Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, during his campaign, President Trump talked a big game about standing up for workers and creating good, high-paying jobs, but so far, the Republicans haven't voted on a single piece of legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy, or to increase wages for middle-class families--not one single piece, no votes to create jobs, grow the economy, or increase wages for middle- class families--but they have been voting. Two weeks ago, Senate Republicans voted along party lines, 49 to 48, to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees. They also made it easier for those companies to injure their workers without admitting liability. Today, we are voting to make it easier for employers in the most dangerous industries to hide the most serious injuries and illnesses their workers suffer on the job. This isn't some burdensome new regulation. Large employers in the most dangerous industries have been required to record serious illnesses and injuries their employees suffer on the job since 1972, a few years after the Occupational Health and Safety Act was first passed in 1970. The rule Republicans are trying to overturn today simply clarifies an employer's obligation to maintain accurate, up-to-date records on workplace illnesses and injuries for 5 years. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration--or OSHA, as most of us call it--at the Labor Department has been enforcing this requirement in every administration since 1972, Democratic and Republican. OSHA uses these data to determine how best to prioritize workplace inspections. Since OSHA resources are so scarce, they have only enough money to inspect each workplace once every 140 years. So they kind of pick and choose where to focus these days to make sure they are targeting their inspections at industries and in occupations where workers are at the highest risk of injury. The Department also uses these reports to publish yearly statistics on the workplace hazards that kill 4,800 people and injure another 3 million people--American workers hurt and killed every year. Data show employers already vastly underreport workplace injuries and illnesses, and without this rule, underreporting will skyrocket. It will get harder for OSHA to hold employers accountable when they cut corners and endanger worker safety. Today's vote is great news for the Republicans who will rake in campaign contributions from their buddies at the Chamber of Commerce. It is great news for giant corporations that are lobbying hard against this rule, but it is not great news for hard-working Americans. The people did not send us to Washington to work for companies that plump up their profits by skirting safety regulations. The problem? This is just the beginning. Last week, President Trump proposed cutting the Department of Labor's budget by more than 20 percent. These cuts will take cops off the beat and send a clear signal to employers that they can cut corners on safety with impunity. President Trump also proposed eliminating a 1970 program at OSHA that gives grants to nonprofits and community organizations that provide free training for workers on how to identify and prevent job hazards that could injure or kill them. These programs work, and now President Trump wants to cut them. That would mean the end of successful worker training programs like the Brazilian Worker Center's program in Allston, MA, that provides residential construction workers with lifesaving fall protection training. It also would cut funding for a Massachusetts Coalition on Occupational Health and Safety program in Dorchester that gives teens working in the retail sector training on how to prevent workplace violence, including sexual assault. Please note how important this is--200,000 young workers are the victims of workplace sexual assault every single year. This is a training program that was so successful that since it has been implemented, it has been replicated now nationwide. Yet the Trump administration wants to defund it. Just yesterday, the Trump administration finalized a 60-day delay of a rule to protect 60,000 workers who are exposed to lethal, cancer- causing beryllium at work. This regulation saves about 100 lives every single year. Because the beryllium standards haven't been updated in 40 years, tens of thousands of workers are putting their lives at risk every single day. Americans who are exposed to beryllium on the job shouldn't have to wait another 60 days before they can get some protection so their jobs will not cause them lung cancer. The pattern emerging is pretty clear. Republicans have no plans to improve the lives of American workers. Quite the opposite. Republicans are increasing the odds that workers will be injured or even killed. When I came to the Senate floor 2 weeks ago to speak out against the repeal of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Act, I said the debate on this vote was about whom Congress works for. Today's debate is no different. The Republicans are working for giant employers that don't want to follow the basic rules to keep their employees safe. This is shameful. This Congress should be working for the Americans who work for a living and just want to be able to do that without putting their lives at risk. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, last week Republicans in the House released a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid to the bone. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office--those are the independent budget experts who analyze policies under consideration here in Congress--estimated that the plan would rip health insurance coverage away from 24 million Americans and cut $880 billion in the Medicaid program. And as a bonus, the plan provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the rich. Who comes up with a plan like this? What kind of healthcare bill has, as its central feature, ripping away health insurance from tens of millions of American citizens? What kind of politician thinks they were sent to Congress to destroy the financial stability of millions of middle-class families and give wealthy donors a tax break that they certainly don't need? Who thinks that the central problem in America is that middle-class families have too much healthcare coverage and that the richest people in America need government to hand them more money? There is no other way to say it: This bill is just part of a Republican plan to help the rich get richer and kick dirt in everyone else's face. This bill is an economic disaster, and at its center, it is cruel-- cancer survivors losing coverage, seniors facing premium increases of $12,000 a year, people with disabilities forced into nursing homes. And one of the cruelest things is what this bill will do to individuals, to families, and to communities struggling with the opioid crisis. Last year in Massachusetts, nearly 2,000 people died from opioid use. That is more than double the number who died in 2013. That is right, double. Between 2014 and 2015, Massachusetts had a bigger jump in its death rate from drug overdoses than any other State except North Dakota. Last week, I was on the front lines in Lynn Community Health Center, where dedicated staffers are trying to meet this opioid epidemic head on. This week, I went to Manet Community Health Center, where a coordinated team in Quincy is battling the opioid crisis. While I was there, I not only met with the professionals, I saw the mamas and the babies, the people who are in recovery, and people who reach out to those who are still in the grip of drugs. The opioid crisis isn't happening to someone else's family or in someone else's community. It is happening to our families in our communities, and we need to do more to stop this plague before it takes another of our loved ones. We need to do more; what we absolutely cannot do is less. We cannot take away the resources already committed to fighting the opioid crisis so that some millionaire can get a tax break. Current law, the ACA, requires all insurance plans to cover substance use disorder treatment and prevention as an essential health benefit. That means that your insurance company can't turn off the access to treatment just when you need it most by saying: Sorry, we just don't cover that. Current law, the ACA, gave people the chance to get that insurance through health exchanges and subsidies. Millions more people got private insurance. And through Medicaid expansion, millions more were covered by Medicaid. So there it is, our first line of defense in the war on opioid addiction. The ACA currently means that more people are covered, and that coverage includes substance abuse treatment. What does the Republican plan do? It takes away coverage for 24 million people. That is 24 million people who no longer have any access to substance use disorder treatment and prevention services. And then they want to let insurance companies jack up the out-of-pocket costs for substance abuse programs and mental health programs. In fact, some Medicaid plans would be able to drop this coverage altogether. So millions more people would lose their one lifeline if someone in their family is taken by drugs. Don't get me wrong. What we are doing right now is not enough. Even now, only 10 percent of those who need treatment for substance use disorder receive it and 90 percent can't get help, but that means we need more, not less help. Repealing the protections for mental health and substance use disorders in the ACA would yank more than $5 billion in actual funding that is currently going to mental health and treatment services. That is the Republican plan to deal with the opioid crisis. Ask any family trying to get treatment for a loved one who is addicted to drugs. We already have an opioid treatment gap. Gutting the ACA is like shoving a stick of dynamite into the treatment gap and then lighting the fuse. And if the Republicans get their way, people will lose health coverage. People will lose access to recovery services. People will die. Now is the time to stop this cruel bill in its tracks before it hurts real people. Now is the time to speak out about the importance of the ACA and Medicaid to you and to your family. If you or someone you know has been touched by the opioid epidemic, you know how much this matters. Maybe you have a sister, a child, a church member, or a high school friend who has struggled with substance use disorder. Maybe you know someone who has fought on the frontlines of this crisis as a healthcare provider, community advocate, as a first responder. If you do, then you know the stakes in this debate over the ACA and Medicaid. Now is the time to act. Don't wait. If the Republicans end up destroying help for millions of people, don't wake up the next morning and wonder if you could have said more or if you could have raised your voice back when it mattered. No, the Republicans are trying to pass this terrible healthcare bill now, now is the time to speak out. It is time to stand up and to tell Republicans to end their cruel healthcare plan. Our families and our communities are counting on us and we cannot let them down. Please, speak out. 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

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject this resolution to roll back accountability for the billions of dollars that are sent to States to help educate children. When Congress updated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2015, it was a bipartisan achievement. Republicans and Democrats came together on the 50th anniversary of that landmark civil rights law to rewrite it into what became the Every Student Succeeds Act. When President Obama signed this K-12 legislation into law in December of that year, he called it a ``Christmas miracle.'' It received 85 votes in the Senate. It was one of the most important pieces of bipartisan legislation passed in the last Congress. It wasn't the bill I would have written, but it was a bipartisan compromise. It gave States and districts far more flexibility when it comes to improving their struggling public schools. At the same time, it also maintained critical civil rights and accountability protections to ensure that when the Federal Government gives States billions of dollars to improve the education of their students, that money goes to the schools and students that need those Federal resources the most. It was a critical step toward making sure we are building a future not just for some of our kids but for all of our kids. When Congress passes big, complex laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act, it always leaves some of the implementation details to the agency that has to enforce the law. That is why I fought hard to make sure the Department of Education had the tools it needs to write clarifying rules and guidelines to enforce the Every Student Succeeds Act. That was a condition of my vote and the votes of lots of other people. We won that fight. The authority to enforce the rules is right there in the law. It was debated in public, and it was part of the bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats. Last November, the Department of Education--after careful consultation with teachers, school leaders, State education leaders, and parents--issued new rules to enforce this law. Today, congressional Republicans are trying to take a sledgehammer to these new rules. When these new rules were issued, everyone who works in education agreed that they were critical and necessary. Teachers were fine with the new rules. State education leaders were fine with the new rules. Civil rights leaders were fine with the new rules. Everyone was ready to get to work. Apparently, congressional Republicans do not care. Instead, they want to blow up these critically important accountability rules even though the people who work in or around public education did not ask them to do so. This makes no sense. Groups that often disagree with each other over public education policies are united in their belief that this resolution is a dumb idea. It is opposed by teachers; civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza; and organizations representing students with disabilities, such as the National Center for Learning Disabilities. It is even opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they know this resolution will only make it more difficult for States as they try to implement the new education law. And this resolution will undermine the work States are currently doing right now to improve their public schools with the new law. Last week, many of these groups signed on to a letter that states: ``This action will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the work in states and