. Combined together, that means we have a special obligation to maintain an immigration system that is as free as possible from discrimination, that does not have implied or actual religious tests, and that views individuals as individuals, not as part of stereotyped groups. Banning travelers from these seven countries calls back to some of the worst times in our history. Laws enacted in the 1920s and which lasted through the 1960s severely restricted immigration based on national origin and, in some cases, race. The decision to restrict the freedom of Japanese Americans in the United States and foreign citizens who wanted to travel to settle in the United States during the 1940s has been a source of lasting shame for many in our country. Decades from now, we will look back and realize we made the same mistakes as our predecessors: shutting borders in a knee-jerk reaction instead of setting up systems of checks that protect our interests and our values. We do not need to place a blanket ban that keeps 220 million people-- men, women, and children--from entering the United States to protect our homeland. We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe. And we do not need to sacrifice our reputation as a nation which is open and welcoming to protect our families. It is well within our reach to create a visa process which is more secure, which reflects American values, and which would make the Department proud. Again, this is a dissent memo circulating in the State Department over President Trump's policy on refugees and immigrants. And this is what Donald Trump's Executive order does; it makes us less safe. It is wrong. Another story, from a Boston Globe op-ed, Matt Gallagher, who is a veteran. The headline: ``Trump rejects the Muslims who helped us.'' The bravest person I've ever known went by the nickname Suge Knight. He was as physically imposing as the infamous music producer, but he was calm and bighearted, with a smile as wide as a canyon. A Sudanese Muslim, Suge served as my scout platoon's interpreter during our deployment to Iraq in 2007 and 2008, and he went on every patrol and mission with us, no matter the circumstances. He'd survived multiple roadside bomb attacks, had lost three young children to the bombings of the first Gulf war, and yet still believed in America and what America represented to him and his family. Though he doubted he'd ever get to our country, he aspired for his children to do so. ``Perhaps my grandchildren will go to school with your kids,'' he once told me with typical paternal charm. ``I'd like that very much.'' I felt the same. We all did. He was one of us. President Trump's recent executive order on Muslim refugees and immigrants works to ensure that such a dream never comes true. Muslim allies, including interpreters like Suge in Iraq and Afghanistan, have done more for the United States during the past 16 years of war than most Americans will even think of doing their entire lives. Yet we're abandoning them in their hour of need, wrapping ourselves up in a big, billowing flag of fear and pretending it's for safety. We're also abandoning Middle Eastern refugees fleeing the very terrorists we've professed to combat, who have seen their homes and lives destroyed and now seek shelter on our shores the same way immigrants have for generations. This is a national disgrace. The president's executive order betrays American values and weakens our national security all at once. Our country was founded as a haven. Trump and his administration seem intent on turning it into a medieval fortress. In November, shortly after the election, I joined a nonpartisan group in Washington, D.C., to advocate for Muslim refugees and immigrants--Veterans For American Ideals, a project of Human Rights First. There was a gray pall over the city, and a deep sense of uncertainty for what awaited, even in Republican offices. No one knew then what we all know now: Trump really did mean to do what he'd said on the campaign trail. Time and time again, Democrats and Republicans alike told us the United States already has in place the best and most thorough refugee and immigrant screening process on the planet. A prominent Republican adviser assured us that Trump's ``extreme vetting'' idea was just a ploy to rustle up votes. A national security official suggested that we should be more thankful Congress had saved the Special Immigrant Visa program for interpreters and translators who served with the US military, and maintained that the amount of issued visas was sufficient, despite the overflowing backlog of requests. A shouting match ensued. Enraged veterans can have our own sort of diplomatic style. I look back at that week with both pride and despondency. On one hand, to see so many young American veterans standing up for the principles of our nation--often the very same principles that led them to enlist in the military to begin with--was stirring. We tried, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to convey to politicians the importance of remaining true to our Muslim brothers- and sisters-in-arms. We also tried to remind them of the secondary and tertiary effects of not honoring the bonds forged in combat. On the other hand, bearing witness to how easily dismissed entire lives and formative experiences can be by fellow citizens (let alone elected representatives) was rather dismaying. Even in our era of yellow-ribbon patriotism and star- spangled grandiosity, veterans' stories of heroic Muslim translators and brave, dedicated local Iraqis and Afghans were, sometimes, met with hollow stares and empty platitudes in Washington. What we were telling these officials defied their preconceived notions about vets, and Muslims, and how vets of the terror wars were supposed to feel about Muslims. What we were telling them was that American security was dependent on opening our doors to as many vetted refugees and immigrants as possible, not barricading ourselves and saying, ``We're not that America anymore.'' What we were telling them was that we knew, more than any other group of Americans, what the hearts and souls of the Middle Eastern people were, and that those hearts and souls were so very much like our own. These are just some of the stories of what Donald Trump is doing to people here in America, to Americans abroad, and people around the world. This Executive order is illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is immoral, and it must be overturned by Congress. I understand that under the rules, a majority can stop any Senator after speaking for an hour postcloture, but there is a bit more I would like to say. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 additional minutes.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Ms. WARREN.--who worked for a decade in Massachusetts to bring health care to 97 percent of our people, I vote no.

Ms. WARREN. Madam Clerk, on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats--

