Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Stephanie DeLuca of my staff and to her service dog Carra.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, President Trump said last week that the healthcare bill passed by the House was ``mean,'' and then he said the Senate should make the bill more ``generous, kind [and] with heart.'' It sounds like the President is having second thoughts about this Republican bill. So now, Mr. President, you are waking up and noticing just how heartless this bill is; you know, the bill your Republican buddies in Congress slapped together in a back room; you know, the one you celebrated with a big press conference in the Rose Garden a few weeks ago; you know, the bill that you and House Republicans gave each other high fives over for taking away healthcare from millions of people, and now it sounds like you want a do-over. Too bad no one explained to the President that mean is just part of the deal the Republicans have struck. Mean is baked into every sentence of this bill. When you set out to trade health insurance of millions of American families for massive tax cuts for the wealthy, things get real mean fast. This mean bill does a lot of things, but some of the meanest things about it are how hard it will hit American women. To pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for this bill, Republicans chose to make one of their classic moves--a sort of old reliable for Republican men: attack women's healthcare. Let's run through just a few examples. Today, most people helped by Medicaid are women. The Republican bill cuts Medicaid by $834 billion. Republicans say millions of women who lose healthcare will do just fine. Today, plans on the individual market have to cover maternity care and treatment for postpartum depression. The Republican bill says: Forget it. Let the States drop those benefits. Women are the only ones using them anyway. Today, the law says you can't charge women more by labeling things like pregnancy as preexisting conditions. The Republican bill says: Who cares? Go for it. Today, women can choose healthcare providers they trust the most, but the Republicans want to eliminate that choice by cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. Republicans say women can do just fine without the care they need. Frankly, I am sick of many coming down to the Senate floor to explain to Republicans what Planned Parenthood does. I am sick of explaining that it provides millions of women with birth control, cancer screenings, and STI tests every year. I am sick of pointing out, again and again, that Federal dollars do not fund abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else. Women come to the floor, we explain, we cite facts, but Republicans would rather base healthcare policy on politics than on facts. Speaker Ryan called this mean bill pro-life, but this is just the biggest political play of all. Calling something pro-life will not keep women from dying in back-alley abortions. It will not help women pay for the cancer screenings that could save their lives. It will not help them take care of their families, have safe sex, or afford their medical bills. The pro-life label is the Republicans playing politics with women's lives. Let's be blunt. The Republican bill will make it more likely--not less likely--that women and their children will die. Women aren't fools. We can feel the difference. We can tell the difference between reality and lies, and that is why we are here today. That is why we are fighting back on the Senate floor today. Right now, 13 Senators--all men--are sitting in a room writing revisions to the secret Republican bill. These 13 men will not show us the bill and will not hold hearings on its contents. Just in case anyone missed the point, please note that all 13 of these men have already voted during their time in the Senate to reduce women's access to contraception and abortion. Republicans have told the press that Americans shouldn't worry about the fact that women are shut out because ``reduc[ing]'' the 13 men to their gender is a ``game . . . of identity politics.'' This is not identity politics, and it is certainly not a game. This bill will affect every woman in this country, and we know what is going on behind closed doors: 13 men are trading away women's healthcare for tax cuts for the rich. American women deserve better than this mean Republican bill, and American women are here to fight back. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I do not think we should vote on a bill that would touch every single human being in this country when one party is locked out of the debate--not able to read the bill and not able to discuss it and help make suggestions and changes. I think that families all across this country should be able to see this bill and be able to evaluate the impact on themselves and on their families. I am here today, in part, because of a little boy named Nicholas, who was born way too early, who is 2 years old, and who just received a diagnosis of autism, in addition to his other medical challenges. Nicholas is a recipient of Medicaid. I talked to his mother today. She wants to know whether this bill is going to cut Nicholas' care and what this means for Nicholas and his future. I think it is wrong for Republicans to push through a bill when Nicholas' mother cannot evaluate what the impact will be on her and on her child. So I believe we should post online any bill that is going to affect families like theirs. Mr. President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent that a substitute or perfecting substitute amendment offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, not be in order if the text of the amendment has not been filed at the desk and made available on a public website for at least 72 hours, along with an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of the bill's budgetary, coverage, and cost implications.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I get letters and emails every day from families begging me not to let Republicans in Congress tear up healthcare in this country. People aren't writing because they find themselves with a lot of extra time on their hands. They are not writing because they are professional activists or political organizers. They are not writing because they like writing letters and emails. They are writing because they are scared. They set aside all the other things they need to do in their day--the sink full of dishes, the load of laundry, the overflowing inbox--and they steal some time to write these letters. They write these letters because they are terrified--terrified down to their bones that if they don't speak out, their family is going to lose their healthcare coverage, their children will be shut out from care, their elderly parents will lose the assistance they need to pay for nursing home care, their own insurance costs will be going up, and their financial security could be hanging by a thread. A lot of people write letters and send emails, and a lot of people make calls too. Every week since the Republicans started their cruel effort to take away healthcare from tens of millions of people in this country, my office has been getting phone calls from worried constituents. Last week, something changed. We went from our regular quota of calls about this terrible Republican healthcare bill to an avalanche of voice mails and phones ringing off the hook. Since last week, I have gotten more than a thousand phone calls from people who are pleading with me to do whatever I can to stop Republicans who are going forward with their brutal plans. People are literally in tears on the phone. They are scared, and they are angry. They are calling because they know that 13 Senate Republicans--13 men-- are locked away in a secret room, behind closed doors, writing a secret plan to trade their health insurance for tax cuts that will go to the wealthiest Americans in this country. The bill the Republicans are negotiating behind closed doors isn't a healthcare bill. It is a tax cut for billionaires bill, and it is paid for by cutting healthcare for tens of millions of other Americans. The Republican healthcare bill has $663 billion in tax cuts in it-- $663 billion in tax cuts for the richest people in this country and for wealthy corporations, tax cuts that would blow a giant hole in the American budget. The Republicans didn't let that slow them down. They kept their eye on the prize. For the Republicans, the most important thing about this healthcare bill is the tax cuts for the rich. They decided to cut Medicaid by $834 billion in the same bill so they can pay for their tax cuts. This is a straight-up trade. The Senate Republicans say that Americans should cut health insurance for little babies or for seniors in nursing homes or for people getting treatment for opioid addiction-- all so that millionaires and billionaires can get their tax cuts. That is not a healthcare bill. That is a statement of values. And it says that tax cuts for a handful of millionaires and billionaires are more important than healthcare for millions of hard-working Americans and their families. There is only one word for what the Senate Republicans are doing with this bill--``shameful.'' It is shameful. The Republicans negotiate in secret, behind closed doors. They refuse to let anyone see the bill. They will not tell anyone what is in it. Senator McCaskill asked Chairman Hatch on the Finance Committee if he would hold a hearing on the bill, and he said no. Senator Murray asked Chairman Alexander on the HELP Committee if he would hold a hearing on the bill, and he said no, no plans to do so--no, no hearings, no reviews, no public look at what the Republicans are up to. What is going on here? I will tell you what is going on. Senate Republicans don't dare let the people back home see this bill. They don't dare let voters see this bill. Instead, they have decided to try to ram this bill through with no hearings, no public discussion, and get it signed into law. They hope, once that is done, people will not see much point in learning about the details and holding Republicans accountable. They hope that if they can do a quick vote, everyone else will just give up. I have news for Senate Republicans. That is not going to happen. Senate Republicans may not want to hear from families who are worried about losing their insurance coverage in the middle of a battle with breast cancer. They may not have time for stories about premature babies who need Medicaid so they can get lifesaving care. And maybe they don't want to hear about the grandparents with Alzheimer's who could get kicked out of nursing homes. Senate Republicans may not want to hear from these people, but I have a message for these Senate Republicans. We don't care how long we have to stand up here. We don't care how many times you try to dodge the question about what is in your secret healthcare bill. Democrats are here to keep demanding that you show us this bill, and we are going to keep insisting that you account for its shameful contents. I know you would prefer to take the phone off the hook so you don't have to hear it ring, and I know you would like to pretend that there aren't families in your State who would be hurt by this bill, but I am going to take some time to read you a handful of the letters I have been receiving about exactly what is at stake in this debate about healthcare. These families deserve to be heard. A few months ago I received a letter from