wasting time that we cannot afford to waste.'' In fact, even conservative education policy experts at the Fordham Institute--a right-leaning educational policy think tank--argue that congressional Republicans should not swing a wrecking ball to these guidelines. They identified over 20 provisions in these rules that actually provide more flexibility to States by clarifying ambiguous sections in the law, and they concluded: ``Senate Republicans, then, should scrap their plan to use the Congressional Review Act to kill all of the accountability regulations outright.'' Killing these new rules now would lead to chaos and confusion just when States, districts, and school leaders are beginning to implement this new K-12 education law. States have already spent months drafting their plans for complying. Eighteen States, including Massachusetts, intended to submit their implementation plans to the Department of Education next month. If this resolution passes, all of that work will be thrown into limbo. These clarifying rules include important provisions that allow States to send additional Federal resources to struggling schools, whether or not those schools already receive Federal dollars; provisions that give States more flexibility in educating their English learners in the manner that best meets the needs of each individual student; provisions that ensure that parents have more information about how their child's public school is doing and sets clear guidelines with what States and districts must disclose to parents and when they must disclose it; and provisions that promote transparency by preventing States from manipulating their graduation rates or data on how much money they are investing in each student. These regulations were carefully crafted over the course of 1 year of input from teachers, school system leaders, and student advocates. Both Republicans and Democrats should support these provisions. I think we all know what is going on here. Betsy DeVos is the new Secretary of Education. Congressional Republicans have decided they want to hand over the keys to her with no restrictions whatsoever. The resolutions we are debating today would give Secretary DeVos more freedom to push States in whatever direction she felt like. If you are a teacher in Tennessee or a principal in Massachusetts, you should be furious about that. Congress is about to scrap a year of hard work and a year of careful compromise in order to give Secretary DeVos a blank check. It is a blank check for Betsy DeVos. This is the same Secretary of Education who has never attended a public school, never taught in a public school, and never led a public school. This is the same Secretary of Education who proved to the world, during her confirmation hearing, that she doesn't have a clue about public schools. This is the same Secretary of Education who still holds shady investments that could be hiding conflicts of interest. This is the same Secretary of Education who has used her vast fortune to advance her extreme privatization agenda. This is the same Secretary of Education whom Jeff Sessions and the Vice President of the United States had to drag across the finish line in an unprecedented tie-breaking confirmation vote. She is the one to whom Senate Republicans want to give a blank check to figure out where she wants to drive public education--a blank check to push her radical privatization agenda. States and school districts are planning for the next school year right now. They are figuring out how to implement this law and improve the education of kids as I speak. They are doing hero's work every day while Congress wastes time and creates more confusion. Handing this law over to an Education Secretary with no experience in public education without any accountability rules to guide its implementation is an insult. It is an insult to teachers, an insult to school leaders, and an insult to families everywhere. This is not a game. Congress should not be playing politics with the education of our children. Instead of disrupting the important work that States and districts are doing to educate our kids, Congress should get out of the way and let States finish what they have already started. Let them get to work. That is why I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the confirmation of Seema Verma to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS oversees the administration of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. These programs provide healthcare coverage to grandparents, people with disabilities, foster kids, seniors living in nursing homes, single mothers, and babies. CMS is also in charge of implementing many parts of the Affordable Care Act and making sure that the protections guaranteed in the law are enforced. In other words, CMS is the part of government that we entrust with carrying out the commitments we have made to protect our health and our access to healthcare. We need someone to run these programs who is a champion for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act and someone who can stand up to Republicans in Congress and stand up to the Trump administration when they try to burn these promises and turn their backs on the people who need help. On Monday night, the Republicans finally revealed their latest plan to rip health insurance away from millions of Americans. After years of railing about how the ACA was too long and too complicated, the Republicans spent weeks working on a secret plan--locked in a room, hidden somewhere in the United States Capitol. They didn't want anyone to see it. Here is a news flash: If you have to hide your plans from the American public, that is a pretty good sign that you are headed in the wrong direction. Now we know why they were so afraid to let anyone else take a look at the plan. The plan is ugly--really, really, ugly. The Republicans' plan would rip health insurance away from millions of Americans. Right off the top, the bill will end the Medicaid expansion established in the ACA. Right now, 11 million adults are covered by that expansion, and the Republican plan will end it. That is right--end it. Millions more Americans are using ACA subsidies to buy their health insurance. For the families who need it most, those subsidies will be cut. For seniors, prices will rise, and that means millions more people will not be able to afford health insurance. The Republican bill promises tax credits to help people pay for their insurance, but this is an empty promise because the tax credits are designed to be too small to actually cover the costs of paying for healthcare. If you have a 2-month break in your health insurance coverage, no matter the reason, the Republican bill would let insurance companies charge you a 30-percent penalty on top of your premium for an entire year. That is right. If you lose your job and scramble to find a new plan, you have exactly 62 days to lock down that plan because 1 day longer than that, and you are slapped with a 30-percent penalty. By the way, it is not a penalty paid to the government to help finance healthcare. No. It is a penalty paid to a $1 billion insurance company. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Too bad if being able to buy affordable coverage on the ACA exchange has given you access to health insurance while you start your small business. Too bad if your healthcare has given you free cancer screening. Too bad if your healthcare has given you access to treatment for substance abuse disorder. All that is gone under the Republican plan. So there it is--the Republicans' plan to take away health insurance for millions and millions of Americans. The Republican plan is cruel, and it gets worse. The Republican healthcare plan gets worse because it also delivers a gut punch to the rest of the Medicaid Program--the part that predates the ACA by decades. It does so by putting a cap on overall funding that States can receive and then strictly limiting the growth in that cap. This growth rate is deliberately set lower than the actual growth rate in medical costs for Medicaid beneficiaries. Why? So Republicans can cut the Federal Government's commitment to Medicaid without using the word ``cut.'' I don't know if they think we are just too dumb to notice, but they are cutting Medicaid. Of course, people will still get sick and will still need medical care, so what the Republicans are doing is shifting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid costs to State governments, which will struggle to pick up the tab, or shifting those costs to hospitals and doctors, who will not get paid, or shifting it to the families themselves, who will try to manage those bills. Understand what that means. Right now, if you qualify for Medicaid coverage, you get Medicaid coverage. That has been the law for decades, but the Republicans want to change that. With the cap, if you qualify for Medicaid coverage, you will get something. Nobody is really sure what. All we know is that it will not cover your expected costs of care. Think about the impact of that. The reckless Republican plan will blow huge holes in State budgets. The Republican plan will blow huge holes in rural hospitals' budgets and in the budgets of opioid treatment centers and community health centers all across this country. Massachusetts is using some of its Medicaid funding right now to fight the opioid crisis, but the Republican plan makes it harder to wage that fight in Massachusetts and in every other State that is battling this terrible epidemic. The Republican plan will leave millions of people who have decent Medicaid coverage holding the bag when they get sick. That is not healthcare; that is a con job. But it gets even worse. The bill cuts funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides maternity care and birth control. It gives insurance companies the green light to jack up costs for people over 50, blowing up the limits that were established in the ACA to make sure seniors could afford healthcare. But there is one more very, very ugly reason the Republicans should be ashamed, and that is because while they are gutting Medicaid, slashing health coverage for sick Americans, and slapping penalties on people who lose insurance through no fault of their own, Republicans are also handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts to rich people and giving a special gift to insurance company CEOs. The Republican plan repeals two Medicare taxes that apply only to high-income taxpayers. Who benefits most from this repeal? Millionaires. They get a full 80-percent of the tax cut. It is a benefit that is worth an average of $50,000 each. That is right. The tax cut that millionaires will get from the Republican plan to rip up healthcare is more than many families make in a year. The Republican plan also hurts Medicare by taking money away from the Medicare trust fund, where it really belongs. Right now, the law says insurance companies can deduct only $500,000 in executive compensation, but the Republicans think that is too hard on insurance companies and their CEOs. So sad. So they have lifted the cap to a full $1 million. The Republicans are determined to help boost the pay of insurance company CEOs. No wonder the Republicans didn't want to let anyone see this plan. This is literally a backroom deal to strip away lifesaving healthcare from babies, to drive the costs out of sight for seniors, to deny help for people with disabilities, and to make insurance more expensive for hard-working entrepreneurs. In exchange, insurance company CEOs and millionaires get giant tax deductions. Unbelievable. Less health insurance for people who need it; more tax cuts for wealthy insurance company CEOs. This is the deal it took Republicans years to come up with? They should be ashamed. I have received letters and emails and calls from families in Massachusetts who depend on Medicaid and the ACA. These families are shouting as loudly as they can about how important Medicaid and the ACA are to them. We need someone running the CMS who is listening and someone who has their backs, who will tell Republican politicians that their secret deals are terrible, who will tell them that their plans to take away coverage will hurt people, who will tell them that their recklessness will blow up State budgets. Seema Verma has a deep knowledge of the Medicaid Program, having worked at the State level to design and implement Medicaid waivers. Ms. Verma says she wants to help States like Massachusetts invest in innovative ways to improve care for Medicaid beneficiaries while lowering costs--improve care and lower costs. That sounds great, but she has also advocated for changes to Medicaid that violate the fundamental principles of the program. She has designed Medicaid plans that impose work requirements as a condition of receiving Medicaid coverage even when they make no sense. She has sought to increase the out-of-pocket costs that Medicaid beneficiaries must pay and has put in place rules that lock people out of the program just at the moment they most need coverage. We need a CMS Administrator who will stand up to the backroom bullies who are plotting to gut Medicaid, not one who wants to sneak cuts into the very programs that need to be defended. For that reason, I oppose Ms. Verma's nomination. One of my constituents who receives Medicaid coverage in Massachusetts, Lee from Holliston, wrote me to say: ``I just need to know it is going to be okay.'' Lee, I wish I could tell you that it is going to be OK, but I cannot tell you that. What I can tell you is that you are not alone. Americans depend on the ACA and Medicaid to provide healthcare coverage. They depend on it when they get sick, and they depend on it to stay alive. Now that the Republican politicians have finally emerged from their secret basement room and unveiled their ugly plans, I promise you I am in this fight all the way. We need millions of people like you all across this Nation to make their voices heard so that Republican politicians do not destroy your healthcare. In January, Senator Stabenow and I held a forum for the then-nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price. At this forum, we heard from individuals who were concerned about the impact that cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would have on their lives. I would like to share some of my interactions with a few of these individuals back in January by reading from the transcript Senator Stabenow introduced into the record at Congressman Price's hearing before the Finance Committee. I started by thanking everyone for being there and said this about where we were: Yesterday at the hearing for Congressman Price to be Secretary of HHS, I asked him about the cuts that he has proposed to Medicare and Medicaid. He's