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, for 8 years Republicans have complained about health care in America. They have blamed everything in the world on President Obama. They have hung out on the sidelines, name-calling, making doomsday predictions, and cheering every stumble that they could blame on someone else. They spent a lot of energy rooting against families who needed help paying for health insurance or who wanted coverage but were frozen out because of preexisting conditions. They jeered and carried on. But what they didn't do--ever--was lift a finger to try to improve health care in America. But they are in charge now. They get to call the shots. So what is the first thing on the Republican agenda now that they are in control? Is it working to help improve health care in America, working to bring down premiums and deductibles, making fixes to expand the network of doctors and the number of plans that people can choose from--any of those? No, the very first thing on the Republican agenda in the 115th Congress is to shatter health care in America. The first thing is to rip health insurance out of the hands of millions of Americans who need it. The first thing is to massively raise the cost of health insurance for everyone who has it. The first thing is to create chaos for hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies, and send their costs spiraling out of control. The first thing is to abandon the people they were elected to represent. The first thing is to repeal and run away. Republicans have been rushing around Capitol Hill for the past couple of weeks, huddling in meetings and trying to come up with a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. They are shocked--shocked--to discover that guaranteeing Americans access to health care is a complex business, and they don't have any good ideas. Now, after 8 years of complaining, they are trying to convince each other that it will all be OK if they just repeal health care access, with nothing to replace it. They are trying to reassure each other that they know what they are doing. Get real. They don't have a clue what to do next. For 8 years they have had no plan, and they don't have a plan now. Let's be very clear about what is going on here. Republicans want to tear apart our Nation's health care system--a health care system that protects kids with cancer, protects women getting mammograms, protects independent contractors, protects new moms, protects college kids, protects grandparents, protects disease survivors, and protects so many of America's families. They want to tear it apart, and they don't have the first clue what to do with it afterwards. Repeal and run, that's the Republican plan. In Massachusetts, we know how important health reform is because we have been working on it now for years--long before the Affordable Care Act was even a spark on the horizon in Washington. My Republican colleagues could learn a lot from our work in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the belief that everyone should have access to affordable health insurance coverage is a shared value that Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, hospitals, insurers, doctors, consumers, and advocates have all worked to implement over the past decade. It is not just the lip service we are hearing right now here in Washington. It is real commitment, and, because of it, in Massachusetts we got real results. Just because we are all behind this effort together in Massachusetts doesn't mean that health care reform has been a cake walk. Finding ways to cover more people and bring down costs, all while improving the quality of care, is a tough job. You have to be in it for the long haul. That is why, in Massachusetts, we didn't just pass one health care law in 2006 and then just run away. We came back a couple of years later with additional legislation to make fixes and adjustments. We formed commissions to study how things were working and to make recommendations for more changes. We passed amendments. We revised our regulations where they needed to be changed to support implementation. We worked to make coverage more affordable. We set standards to make sure insurance is a good value. We invested in prevention programs to keep people healthy in the first place. We got more coverage for more people, and we lowered health care costs. We kept working month after month, year after year because we knew what it meant for a family to have the peace of mind that comes with affordable, high-quality health insurance coverage. We kept working because we knew it was the right thing to do. We kept working because we knew that is what Massachusetts residents expected us to do. Once we started something, we had to see it through. When it got tough, we worked harder. We didn't repeal and run. When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, Massachusetts went all in. We expanded our Medicaid program. We used Federal funds to cover people who still lacked insurance even after our State reforms. We set up a State health insurance exchange, the Health Connector, and we combined Federal and State dollars to make sure that insurance was truly affordable. Just 2 months ago, we signed an ambitious new Medicaid agreement with the Federal Government that will allow us to set up innovative partnerships among health providers, insurers, and community organizations so we can better serve Medicaid patients in our State. We have a great deal to be proud of in Massachusetts. More than 97 percent of our citizens are insured. People have coverage. They have good coverage--coverage they can afford. This wasn't something we got done overnight, but it is something we worked at, and it is something we can achieve in every State if we are willing to do the work. Democrats and nonpartisan government officials have worked for years here in Washington to try to make this health system work, and we have made real progress. Now Republicans in Congress are ready to throw away these years and years of progress. They are ready to threaten the collapse of our insurance markets. They are ready to threaten the health and the safety of millions of Americans simply to make a political point. They are ready to repeal and run. In Massachusetts, right now, families are watching this debate, and they are worried about what happens to them. Kids with diabetes and moms with cancer are worried. Hospitals and insurers are watching, too, and they are worried--worried about an irresponsible Republican Party that is more interested in political stunts than in helping Americans get access to health care. I don't blame them for being worried because this isn't a game. There is no magic replacement plan that will suddenly make everything all better. In Massachusetts, we can't just snap back to our old health insurance system if Republicans decide to rip up the Affordable Care Act. Other States across the country are also facing the terrifying prospect that they will be left high and dry as a result of the Republicans' reckless actions. Every Senator here has ideas about how to improve health care in America, but no Democratic Senator will vote to destroy it today based on the vague assurance that maybe at some point Republicans might think up some kind of replacement plan later on. The Republicans' strategy is repeal and run. Repeal and run. That is not governing. That is not leadership. It is one of the