Jenny in Worthington, MA. She wrote to me about how she and her husband got good healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act and how Medicaid was there when they needed it most, when Jenny was diagnosed with breast cancer. A few days after President Trump's inauguration, Jenny's son Liam wrote a letter to the President. Liam asked President Trump not to take away his mother's healthcare. I don't know if President Trump ever read that letter, but I am going to read it right now into the Congressional Record. Dear President Trump, My name is Liam Barry, and I am ten years old. My mother has been very ill. Thanks to the ACA, my mother has been able to have the care and medication she needs. If you repeal the ACA, my mother will not be able to get the care she needs. I know there are millions of kids in the same situation as me. Please think of them when you read this. Sincerely, Liam Barry Thank you for speaking out, Liam. We are fighting for your mom, and we are fighting for you. Kristine from Cambridge also wrote to me about her fight against cancer. She wrote: I ask that you and fellow Senators PLEASE fight for the Affordable Care Act. I am a cancer survivor. When I was 28 years old, I got the news no one ever wants to hear, ``You have cancer.'' Luckily, for me, I had a job that had wonderful insurance, and I was able to get medication, surgeries, and treatment to win the fight--and to not go broke doing so. However, I know many young people and old people and children who would not be here today if it was not for ACA. I know people who are still fighting their battles with cancer. They are frightened and losing hope, not because of cancer, but because they don't know whether they will be able to continue to get the treatments necessary to stay in the fight. I am now 30 years old, and have my whole life in front of me. Because of what [President] Trump is proposing, I am now afraid that if I lose my job or if I wish to change jobs, I might not be able to get the necessary coverage, because I no longer qualify. I really didn't think this is what I would be worried about two years ago after having been through 8 rounds of chemo, 20 rounds of radiation and surgery to clear me of this disease. Please, I ask that you fight for us. Fight for those who are in the chemo chair right now, at this very moment, who are miserable, bald and bloated. Fight for the cancer warrior who is now crying with worry because she doesn't know, come a month from now, if she will be able to continue to receive the life-saving treatment she is entitled to! That is why we are here tonight. We are fighting for you, Kristine. We are in this fight. Thank you for speaking out about your own fight against cancer and for others who are currently battling cancer and worried about the future of their healthcare. I also heard from Sarah, who lives in Shrewsbury, MA, and who wrote to me about her concerns that the Republican healthcare bill would endanger coverage of birth control and access to services at Planned Parenthood. Sarah wrote to me this past weekend, while I was out dancing in the Boston Pride parade. As I type this you are at Boston Pride, which I would have loved to be at to support my friends, but, due to my endometriosis pain, here I sit. I am extremely concerned about the GOP plan to reduce or strip away insurance coverage for birth control. As a 21- year-old woman suffering from endometriosis, a very common disease among young women, I know firsthand that birth control does more than just prevent pregnancy--in fact, for many, it is the only treatment for them. In 10 days I will be undergoing endometriosis surgery, and for the past 6 months since I've been diagnosed until the surgery, birth control was the only thing enabling me to stand up straight most days. Even while taking oral contraceptives, there were many days I was unable to get out of bed (today being one). I am so lucky to have access to an amazing endo specialist at Brigham & Women's Hospital, and to have access to the medication and surgery that I need. But every time I groan about having to go to an appointment, I think about how many women are suffering from the same debilitating pain, but without the resources to overcome it. Many women rely on Planned Parenthood not just for abortions, but to provide them with the medicine that will enable them to stand up straight in spite of the pain they deal with every day. Endometriosis doesn't discriminate, and it cannot be cured, only treated. Until endometriosis becomes a prominent focus of medical research, which I feel it should be, we must protect the right to be treated for it, which means protecting insurance coverage of birth control, and protecting Planned Parenthood. I know that you are a warrior for women's rights, and you are the patron saint of Planned Parenthood. I know these are issues you fight for, and I cannot even begin to thank you enough for all you have done thus far. I hope that by adding my voice and my personal story, I can fuel your fire and somehow be a small part in protecting my fellow females and my fellow endometriosis sufferers (1 in 10 women in the US). Thank you for fighting for us. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Sarah, thank you for writing, and thank you for fighting. We are going to fight to save your coverage, and next year I expect to see you on the parade route at Pride. I also heard from Dr. Hemal Sampat, who is a doctor at MGH in Boston. He wrote in with his personal story, and I want to read parts of his letter. I actually grew up in a low-income family myself. My parents immigrated to the U.S. My mother is brilliant but only had a 7th grade education because my grandfather couldn't afford to send her to school. My father is college- educated, but struggled frequently with unemployment. My older brother has multiple disabilities. He's blind and brain-damaged from a stroke during childhood, epileptic, intellectually disabled, and has a transplanted kidney. I am fortunate enough to have been healthy my entire life. For most of my life, my family was on Medicaid, as well as other forms of public assistance. . . . My brother, additionally, due to his kidney disease, got Medicare as well, but Medicaid was always his secondary insurance. He sees multiple different specialists and has done very well over these years. In spite of us having multiple financial struggles, we never had to worry about his healthcare being paid for. His transplant from childhood lasted 19 years, and then about 10 years ago he was transplanted again and has done well with that. My parents still live in the same house I grew up in, in Maryland. Right now, they're cared for by Medicare and Medicaid. My brother lives with them, receives SSI, and his health needs are met by Medicare and Medicaid. Although none of his chronic medical conditions can be cured, they are all well taken care of. In the meantime, I grew up healthy, was able to attend Georgetown through need-based financial aid, was able to get into medical school at the University of Maryland and pay for it using Federal student loans (which I'm repaying through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program), got into a dual-specialty residency of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics at Penn State, and am now working at Harvard and MGH. My family's story goes to show that Medicaid is about helping families that struggle, about helping children with complex medical needs, and about how providing for the good health of a family can achieve positive outcomes for the long-term future. Today, Dr. Sampat works at Harvard at MGH. He makes sure his patients on Medicaid get excellent care. He told me about one of his patients who came in to urgent care in Chelsea. This little girl wasn't even 2 years old yet and was wheezing and had a fever. Here is what the doctor said: This child and her mother were on Medicaid through MassHealth. [As] I asked questions, I found out more about this mother. She was working two to three jobs in order to make ends meet. Her daughter was in daycare during the day and then [the] grandmother took care of [the little girl] most evenings. This mom took care of her daughter on the rare days she had off and clearly loved and cared for her daughter. This young girl's wheezing was probably some of the earliest signs of what will become asthma. [Her] mom has asthma, too, and it runs in their family. Asthma is a completely controllable illness with medication, but it requires monitoring by a doctor and access to medication. Because the child has Medicaid, I feel much more confident that, in spite of how much the mother is struggling financially, the child has a good shot at growing up healthy. Without Medicaid, this child could live a life in poor health from a treatable condition. These are some of the people the Senate Republicans want to kick to the curb so they can deliver a big tax cut for millionaires and billionaires--a 10-year-old kid with a sick mom, a cancer survivor, a woman with endometriosis, a boy kept healthy by Medicaid so he could grow up to become a doctor at one of the best hospitals in this country and help a little girl with asthma. Senate Republicans are willing to tear away health insurance from these families to deliver tax cuts for their buddies, but we are not going to let that happen. We can't let that happen. You are fighting back, we are fighting back, and we will keep right on fighting. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his important words and all the Senators who have come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the Republican plans to dismantle our healthcare system. As we speak, Republicans in the Senate are busy behind closed doors working overtime to come up with a secret health plan to ram through the Senate. I guess they are afraid of how the public would react if we could see the full scope of their plans, but in the last 24 hours, we have seen new details about what they want to do. The formula is as clear as it is cruel: destroy healthcare for tens of millions of Americans, including people struggling under the weight of our national opioid crisis. Why? In order to give tax cuts to rich people. These plans are simply unforgivable, and I say ``unforgivable'' because I cannot find any justification that makes it OK to take away health insurance from 23 million Americans. I cannot come up with a single sliver of an argument that says it makes sense to rip away more than $800 billion from kids with complex medical needs, seniors in nursing homes, and one of the largest sources of help for people and families struggling with substance abuse disorder, all to produce tax breaks for a handful of millionaires and billionaires. The Republican agenda is destroying healthcare in this country, and it has never been clearer. President Trump released his budget proposal this week. If the healthcare bill is a punch to the gut, his budget is a knife in the ribs. The Trump budget is about the future, and for the future, Trump says there is too much medical research. He wants to cut more than $5 billion from the NIH budget. That is the place where research is ongoing about treatments for Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, ALS. That is America's future that President Trump wants to cut by more than $5 billion. Then there is the Republican effort to blow up our existing healthcare system. The Republican bill would open the door to discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, and