already proposed $449 billion in cuts to Medicare and over $1 trillion in cuts to the Medicaid program. And so I asked him if he would commit to follow through on Donald Trump's promise, ``I won't cut Medicare or Medicaid.'' There was a lot of dancing back and forth, but the bottom line is that no, he would not make that commitment, which I suppose should not have been a surprise. What I want to do as briefly as I can is to focus just a little bit on down the line and put a face on that, what it means to put those kinds of cuts into the system. I started with Ms. Fleming, and here is what I asked her. I said: ``You used to work at United Airlines. . . . How many years did you pay into the Medicare system?'' Ms. Fleming said: ``Thirty-nine years.'' I asked: ``How long have you worked there?'' Ms. Fleming said: ``Thirty-nine years.'' I said: ``Thirty-nine years that you paid into the Medicare system. Where else is it we need to spend $449 billion so that you can spend more out-of-pocket? So that money can go somewhere else--like tax cuts for rich people?'' I asked Ms. Jensen: Just because I want to be clear about this, one of the things that Medicaid does is make sure you get access to mental health services. If you lose that access, what happens in your life? So I had asked Ms. Fleming about the Medicare cuts. Here is what Ms. Jensen told me about the Medicaid cuts: That would entirely change my life. I wouldn't be able to afford the services I need. My medications alone, right now, run about as much as my rent. And I know that weekly counseling or therapy sessions would really be out of reach. It would threaten not only the growth of my business but the existence of my business. She runs her own small business. She said: Basically: no Medicaid, no business. That would kind of be the end of one of my dreams. And untreated disorders--my untreated disorder--I know I would retreat from society. I would retreat from my loved ones. I would not be a productive citizen. I would probably get into trouble and cost the taxpayers some money. Mental and behavioral health is no joke. There are fatal consequences, and it's a matter of life and death for a lot of people, including me. Then I turned to the third of our witnesses, Ms. Serafin. She has dealt with both systems--both Medicare and Medicaid--and I asked her to focus just for a minute on the Medicaid part of that. She was taking care of her elderly mother. I said: Your mother--after your father passed--your mother declined, needed full time care. And she was supported by Medicaid during that period of time. She was able to be in a facility that could take care of her. If Medicaid had not been available to you, if there had been a trillion-dollar cut to Medicaid, what would have happened to you and your husband? Here is what Ms. Serafin said: Well, physically, I could not take care of anyone else. She had her own disabling medical problems. She said: I can hardly take care of myself. So, we would have had to hire someone, or we would have had to move because our home was not accommodating for another person with a disability. Secondly, the care my mother received in the nursing home was so personally gratifying. I could sleep at night. My mother was a really strong woman. She could have been a CEO. She was born in the wrong era. But as a daughter--as mothers and daughters often do--we didn't always see eye to eye on everything! The people in the nursing home loved her--they loved her feisty manner, they loved the things she would say. And I would think, ``Oh, God, I would never say that!'' But they thought she was wonderful. I made the point that my mother was a little like that too. Ms. Serafin said: I would sleep at night. I could feel good. Because I cannot do things as it is for myself, and there were loving people who would go to her and say, ``I love you, Anita,'' and it just made my heart feel that wonderful feeling. So that is the face of Medicaid. We had one more witness, and this witness was Ms. Ornella, who had her son Sam with her. I said: Sam is the happy face of Medicaid. Sam is a little boy who was born with multiple difficulties and who flourishes and who receives support from Medicaid. So I asked: If there's a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, and Sam is not able to get the help he needs through Medicaid, what happens to Sam? Ms. Ornella said: We barely qualified for Medicaid as it was, so if there were any cuts to it, we would have been in that group of people who I believe wouldn't have qualified. Medicaid has provided him to be able to go to his kidney doctors and keep his status check on his kidneys, which is what we think his long-term issues are going to be. Medicaid has been there to cover tests for swallowing, for swallowing functions, for all the different parts of his body that are affected by his disorder. So my fear is, that if we do get employer-based coverage, anything can happen in life-- what if my husband lost his job and then we didn't qualify for Sam to get Medicaid anymore? How would we deal with that double whammy of losing employer coverage and then not qualifying for Medicaid for a medically complex child? We heard from four people at this forum, and I am very grateful to all four of them for putting a face on what Medicare and Medicaid means. I suggested to Congressman Price that if he is confirmed to be the head of HHS, that he cut out the statement that Donald Trump had made, ``I will not cut Medicare or Medicaid,'' and that he tape it above his desk and look at it every single day. Because that is what the people at that hearing were all about. They are the reason we must not cut Medicare and we must not cut Medicaid, and I thanked them all for being with us. Alice, Sam, Diane, and Ann really put a face on the importance of Medicare and Medicaid at that forum. I have heard from a number of hospitals, community health centers, and behavioral health organizations in Massachusetts about the importance of Medicaid to them for being able to provide essential services to the people who need it most, and I want to share some of the comments they have given to me. John Nash, the CEO of Franciscan Children's Hospital, highlighted the importance of Medicaid in providing healthcare coverage for our children. Here is what he wrote to me: Dear Senator Warren, at Franciscan Children's, our mission is to provide a compassionate and positive environment where children with complex medical, mental health, and educational needs receive specialized care for people who are committed to excellence, innovation, and family support, so that these children can reach their fullest potential and live their best lives. Located in the Boston metropolitan area, we are one of four institutions in the country offering this unique array of services to children with complex needs. In Massachusetts, we are the only pediatric, post-acute care provider that offers hospital-level care for children with complex medical conditions. We are also one of the largest pediatric mental health providers in Massachusetts, offering a complete continuum of inpatient, residential, and outpatient programming to ensure that children have access to the services they desperately need. Franciscan Children's is proud to be an independent, unaffiliated provider that coordinates across the healthcare system to deliver high-quality, low-cost, specialty services to children who come to us from every major health system and intensive care unit from across the State. Collectively across our programs, we serve more than 12,000 children a year. Families who have had a child or children with special needs often face tremendous financial burdens. Many view hospitals like ours as a second home. Almost 60 percent of the families that we serve in our inpatient medical program are on Medicaid. In federal discussions about the Affordable Care Act, it is crucial to realize that Medicaid is the most important health coverage program for children. As many as 30 million children nationally and 355,000 children in Massachusetts (29.6% of the state population of children) are covered. Children covered by Medicaid--compared with those who are uninsured-- generally go on to enjoy better health, lower rates of mortality, and higher educational and economic outcomes as they become adults. Massachusetts is seeing the returns on investments made in Medicaid. Our rate of uninsured children is at the lowest on record. Cuts to Medicaid will have a negative impact on children and may increase healthcare costs. Furthermore, any cuts to the Medicaid program will threaten our institution's long-term ability to serve children and their families who may not receive care otherwise. As the population of children with complex needs continues to grow at the rate of 5 percent annually, these funds will be vital to our future and to theirs. We support the belief that access to affordable care is essential for all individuals. Our families, whose resilience and strength continues to inspire us every day, depend on this principle being upheld. Our children deserve every opportunity to reach their fullest potential and live their best life. This letter is just a reminder of who gets Medicaid and how Medicaid changes the lives of the children who need it most and of their families. We cannot cut this program without taking away the futures of these children. This is an economic issue, but it is also a moral issue. I heard from the Behavioral and Health Network, a nonprofit community behavioral health agency in Western Massachusetts, and they shared with me an individual story they wanted to tell me about Tasha. Tasha went from homelessness to addiction and then to recovery-- highlighting the importance of Medicaid funds in supporting individuals who are dealing with substance abuse disorder. The behavioral health network shared a story, and this is how they tell it: Tasha M. recalls how her addiction started. She never envisioned how and where it would end. As a teenager, she remembers being homeless, her mom surrendering her to foster care twice and living a dysfunctional life, leading to the development of an eating disorder and hospitalization. It was during that hospital stay where she was also receiving treatment for an injured back, that she was prescribed a bottle of painkillers. That started Tasha on the road to addiction, and ultimately to BHN's, ``My Sister's House''--and her eventual recovery. Once addicted to pain pills she remembers ``hospital hopping'' to feed the addiction. ``I felt so alone,'' she said. Moving in with an aunt brought the prospect of turning the page and leaving her addiction behind. Instead, Tasha started to work as a bartender, ultimately succumbing to alcohol and hitting bottom. Tasha says, ``I lost everything.'' Moving back to Massachusetts, she ``tried to start anew.'' But instead she found herself back in the clubs and around alcohol and, eventually, in a detox program through BHN's Carlson Center. After that one-week stay, she entered Hope Center, a BHN 30-day recovery addiction treatment program in Springfield. Once released, the grip of addiction surfaced again. ``I remember getting ready to go clubbing with my boyfriend. We were in line to go into a club and I realized I didn't have my ID. I went home and I found my ID lying on top of my AA book. I thought, `wow, that's a sign'--and I need to get back in the program.'' BHN assisted with entry into My Sister's House, a BHN community-based program for women in recovery, where its residents have daily therapy and support, peer meetings and are connected to community resources. It is also where Tasha met an intern who inspired her. ``I remember I was one of her first clients. She said I couldn't go back to my old ways . . . she really believed in me.'' Tasha's recovery has come full circle. After successful re- entry into the community, she acquired a job as an administrative assistant at a daycare center, and eventually became a social worker helping mothers of children navigate the complexities of parenting. Tasha's story doesn't end there. Tasha was offered a position at My Sister's House, where she assists other young women who find themselves on the sometimes bumpy road to recovery. ``For me, it's about giving back . . . I'm grateful to them.'' About the new opportunity to help others at My Sister's House, Tasha said: ``I always said to myself I was going to come back to this House . . . this is my second home.'' Tasha's journey was supported by an organization whose funding is 56 percent State and Federal contracts and 42 percent fees from Medicaid, Medicare and a small percentage of private insurances. Clearly, the impact of affordable insurance and funds from CMS and the State creates needed access and opportunities for changing lives [like Tasha's]. Individuals can embrace help, move beyond despair and hardship, and establish meaningful life experiences, employment and self-sufficiency. Without affordable insurance, Medicaid and Federal and State funds, that could not happen. Thank you, Tasha, for telling your story. Thank you to the Behavioral Network for sharing your story. Thank you for all of the amazing work that you do every single day. The Boston Medical Center, the State's largest safety net hospital, also shared their perspective on how changes and cuts to Medicaid would seriously impact the progress they have made in working to provide high-quality, cost-effective care to their patients. Here is what Boston Medical Center said: At Boston Medical Center (BMC), our mission is to provide Exceptional Care without Exception to all of our patients. As the largest health safety net system in Massachusetts and in New England, BMC and the patients we serve would be severely impacted by major changes to the Affordable Care Act. Massachusetts health care reform in 2008, and subsequently the Affordable Care Act, supported our efforts to provide high-quality, cost effective care to the many, formerly uninsured, patients who became insured through Medicaid and subsidized products. BMC has worked diligently with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to transition the payment and delivery of Medicaid services in a more cost effective manner. With a strong understanding of the need to ensure that the future of Medicaid is sustainable, our collective efforts have begun to produce encouraging results. Medicaid--and access to affordable, subsidized health care insurance--is an important federal/state partnership that allows the most vulnerable in our population to receive the health care they need. At BMC, we see firsthand how it affects the lives of our patients. In addition to providing funding for important primary care services, it is a lifeline for those with chronic diseases and mental health