most reckless and irresponsible things that has ever been proposed in this Congress. I know some Republican Senators agree with that. I know they are worried about whether this is the right move forward, given all that hangs in the balance. I hope their consciences get the better of them and they scuttle this plan before it is too late. I hope they remember that every single Senator who votes to destroy health care in America will be responsible for the disastrous consequences that come next. If Republicans actually want to improve health care in America, let's talk about how to do that. That is what we were sent here to do. That is what voters--conservative and liberal, Republican and Democratic-- expect us to do. If Republicans want to destroy health care in America, I will fight them every step of the way. The stakes are too high for the millions of Americans whose futures are about to be sacrificed so one party can make a political point. Let's stay and do the work that needs to be done to make sure every American gets access to high-quality, affordable health care. Repeal and run is for cowards. Mr. President, I yield.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support Senators from both parties and in particular West Virginia Senators Joe Manchin and Shelley Capito in their fight to protect health and retirement benefits for over 100,000 American coal miners and their families. Seventy years ago, the Federal Government made a simple promise to these union coal miners: America--our country--promised to provide health insurance and retirement benefits to miners who went down in those mines and put their lives at risk to power this great Nation. We recognize that this was dangerous work, but we believed it was essential to our economic growth and the national security of our country, and because of that belief, we promised that if these men would go down into the mines, our country would make sure they have some protection in case of injury, disability, or death. We promised that after a lifetime of backbreaking work, they would have a dignified and secure retirement. And we promised that if the worst happened, that their wives, their widows, and their families would still be provided for. When the American Government made this deal with the United Mine Workers of America 70 years ago, coal generated more than 50 percent of our power. Today, coal generates only about 30 percent of our power. Coal prices have plummeted and other sources of energy, like natural gas, have become cheaper and more prevalent. Automation has also transformed this industry, and there are critical environmental reasons to transition, but make no mistake, these changes have drastically altered the coal industry and have left thousands of coal miners out of work. Every month there are more reports of coal companies filing for bankruptcy, and the layoffs are never far behind. More than 25,000 miners have lost their jobs in the last 5 years alone. As a country, we all benefited from the decades of work put in by coal miners. Every Member of Congress and everybody we represent back home, we benefited from the work of the coal miners. We made a deal to keep these men in the mines, and now we must honor the commitments we made. Congress is on the verge of turning out the lights and going home for the rest of the year, but 100,000 coal miners face a reckoning. If Congress does not act, more than 16,000 mine workers will lose their health insurance by the end of this month, another 2,500 coal miners will lose their coverage by March, by July another 4,000 miners will be without insurance, and on and on and on. This is not right. Losing health insurance is tough for anyone, but for coal miners it is a killer--literally. Coal miners face far higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, black lung, and other injuries than most other Americans. They need their insurance. Our coal miners knew what they were getting into. They knew they were taking on work that was dangerous and risky to their health. That is why they fought so hard for guaranteed health coverage, and that is why they gave up a portion of their paycheck every month, month after month, year after year, to pay for it. It is not just health care coverage. About 90,000 miners and their families will also soon lose their guaranteed monthly pension benefits. These benefits aren't some Cadillac deal. The average monthly benefit for these mine workers is about $586, about $7,000 per year for their retirement. Now, that doesn't sound like much, and let's be honest, it isn't much, but for thousands and thousands of retired miners and their families, Social Security and these $586 payments are all they have to show for a lifetime of going into those mines. We cannot back out on our promises. There is bipartisan legislation written and ready to go to fix this problem. It would not add a dime to the deficit. We could pass it right now, today. The Senators who serve here come from every corner of the country. We don't agree on everything, and I certainly don't agree on every issue with Senator Manchin or Senator Capito, but I don't understand how anyone can disagree with this. A lot has changed in 70 years, but the fact that America makes good on its promises to American workers is one thing that should never change--and we should not leave here until this Congress makes good on America's 70-year-old promise to our miners. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in celebrating the many contributions of Vice President Joe Biden, a man who has spent his career fighting for working families. For more than four decades, Vice President Biden has tirelessly served the people of Delaware and the United States. As many of my colleagues have already noted, he has been on the frontlines of some of our Nation's toughest battles--from steering the Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees, to introducing the Violence Against Women Act and championing efforts to reduce gun violence in our communities. He takes on every fight with restless energy and relentless optimism. I first met then-Senator Biden back in the 1990s when I was a law professor with no experience in the ways of Washington. We tangled over an issue, each of us laying into the fight with determination. Senator Biden won, and I lost. Years later, when I next saw him, he held out his arms and shouted from halfway across the room, ``Professor! Come here and give me a hug!'' He had not forgotten our earlier battle, but he made it clear that he continued to think and rethink issues about working families and that, even when we disagreed, we could respect--and even like--each other. And when I was later sworn into the United States Senate, I thought about the example he set to fight hard, but to treat each other with respect. The Vice President has faced down hardship with exceptional grace and courage, and he continues to wake up every day with a steadfast commitment to ensuring that the voices of ordinary Americans are heard here in Washington. And for me personally, he has provided encouragement, wisdom, and good counsel, time and again--and for that, I am truly grateful. So, Vice President Biden: those of us here in the Senate are fortunate to have had the opportunity to work alongside you. And I know I speak for millions of Americans when I say that we all are enormously grateful for your many years of service to this country. Thank you, and I wish you the very best as you begin the next chapter of your life and career.