there is more. Insurance companies could drop coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorders. Insurance companies could decide not to cover pregnancy or maternity care. They can drop coverage for prescription drugs. Insurance companies could, once again, impose lifetime limits on diseases like cancer and heart conditions, even for people on employer plans in States like Massachusetts that want nothing to do with the waivers the Republican bill allows. The CBO says that out-of-pocket costs for these services that are no longer covered would rise ``thousands of dollars a year,'' but cutting out cancer patients and mamas and newborn babies and people with preexisting conditions just wasn't enough for the Republicans. President Trump used his new budget to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the Federal agency leading the fight against opioids. Tens of thousands of people are dying, and the Trump budget cuts money needed in the fight against opioids. It gets even worse. Together, the Republican healthcare bill and the President's budget rip well over a trillion dollars out of the Medicaid Program, which provides health insurance to one in five people in this country. Medicaid funds more than half the people in nursing homes. When a new baby is born in this country, Medicaid pays for about half of those births. Seniors in nursing homes and new babies are just targets for the Republican cuts. Then, like extra chocolate sauce drizzled over this misery sundae, the budget also cuts the Children's Health Insurance Program by 20 percent over the next decade. Children's health insurance is the program that works together with Medicaid to provide health insurance for one out of every three kids in this country. Trump and the Republicans say: Let them go sick. What does that mean? Don't repair a hole in their hearts or fix their broken arms? Don't treat them when they get ear infections or does it just leave someone else to pay? If that is the answer, then tell us who? Who exactly is going to pay for the healthcare for these children? I just don't get what the Republicans in Congress are thinking. I know they have people back in their home States who are begging them to keep healthcare coverage. Disease, accidents, old age, substance abuse, these misfortunes don't ask whether you are a Democrat or a Republican before they come knocking at your door. I just don't get how Republicans can turn their backs on people who will be hurt, but I understand whom the Republicans are helping. The CBO score lays it out in black and white. The budget lets you go line by line to see just whom the Republicans do care about. The Republican healthcare bill burns down healthcare access for millions of people in this country in order to hand out tax breaks to a tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires. The Republican budget rips away coverage for people with disabilities so that giant corporations can keep more of their giant profits. The Republican budget tosses seniors out of nursing homes and puts the brakes on Alzheimer's research so the richest people in this country can rake in millions in tax cuts. That is not puzzling; that is unforgivable. Let's be clear about what is at stake here. A couple of weeks ago, I was at Malden Care Center, which is part of the Cambridge Health Alliance. Health providers like these in Massachusetts are on the frontlines, and they are fighting back against the opioid epidemic. The folks at Cambridge Health Alliance told me that before the ACA, they were lucky if one out of every three people walking through their doors had health insurance. Today, after years of hard work in Massachusetts to pass bipartisan health reform and then to implement the ACA, more than 97 percent of the people in our State have healthcare. More than 9 out of 10 people coming into Cambridge Health Alliance clinics now have coverage. Because of that coverage, CHA could offer a wide range of services, including treatment for opioids. They are making headway: More lives saved, more success stories, more healthy babies. I am not going to tell the seniors and the mamas and the people on the frontlines of the opioid crisis they have to give up those gains to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. If Senate Republicans want to defend this indefensible budget and unforgivable healthcare bill, then they can start by coming out from behind closed doors where they are conducting secret negotiations over healthcare. They can look the American people in the eye and admit they care more about the wealthy few in this country than they do about hard-working families and people who need our help. They can be straight up, and the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--can hold them accountable for what they are trying to do to our families and to our country. I yield the floor to my colleague from Maryland.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the memory of Officer Ronald Tarentino, who was killed in the line of duty on May 22, 2016. Last week, the country observed National Police Week, a week in honor of the brave law enforcement officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community. Officer Ronald Tarentino was one of those brave officers. Officer Tarentino was born in Medford and raised in Medford and Tewksbury, MA. The son of a police officer, he followed his father's example when he joined the police force, spending 7 years in the Leicester Police Department before transferring to the Auburn Police Department, where he served until his untimely death 2 years later. I had the honor of attending the wake of Officer Tarentino and was moved by the stories of his selfless dedication to those around him. Officer Tarentino was the coworker everyone loved. His passion for his work was easily apparent to anyone who knew him. He came into work with a smile and made friends with all of his colleagues. Outside of work, he enjoyed fishing, hunting, and archery and was a member of the Massachusetts Police Association, the Auburn Elks, and Mustangs or Massachusetts. Most of all, Officer Tarentino was a loving husband and a father of three. Today we honor his service and sacrifice. May his memory continue to challenge and inspire us.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the memory of Trooper Thomas Clardy, who was killed in the line of duty on March 16, 2016. Last week, the country observed National Police Week, a week in honor of the brave law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, and on Monday, we will observe Memorial Day, a day we honor the heroic men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. Thomas Clardy, an officer and a veteran, is one of those brave people to whom our Nation owes a debt of gratitude. Born and raised in Park City, UT, Trooper Clardy spent his adult life in service to his country, his community, and his family. After graduating from high school, Trooper Clardy spent 2 years in the U.S. Army before transferring to the U.S. Marine Corps, where he served 11 years. Following his honorable discharge from the Marines, Trooper Clardy began a long and esteemed career in service to his community. He graduated from the Massachusetts State Trooper Academy in 2005 and was a valued member of the Massachusetts State Police until his untimely death. Trooper Clardy was a dedicated and loving husband to his wife, Reisa, and father to his seven children. Thanksgiving was a sacred holiday for Trooper Clardy. He spent it, without fail, surrounded by friends and loved ones, enjoying football with the kids and spending quality time with the family he loved so much. Today we honor his service and sacrifice. May his memory continue to challenge and inspire us.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Judge Amul Thapar to serve as a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It should surprise absolutely no one that Judge Thapar is the second nominee to a Federal court to come up for a vote in this Congress. His nomination comes on the heels of the nomination of now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, an ultraconservative who could not earn enough support to be confirmed under Senate's normal rules, a judge so radical, so controversial that Senate Republicans had to change the Senate rules and lower the vote threshold to force his nomination through the Senate. Now the Senate is poised to vote on a judge cut from the same cloth. Like Justice Gorsuch, Judge Thapar made the list of 21 acceptable judges that far-right groups drew up and handed to President Trump-- judges who would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the rich and the powerful. As in Justice Gorsuch's case, those radical groups are committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure Judge Thapar sits on the Nation's highest courts. For those groups, the goal is not just to get a few ultraconservative judges on our Federal courts; it is to capture the entire judicial branch. For years, billionaire-funded, rightwing groups have worked hand in hand with Republicans to ensure that our courts advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful over the rights of everyone else. They abused the filibuster to stop fair, mainstream judges from filling vacancies on Federal courts, they slowed the judicial nominations process to a crawl, and they threw the Constitution and Senate precedent out the window by refusing to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Under their watch, judicial vacancies stacked up and courts became overloaded with cases. Now Republicans and their extremist friends have a President who shares their concern about the interests of the 1 percent, and they are ready to stack our Federal courts with judges who will advance their radical agenda. Judge Thapar is much more than up to the task. There are many reasons to oppose Judge Thapar's nomination to the Sixth Circuit, from his decisions making it harder for working Americans to get access to the judicial system to his support for sentencing policies that don't make us safer but that exacerbate the problem of mass incarceration. There is a lot to object to, but I want to highlight one area that should concern every person who thinks government should work for all of us; that is, Judge Thapar's stance on money in politics. For decades, our laws restricted the amount of money that individuals and corporations could pour into the political process. In recent years, Federal courts chipped away at those laws, and then Supreme Court decisions in cases like McCutcheon and Citizens United took a sledgehammer to campaign finance laws, unleashing a flood of dark money into the political system. There are now dozens of perfectly legal ways for the 1 percent to buy influence and favor: corporate campaign contributions and super pacs, the revolving door between government and the private sector, bought- and-paid-for experts to push alternative facts, armies of lobbyists swarming the Halls of Congress. Their investments have paid off in the form of special breaks, exemptions, deals, riders, subsidies, loopholes, and every other handout industry can imagine. That money-- that unaccountable, dark, unlimited money--has fundamentally distorted our democracy. Judge Thapar would make the problem worse. Judge Thapar believes that actual speech and monetary contributions are basically the same thing. When he had to decide on the constitutionality of a Kentucky rule preventing State judges and judicial candidates