and substance abuse needs. BMC has used Medicaid funding to develop and implement a number of very promising programs aimed at improving the quality of care for our low-income population and doing it in a manner that is the most cost effective. We aim to keep our patients out of the hospital while giving them the care necessary to lead fulfilling lives. Some of these efforts include innovative programs for pregnant women and babies both before and after delivery. Post-partum depression is an all-too-common issue for new mothers. BMC has designed a program that embeds necessary behavioral health services into the OB/GYN visit setting, thereby allowing them to receive the necessary mental health care along with their medical visit. At the same time, we have several successful programs focusing on newborn infants--ranging from babies born prematurely to those born addicted to drugs. As New England's largest trauma center, we routinely treat large numbers of patients who have been victims of violence. In an effort to help break the trend of violence in the inner city, BMC offers many programs that help those victims break that cycle through counseling, education and support. Boston, like many cities across the country, has seen an unacceptable level of opioid related deaths. Probably our most critical efforts today include programs that successfully treat opioid and other drug addictions while guiding patients toward prevention of future drug abuse and a life where they can hold a job and maintain their relationships with their families. Working with the Commonwealth, BMC has also used Medicaid funding to redesign how health care is provided in a manner that ensures the highest quality patient care in the most affordable, patient-centric manner. The groundwork has been laid over the last several years with Medicaid waiver funding. As we prepare for implementation of the Medicaid waiver extension, we have just begun to roll-out our Medicaid Accountable Care Organization, (ACO). The ACO structure requires that we will be accountable for the full cost of each Medicaid patient's health care, while it will allow the flexibility to provide the right care that might not have previously been covered (e.g. purchase of humidifier for an asthmatic child that will help prevent hospitalizations). Patients will benefit through further integration of care across the delivery system continuum, while reimbursement for the cost of treating those patients will be contained in a defined agreement. These important Massachusetts efforts of transforming the delivery and payment system for Medicaid will be dealt a serious blow if the underlying Medicaid funding is changed. Additionally, if Medicaid and subsidized healthcare eligibility changes result in our patients losing access to affordable health care, not only will the patient's quality of life suffer, but the lack of funding will not allow [us] to continue to provide those patients with many of these critical services. BMC is committed to maintaining the provision of exceptional care without exception and it will require the financial partnership with the federal and state government to ensure that our low-income patients have access to that care. Boston Medical Center absolutely provides ``Exceptional Care without Exception,'' and Medicaid helps them carry out that critical work. The Boston Center for Independent Living shared with me a story from a constituent named Ty who receives healthcare from One Care, a program in Massachusetts that integrates care for beneficiaries who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. So I will tell a little bit about Ty's story. Ty Muto, a 39-year-old transgender man, was recovering from colon surgery in 2014 when he stopped outside of his work and was assaulted by three men yelling homophobic slurs. He survived the attack with a traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury and is only alive thanks to several necessary, timely medical interventions. A former mediator and American Friends Service Committee volunteer, Ty is enrolled in One Care with the Commonwealth Care Alliance. They provide medical care, visiting nurse support, physical therapy, and medical rides. His Care Manager helped him apply for Social Security and find housing, which really improved his life! On several occasions his visiting nurse has identified urgent medical conditions and he has been able to take a medical ride to the hospital where he receives care--avoiding lengthy and expensive emergency room visits at local hospitals that aren't equipped to care for his specific condition. Ty says the only reason he's alive today is because of all of the services and care he gets through One Care. That is the work being done at the Boston Center for Independent Living, and it can only be done because they receive the support of Medicare and Medicaid. The Boston Center for Independent Living also shared with me a story from another constituent named Olivia. Olivia Richards is a 33-year-old woman on One Care and, as she emphasizes, a lifelong Bruins fan! Her plan with CCA allows her to be an active member of the community and her care coordinator assists her in managing her seizure disorder, paraplegia, PTSD, and ADHD. Olivia grew up in the foster care system and, after college, rather than move in with an abusive family member, she tried to make it on her own and she ended up homeless. Left without insurance--and trying to keep up with her di-lanthin, ADHD and asthma medications from seven- to fourteen-day sample packs from a free clinic--she went on and off medication and eventually ended up in a psychiatric hospital for a month. If she had been making that transition in the post- Romneycare age, she would have maintained her health insurance and been able to stay on MassHealth. Olivia raves about her coordinated care manager (CCA) and how she's helped stabilize Olivia's health--recognizing issues before they become emergencies. Prior to One Care, Olivia went to the emergency room every few months with a severe UTI that landed her in the hospital. Her care coordinator recommended she see an infectious disease doctor, who prescribed a preventive antibiotic--something none of the many doctors she'd seen had put together. Olivia hasn't been to the hospital for a UTI since. This time around, when Olivia needed emergency care, her care coordinator sent community medics to her apartment-- providing her with better care and avoiding an expensive emergency room visit and other complications. Before One Care, Olivia was using a third-hand wheelchair with a bent frame and a wheel that she had to weld back together every few months. Medicare and Medicaid kept dodging responsibility for wheelchair repairs. Olivia's care coordinator helped her get a new chair. That is a real quality-of-life improvement for Olivia. I want to say a special thank you to both Ty and to Olivia for sharing their stories, for letting us make them public, and a very big thanks to the Boston Center for Independent Living for all that you are doing every single day to help the people of Massachusetts. We are all deeply grateful for your work, and we want to continue to support it here in Congress. Many of my constituents have written to me, fearful of what changes to Medicare or Medicaid might actually mean to them. Jeffrey, who is from Gardner, wrote to me to share his constant worries about health insurance coverage. This is what he wrote: Dear Senator Warren, I hope this message finds you well, and I want to thank you for your continued fight for the rights of everyone in Massachusetts & the nation. Unfortunately, this election has left me with some constant worry, as I'm sure it has many. I'm a graduate student and have a year and a half left until I complete my masters degree in counseling psychology. Obviously because of this, I work part-time, and am not offered health insurance through my employer. I have been on MassHealth (Tufts Network Health, to be exact) since 2013 when I decided to make a career change. I have some issues that require prescriptions and doctors visits monthly. I'm not sure if they can be deemed as preexisting conditions, but these are prescriptions I can certainly not go without, nor could I go without insurance for a year and a half. Obviously I don't enjoy being on MassHealth, but for right now it's what is necessary. My question may be a difficult one to answer, due to the fact that no one truly knows what will happen after inauguration day. I do know Massachusetts is better protected than other states to keep its citizens insured, and I know that you and Governor Baker have vowed to fight for this right, as well as for many others--which I could not be more thankful for! If the new establishment has their way and repeals federal funding to Medicaid, will people in Massachusetts such as myself be thrown off their insurance? I know we rely heavily on a waiver that was signed recently, and it's a ``wait and see matter,'' but I suppose my question is, will I be protected since I have documented needs for insurance already in place? Or are my conditions going to be deemed ``not severe enough?'' All I can say, Jeffrey, is we don't know yet, but I can promise you that I am fighting to make sure you remain protected. Elise from Scituate wrote to me about the importance of Medicare and Medicaid funds in supporting nursing homes, adult day health programs, and other needs of older adults. Here is what Elise had to say: Dear Senator Warren, I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the direction of the incoming administration, President-Elect Trump, and his cabinet choices. It was certainly a difficult election period. The policies and direction of these individuals is particularly troubling for those who are older, or who may have mental illness, disabilities, or developmental challenges. As many are not aware, the federal rules, regulations, and budget do affect the management of services in the states. As a consultant in Massachusetts in both nursing homes and adult day health programs, I see the strong need for cooperative and supportive federal and state funding as well as regulatory processes for ongoing care. Very few of the individuals in these settings are paying privately. Medicare and Medicaid--as well as the VA--are the major funders for these programs. In Massachusetts, we have 45,000 nursing home beds, or approximately 400 skilled nursing facilities. Home care incorporates adult day health, and we have roughly 14,600 participants in Massachusetts alone. Our population is aging, and access to good services are critical to good care and quality of life. In addition, there are many programs that continue to need commitment and funding to manage necessary services to individuals. These include: housing (Section 8), elder and those with disabilities home care, services to the blind, and community mental health care--to name a few. Changes in these benefits would jeopardize the delicate balance of home and community care, rehabilitation, and perhaps ultimately end up costing more for care. For example, if we don't have resources to assist people to return to the community, institutional care may be the only answer--and a costly one. The notion of having poor individuals pay for their Medicaid benefits, and/or privatizing this to an insurance base is ill-founded and often becomes costly to manage, as well as lowers benefits. Aside from providing services to our citizens, the reduction in these programs will drag the overall economy down. The healthcare industry (private enterprise) is dependent upon a multitude of programs to generate profit. For example, if Mr. X needs a wheel chair and Medicare does not pay for one, Mr. X will not pay for a new wheel chair. He will either borrow one, or purchase one used, or perhaps ``do without.'' This scenario, regardless of the product, will duplicate itself throughout health care and service provision. Companies that have dependency upon Medicare funds may have to close or cut back. Service providers, such as Visiting Nurses, will be facing similar results. I have been in the older adult/health care/medical field since 1969. I have seen changes over time to services from government provisions to privatization. Privatization is the one of the poor outcomes when government monies are used to pay for services rendered. I remain a very strong advocate for individuals and their families as they try to meet the challenges of obtaining just and fair services. Thank you, Elise. I appreciate your writing. Medicare and Medicaid provide critical funds to support nursing homes and senior citizens in Massachusetts. I agree that we must fight to protect these programs. I have many constituents writing in. My constituents are shouting as loudly as they can about the need to protect Medicare and Medicaid. We need a CMS Administrator who will stand up for Tasha and for other individuals who are struggling with addiction, who will stand up for those who are relying on Medicare to help with Parkinson's, who will stand up for our hospitals and healthcare providers to ensure that they have the resources they need to adequately serve their patients. I am listening. I am fighting. Republicans are trying to cut backroom deals to end these protections. I promise you, I will do everything in my power to prevent them from destroying your healthcare. That is why I am here.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, the 115th Congress has now been in session for 2 months. Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. So what have they done so far with that power? Have they passed legislation to create jobs or increase wages for middle-class families? No. Have they proposed any plan to put Americans back to work fixing our roads, bridges, and other crumbling infrastructure? No. Have they done anything at all to help seniors who are struggling with high drug prices and other expenses? Not even close. During his campaign, President Trump said over and over that he would stand up for workers. But so far, Republicans haven't voted on a single piece of legislation to help working families put food on the table, send their kids to college, or save a little money for retirement. No, they haven't helped families, but they have been busy. With no hearings and barely any debate, Republicans have found a new tool, one that has been used successfully only once before in history, under the Congressional Review Act. They have used it to kill basic protections for workers. No wonder they haven't wanted any headlines about the actual work they are getting done. Senate Republicans want to repeal the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. So instead of creating jobs or raising wages, they are trying to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer- funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees and injure their workers without admitting responsibility. The American people spend around $500 billion every year on private companies that provide goods and services to the government. Those companies do everything from building battleships and fighter jets to serving snacks at national parks. It is big business. It is estimated that as many as one in five American workers works for a company with at least one Federal contract. With so much taxpayer money on the line, it really matters that contractors are using it responsibly. While many contractors are good employers, others cut corners on safety or squeeze their workers on wages and benefits just to keep their corporate profits going up, and they break Federal labor laws to do so. Here are just two examples. VT Halter Marine is a company that builds ships for the Navy. They have received $680 million in Federal contracts since 2009--taxpayer dollars that were supposed to be used to create good, safe jobs. Instead, VT Halter took a lot of shortcuts on worker safety, and now they have killed or injured multiple workers at their shipyards in Mississippi. In 2012, a worker died after the lid of a 20-pound cast iron pot containing abrasive ship-cleaning liquid came loose and sheared away his face. Investigations showed that VT Halter had ignored safety requirements to show employees how to safely handle these pots. In 2014, a crane collapsed at VT Halter, injuring five workers, including a crane operator, who lost part of his skull, is now blind, and requires 24-hour nursing care. That employee had repeatedly told his supervisors that the sensors on his crane were broken, but VT Halter kept him working, and now he is blind and needs full-time nursing care. The list goes on and on. Each time, VT Halter ignored the law, workers got hurt or killed, and the company got a slap on the wrist and another top-dollar defense contract courtesy of the American taxpayer. Contractors that cannot meet basic safety standards should not get a single dollar of taxpayer money, and the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order was the first step in making sure that this was the case. Other Federal contractors have found other ways to take advantage of their workers and to boost profits. Federal contractors have been caught stealing wages from hundreds of thousands of workers. Right here in the Senate, the men and women who prepare the food in the cafeteria have had their wages stolen by the contractor that employs them. The Department of Labor just found out that hundreds of these hard-working employees together were owed more than $1 million in back wages. This case was right under our noses. There are countless more all across the country where the very companies that receive taxpayer money from the government are taking shortcuts, breaking the law, cheating their employees out of hard-earned wages, and driving working families into poverty. Republicans in the House of Representatives have called this rule ``a solution in search of a problem,'' saying it would ``only hurt workers and small businesses,'' as if the deaths of those working for Federal contractors or the thefts of their wages was just business as usual and they didn't care. That position is parroted by the chamber of commerce, which calls the rule ``burdensome'' and ``unwarranted.'' My Republican colleagues and their buddies in the giant corporations that rely on huge Federal contracts to keep profits high want the American people to believe that by making it easier for companies that mistreat their workers to profit off of taxpayer dollars, somehow they are helping workers. That is just nuts. Here is what the rule does: When a company wants a contract from the government that is worth more than $500,000, it has to disclose any judgments against it for violating labor laws for the preceding 3 years. The order also asks the Secretary of Labor to work with other agencies to come up with standards for assessing whether labor violations are serious, repeated, or willful. If you are a company that does right by your workers, this rule will not affect you--not one bit. If you pay your workers fairly and keep them safe on the job, you won't even notice the new rule. It also does not stop companies from getting contracts if they have had just a few violations but have taken steps to remedy the problem, and it does not add one bit to the burden on smaller companies that bid on smaller contracts--again, not one bit. So who gets hit by this rule? Who is it who is complaining? Who are the Republicans trying to protect? Massive corporations that repeatedly cut corners that put their employees' lives at risk or that steal their wages. This rule keeps the big corporations that are the biggest labor violators from getting the biggest contracts. Once again, this debate is about whom Congress actually works for. Does Washington work for the taxpayers, who want to see their hard- earned money spent responsibly? Do we work for the hard-working Americans, who want to be paid what they are promised and not have to put their lives at risk for a paycheck? Do we work for giant contractors that rake in enormous tax dollars and cannot even follow basic safety rules for American workers? I came to Washington to stand with the men and women who go to work every day to build roads and bridges, to help communities recover from natural disasters, and to provide healthcare to our veterans. I think that is what we are here for. But the Republican majority wants to stand up for giant corporations that put workers at risk. They want to stand up against good, safe, well-paying jobs. That is their priority in the new Congress. If they succeed, it will be the American taxpayers and the American workers who quite literally pay the price. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose President Trump's nomination of Wilbur Ross for Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Ross is a Wall Street billionaire with a long history of profiting from the suffering of others. He also has shady ties to Vladimir Putin's Russia. That is just his record. Because of that record, I do not have confidence that he will protect the interests of the American people as Secretary of Commerce. This administration's disturbing ties to Russia have been all over the news. Here is what has been publicly reported as of today. Our intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian Government conducted a successful series of cyber attacks against the United States designed to help Donald Trump get elected President. Our intelligence agencies are actively examining a dossier alleging that the Russian Government has collected compromising information on President Trump, and numerous press reports indicate that investigators have already corroborated some of that dossier's contents. The President's National Security Advisor resigned in disgrace and is the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation for his conversations with the Russian Government before the inauguration, conversations that may have been illegal and conversations that he has apparently lied about in public. Knowingly or unknowingly, the Vice President of the United States has repeated these lies on national television. According to CNN, high- level advisers close to then-Presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to U.S. intelligence. CNN confirmed the New York Times' original investigation with ``multiple current and former intelligence law enforcement and administration officials.'' Our allies documented regular calls between the Trump campaign and the Russians, confirming the reports of U.S. intelligence agencies. According to reports published in Newsweek, ``the British government obtained information that people acting on behalf of Russia were in contact with members of the Trump campaign.'' Many news outlets have reported on U.S. intelligence worries that NATO allies will no longer share sensitive information because they fear the new administration could share it with Russia. When asked about the regular points of contact between Russian intelligence operatives and his most senior campaign staff, President Trump refused to take the question seriously. He claimed the multiple reports of staff communications with Russian were ``fake news.'' Behind the scenes, Trump's chief of staff was pressuring the FBI to help cover up the links between Russia and the Trump campaign. We are 1 month into the Trump Presidency. I wish this were not happening. I wish things were normal, but this is not normal. It is shameful if we ignore all of it as we evaluate the President's nominees to critical foreign policy and national security jobs. In this context, Mr. Ross's connections to Russia raise dangerous issues. We know that Ross installed a former KGB official and close associate of Vladimir Putin as the vice chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, a bank that Mr. Ross controlled and a bank that was flooded with Russian money. Now, how closely connected was this former KGB official to Vladimir Putin? Here is one hint. He was so closely connected to Putin that he was given a $100 million payout by a Russian-controlled mining company as a golden parachute. He wasn't even the only Putin pal on Mr. Ross's board. That is right. Mr. Ross wanted the bank he controlled to have multiple board members from Putin's inner circle. Mr. Ross surrounds himself with Russian oligarchs, and he has invested financially in their success. As he explained during his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. Ross has no intention of divesting from Diamond Shipping, a company that operates 33 oil tankers and jointly charters with even more. So a man who personally selected multiple Vladimir Putin associates to serve with him on the board of the bank he controls has been totally open about his plan to continue profiting from oil tankers shuttling over $1 billion worth of crude oil through international waters while serving as Commerce Secretary. It is not just one shipping company. Mr. Ross is retaining his investments in 11--11 separate entities, mostly private companies registered in the Cayman Islands. Among his retained interests, the state-owned China Investment Company will be one of Mr. Ross's largest fellow investors. We have never seen a Cabinet like this in history. Like many of President Trump's other nominees and like President Trump himself, this nominee seems to see his time in public service as a chance to increase his own wealth. In other words, on any given deal, he might be working for the American people or he might just be working for himself. We will have no way to know. President Trump has apparently asked Mr. Ross to lead American trade policy. He claims to want aggressive enforcement of antidumping and currency manipulation rules, which sounds great, but when Ross actually has this job, is he really going to be thinking about American workers or will he be thinking about how to make his KGB buddy from the Bank of Cyprus just a little richer or will he be thinking about how to help out his own oil tankers circling the globe or will he be thinking about his offshore companies and his coinvestors from China or will he be thinking about the next billion dollars he plans to make? The American people should not be left guessing about who Mr. Ross will be working to protect. There is significant reason to believe the President of the United States has substantial financial ties with Russia, but nobody actually knows any of the details because he has failed to reveal his tax returns. Now President Trump expects the Senate to rubberstamp his nomination of a top banker to Vladimir Putin's buddies to run the Commerce Department of the United States. This is dangerous and I will vote no. Mr. Ross's financial ties with Russians and his worldwide business deals are not the only problem with this nomination. He is practically a cartoon stereotype of a Wall Street fat cat with no interest in anyone but himself. Ross ran a secret club of top Wall Street tycoons called Kappa Beta Phi. I am not making this up. It is actually true. So he runs this secret club, which apparently gathers every year to get drunk and entertain themselves by putting on off-color skits that make fun of the millions of Americans they have swindled over the years. That certainly reflects Mr. Ross's world view. This is a man who made a fortune from the housing crisis at the expense of working families. After buying the servicing rights to over $100 billion in subprime loans, Mr. Ross swiftly got to work cheating borrowers out of their homes. Here are just a few of the examples of Mr. Ross's approach to business: lying to borrowers about loan modifications; charging borrowers fees that were not authorized; taking payments from borrowers, then not applying those payments to their loans; forcing homeowners insurance on borrowers who already had homeowners insurance; robo-signing fraudulent foreclosure documents. The violations were so widespread, his company had to settle with 49 States. Let me repeat that--49 States. A man who builds a fortune off illegally cheating people out of their homes has no business running our Commerce Department. So let's summarize. Mr. Ross has extensive ties to Russia. He plans to keep making money from his major oil shipping companies while working as Commerce Secretary. He has made billions off the backs of struggling homeowners, and in his free time he hangs out with Wall Street tycoons who sit around and make fun of everyone else. This is disgusting. For all of these reasons--for any of them, really--I urge my colleagues to reject this nomination. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow on my staff, Brian Clark, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to President Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the next Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. The reason is simple. In a choice between corporate polluters and people who want to breathe air and drink water, Scott Pruitt sides with the corporate polluters. He has no business being the head of the EPA. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Pruitt had countless opportunities to answer for his record. His responses were flippant, evasive, and outright misleading. He has been asked repeatedly to provide records from his office concerning dealings with big oil companies, but he told the Senators that, hey, they should submit an open records request, hoping that his confirmation would be over long before those documents would see the light of day. Just a few hours ago, an Oklahoma district court judge ordered a dose of sunshine for Mr. Pruitt's dirty dealings from his perch as attorney general of Oklahoma. The judge has demanded that Mr. Pruitt cough up more than thousands of emails pertaining to his cozy relationship with Big Oil--emails he has been hiding from Oklahoma open records requests for over 2 years, but the Republican leadership is not interested in waiting. Its plan is to jam this nomination through tomorrow--4 days before the emails are slated to become public. Are you kidding me? If those emails show corruption, every Senator should have that information before--not after--they vote to put someone in charge of the EPA who may be there for years. Clean air and clean water used to be a nonpartisan issue. In earlier decades, leaders in both parties had the courage to say no to suffocating smog and towering plumes of toxic chemicals poisoning our children. Republicans and Democrats came together, and together they declared that access to clean air and clean water was a basic right for all Americans. We passed the Clean Air Act, and we passed the Clean Water Act. We updated those laws when necessary, and we did those things together. Together, we depend on the Environmental Protection Agency for three critical reasons: The EPA is the cop on the beat, protecting American families from corporate polluters that would put profit ahead of safety. It watches out for us and for our children; the EPA exists because pollution knows no State borders. What is burned at the powerplant in Ohio is breathed by children across Massachusetts; and the EPA takes on the ever-changing task of researching, monitoring, and regulating toxic emissions because the job is far too great for any one State to tackle. To do all of this, the EPA routinely turns to local governments, businesses, and innovative workers for local solutions; the EPA turned to the University of Massachusetts to create a research center to assist smalltown water systems; the EPA turned to towns along Cape Cod and on Martha's Vineyard to pursue innovative solutions to increase coastal resiliency as sea levels have risen; and the EPA recently recognized New Bedford's exceptional work in monitoring industrial waste discharge in the city's collection system. Across Massachusetts and across the Nation, the EPA sets big national goals that help inspire ingenious local solutions. The EPA is one of our great successes as a nation, but that success has not come without a fight. Each time the EPA has taken a step to clean our air, industry has poured more and more money into the debate, yelling that regulation is just too costly and that companies can never survive if they have to clean up their act. In the 40 years following the Clean Air Act, emissions of common air pollutants fell nearly 70 percent while the number of private sector jobs doubled. Industry talks about the costs of pollution controls because dirty is cheap. Clean air saves more than 160,000 lives each year. Clean air saves more than 3 million schooldays our children would have collectively lost. Clean air saves 13 million workdays the hard- working, healthy Americans simply can't afford to miss. Scott Pruitt doesn't measure success by this yardstick. No. He measures success by how happy his corporate donors are. As Big Oil's go-to attorney general from Oklahoma, Pruitt has spent the last 6 years trying to silence the lifesaving, data-driven work of dedicated EPA employees and scientists. And now, those big polluters have their fantasy EPA nominee--someone who will work on their side and not on the side of the American people. How about a couple of examples. When EPA issued a rule to limit mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemical emissions from coal powerplants, Mr. Pruitt questioned whether mercury poses a health hazard. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It means that it poisons the nervous system. And Scott Pruitt thinks he should question whether it poses any health hazard. Wow. Or maybe it is this example. When the EPA moved to reduce leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30 times more potent than CO2, he turned the Oklahoma AG's office into a clearinghouse for big oil to pursue lawsuits attacking the EPA. Scott Pruitt has spent so much time with his campaign donors that he honestly appears incapable of understanding the difference between the financial interests of millionaires who run giant oil companies and the health and well-being of the 4 million human beings who actually live in Oklahoma. The people need a voice more than ever. For generations, Oklahoma has had very few earthquakes. Then, oil companies decided to up production, to pull every last drop of oil out of the ground. But with every drop of oil came useless, toxic radioactive salt water waste, and it has to go somewhere. So they took the cheapest option available: Pump billions of barrels of wastewater deep underground, under immense pressure, and that is when the problems started. Suddenly, earthquakes--big earthquakes with a magnitude of 3.0 and above, started occurring every day across Oklahoma. Here was Mr. Pruitt, the State attorney general, the people's lawyer. What did he do? Did he seek relief for the families that were stiffed by insurance companies? Did he join residents who were suing to stop the drilling while their homes crumbled? Did he even pretend to do something--you know, like maybe issue a strongly worded press release supporting frightened citizens? No, not Mr. Pruitt. No, Mr. Pruitt stood by his friends in the oil industry, and the heck with everybody else. Mr. Pruitt has been consistent in his work for big oil. As attorney general, he dismantled the environmental protection unit in his office--dismantled the environmental protection unit. He appointed a billionaire oil man to be his 2014 campaign chair, and he ignored the citizens he was sworn to protect. That is the measure of Mr. Pruitt as a public servant. A State attorney general is supposed to serve the people. Right now, Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey is leading the case to prove that ExxonMobil deliberately deceived the public about the impact of climate change on our economy, our environment, our health, and our future. Good for Maura. Did Scott Pruitt join that suit? Of course not. Pruitt ran to the defense of one of the world's largest corporations, whining about how that corporation felt bullied. Instead of working as the attorney general for Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has served as the attorney general for Exxon. Finally, Scott Pruitt has the nerve to say that the cause of climate change is ``subject to more debate.'' More debate? We had that debate in the 1980s, in the 1990s, in the 2000s. Maybe Mr. Pruitt missed it, buried under a pile of big oil money. So let me just offer a summary. For well over a century, we spewed fossil fuel filth into our atmosphere. And, yes, this allowed us to fuel the thirsty appetite of our 20th century economy. But that blistering pace came at a price. Our planet is getting hotter. Our coasts are threatened by furious storm surges that sweep away homes and devastate our largest cities. Our poorest neighborhoods are one bad storm away from being under water. Our naval bases are under attack--not by enemy ships but by rising seas; droughts and wildfires are all too familiar across the country. Refugees are fleeing homes that are no longer livable. And the risk of rapidly spreading diseases like malaria and Zika is on the rise. Our coastal communities don't have time for politicians who deny science. Our farmers don't have time for more debate. Our children don't have time for more cowards who will not stand up to big oil companies defrauding the American people. Scott Pruitt has been working hard for big oil to dismantle the EPA, and now, President Trump wants to give him that chance. Where are the Senators who will stand up for the health, the welfare, and the safety of their citizens? Where are the Senators who will stand up for the people's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water? Where are the Senators who will have the courage to demand action on climate change so that our children will have a chance to inherent a livable Earth? In the end, despite this despicable record, if the Republicans link arms again, there will not be enough of us to stop this nomination. But make no mistake, if President Trump wants a fight over the health of our children, a fight over the creation of clean energy jobs, a fight over the very future of our planet, then we will fight every step of the way. We will fight alongside moms and dads who know the terror of a childhood asthma attack. We will fight alongside the cancer victims. We will fight alongside the fishermen and the hunters. We will fight alongside the families of Flint, MI, and everywhere else in America where families cannot safely turn on their water taps or step outside and take a deep breath. We are all in this together. People in Massachusetts care deeply about preserving a safe and healthy environment for our kids and our grandkids. We see it as a moral question. And I receive letters from people all across the State, describing how important clean air and clean water are to them and how worried they are about what Scott Pruitt leading the EPA will mean for our most vital natural resources. I hear those concerns and I share those concerns. I would like to read just a few of the many letters that I have received about this nomination. Edward from Dennis wrote to me on behalf of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod about the importance of the EPA to coastal communities in Massachusetts. Here is Edward's letter: The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the Cape Cod region's leading nonprofit environmental education and advocacy organization, writes to state our strong opposition to the appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt for the position of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. We urge you to vote against his nomination. APCC is deeply concerned that Mr. Pruitt's record of vigorously opposing the efforts of the EPA to protect the nation's water and air quality is in direct conflict with his responsibilities as EPA Administrator to ensure that the agency's important work continues. In fact, his record clearly shows that his loyalties side with polluters instead of with the environment and the welfare of the American people. Of particular concern is Mr. Pruitt's refusal to accept the science of climate change and the implications this has for EPA's ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the EPA has most recently played a vital role in furthering efforts to protect and restore water quality through its Southeast New England Program (SNEP) for Watershed Restoration, a program that has greatly benefited coastal communities in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. We worry that important initiatives such as the SNEP program, which was originally proposed by Senator Reed with the strong support from each of you, will be in jeopardy under the oversight of Mr. Pruitt, should he be confirmed as EPA Administrator. The New England states, as well as the entire nation, have made significant strides forward in addressing the protection of our air and water. However, much more needs to be accomplished. With so much at stake, we cannot afford to step backward in our effort to protect the environment. We, therefore, urge you to oppose the nomination of Mr. Pruitt for EPA Administrator. Thanks, Edward, for writing, and thanks to all of you at the Association to Preserve Cape Cod for the work you are doing every single day. It makes a real difference. While all sorts of people have written to my office about Mr. Pruitt, I have noticed that a lot of people are writing in about kids--their kids, kids they work with, or just kids in general. My constituents are concerned about Scott Pruitt's commitment to protecting the air our kids breathe and the water they drink, and I share those concerns. I heard from Mary in Worcester, who is concerned about the effects of environmental toxins like lead on children. She is concerned both as a parent and as a family doctor. Here is what Mary had to say: With so much focus in Washington on ensuring politicians are held to a strong ethical standard, I ask you to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. I wrote to you yesterday asking the same, but after the hearing yesterday, it is increasingly clear that Mr. Pruitt is unfit. In addition to being a parent, I am also a Family Medicine physician. Rarely, I see children who are exposed to lead through environmental sources. This is rare because lead has been regulated, and as such rates of lead poisoning, and the accompanying irreversible brain damage, have plummeted. But yesterday Mr. Pruitt revealed that he knows nothing about this issue, responding to Senator Cardin, ``Senator, that is something I have not reviewed nor know about.'' I continue to ask you to oppose him and to encourage colleagues to do the same. Thank you for writing, Mary. That is why I am here tonight--to encourage my colleagues to oppose him. I heard from Elizabeth in Belchertown, as well. Here is what she wrote: As a resident of MA and a teacher of AP Environmental Science in a public high school in western MA, I am writing to express my concern about the appointment of Scott Pruitt as director of the EPA. He appears to be the exact opposite of the qualifications and perspective of a person who should have that position. As you know, he has close ties to fossil fuels, has repeatedly sued the EPA, avoided mercury legislation, and espoused the belief that the EPA is too powerful. I urge you to work with other Senators to block this appointment. Thank you, Elizabeth. The work that you are doing, that teachers are doing, is more vital than ever now, and I share your concerns. Thank you. A man from Boston wrote to me with concerns about Scott Pruitt's ties to fossil fuel companies, and here is what he said: As a constituent who cares about our environment, I want you to know I am deeply concerned about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Scott Pruitt is firmly in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. He is not concerned with the world we leave for our children. As a father and an educator, I am fighting his nomination because I have a responsibility to care about the world I leave children and not merely the wealth my cronies accumulate. Pruitt has actively worked to dismantle protections for clean air and clean water that people and birds need to thrive. The EPA must adhere to science and support common- sense solutions for ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate for people and wildlife. Please