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am glad to be here with my colleagues today to have a chance to talk about the 21st Century Cures bill. On Monday I came to the Senate floor to speak against a deal that was emerging in the House of Representatives around this bill. When Congress first started working on this proposal 2 years ago, the idea was for Democrats and Republicans to work together to improve medical innovation and access to lifesaving cures. For over 2 years a lot of people worked really hard on that effort. We had a chance to bring down the cost of skyrocketing drugs. We had a chance to support medical research so we could start to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes. We had a chance to help coal miners whose health care is on the ropes and who are running out of time. Unfortunately, the Cures bill introduced in the House last week didn't do any of those things. Instead, it was a typical Washington deal--a deal that ignored what voters want, and held a bunch of commonsense, bipartisan health proposals hostage unless Congress also agreed to pass a giant giveaway to drug companies. So how did this happen? Lobbyists. Kaiser Health News estimated that the new Cures bill has generated more lobbying than almost all of the 11,000 bills that have been proposed during this Congress. At one point, there were about three lobbyists for every single Member of Congress. Every one of those lobbyists wanted favors. Wow. Did they get some doozies here: a provision to make it easier for drug companies to commit off-label marketing fraud--taking pills that are approved for one use and using them for a whole lot of other purposes--without any evidence that it is either safe or effective, a provision making it easier for drug companies to hide gifts they give to doctors who prescribe certain drugs, a giveaway to a major super PAC donor who stands to benefit financially through pushing regenerative therapies through FDA, even if they don't meet the FDA's gold standard for safety and effectiveness. This bill is not about doing what the American people want. This bill is about doing what drug companies and donors want. On Monday, I made it clear that I oppose this. Since then, two things have happened. First, since Monday, the public has gotten wind of this deal and they don't like it. In the last 24 hours, more than 100,000 people have signed petitions calling on Congress to just reject the deal. Second, since Monday, we have seen the bill changed a little. Last night, after they got some heat, the House took out the provision letting drug companies hide kickbacks to donors. Good. I guess they were having a hard time explaining to anybody why it made any sense to help drug companies cover up bribery. The lobbyists are disappointed about that, but they are still pushing for the bill because even though the kickbacks are out, letting drug companies get away with fraud is still in. Giveaways are bad in this bill, but that is not the only thing that is a problem with this bill. What is not in the bill also hurts. Seventy years ago, Congress promised to provide for the health and welfare of American coal miners and their families. Now 120,000 coal miners, their widows, and their families will see massive cuts to their health benefits and retirement pensions. Why? Because the bipartisan mine workers protection act was left out of this bill. Without it, 12,500 coal miners will lose their health insurance on December 31 of this year. Another 10,000 will lose their coverage next year and on and on into the future. According to exit polls, 70 percent of voters say they think the American economy and the lawmakers who oversee it are owned--owned by big companies and special interests. Bills like the 21st Century Cures Act are the reason why. There is so much we could do with this bill. This Congress could step up for thousands of American coal miners. For their entire lives, these coal miners have sacrificed everything for their families, for their communities, and for this country. They have literally sacrificed their health. They are running out of time. We could help. This Congress could step up to help millions of people who are struggling with exploding drug prices. We could help bring down the cost of drugs. This Congress could step up to help the millions of families who have been touched by Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, and other deadly disease. We could help by providing more funding for the research that would generate real cures. This Congress could step up to deal with drug companies that think they are above the law, giant corporations that think they can break the rules and then get Congress to do special favors for them. We can just say: No, that is not what we are in business to do. The American people are not clamoring for the Cures bill, at least not this version. Tens of thousands of people have asked us not to pass it. Even the conservative group Heritage Action for America has come out strongly against this deal. I don't agree with all of their objections, but they explain, ``In Washington terms, backroom negotiators have turned the Cures bill into a Christmas tree loaded with handouts for special interests, all at the expense of the taxpayer.'' Boy, got that one right. This kind of backroom dealing that helps those with money and connections and leaves scraps for everyone else is why people hate Washington. It is the reason I will oppose this bill.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement by former Representative Barney Frank entitled ``Trump's financial plans promise another Great Recession'' be printed in the Record.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, 3 weeks ago Americans went to the polls. Voters were deeply divided on whether Democrats or Republicans should be in charge. Donald Trump is the President-elect, missing the popular vote by more than 2 million people. But there is one thing Americans are not divided on, one issue on which they sent out a message loud and clear. According to exit polls, 70 percent of voters said that they think the American economy and the lawmakers who oversee it are owned-- owned--by big companies and special interests. That is 70 percent of everyone--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. In the closing days of this Congress, Big Pharma has its hand out for a bunch of special giveaways and favors that are packed together in something called the 21st Century Cures bill. It is on track to get a vote in the House this week and then get rammed through the Senate. I have been taking a look at the details, and when the American voters say that Congress is owned by big companies, this bill is exactly what they are talking about. Now we face a choice: Will this Congress say ``Yes, we are bought and paid for'' or will we stand up and work