from donating to political groups or campaigns, he concluded that the rule was unconstitutional. In his decision, Judge Thapar said: ``There is simply no difference between `saying' that one supports an organization by using words and `saying' that one supports an organization by donating money.'' No difference between talking about a candidate and dumping a bucket of money into the candidate's campaign. Wow. In Judge Thapar's view, the Constitution should protect a billionaire's right to dump unlimited sums of money into the political process to influence the outcome of elections. That is even further than the Supreme Court has gone. As the Sixth Circuit reminded Judge Thapar when it reversed his decision on donations, even the Supreme Court has refused to treat monetary donations as equivalent to direct speech. The issue of concentrated money in our political system is one that doesn't split down party lines. Americans of all political views cringe at the massive amounts of secret money that slither through our political process. They have seen politicians beholden to the handful of deep-pocketed individuals and giant corporations, and they have seen those politicians turn their backs on the constituents they were elected to represent. That is at the heart of what is wrong in our Nation. Our government should work for everyone, not just for the millionaires and billionaires. Fighting for a government that is accountable to the people means fighting to reduce the influence of concentrated money and concentrated power in our political system. It is time to take down the sign that says ``government for sale'' that hangs above Washington, DC, and we can start today by rejecting Judge Thapar's nomination to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Rachel Brand's nomination to the No. 3 spot in the Justice Department. Now, there are many reasons I am opposed to this nomination, but those reasons are all grounded in a central question facing America today: Whom does this government work for? Does it work just for the rich and powerful? Does it work just for the well connected? Does it work just for the billionaire in the White House or does it work for everyone? One of the worst kept secrets in America is that there are two justice systems; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else. The first justice system is an exclusive club for giant corporations and wealthy individuals. In that justice system, serious crimes are punished with a slap on the wrist and a small fine. Taxpayers bail out corporations that stole the life savings, and wealthy criminals go back to their lives without missing a beat. The second justice system is for those who can't buy their way out of prison time. In that system, minor, nonviolent offenses are punished with harsh prison sentences. When those individuals are eventually released, they are branded with the scarlet letter that closes doors to employment and opportunity. It is a system that swallows up people whole and spits them out with nothing. Americans are very familiar with the difference between those two justice systems. We saw the difference after the worst financial crisis in a generation, when Wall Street tycoons who gambled away the life savings of working Americans walked away free as a bird. We saw it in the War on Drugs when countless Black and Brown people were shoveled into prisons, where they wasted their lives away. We need to fix this problem. We should be devoting every resource we have to fixing this problem. That starts with the Justice Department, the agency responsible for ensuring that nobody is above the law, and everyone--everyone is held accountable. Unfortunately, it has been pretty clear to me for some time now that President Trump's Justice Department is pushing as hard as possible in the opposite direction. For much of President Obama's second term, prosecutors were allowed some discretion to consider the unique circumstances of each case and make a measured decision about when to ask for the most serious charge with the maximum penalty or when to ask for less. It worked. Jail time for low-level drug offenses went down. States saved money, and lives were not irretrievably broken. Last week, that modest advance came to an end. Attorney General Sessions directed prosecutors to charge individuals with the harshest sentences possible. ``Lock them up'' seems to be his approach--but not in all cases. Jeff Sessions sings a very different tune when it comes to white-collar crime. He believes corporations should not be punished for the actions of their executives. Don't punish the companies for a few bad CEO apples. In Jeff Session's world, we should throw the book at criminals, unless they are rich and powerful. Now, President Trump has chosen to somewhat help Jeff Sessions carry out his vision. His choice to be the third highest ranking official at the Justice Department is Rachel Brand, the nominee for Associate Attorney General. She is well equipped to carry out that soft-on-white-collar-crime approach. She has extensive experience--years of experience--fighting on behalf of the biggest and richest companies in the world. She spent years leading the Chamber of Commerce's assault on the rules that protect working families, evidently deciding time after time that it is corporations that should get every break. As the head of regulatory litigation of the chamber of commerce, Ms. Brand worked to dismantle environmental rules that prevent companies from poisoning our air and water. She worked to shield financial companies from accountability when they broke the law or did not play by the rules. She worked to end the employment rules that prevent companies from abusing their workers. If she is confirmed to the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department, she can watch out for giant corporations from her perch right inside the government. The Brand nomination is just another predictable move from a President who clearly believes that one set of rules should apply to the rich and powerful, and another set of rules should apply to everyone else. We all remember Donald Trump's promise during the campaign that he was going to drain the swamp. Well, it is 118 days in, and the swamp is bigger, deeper, uglier, and filled with more corrupt creatures than ever. Over the last several days, President Trump has made it perfectly clear that he believes he should be above the law. After he fired FBI Director James Comey, Trump went on national television and told the world that he fired Comey, in part, because Comey was leading an investigation into ties between the Trump campaign, the Trump administration, and Russia. Trump said top of mind when he fired Comey was ``this Russia thing with Trump.'' Now we have learned that he apparently pressured Comey in private meetings to drop aspects of the Russia investigation before he fired him. It is a basic presumption of our democracy that politicians cannot interfere with the law enforcement investigations into their own potential wrongdoing, but President Trump openly admitted trying to interfere with an ongoing investigation, and he clearly believes there should be no consequences for himself. I understand that President Trump thinks he should be able to decide what investigations into his dealings go forward and what investigations get stopped on the spot. I understand that President Trump thinks he should be able to pack his Justice Department full of people who will watch out for billionaire CEOs and giant corporations. After all, he has packed other agencies with similar people. I understand that is what President Trump thinks, but he is wrong. One of the things that makes our democracy strong is that we believe no one is above the law, not CEOs, not giant corporations, and not the President of the United States. It is up to the Senate to remind the President of that fact. We can start by rejecting the nomination of Rachel Brand to serve as Associate Attorney General. I ask everyone who believes in the promise of equal justice under the law to do the same. (The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 1162 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act of 2017. This legislation would allow student loan borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates, and I urge both my Senate colleagues and the Trump administration to support it. In a few short months, millions more college graduates will be hit with their first student loan bills. Already, more than 44 million Americans have student loans, and many are struggling to pay loans that are running at interest rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even more. It is time for real action to help struggling borrowers. That is why, today, I join 36 of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate and 98 of my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives to reintroduce our plan to allow borrowers to lower their monthly payment by refinancing their existing loans to today's lower interest rates, 3.76 percent for undergrads, a little higher for graduate students. Supporting America's students should not be a political food fight. In fact, President Trump talked about student loans when he was on the campaign trial, including a plan to reduce the maximum number of years for repayment for most students. As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ``students should not be asked to pay more on the debt than they can afford.'' I agree with that, which is why Congress should allow students to lower their monthly payments by refinancing to today's lower interest rates. Donald Trump also said that ``student loan debt should not be an albatross around student's necks for the rest of their lives.'' I agree with that too. The legislation I am introducing today would lower the outstanding balance for millions of Americans, allowing them to get out from under their student loans faster. Here is one more. Donald Trump said that it is ``terrible that one of the only profit centers we have is student loans.'' He also said that ``it is not fair and that should not take place.'' Unfortunately, right now, that is exactly what is happening. According to a recent analysis of Congressional Budget Office data by the Institute for College Access and Success, after all the costs are accounted for, the Federal Government is now on track to make $81 billion off student loans over the next 10 years. That is obscene. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of our students, period. Yes, Candidate Trump talked a lot about this problem, but talk is cheap, and President Trump has not done a thing to fix the problem. In fact, he seems to have lost all interest in students and their student loans. Since his election in November, he has not even mentioned his campaign promises about student loans. Instead, he and Education Secretary DeVos have gone in the opposite direction, using their short time in office to deliver one blow after another to hard-working Americans who are struggling with student debt. Back when he was running for President, Donald Trump made a lot of promises, but empty promises don't help the students who have been punched in the gut by Secretary DeVos's decision to roll back critical consumer protections for borrowers. Hollow campaign pledges do not help the students, the veterans, the members of our Armed Forces when they are hurt by student loan companies, like Navient, that break the law and brazenly announce to the world that they don't think they have a responsibility to act in the best interests of students. Rally speeches don't mean much when this administration is ripping up policies that would have made it harder for greedy student loan companies to rake in lucrative government contracts while cheating students. Last year's rhetoric means nothing to the struggling borrowers who can now be charged sky-high fees--as high as 16 percent-- by student loan collection companies thanks to yet another policy Betsy DeVos ripped up. Students know what is going on. The loan companies know too. Industry stocks have skyrocketed since November. Mr. President, keep your promise and start by supporting this refinancing bill. For nearly 4 years, Republicans have filibustered this bill and refused to even debate it, despite its overwhelming public support. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have offered nothing--nothing--to seriously address the problems of student loan borrowers. Those problems keep getting worse. Today's students are wrestling with $1.4 trillion in student loan debt, and every year the student loan debt increases by nearly $100 billion. Interest rates are scheduled to jump up again later this summer, meaning the urgency for Congress to act and allow borrowers to access today's rates is stronger than ever. The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act would give millions of borrowers across this country a chance to save hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars a year. That is real money, money they can put toward paying down the balance on their debt, money they can use to save for a home, money they can spend on buying a car, money they can put toward building a solid future. By refusing to act and ignoring this debt crisis, Republicans threaten to bury the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for Congress to step up and fix this problem. It is also time for the President to step up as well. President Trump, you campaigned on the idea that the Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of hard-working students. So support this legislation. Put it in your annual budget, this proposal. Call on Members of your own party who have held up this bill to get on board. Demand action to refinance student loan debt, and keep the promises you made to America's young people. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act of 2017. This legislation would allow student loan borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates, and I urge both my Senate colleagues and the Trump administration to support it. In a few short months, millions more college graduates will be hit with their first student loan bills. Already, more than 44 million Americans have student loans, and many are struggling to pay loans that are running at interest rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even more. It is time for real action to help struggling borrowers. That is why, today, I join 36 of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate and 98 of my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives to reintroduce our plan to allow borrowers to lower their monthly payment by refinancing their existing loans to today's lower interest rates, 3.76 percent for undergrads, a little higher for graduate students. Supporting America's students should not be a political food fight. In fact, President Trump talked about student loans when he was on the campaign trial, including a plan to reduce the maximum number of years for repayment for most students. As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ``students should not be asked to pay more on the debt than they can afford.'' I agree with that, which is why Congress should allow students to lower their monthly payments by refinancing to today's lower interest rates. Donald Trump also said that ``student loan debt should not be an albatross around student's necks for the rest of their lives.'' I agree with that too. The legislation I am introducing today would lower the outstanding balance for millions of Americans, allowing them to get out from under their student loans faster. Here is one more. Donald Trump said that it is ``terrible that one of the only profit centers we have is student loans.'' He also said that ``it is not fair and that should not take place.'' Unfortunately, right now, that is exactly what is happening. According to a recent analysis of Congressional Budget Office data by the Institute for College Access and Success, after all the costs are accounted for, the Federal Government is now on track to make $81 billion off student loans over the next 10 years. That is obscene. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of our students, period. Yes, Candidate Trump talked a lot about this problem, but talk is cheap, and President Trump has not done a thing to fix the problem. In fact, he seems to have lost all interest in students and their student loans. Since his election in November, he has not even mentioned his campaign promises about student loans. Instead, he and Education Secretary DeVos have gone in the opposite direction, using their short time in office to deliver one blow after another to hard-working Americans who are struggling with student debt. Back when he was running for President, Donald Trump made a lot of promises, but empty promises don't help the students who have been punched in the gut by Secretary DeVos's decision to roll back critical consumer protections for borrowers. Hollow campaign pledges do not help the students, the veterans, the members of our Armed Forces when they are hurt by student loan companies, like Navient, that break the law and brazenly announce to the world that they don't think they have a responsibility to act in the best interests of students. Rally speeches don't mean much when this administration is ripping up policies that would have made it harder for greedy student loan companies to rake in lucrative government contracts while cheating students. Last year's rhetoric means nothing to the struggling borrowers who can now be charged sky-high fees--as high as 16 percent-- by student loan collection companies thanks to yet another policy Betsy DeVos ripped up. Students know what is going on. The loan companies know too. Industry stocks have skyrocketed since November. Mr. President, keep your promise and start by supporting this refinancing bill. For nearly 4 years, Republicans have filibustered this bill and refused to even debate it, despite its overwhelming public support. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have offered nothing--nothing--to seriously address the problems of student loan borrowers. Those problems keep getting worse. Today's students are wrestling with $1.4 trillion in student loan debt, and every year the student loan debt increases by nearly $100 billion. Interest rates are scheduled to jump up again later this summer, meaning the urgency for Congress to act and allow borrowers to access today's rates is stronger than ever. The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act would give millions of borrowers across this country a chance to save hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars a year. That is real money, money they can put toward paying down the balance on their debt, money they can use to save for a home, money they can spend on buying a car, money they can put toward building a solid future. By refusing to act and ignoring this debt crisis, Republicans threaten to bury the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for Congress to step up and fix this problem. It is also time for the President to step up as well. President Trump, you campaigned on the idea that the Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of hard-working students. So support this legislation. Put it in your annual budget, this proposal. Call on Members of your own party who have held up this bill to get on board. Demand action to refinance student loan debt, and keep the promises you made to America's young people. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we have a retirement crisis in this country. Today, among working families on the verge of retirement, about a third have no retirement savings of any kind and another third have total savings that are less than one year's annual income. Let's be blunt. Social Security alone is not enough for a secure retirement. Hitting retirement with little or no savings means spending those last years hovering around the poverty line, with little or no money for important purchases, like dental care or hearing aids, or extras, like buying a birthday gift for a grandchild. There are a lot of different reasons people hit retirement with no savings, but one big reason is that 55 million Americans don't have the ability to save for retirement through a workplace retirement account. For years, the Republican-controlled Congress has done nothing to help the 55 million Americans who don't have an employer-provided retirement plan to save for their retirement--nothing--so seven States have actually stepped up. They passed legislation to provide retirement accounts to their constituents, and 23 more States are currently considering proposals like this. Massachusetts has stepped up, too, passing legislation to allow workers in small, nonprofit organizations to save for retirement in a State-administered plan. These State efforts are a big deal. The actions of just those first seven States could expand coverage to 15 million Americans who don't currently have an employer-sponsored retirement account. These efforts would go a long way toward starting to chip away at the retirement crisis in our country, and both Republicans and Democrats should be applauding the efforts of the Governors, State treasurers, and State legislatures who are doing this important work. But instead of passing legislation to incentivize States to continue their innovative work or instead of bringing up a bill on their own encouraging companies to offer retirement accounts to their workers, Republicans are voting on a bill that would pull the rug out from underneath these State plans, jeopardizing all of the States' recent progress. Republicans are constantly saying they are the party of federalism, deregulation, and State flexibility. Over and over again for the past several months, my colleagues across the aisle have come down to the floor to overturn regulation after regulation because they claim those regulations ``limit the role of State and local governments.'' So why on Earth are they now passing a bill to run roughshod over the States? The States certainly aren't asking them to take it up. The National Conference of State Legislatures--the bipartisan organization representing the legislatures of all 50 States--sent a letter urging Congress not to pass this bill because ``it will result in an unwarranted preemption of state innovation, will restrict the ability of millions of hardworking Americans to save for retirement, and will prove costly to federal and state budgets.'' And 23 State treasurers and top budget officials, both Democrats and Republicans, from Idaho to Mississippi, wrote urging Republican leadership to ``protect the rights of states and large municipalities to implement their own, unique approaches . . . to address this growing retirement savings crisis.'' No, the State legislatures didn't ask the Republican Congress for this bill, and the American people are certainly not calling their Senators asking that they overturn the rules to help