for the American people? For more than 2 years, Congress has been working on legislation to help advance medical innovation in the United States. Medical innovation is powerfully important, and I have spent as much time working on this issue as anything I have worked on since I joined the U.S. Senate. From the beginning, I have emphasized one obvious fact: Medical breakthroughs come from increasing investments in basic research. Right now, Congress is choking off investments in the NIH. Adjusted for inflation, Federal spending on medical research over the past dozen years has been cut by 20 percent. Those cuts take the legs out from under future medical innovations in America. We can name a piece of legislation the ``Cures'' bill, but if it doesn't include significant, meaningful funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, it won't cure anything. That is why months ago Senate Democrats said any so- called Cures legislation must have significant investment in medical research, and that is why Senate Republicans publicly committed to do exactly that. But now they have reneged on their promise and let Big Pharma hijack the Cures bill. This final deal has only a tiny fig leaf of funding for NIH and for the opioid crisis, and most of that fig leaf isn't even real. Most of the money won't be there unless future Congresses pass future bills in future years to fund those dollars. So why bother with a fig leaf in the Cures bill? Why pretend to give money to NIH or opioids? This funding is political cover for huge giveaways to giant drug companies. There are more examples than I can count in this bill. But I am going to talk about three. First giveaway: Legalize fraud. You know, it is against the law for drug companies to market drugs for uses not approved by the FDA. Now, some drug companies find this rule annoying. After all, they can make a lot more money selling a headache pill as a cure for everything from hair loss to cancer. But pushing treatments without scientific evidence that they work is fraud--fraud that can hurt people. It also undercuts the development of real cures. That is why some of the largest law enforcement actions against big drug companies over the past 15 years have involved off-label marketing. Drug companies have paid billions of dollars in penalties. Now, one solution would be for those companies to follow the law. But they prefer plan B: Cozy up to enough people in Congress to pass this Cures bill that would shoot holes in the anti-fraud law. In other words, make it easier for drug companies to get away with fraud. Second giveaway: Cover up bribery. Right now the law requires drug companies to disclose the buckets of money they shower on doctors and hospitals to encourage them to prescribe certain drugs. It is, by the way, all published on a government Web site. You can go look up your doctor and your hospital right now online, if you want to do that. Now, the drug companies could have responded by ending kickbacks to doctors. But instead, they have chosen plan B again: Cozy up to enough people in Congress to pass this Cures bill, which would let drug companies keep secret any splashy junkets or gifts associated with so- called medical education and make it harder for enforcement agencies to be able to trace those bribes. Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, says he is outraged by this provision. I have to say that I am with Senator Grassley on this one. Third giveaway: Hand out dangerous special deals to Republican campaign contributors. According to news reports, a major Republican donor stands to benefit financially from selling cellular and regenerative medical therapies. If this guy had it his way, he would be able to sell them to desperate people without a final FDA determination that those therapies were either safe or effective. Of course, that would be against the law right now. So this megadonor has poured millions of dollars into Mitch McConnell's personal campaign coffers, and into his Republican super PAC, and now he wants his reward. The Cures Act offers to sell government favors. It delivers a special deal so that people can sell these treatments without meeting the FDA gold standards for protecting patient safety and making sure that these drugs actually do some good. Keep in mind that people could die from using unproven treatments. In fact, people have already died during carefully controlled research experiments on these types of treatments. Congress should not be in the business of selling FDA favors to the highest bidders, risking people's lives to enrich political donors. Let's be clear. What the Republicans are proposing is corrupt, and it is very, very dangerous. There is more. Republicans decided to hand out gifts for other special interests. The Cures Act, a bill that is supposed to be about medical innovation, has a giveaway to the gun lobby. The bill cuts Medicare funding. It raids money from the Affordable Care Act. It takes health care dollars that should have gone to Puerto Rico. It makes it harder for people with disabilities to get Medicaid services. There is a lot of bad stuff in this bill--a lot of bad stuff. But not everything in the bill is bad. Republican leaders are playing a crafty game here, trying to buy off Democratic votes, one by one, by tacking on good, bipartisan proposals that Senators in both parties have worked on in good faith for years. There is a bipartisan mental health bill. There are bipartisan provisions protecting the genetic privacy of patients and bipartisan provisions to give some very limited funding for important priorities, such as the national opioid crisis. There is the Vice President's Cancer Moonshot. There is a proposal in here to improve foster care. I support most of these proposals. I have worked on many of them for years. I even wrote some of them myself. If this bill becomes law, there is no question it will contain some real legislative accomplishments. But I cannot vote for this bill. I will fight it because I know the differences between compromise and extortion. Compromise is putting together commonsense health proposals supported by Democrats, by Republicans, and by most of the American people, and passing them into law. Extortion is holding those exact same proposals hostage unless everyone agrees to special favors for campaign donors and giveaways to the richest drug companies in the world. Compromise is when Senators-- Democrats and Republicans--find a way forward on issues that matter to their constituents. Extortion is telling those same Senators to forget what their constituents want. We will do nothing with the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs and nothing to increase medical research. Instead, every important commonsense bipartisan bill on mental health, genetic privacy, opioid addiction, foster care, and anything else will die today unless Democrats agree to make it easier for drug companies to commit fraud, to give out kickbacks, and to put patients' lives at risk. This demand is enough to make me gag. Scientists who invent new cures should be celebrated, along with the companies that support them. But let me be perfectly clear. While the drug industry