them save for their retirement either. Seventy-two percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats support the work the States are doing. If it is not the State legislatures and it is not the State regulators and it is not the American people who want this bill passed, why are Republicans pushing it forward? Why are we voting for this legislation? Four words--national chamber of commerce. The national chamber of commerce has been fighting tooth and nail to kill these retirement initiatives. Their armies of lobbyists are swarming over Capitol Hill. They are peddling misinformation about what these plans do, all because the giant financial firms that pump money into the national chamber of commerce are worried that the State plans will offer better investment products with lower fees for customers. Yes, the giant financial firms are right to be worried. States probably will not award investment contracts to the companies with the highest fees or to the companies offering kickbacks and prizes to make the sale. They are going to award contracts to companies that can provide the best product at the lowest cost. That is how a competitive bidding process works. The financial firms hiding behind the chamber of commerce don't want competitive bidding, they don't want transparency, they don't want to fight on a level playing field, and they are willing to spend a whole lot of money to make sure they don't have to. In fact, the Chamber is so serious about keeping the system rigged that they have sent letter after letter to every Member of Congress and their staff, letting them know they are watching this vote. Just in case you can't read between the lines, for extra emphasis, in bold and underlined typeface, their letters warned that they will be ``consider[ing] . . . votes on, or in relation to, [this] resolution[] in our annual How They Voted scorecard.'' Whoa. The chamber of commerce is going to score who votes to help the big financial corporations and who doesn't, and they are going to make sure that all those potential campaign contributors know about the vote. This is what gives Washington such a terrible reputation. The American people didn't send us here to work for giant financial institutions and their armies of lobbyists and lawyers. I don't care what kind of threats the chamber of commerce puts out; it is wrong to pass a law to kick people in the teeth when they are trying to save for their retirements. The lobbyists may be watching this vote, but the American people are watching, too, and they are ready to fight back. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, when he was running for President, Donald Trump laid out a pretty clear vision of how he would deal with Wall Street. He said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.'' He claimed he wasn't ``going to let Wall Street get away with murder,'' and he called out Goldman Sachs as the prime example of a big bank that has too much influence over the political process. That was really powerful stuff. When Candidate Trump became President Trump, he seemed to forget every scrap of his tough-on-Wall Street talk. Within weeks of taking office, he turned over his administration's economic agenda to none other than Goldman Sachs. His senior strategist, Steve Bannon, spent half a decade at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker. His National Economic Council Director, Gary Cohn, came directly from Goldman Sachs, where he spent 25 years and rose to become President of the bank. His Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs before leaving to start his own hedge fund, which brings us to Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to run the Securities and Exchange Commission. To be fair, Mr. Clayton never worked at Goldman Sachs, he just worked for Goldman Sachs, taking their money and representing them for years as a lawyer at a major New York City law firm. So here we are, just over 8 years after Wall Street triggered a financial crisis and brought the economy to its knees, and President Trump has put the Goldman Sachs gang in charge of holding Wall Street accountable. Trump's betrayal of his campaign promises on Wall Street is shameful, but it is also dangerous, especially when it comes to picking the person to lead the SEC. The SEC is supposed to be the cop on the beat for Wall Street. That is why Congress created it in the 1930s, after fraud and other misconduct on Wall Street led to an enormous stock market crash and the Great Depression. Congress gave the SEC the authority to oversee financial markets and to hold companies and individuals accountable when they defrauded investors. When the SEC doesn't do its job, the consequences can be devastating. Look at what happened the last time the SEC was under Republican control in the years leading up to the 2008 crisis. The SEC was asleep at the switch. While Wall Street flooded the market with dangerous securities and lied to investors, the SEC heard nothing, saw nothing, stopped nothing. The Republican-led SEC did nothing. When the whole market blew up, it was ordinary investors and working families who got asked to bail out Wall Street. So what kind of SEC Chairman would Mr. Clayton be? Let's start by looking at how he would lead the SEC's enforcement efforts against Wall Street, how he would be as a cop on the beat. Under ethics rules, for the first half of his term, Mr. Clayton cannot participate in any enforcement action that involves one of his former clients. That means he cannot take part in any case against Goldman Sachs. OK. But there is more. Goldman Sachs is just one of his former big bank clients. Mr. Clayton also can't take action against Deutsche Bank or against UBS or against Barclays. These are some of Wall Street's biggest and most egregious repeat offenders, and Mr. Clayton would be barred from enforcing the law against them. That is not all. Ethics rules also prevent Mr. Clayton from participating in any enforcement case against a party that is represented by his former law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Sullivan and Cromwell is a premier Wall Street firm, with a long client list that includes big banks like JPMorgan Chase and the credit rating agency Moody's. That means there will likely be even more cases against top Wall Street firms that Mr. Clayton can't work on. Here is why that matters so much. For most enforcement actions, it takes a majority vote of the five SEC Commissioners. In other words, it takes three people to advance an enforcement action. In a number of recent cases, the two Democrats have voted for stronger enforcement and the two Republicans have voted against it. If the Chairman can't vote-- and Mr. Clayton can't vote if some of the biggest and most disreputable banks are involved--then the Commission is likely to come up short of the necessary three votes. You know what that means. It means the banks walk free. Confirming Mr. Clayton to run the SEC will almost certainly result in weaker enforcement against the major players on Wall Street. Mr. Clayton is also likely to pursue a Wall Street-friendly agenda when it comes to the SEC's rulemaking responsibilities. When he testified before me and before other members of the Banking Committee, Mr. Clayton refused to commit to completing the rules that Congress asked the SEC to write all the way back in 2010 as part of its postcrisis financial reforms. Mr. Clayton even refused to commit to implementing and enforcing some of the postcrisis rules that the SEC has already finalized and put in place. I don't have any faith that Mr. Clayton will be the kind of tough, independent leader we need at the SEC. His nomination is just one more broken promise, one more time that Donald Trump has put Wall Street ahead of the interests of the American people. The last time a Republican President led us down this path, it resulted in the worst financial crash of our lifetime. We can't go down that path again. I will be voting against Mr. Clayton's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the nomination of Alexander Acosta for Labor Secretary. The test of whether a nominee is qualified to be Labor Secretary is a pretty simple one: Will that person stand up for 150 million American workers and their families? Mr. Acosta has had multiple opportunities in more than 2 months since he was nominated for this position to demonstrate that he would stand up for workers, and time after time, he has refused. Americans deserve to know where a nominee like Mr. Acosta stands on key policy matters that will have a powerful impact on the lives of working people. At Mr. Acosta's confirmation hearing, I asked him where he stood on three policy issues that are important to working Americans and their families. First, will you promise not to delay a rule that will protect 2.3 million Americans from being poisoned by lethal cancer-causing silica on the job? Second, will you appeal a Texas court's injunction that has halted implementation of a new overtime rule that would give 4.2 million Americans a $1.5 billion raise in a single year? And third, will you promise not to delay a rule that will stop investment advisers from cheating retirees out of an estimated $17 billion a year? Now, these are not tough questions. For most people, these would have been total softballs: Will you keep workers from being poisoned, will you make sure that employers pay for overtime, and will you make sure that investment advisers aren't cheating retirees? Come on. This is the very least that a Labor Secretary can do--the very least. Mr. Acosta refused to answer a single one of these questions. Instead, he bobbed and weaved, stalled and repeated my questions; he even insisted that these topics were so complex that he needed more time to study them. And it wasn't just my questions that Mr. Acosta refused to answer. He spent more than 2 hours ducking, hand-waving, and dodging basic questions from committee members--both Democrats and Republicans--questions about whether he would commit to stand up for workers on issues that profoundly affect their health, their safety, and their economic security. Mr. Acosta has been so evasive about his views that we still have virtually no idea what he will do to help or harm workers if he is confirmed for this job. The fact that Mr. Acosta isn't willing to step up on easy questions and tell us that he will be on the side of workers tells us a lot about him--and none of it is good. That is particularly troubling, since Mr. Acosta is President Trump's nominee, and we can see how President Trump treats workers. In less than 100 days on the job, President Trump has managed to kill, weaken, or undermine an unprecedented number of protections for working people. He signed a bill to make it easier for government contractors to steal wages from their employees. He signed a bill to make it easier for employers to hide injuries and deaths that their workers suffer on the job. He signed a bill to keep cities from offering retirement accounts to more than 2 million employees who don't have access to a retirement plan on the job. He delayed a rule protecting workers from lethal, cancer-causing beryllium. He delayed a rule protecting construction workers from deadly silica. And he delayed a rule preventing investment advisers from cheating retirees--a rule that will save hard-working Americans about $17 billion a year. That is a pretty long list, and it doesn't even include the devastating impact to workers of the President's proposed 20-percent