may get a seat at the table, they do not own the table. I do not care how many armies of lawyers and lobbyists they send out. I do not care how many campaign contributions they dump into congressional pockets. I do not care how painful they can make life for politicians who oppose them. I will not be their lackey. I will work for the hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors who are committed to saving lives and who are waiting for Congress to fund their work. I will work for the millions of families that have been touched by Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, and other deadly diseases who are counting on this research. I will work for the 70 percent of voters who are sick of a Congress that is owned by big donors and giant corporations. Republicans are taking over Congress. They are taking over the White House. But Republicans do not have majority support in this country. The majority of voters supported Democratic Senate candidates over Republican ones. The majority supported a Democratic Presidential candidate over a Republican one. The American people did not give Democrats majority support so we can come back to Washington and play dead. They did not send us here to whimper, whine, or grovel. They sent us here to say no to efforts to sell Congress to the highest bidder. They sent us here to stand up for what is right. Now they are watching, waiting, and hoping--hoping that we will show some spine and start fighting back when Congress ignores the message of the American people and returns to the old ways of doing business. Republicans will control this government, but they cannot hand that control over to big corporations unless Democrats roll over and allow them to do so. It is time for Democrats--Democrats and Republicans, who should be ashamed by this kind of corruption--to make it clear exactly who they work for. Does the Senate work for Big Pharma, which hires lobbyists and people who make giant campaign contributions, or does the Senate work for the American people who actually sent us here? I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, last week Hillary Clinton got about 1 million more votes than Donald Trump; yet here we are--Donald Trump won the Presidency. Across the Nation, everyone is wondering what happens next. It has been barely a week, but we have already seen disgusting ideas emerging from Trump Tower: Put a White supremacist in the White House; float a plan to register all Muslim Americans; draw up plans to round up millions of human beings and rip families apart across this Nation. It is sickening, and we will fight back. But, hey, at least he promised to shake up our corrupt political system, right? I mean, after all, when President-Elect Trump announced his campaign, he called out the politicians who were ``controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests.'' When he accepted his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention, he said, ``When innocent people suffer, because our political system [ . . . ] has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash--I am not able to look the other way.'' He promised that he would ``not be controlled by the donors, special interests, and lobbyists who have corrupted our politics and politicians for far too long'' and that he would ``drain the swamp'' in Washington, DC. Those are his words, repeated loud and repeated long during the campaign. President-Elect Trump has now named most of his transition team. So how is he doing on his rock-solid, double-down promise to get rid of the special interests and the lobbyists? Big surprise. Trump is not ``draining the swamp.'' Nope. He is inviting the biggest, ugliest swamp monsters in the front door, and he is turning them loose on our government and on our economy. In just 1 week, the President-elect has elevated a slew of Wall Street bankers, industry insiders, and special interest lobbyists to run the show on his transition team. Let's run through just a few examples. The guy in charge of staffing the Federal Communications Commission was on Verizon's payroll and has produced studies aimed at knee-capping the net neutrality rules. The guy in charge of picking the team that will decide energy policy in a Trump administration is a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. The guy picked to staff up the Department of Agriculture is a ``veteran food and agriculture lobbyist'' whose firm has raked in millions representing the food industry. The guy leading the transition for the Environmental Protection Agency has been paid by the oil industry and denies that climate change is real. The guy heading up the transition team for the Social Security Administration is--you guessed it--a former lobbyist who spent much of his career working to cut and privatize the Social Security system. The guy--and, by the way, we may have noticed a pattern here: almost all guys--working on transportation and infrastructure is a founding partner at a law firm that lobbies for the National Asphalt Paving Association. The guy in charge of economic issues for the Trump transition team served for 6 years as chief economist at Bear Stearns--the Wall Street firm that helped crash our economy in 2008, and he now runs a consulting firm for Wall Street clients. Trump's very first decision is to hand over the keys of government to the worst kind of DC insiders and special interests. It seems like all those promises to stand up for working people were just a giant con. As the outrage has now spread, we have heard reports that Vice President-Elect Mike Pence has decided to remove all lobbyists from the transition team. Yeah, I will believe it when I see it. If we learned anything from this campaign, it is that Team Trump will make up things if it seems convenient. Last night we already heard another version of his story. It seems that lobbyists can come on board, but only if they drop their formal lobby registration when they join the team. Swamp monsters today, swamp monsters wearing clean shirts and ties for the transition team tomorrow, and swamp monsters once the transition is over. Putting a clean shirt on a swamp monster doesn't change anything. They have already had ample opportunity to stuff transition plans with ideas that will be good for their well-connected clients, and they will be disastrous for everyone else. Besides, even if the lobbyists finish up early and leave, the Trump transition team is still full of industry insiders seeking special deals for themselves and for their companies. This isn't subtle, and you don't have to take my word for it. Here is how Politico put it this morning: ``A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the campaign trail is now putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker's dream.'' In the same article, one historian said, ``You would have to go back to the 1920s to see so much Wall Street influence coming to Washington.'' So what happened? How come the guy who spent the election tweeting ``I'm not controlled by lobbyists or special interests'' is stuffing his transition team full of lobbyists and special interests? Well, when you ask the President-elect about his flip-flop, he says he needs lobbyists on his team because ``they know the system.'' He said, ``Everybody's a lobbyist'' in DC. That is literally the opposite of what he said during the campaign, and it is also not true. Many Americans, both inside and outside Washington, have plenty of expertise to serve the American public without being bought and paid for by special interests. Americans are angry about a Federal Government that works for the rich and powerful and that leaves everyone else in the dirt. Donald Trump knows that. He talked a good game during the campaign, and he promised to end corruption. He promised to drain the swamp. And after 1 week, we have seen what Donald Trump's promise means--nothing. His word, his promise to the American people, is worth nothing. Well, Mr. President-Elect, let me be clear: I am ready to fight on behalf of the millions of Americans you have lied to. That includes the millions who voted for you and the millions who didn't. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the Republicans are threatening to shut down the government again. In less than 100 hours, the U.S. Government will run out of money. Why? What is so important that Republicans are willing to destroy thousands of jobs and cost our economy billions of dollars the way they did in 2013? The answer is money. Not tax money. Not government spending. No. This is all about secret money for political campaigns. Republicans who control Congress are refusing to fund the government unless everyone agrees to let giant, publicly traded companies that spend millions of dollars trying to influence our elections keep all that money hidden. In just 6 years, the world has turned upside down. Since 2010 when the Supreme Court said in Citizens United that American corporations are ``people,'' those corporations have been allowed to spend as much corporate money as they want to get their friends elected. And, boy, have they spent money--more than half a billion dollars from 2010 to 2015. Today a powerful group of millionaires and billionaires runs around tossing out checks for millions of dollars to influence who wins and who loses elections. Anyone whose eyes haven't been glued shut can see that these waves of money are drowning out ordinary citizens, corrupting our politics, and corrupting our government. We need to reverse Citizens United and take back our government. We need to reaffirm the basic principle that corporations are not people. But that is going to be a long haul. The first thing we can do--the least we can do, the thing we can do right now--is make sure publicly traded corporations at least tell us when they spend money on political campaigns. Let's be brutally frank about this. Despite the impression that they usually give on television and in congressional hearings, public companies do not belong to their executives. They are not piggybanks for rich CEOs who want to advance their own personal political ideologies. By law, these companies can spend money only in ways that will benefit their shareholders. So when a public corporation decides to spend $1 million on politics, one of two things is true: Either the corporation is trying to buy a politician or some government favor or it isn't. If it is, then that is corruption, plain and simple, and if it isn't, that is a waste of shareholder money, and it is illegal. Either way, shareholders and the public have a right to know. The next time you buy cookies or shop on a Web site or use a credit card, you may be contributing to the profits of a corporation that is funneling millions of dollars to political candidates you detest. You may be helping some corporation buy a Senator who will help roll back environmental regulations or privatize Social Security or block a woman's access to birth control. That may be OK with you, but if it isn't, you might want to know about it and buy different cookies. The Republicans don't want you to know. They are saying they will shut down this government before they will let the SEC make corporations tell about the secret money they are pushing into political campaigns. The American people want to know if giant corporations are buying politicians, and the SEC can make those corporations tell. More than 1 million people and organizations have written to the SEC, asking it to issue such a rule. This massive show of support has spooked Republicans. After all, there is an election in 6 weeks. At this very moment, billions of dollars in secret money are flowing into our political system--much of it to prop up Donald Trump and his Republican friends in Congress. Just turn on your TV and you will see it. Senator Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans have billions of reasons for keeping this funding secret and billions of reasons to defend this rotten system. They are willing to shut down the government to do it. If Republicans think they can quietly hold the government hostage to protect the anonymous corporate donors who want to buy off politicians, if they think nobody else will notice, they should think again. If the Republicans really think the American people sent us here to protect political corruption, then let's get it right out here in the open and let the American people see who is standing up for them and who isn't. There is a second threat the Republicans have issued. They will not help Flint, MI. The people of Flint, MI, have been poisoned by lead seeping into their drinking water; poisoned by a rightwing State government that decided to play fast and loose with the health and safety of a largely African-American town; poisoned by a fraudulent coverup that hid what happened while lead built up in the bodies of thousands of young children and caused terrible developmental problems and chronic health issues that will last for the rest of their lives; poisoned by a philosophy that says: Let's give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and then shrug it off when there is no money left to build infrastructure for clean water or provide education or opportunity for anyone else; poisoned by a Republican philosophy that says: No one matters but me and my children. Your children can drink lead; poisoned by the callous indifference of the Republicans who control the United States Congress. It has been over a year since Flint's water was declared undrinkable. It has been 9 months since it was designated a Federal disaster eligible for our help. During that time, 100,000 residents of Flint-- mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, children and babies--haven't had access to drinking water because of a Republican-State government that didn't care about the people living in Flint and a Republican Congress that didn't care either. Michigan's two Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, have spent nearly a year trying to work out some kind of solution--any kind of solution--that the Republicans who control Congress would agree to. They even got a fully paid for emergency relief package to move through the Senate with 95 votes--95 votes in the Senate--only to watch in horror as Republicans in the House are trying to tank it. Recently, major floods hit Louisiana. Like Flint, Louisiana