cut to the Labor Department funding, which means fewer cops on the beat when employers steal wages or force people into unsafe working conditions. During his campaign, President Trump talked a big game about standing up for workers and creating good, high-paying jobs. But if his first 100 days are any indication, his real plan is to keep corporate profits soaring by gutting the rules that American workers depend on to keep money in their pockets, food on their tables, and to keep them safe in the workplace. Unlike President Trump's first failed nominee for this job, Mr. Acosta is not openly contemptuous of people who work hard for a living, and I suppose we should be thankful for that. But that is not the test for Labor Secretary. The test for Labor Secretary is whether this person will stand up for American workers. Mr. Acosta won't make that commitment, and he has made it perfectly clear that he sure won't stand up to President Trump. That is just not good enough. Because of this ongoing evasiveness, I have no confidence that Mr. Acosta is the right choice for this position, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his confirmation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Thank you to the Senator from Hawaii for calling us here together today. Mr. President, it is clear that President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, does not have enough support in the Senate to be confirmed under our rules. When a Supreme Court nominee does not have enough support to be confirmed, the solution is to pick a new nominee, but Republicans in the Senate are threatening to pursue a different path. They are considering breaking the Senate rules to force the nominee onto the Supreme Court anyway. I will be honest. I think it is crazy that we are considering confirming a lifetime Trump nominee to the Supreme Court at a moment when the President's campaign is under the cloud of an active, ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation that could result in indictments and appeals, that will go all the way to the Supreme Court, so that Trump's nominee could be the deciding vote on whether Trump or his supporters broke the law and will be held accountable. That is nuts. I believe we should tap the brakes on any nominee until this investigation is concluded. But even if none of that were happening, I would still oppose the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. My objection is based on Judge Gorsuch's record, which I have reviewed in detail. Judge Gorsuch's nomination is the latest step in a long political campaign by rightwing groups and their billionaire backers to capture our courts. Over the last 30 years, as the rich have gotten richer and working families have struggled to make ends meet, the scales of justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. Those powerful interests have invested vast sums of money into reshaping the judiciary, and their investment has paid off in spades. Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it easier for corporate giants that cheat their customers to avoid responsibility. Recent Supreme Court decisions have let those same corporations and their billionaire investors spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections and manipulate the political process. Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it easier for businesses to abuse and discriminate against their workers. Giant corporations and rightwing groups have notched a lot of big wins in the Supreme Court lately, but they know their luck depends on two things--first, stacking the courts with their allies, and second, stopping the confirmation of judges who don't sufficiently cater to their interests. That is part of the reason they launched an all-out attack on fair-minded mainstream judges--judges like Merrick Garland, a thoughtful, intelligent, fair judge to fill the open vacancy on the Supreme Court. These very same corporate and rightwing groups handed Donald Trump a list of acceptable people to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and as a Presidential candidate, he promised to pick a Justice from their list. Who made it onto that rightwing list? People who, unlike Judge Garland, displayed a sufficient allegiance to their corporate and rightwing interests. Judge Gorsuch was on that list, and his nomination is their reward. Even before he became a Federal judge, Judge Gorsuch fully embraced rightwing, pro-corporate views. He argued that it should be harder, not easier, for shareholders who got cheated to bring fraud cases to court. On the bench, Judge Gorsuch's extreme views meant giant corporations could run over their workers. In Hobby Lobby, when he had to choose between the rights of corporations and the rights of women, Judge Gorsuch chose corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the rights of corporations and the rights of the consumers they cheated, Judge Gorsuch chose corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the rights of corporations and the rights of employees who had been discriminated against, Judge Gorsuch chose corporations. Time after time, in case after case, Judge Gorsuch showed a remarkable talent for creatively interpreting the law in ways that benefited large corporations and that harmed working Americans, women, children, and consumers. When it comes to the rules that prevent giant corporations from polluting our air and our water, from poisoning our food, from cheating hard-working families, Judge Gorsuch believes that it should be easier, not harder, for judges to overturn those rules--a view that is even more extreme than that of the late Justice Scalia. Republicans assert that Judge Gorsuch is a fair, mainstream judge, but rightwing groups and their wealthy, anonymous funders picked him for one reason: because they know he will be their ally. And that is not how our court system is supposed to work. Judges should be neutral arbiters, dispensing equal justice under law. They should not be people handpicked by wealthy insiders and giant corporations. For the working families struggling to make ends meet, for people desperately in need of healthcare, for everyone fighting for their right to vote, for disabled students fighting for access to a quality education, for anyone who cares about our justice system, there is only one question that should guide us in evaluating a nominee to sit on any court: whether that person will defend equal justice for every single one of us. Judge Gorsuch's record answers that question with a loud no. Republicans have a choice. They can tell President Trump to send a new nominee--a mainstream nominee who can earn broad support--or they can jam through this nominee. If they do jam through Judge Gorsuch, the Republicans will own the Gorsuch Court and every extreme 5-to-4 decision that comes out of it. Republicans will own every attack on a woman's right to choose, on voting rights, on LGBTQ rights, on secret spending in our political system, and on freedom of speech and religion. Republicans will be responsible for every 5-to-4 decision that throws millions of Americans under the bus in order to favor the powerful, moneyed few who helped put Judge Gorsuch on the bench. Right now, the Presidency is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution, contempt for our independent judiciary, contempt for our free press, and contempt for our moral, democratic principles. If ever we needed a strong, independent Supreme Court with broad public support--a Supreme Court that will stand up for the Constitution--it is now. If ever there were a time to say that our courts should not be handed over to the highest bidder, it is now. And that is why Judge Gorsuch should not be confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, since coming to Washington, I have observed something interesting about Republican politicians. Republicans talk a big game about respecting women, but when it comes time to vote on laws to help real, live, American women, a lot of Republicans turn their backs. Take Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan was adamant that American women deserve respect. ``Women,'' he said, ``are to be championed and revered.'' ``Championed and revered''--so what exactly does championing and revering women mean to Speaker Ryan? Does it mean he will promote policies that make us healthier, that he will help us access basic medical services, that he thinks we can make our own decisions about our bodies without government interference? No. Over the past few months, Speaker Ryan has worked overtime on the American Health Care Act--a bill that would make it harder for millions of women to access healthcare. That miserable bill even included a special provision singling out certain health clinics and stripping them of the funding they use to provide women's health services. Last week, Paul Ryan failed to get that bill out of the House, but Republicans are back to take another shot at cutting women's access to healthcare. This time the plan is to undermine the title X family planning program. This plan, just like their healthcare bill, is incredibly unpopular, even with Republicans who had to rush Vice President Pence over from the White House this morning to cast a deciding vote to start this debate on attacking women's healthcare. Title X is a bipartisan program started back in 1970. It is the only Federal grant program dedicated to providing Americans with high- quality, low-cost family planning services. Title X funded clinics provide birth control, cancer screening, STI testing, and counseling. Just so there is no confusion about this, title X dollars cannot be used to fund abortion services--none. In 2015 alone, title X clinics helped 2.9 million women access birth control. They provided over 700,000 Pap smears, performed 1.1 million HIV tests, and gave over 1 million breast exams. And Paul Ryan's way of making sure that women are ``championed and revered'' is to try to reduce their access to these lifesaving services. Last December, the Department of Health and Human Services passed a very simple rule to keep States from pulling political shenanigans to shut down women's health centers. The rule prevents States from blocking a healthcare provider from the program ``for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services.'' In other words, follow the law. If a provider is doing a bad job at delivering family planning services, by all means, kick them out of the program. But you don't get to kick someone out because you don't like the name of their organization or you don't like their politics or because of your politics or because of any other dumb reason that has nothing to do with their ability to deliver women's health services. In February, House Republicans voted to overturn this rule. So Paul Ryan's version of championing and revering women is to let States close down women's health centers. Now Senate Republicans plan to do the same thing. Sure, Republicans give a bunch of reasons, but American women are not stupid. We know pretext when we see it. So let's just call it like it is. Republicans want to weaken the title X program because they want to make it harder for women to access reproductive health clinics, like Planned Parenthood, that also provide safe, legal abortion services. Just so we are clear, there are over 3,900 title X funded health centers. Only 10 percent of those health centers are affiliated with Planned Parenthood. The vast majority of centers getting title X money have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, and the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's activities have nothing to do with abortion. But women should be able to choose a reproductive health provider without the interference of Republican politicians, and millions of women choose Planned Parenthood every year. The Congress representing those women should stop demonizing Planned Parenthood and stand with Planned Parenthood. Yes, as it stands, title X makes sure that if women's healthcare centers, including Planned Parenthood, offer first-rate care, then their work will be reimbursed. The Senate should reject any efforts to change that. Women in this country work their tails off. They should be able to choose their own healthcare providers. They don't need a ``champion'' to choose for them. They don't need to be ``revered'' into passive silence. Women want the respect that they deserve and to be able to access medical care without Republican politicians getting in the way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Republicans are in charge of the Senate, and so far they haven't put up for a vote in this Congress a single piece of original legislation to help working families--not one. They haven't fixed a single piece of our crumbling infrastructure. They haven't put Americans back to work. They haven't brought down the soaring cost of prescription drugs. And they haven't done a thing to help the 55 million Americans who don't have access to a workplace retirement account to save for their retirement. But they have been busy. Here is what they have done so far: They have made it easier for giant corporations to hide the payments they make to foreign countries. They have made it easier for companies to discharge filth into our rivers and streams. They have made it easier for Americans suffering from mental illness to buy guns. They have made it easier for hunters to shoot baby bears and wolf cubs from planes. They have made it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees. They have made it easier for employers to hide injuries their workers suffer on the job. They have made it easier for States to divert Federal education dollars away from struggling schools and students. They have made it easier for States to block people who are out of work from getting unemployment insurance payments that they are entitled to by law. And they have made it easier to keep local residents from having a say in how Federal lands are managed. Now they are back at it again, this time to overturn a rule that will help millions of Americans start saving for their retirement. For years, the Republican-controlled Congress has done nothing to help the 55 million Americans who don't have an employer-provided retirement plan save for their retirement. Nothing. Because of this Federal inaction, 7 States have passed legislation to provide retirement accounts to their constituents, and 23 others are considering proposals. The efforts of just those 7 States could expand coverage to 15 of the 55 million Americans who don't currently have an employer- sponsored retirement account. In addition to these State efforts, three cities are actively considering proposals to curb the retirement savings gap, potentially covering another 2 million Americans. Extending coverage to 17 million Americans would go a long way toward starting to chip away at the retirement crisis in this country. Today, among working families on the verge of retirement, about one- third have no retirement savings of any kind, and another one-third have total savings that are less than 1 year's income. This is a real problem, and Senate Republicans should be working hard to come up with solutions to fix it. But if they don't have any ideas of their own, the least they can do is step aside and let the hard-working Governors, mayors, State treasurers, city councils, and State legislatures continue their important efforts to try to solve our retirement crisis. Every single time the Senate has come to the floor of this Congress to overturn an Obama administration rule, Republican Senators have said they were voting to remove burdensome Federal regulations that ``severely limit the role of State and local governments,'' when local governments ``could do a much better job of providing for the people of our State.'' So why on earth are they now voting to make it harder for cities and States to help their own citizens save for retirement? Why? Three words: chamber of commerce. The chamber of commerce and the trade associations for the giant financial firms have been fighting tooth and nail to kill these retirement initiatives. Their armies of lobbyists have been deployed to peddle misinformation about what these plans do, all because the giant financial firms that the chamber of commerce and the trade associations represent are worried that the city and State plans might actually offer better investment products with lower fees. The American people are not calling their Senators asking us to work day in and day out to overturn rules to help them save for their retirement; 72 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats support these initiatives. They aren't calling us and asking us to make their water dirty or to let their employer put their lives at risk by cutting corners on safety either. The American voters didn't send us to Washington to work for the lawyers and the lobbyists and the giant corporations that keep corporate profits soaring by skirting basic regulations. This vote may be really good for filling the campaign coffers of Senate Republicans, and a few of them may pop champagne corks with their buddies at the chamber of commerce after this vote tonight, but Americans are watching, and they will be ready to fight back. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, last week Republicans in Congress came within an inch of ripping health insurance away from 24 million people in order to give tax breaks to rich people. That collapsed, and it collapsed because the American people stood up and said no--no to kicking seniors out of nursing homes, no to booting kids with rare diseases off of their treatments, no to gutting funding for opioid addiction. All across this country--in every corner of this country--for months people spoke up about how the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid are saving their lives and saving their families from financial ruin. They poured their hearts out, they raised their voices, and they demanded to be heard. Last week they won. The collapse of the Republicans' cruel scheme is a huge relief to millions of people in this country, but I am not here to celebrate. I am here to warn the American people about what is coming next, because instead of listening to the American people about what they want, the President of the United States has threatened to sabotage healthcare in America. It isn't subtle. One hour after the Republicans admitted they didn't have the votes in Congress to destroy the Affordable Care Act, President Trump sat behind his desk in the Oval Office and told the entire Nation that he wants to trigger a meltdown of our healthcare system because he thinks that would be helpful to him politically. Just so there is no confusion, I want to quote him word for word. He said: ``The best thing we can do, politically speaking, is let ObamaCare explode.'' Now let's be clear. It is deeply wrong for the President of the United States--whose one and only job is to look out for the American people--to root for the failure of our country's healthcare system. It is deeply wrong for the President of the United States to announce that he is going to drag down our entire healthcare sector--a sector that accounts for more than one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy--just so he can stand on top of the wreckage and waggle his fingers and say: I told you so. Healthcare for millions of Americans is not a game. It is not entertainment. It is not a reality TV show. Healthcare is literally life and death, and it touches everyone in this country from elderly grandparents to tiny babies. President Trump is responsible for making healthcare in this country work. It is his job. He is President of the United States. His party controls both Houses of Congress. A legitimate President doesn't clap and cheer when things get worse for the American people. A legitimate President doesn't pound his chest about sabotaging the health and security of the American people because it is politically expedient. A legitimate President does his job. The President's admission that he wants our healthcare system to collapse is a dangerous sign of where things are headed. For 7 years Republicans in Congress have rooted against healthcare in this country, cheering every stumble and working at every turn to hobble the law and make it harder for people to get affordable insurance. President Trump cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act on his own, but he can strip healthcare from millions of Americans and make it too expensive for millions more. He can do that all on his own. In fact, he is already working on it. A few days after he took office, President Trump signed an Executive order directing his agency to use every tool at their disposal to try to disrupt the Affordable Care Act. In January, he also pulled down government's efforts to get more people signed up for health insurance. Why? So fewer people would use the health exchanges, fewer would get insurance, and premiums would go up for those who did sign up--all in an effort to make ObamaCare fail. Senator Patty Murray and I asked the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate this reckless move, and now an independent investigation has been launched into this despicable incident. But the President has more tools at his disposal to undercut the Affordable Care Act all by himself. The President can redefine what insurance plans have to cover, stripping out critical benefits like birth control coverage. The President can withhold payments that insurers rely on to keep private health plans affordable. The President can allow States to put new conditions on Medicaid, conditions like taking away healthcare coverage if a woman doesn't get back to work soon enough after giving birth. If the President decides to launch an all-out effort to sabotage American healthcare so he can manufacture a crisis to score political points, he can hurt a lot of people. But there is a better way. If Republicans want to work on ideas to actually improve healthcare in America, to expand coverage, to expand access, or to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs, I am eager to throw up my sleeves and go to work. For years, Massachusetts has led the Nation in bipartisan health reform. We have lots to contribute on this, and lots of other Democrats are ready to get to work, too. The American people aren't stupid. They know the difference between a bill that kicks 24 million people off of their health insurance and a bill that actually improves care. They know the difference between a President who fights to make health care better and a President who plans to sabotage healthcare. They know the difference between a fireman and an arsonist. If this President and this Congress continue to play politics with the lives of millions of people, I promise you that the American people will see it, they will know it, and they will rise up once again to fight it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.