received a Federal disaster declaration to make the thousands of people who have lost their homes eligible for our help. Congressional Republicans, urged on by the two Republican Senators from Louisiana, have decided to give Louisiana the support it needs to recover from this disaster as part of the government funding bill, and that is great. The Republicans who control Congress said: There will be nothing for Flint. This is raw politics. Two Republicans represent Louisiana and two Democrats represent Michigan. Congress is controlled by Republicans so Louisiana gets immediate help, but after a year of waiting, Michigan gets told to pound sand. Is this what we have come to? Is this what politics has become? There are 100,000 people in Flint, a town where more than half the residents are African-American and nearly half live in poverty. They get nothing because voters sent two Democrats to the Senate? This is not a game. Flint is not a Democratic city or a Republican city; it is an American city. The children who have been poisoned are American children. The principle of standing up for those in need is an American principle. I am a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, but I will help the Republican Senators from Louisiana. I stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their hour of need, but I am sick and tired--I am past sick and tired--of Republican Senators who come here and demand Federal funding when their communities are hit by a crisis but block help when other States need it. Their philosophy screams, ``I want mine, but the rest of you are on your own.'' It is ugly, un-American, and just plain wrong. We must stand with the Senators from Michigan. We must stand with the children of Flint, and we must put aside ugly partisanship that is literally poisoning a town full of American families. Any Member of the House or Senate who doesn't stand with them lacks the moral courage to serve in this Congress. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the retirement of Emily Winterson, an immigration specialist in my Boston office, who has served the people of Massachusetts and the United States for over 32 years. Emily began working in the Senate on March 7, 1984, and has worked for four consecutive Massachusetts Senators since then. First, Emily worked in the office of Senator Ted Kennedy for over 20 years. When Senator Kennedy passed, she stayed on to work for Senator Paul Kirk, then Senator Scott Brown, and now she has been on my team in the Boston office since I was sworn in. As my colleagues know well, there are two parts to a Senate office. The side the Nation hears about most often and is in the news is the legislative work we do right here in Washington. But there is an equally important side to our work, and that is the help we provide back home. We would not be able to offer this critical help without devoted people like Emily Winterson. Emily has committed entirely to this work, and she has touched the lives of countless families across the State of Massachusetts. With her years of expertise and her relentless determination, she has helped people navigate our complex immigration system, and she does it all with exceptional humility and grace. When someone has a last-minute passport problem and may not be able to make the trip with the group from the temple or the church, Emily has been the one to cut through the redtape. When a student needs a visa to be able to attend one of our great universities, Emily is there. When extraordinary musicians or performers from around the world needed help getting into the country, Emily was there. When families needed her most, when foreign adoptions were tangled up and families were divided or stranded, Emily was there. When sick children needed to get medical care at world-class hospitals in Boston and around our State, Emily was there. No matter the issue, Emily always knew the right people to call to get results in government offices both here and abroad--and they all knew Emily. There are too many stories to count, but I want to tell just one. A young woman came from China to the United States to study medicine at Boston University. While she was here, she was diagnosed with leukemia. She had no family in America and she desperately needed help getting a visa for her sister to come to the United States to help take care of her. As have so many others, she reached out to Emily for help. Now, Emily was able to get the visa for her sister to come and to support her through a long and very difficult treatment, but the story doesn't stop there. Without any form of financial support and unable to work, the young woman faced eviction. Together with the help of Catholic Charities, Emily helped secure the funds needed to help her get caught up on her rent. During all of this, the young woman's student visa expired, which left her ineligible for health care. Once again, Emily got to work and was able to obtain deferred action on her visa. Emily even helped her find an apartment near the hospital when she was being treated, and in her usual ``do more than anyone would expect,'' Emily even helped her furnish the place. Still, the young woman's health worsened. As she was nearing her final days, her last wish was to see her mother, whom she had not seen for 12 years during her studies. Again, Emily concentrated all of her efforts on securing an expedited visa for her mother so she could be with her before she passed. Because of Emily's tireless work, this young woman, far from home, spent her final days with the support and care of her mother and her sister. Emily was there for her through thick and thin. When this young woman needed help and had no one to turn to, Emily was there. With steadfast commitment, Emily fought for her. Now, this is just one of many stories that together form the fabric of Emily's life work. At a time when many Americans feel that government is not working for them, a system that too often overlooks those in need, Emily is a shining example of the powers of public service. She embodies the link between government and the people. She has dedicated her working life to making government fulfill its most fundamental mission--improving the lives of the people it serves. Emily Winterson has shown us all that when we take time to listen to someone's story, when we have the compassion to care about their troubles and the determination to fight on their behalf, we have the power to improve each other's lives. This is government by the people and for the people. Emily is American politics at its best. This is the legacy that Emily leaves behind. We will all miss her greatly. Although we are sad to see Emily leave, we could not be happier for her as she begins her much earned retirement in October. I know she is looking forward to gardening, to working on her memoirs, and to spending more time with her children and her grandchildren. So, Emily, on behalf of the people fortunate enough to work alongside you, for the State of Massachusetts and for the thousands of people you have served, thank you. We wish you the best as you move into the next chapter of your life. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.