oppose confirming Scott Pruitt and demand a nominee instead who will represent the vast majority of Americans-- regardless of party affiliation--who support strong action and safeguards for our air, water, and climate. I couldn't agree more with what he said. Wendy from Newton wrote to me about the concerns as well. Here is what she had to say: Dear Senator, I am appalled and scared by the possibility of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. It will be disgraceful if he is confirmed. To appoint someone who stands against everything that agency is for is cynical, disrespectful and dangerous in this urgent time of climate change. Now more than ever we need a strong EPA that believes in science and will protect us from environmental disaster. I hope you will do everything you possibly can to fight against Pruitt getting confirmed. Thank you for writing. I also heard from Arlene in Wayland, who is worried about what the future of the EPA means for her two grandchildren. Here is what she had to say: Senator Warren, please assure your constituents that you will not support Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the EPA. Mr. Pruitt is an enemy of the agency and of the future of our environment. He has stood in the way of the agency's purpose to protect our air and water. He is ignorant of the findings of climate science and medical studies on toxicity, has dealt dishonestly with Congress, and is so obviously in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. Please use your considerable persuasiveness and rigor to convince your colleagues in the Senate to ditch his nomination. The future of my two grandchildren depends on it. Thank you. Thank you for your note, Arlene. I am doing my best, and so are the rest of the Democrats. We just need some Republicans to help us out here. Joan from Maynard reached out to me about her experience working with children who have suffered from lead poisoning. Here is what Joan wrote: I have been an Educational Advocate for children with disabilities for 24 years. I've worked with children who suffer from lead poisoning, and they are heartbreaking. Even the smallest exposure has life-long profound consequences. I haven't personally seen anything the level of what has happened in Flint, MI, but I know that it's a tragedy for a generation of children in Flint. Pollution of our waters is just one of the risks we face if Scott Pruitt is approved. There are countless more, many evident and others not readily apparent, but ready to unfold. Please, please fight this appointment in every way you can. Thank you, Joan, for writing and for the important work you do. Believe me, I am fighting in every way I can. A man from North Falmouth wrote to me, worried that the progress we have made on protecting public health and the future of our planet is in danger. Here is what he said: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a lifelong ally of corporate polluters. Pruitt's nomination is a clear threat to the nation's public health and the progress made on common-sense pollution standards. I cannot tolerate the appointment of a fossil fuel cheerleader to lead the nation's environmental protection efforts. In 2014, Pruitt literally acted as a messenger between Devon Energy and the EPA in an attempt to stifle public health protections. Please continue to defend the Clean Power Plan and methane pollution standards against the influence of the fossil fuel industry. 64% of Americans are concerned about climate change, we deserve a leader who will take action to protect air quality. Thanks for writing. I really appreciate it. Since President Trump nominated Mr. Pruitt, I have received hundreds of letters like these from people in Massachusetts who are worried about what he will mean for the environment and for the future of our planet, but I have also heard from the experts, people who understand the ins and outs of the EPA and its mission. Hundreds of former EPA employees who have serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's record on the environment sent a letter to me and my colleagues here in the Senate. Here is what they wrote: We write as former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to share our concerns about Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications to serve as the next EPA Administrator in light of his record in Oklahoma. Our perspective is not partisan. Having served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, we recognize each new Administration's right to pursue different policies within the parameters of existing law and to ask Congress to change the laws that protect public health and the environment as it sees fit. However, every EPA Administrator has a fundamental obligation to act in the public's interest based on current law and the best available science. Mr. Pruitt's record raises serious concerns about whose interests he has served to date and whether he agrees with the longstanding tenets of U.S. environmental law. Our nation has made tremendous progress in ensuring that every American has clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and uncontaminated land on which to live, work and play. Anyone who visits Beijing is reminded of what some cities in the U.S. once looked like before we went to work as a people to combat pollution. Much of the EPA's work involves preserving those gains, which should not be taken for granted. There are also emerging new threats as well as serious gaps in our environmental safety net, as the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, painfully demonstrates. Our environmental laws are based on a partnership that requires EPA to set national standards and give states latitude when implementing them so long as certain minimum criteria are satisfied. This approach recognizes that Americans have an equal right to clean air and water, no matter where they live, and allows states to compete for business without having to sacrifice public health or environmental quality. Our environmental laws include provisions directing EPA to allow for a ``margin of safety'' when assessing risks, which is intended to limit exposure to pollutants when it is reasonable to expect they may harm the public health, even when all the scientific evidence is not yet in. For example, EPA's first Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus, chose to limit the amount of lead in gasoline before all doubt about its harmfulness to public health was erased. His actions spared much of the harm that some countries still face as a result of the devastating effects of lead on human health. Similarly, early action to reduce exposure to fine particle pollution helped avoid thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease. The magnitude and severity of those risks did not become apparent until much later. Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest that he does not share the vision or agree with the underlying principles of our environmental statutes. Mr. Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a critically important function for EPA. While serving as Oklahoma's top law enforcement officer, Mr. Pruitt issued more than 50 press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn EPA standards to limit mercury emissions from power plants, reduce smog levels in cities and regional haze in parks, clean up the Chesapeake Bay and control greenhouse emissions. In contrast, none of Mr. Pruitt's many press releases refer to any action he has taken to enforce environmental laws or to actually reduce pollution. This track record likely reflects his disturbing decision to close the environmental enforcement unit in his office while establishing a new litigation team to challenge EPA and other federal agencies. He has claimed credit for an agreement to protect the Illinois River that did little more than confirm phosphorus limits established much earlier, while delaying their enforcement another three years. In a similar vein, Mr. Pruitt has gone to disturbing lengths to advance the views and interests of business. For example, he signed and sent a letter as Oklahoma Attorney General criticizing EPA estimates of emissions from oil and gas wells, without disclosing that it had been drafted in its entirety by Devon Energy. He filed suit on behalf of Oklahoma to block a California law requiring humane treatment of poultry. The federal court dismissed the case after finding that the lawsuit was brought not to benefit the citizens of Oklahoma but a handful of large egg producers perfectly capable of representing their own interests. To mount his challenge to EPA's rules to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, he took the unusual step of accepting free help from a private law firm. In contrast, there is little or no evidence of Mr. Pruitt taking initiative to protect and advance public health and environmental protection in his state. Mr. Pruitt's office has apparently acknowledged 3,000 emails and other documents reflecting communications with certain oil and gas companies, but has yet to make any of these available in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed more than two years ago. Contrary to the cooperative federalism that he promotes, Mr. Pruitt has suggested that EPA should refrain from trying to control pollution that crosses state lines. For example, he intervened to support a Farm Bureau lawsuit that would have overturned a cooperative agreement between five states and EPA to clean up the Chesapeake Bay (the court rejected the challenge). When asked how a state can protect its citizens from pollution that originates outside its borders, Mr. Pruitt said in his Senate testimony that states should resolve these disputes on their own, with EPA providing ``informational'' support once an agreement is reached. But the 1972 Clean Water Act directs EPA to review state water quality plans, require any improvements needed to make waters ``fishable and swimmable,'' and to review and approve plans to limit pollutant loads to protect water quality. EPA's power to set standards and limit pollution that crosses state lines is exactly what ensures every American clean air and water, and gives states the incentive to negotiate and resolve transboundary disputes. We are most concerned about Mr. Pruitt's reluctance to accept and to act on the strong scientific consensus on climate change and act accordingly. Our country's own National Research Council, the principal operating arm of the National Academies of Science and Engineering, concluded in a 2010 report requested by Congress that human activity is altering the climate to an extent that poses grave risks to Americans' health and welfare. More recent scientific data and analyses have only confirmed the Council's conclusion and added to the urgency of addressing the problem. Despite this and other authoritative warnings about the dangers of climate change, Mr. Pruitt persists in pointing to uncertainty about the precise extent of humanity's contribution to the problem as a basis for resisting taking any regulatory action to help solve it. At his Senate confirmation hearing, he stated that ``science tells us that the climate is changing, and that human activity in some manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.'' This is a familiar dodge-- emphasizing uncertainty about the precise amount of humanity's contribution while ignoring the broad scientific consensus that human activities are largely responsible for dangerous warming of our planet and that action is urgently needed before it is too late. Mr. Pruitt's indulgence in this dodge raises the fundamental question of whether he agrees with the precautionary principle reflected in our nation's environmental statutes. Faithful execution of our environmental laws requires effectively combating climate change to minimize its potentially catastrophic impacts before it is too late. The American people have been served by EPA Administrators, Republicans and Democrats, who have embraced their responsibility to protect public health and the environment. Different administrators have come to different conclusions about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and many of their decisions have been challenged in court, sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far enough. But in the large majority of cases it was evident to us that they put the public's welfare ahead of private interests. Scott Pruitt has not demonstrated this same commitment. Thank you for considering our views. Thank you to all who signed that letter and for the incredibly important work that you have done to protect our environment. I am with you all the way. Next, I wish to read an article published by The Atlantic that uses Scott Pruitt's actions to critique his appointment to head the EPA. Actions speak volumes louder than words, and his tell a pretty compelling story of exactly how he will lead the Agency. Here is what it says: While broad strokes of Trump's policies were never in doubt, there was often enough bizarreness to wonder what he would do with the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency. On Wednesday, those questions were all but settled. Trump has chosen E. Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, to lead the EPA. . . . In a certain light, Pruitt is an inspired choice to lead the EPA, as he has made fighting the agency a hallmark of his career. His own website calls him ``a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.'' The significance could not be more clear: As he promised on the trail, Trump will likely use the powers of the presidency and the legal expertise of Pruitt to block or weaken the Obama administration's attempts to fight climate change. And Trump will be able to try for more than that. For what distinguishes Pruitt's career is not just his opposition to using regulations to tackle climate change, but his opposition to using regulation to tackle any environmental problem at all. Since he was elected Oklahoma's attorney general, in 2010, Pruitt has racked up a sizable record-- impressive in its number of lawsuits if not in its number of victories--of suing the EPA. Many of these suits did not target climate-related policies. Instead, they singled out anti-pollution measures, initiated under presidential administrations, that tend to be popular with the public. In 2014, for instance, Pruitt sued to block the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. The rule is built on a 15-year old program meant to ensure that air around national parks is especially clear. Pruitt lost his case. Last year, he sued to block a rule restricting how much mercury could be emitted into the air by coal plants. He lost that, too. And early in his tenure, he sued to keep the EPA from settling lawsuits brought by environmental groups like the Sierra Club. That one was dismissed. He has brought other suits against EPA anti-pollution programs--like one against new rules meant to reduce the amount of ozone in the air--that haven't been heard in court yet. While ozone is beneficial to humans high in the atmosphere, it can be intensely damaging when it accumulates at ground level, worsening asthma and inducing premature deaths. The American Lung Association calls it ``one of the most dangerous'' pollutants in the United States. All this is not to say that Pruitt has omitted climate regulations from his litigation. His most common target has been the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's set of Clean Air Act rules meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The Clean Power Plan is Obama's main mechanism for pushing the United States to meet its pledge under the Paris Agreement. Pruitt began suing the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan more than two years ago. Now, Oklahoma is one of the 28 states challenging the agency in court, and it helped succeed in getting the Supreme Court to block the rules in February. But Pruitt's understanding of the bill seems not entirely legally minded in two significant ways. First, Pruitt's knowledge of global warming appears to be lacking, at best. Earlier this year, for instance, he wrote in the National Review that ``scientists continue to disagree about the degree and the extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.'' While this sounds reasonable, it is not true. The overwhelming consensus among scientists who study the Earth is that humans are largely to blame for the planet's warming. Climate scientists understood this to be the case since at least the early 1990s, and since then, scholarly consensus on the issue has only strengthened. The majority of scientists also believe that global warming will be quite harmful; the scientific debate about its ``degree and extent'' is only about how bad it will be and how soon its consequences will kick in. Second, Pruitt has worked extremely closely with oil and gas companies in opposing the plan. In one case, a New York Times investigation revealed that Pruitt sent an official letter to the EPA, bearing his signature and letterhead, that had been almost completely written by lawyers at Devon Energy, a major oil and gas company. It was delivered to Pruitt's office by Devon's chief lobbyist. Energy firms and lobbyists, including Devon, have donated generously to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which Pruitt has led. In interviews after the Times report, Pruitt described the collaboration as a kind of constituent service, saying that Devon is based in Oklahoma City. He agreed with the letter's legal reasoning, he said, so he signed it. ``I don't think there is anything secretive in what we've done,'' Pruitt told The Oklahoman. ``We've been very open about the efforts of my office in responding to federal overreach.'' Now Pruitt could be the one doing the federal reaching. Environmental groups immediately condemned Trump's selection of him. ``The EPA plays an absolutely vital role in enforcing long-standing policies that protect the health and safety of Americans, based on the best available science,'' said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. ``Pruitt has a clear record of hostility to the EPA's mission, and he is a completely inappropriate choice to lead it.'' Once, it had seemed like perhaps Trump--who speaks often of his adoration for clean air and clean water--would bypass those old fights and only target Obama's new climate rules. But with Pruitt leading his EPA, it seems that Trump's administration will act like its GOP predecessors. Whether it is successful depends on the Senate, on the courts, and on how well environmental advocates make their case to the public. Finally, I wish to share a few excerpts from an in-depth New York Times article that uncovered Scott Pruitt's extensive ties to energy companies. The article clearly explains the massive conflicts of interest that Mr. Pruitt would face as Administrator of the EPA. Here is what it says: The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state. But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma's biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered to him by Devon's chief of lobbying. ``Outstanding!'' William F. Whitsitt, who at the time directed the government relations at the company, said in a note to Mr. Pruitt's office. The attorney general's staff had taken Devon's draft, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney general's signature. ``The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both the E.P.A. and the White House.'' Mr. Whitsitt then added, ``Please pass along Devon's thanks to Attorney General Pruitt.'' The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation's top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda, an investigation by the New York Times has found. Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to fight federal regulations, according to a review of thousands of emails and court documents and dozens of interviews. For Mr. Pruitt, the benefits have been clear. Lobbyists and company officials have been notably solicitous, helping him raise his profile as president for two years of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a post he used to help start what he and his allies called the Rule of Law Campaign, which was intended to push back against Washington. ``We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis,'' Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative state legislators at a conference in Dallas in July, after being welcomed with a standing ovation. ``The trajectory of our nation is at risk and at stake as we respond to what is going on.'' Mr. Pruitt has responded aggressively and with a lot of helping hands. Energy industry lobbyists drafted letters for him to send to the EPA, the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget, and even President Obama, the Times found. Industries that he regulates have joined him as plaintiffs in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of a state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to force compliance with state law. Energy industry lobbyists have also distributed draft legislation to attorneys general and asked them to help push it through state legislatures to give the attorneys general clearer authority to challenge the Obama regulatory agenda, the documents show. And it is an emerging practice that several attorneys general say threatens the integrity of the office. The message is clear across Massachusetts and across the Nation: Big Oil's go-to attorney general is Scott Pruitt, and he has no business running the EPA. He has proven over and over again that he will put short-term industry profits ahead of the health of our children. This nominee has no interest in protecting every American's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. We cannot put someone so opposed to the goals of the EPA in charge of that very Agency. For these reasons, I will be voting no on Scott Pruitt. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on December 8, Donald Trump nominated Andrew Puzder to serve as Secretary of Labor. He was scheduled to come before the HELP Committee tomorrow for his confirmation hearing. There is some reporting suggesting that he is having some second thoughts, and I sincerely hope that is true. The reasons Mr. Puzder is a terrible choice for this job are literally too numerous to cover fully, but I will at least give it a start. If you work for a living, the Labor Secretary is very important to you. This person is responsible for protecting the interests of 150 million American workers. He will be the person responsible for enforcing the law that ensures that employers actually pay workers for every hour they work and setting the standards to prevent workplace injuries and even deaths. Unfortunately, Mr. Puzder is not the kind of person the American people can trust to stand up for workers. Since 2000, Mr. Puzder has served as the CEO of the billion-dollar company CKE Restaurant Holdings. You may know it better as the parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. These two fast-food chains are known for paying very low wages to workers. Mr. Puzder has a long record of cheating workers out of overtime. He has paid out millions of dollars to settle claims when he was caught cheating. We are not talking about isolated incidents. They reflect the kind of business Mr. Puzder built. Mr. Puzder is a frequent political pundit and commentator who has vocally opposed higher minimum wages. He has also strongly opposed new overtime protections that would give 4 million workers an estimated $1.5 billion raise in a single year. Mr. Puzder also delights in expressing personal disdain for his workers. He bragged in his very first memo as CEO. He wrote that he wanted ``no more people behind the counter unless they have their teeth.'' Ha, ha. He said he would like to replace his workers with robots because ``they are always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or discrimination case.'' The Senate has an obligation to hear from those who are best qualified to tell America about Mr. Puzder's suitability to be Labor Secretary and to stand up for American workers--his own workers. That is why many of us asked the chairman of the HELP Committee to include Mr. Puzder's workers in his confirmation hearing. When the chairman refused to do so, we just went ahead and convened our own forum to allow those workers a chance to speak. Seventeen Senators attended. Those 17 Senators heard from Laura McDonald, who worked as a general manager at Carl's Jr. in Tucson, AZ, for 20 years. For years, she was forced to work extra hours without pay. Employees like Laura are the subject of a major lawsuit against Mr. Puzder's company, CKE, regarding unpaid overtime. Those 17 Senators heard from Lupe Guzman, who is a single mother who has devoted the last 7 years of her life to Carl's Jr. in Las Vegas, NV. She has worked the graveyard shift for rock bottom wages. Seven years of loyalty, and Lupe is still paid so little that she is on food stamps to feed her kids. Lupe sat in front of the U.S. Senate and wept openly about her terrible treatment at the hands of Mr. Puzder's company. The Senators also heard from Roberto Ramirez, who has worked in the fast food industry for over 20 years, mostly at Carl's Jr. in Los Angeles, CA. He worked regularly off the clock at Carl's Jr., meaning they didn't pay him. Roberto even had a full paycheck stolen by his manager. For every Laura, Lupe, and Roberto, we found dozens of workers who were afraid to speak out about the terrible conditions at CKE. We compiled some stories from folks brave enough to speak up into a 20- page report detailing firsthand accounts of the men and women who work for Mr. Puzder. Those stories are horrifying, and I will read some of them later today. Mr. Puzder's company has a truly atrocious record of treating his own workers terribly. Indeed, he has dripping disdain for people who work for a living. This alone disqualifies him to be Secretary of Labor. But there is more. In recent weeks, it has come out that Mr. Puzder employed an undocumented immigrant in his household for years, and he didn't pay taxes on that employee. Yep, you heard that correctly. The Trump administration, which bellows about building a wall and pounds its chest about ripping millions of families apart with a deportation force, threatens millions of DREAM Act kids with deportation, has no problem putting a guy in charge of the Labor Department who cheats on his taxes and employs undocumented workers. The hypocrisy of that is pretty stunning, even for the Trump administration. And then there is the controversy over alleged spousal abuse. Over 25 years ago, Mr. Puzder's first wife appeared on an episode of Oprah Winfrey in a show about spousal abuse. I have watched the episode in which she appeared, as I believe every Senator should. I found it extraordinarily troubling. Alongside his company's poor record of treatment of female employees, his highly explicit and sexualized ads, and his snide comments about sex discrimination, there is ample evidence that Mr. Puzder is a terrible choice to head the agency charged with ensuring that women and men are treated fairly in the workplace. I understand that no matter who President Trump picks to run the Labor Department, I am probably going to have a lot of issues with that person, but this is different. Andrew Puzder should not be the Labor Secretary. And if you ask the Senators in this body--Republicans and Democrats--if you ask them behind closed doors with the cameras turned off, you will have a hard time finding people who think this divisive nomination is good for the country. It has been suggested that Mr. Puzder is ``tired of the abuse'' that he has received during this confirmation process. Well, I think the workers at his companies are pretty tired of the abuse they have received while being at the mercy of an employer who doesn't care about them at all and who goes out of his way to squeeze them out of every last dime. That is literally the opposite of what we need in a Labor Secretary. I was prepared to question him on these issues tomorrow, but I hope it is true that he will withdraw his nomination before then. Mr. President, I also rise today to express many concerns over the appointment of Congressman Mulvaney as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to urge my colleagues to seriously consider these issues before voting to confirm him. One of the best ways to understand what a nation stands for is to look at its budget. It is all right there. The budget tells who counts, it tells who gets a chance, and it tells who gets cast aside. The OMB Director prepares the President's budget. He safeguards the President's promises by turning them into real commitments backed by your tax dollars. During the campaign, President Trump promised over and over again that he would protect Medicare and Medicaid. He didn't imply it; he didn't drop hints about it. No, he made the clearest, plainest possible promise. He said: ``I am not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.'' But since the election, he has done a complete 180. He put up a transition team website that just dripped with code words for cuts, saying that he would modernize and maximize flexibility for these programs. Gone were the unambiguous promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid. Then he started nominating people who have made it their life's work to gut Medicare and Medicaid. His Secretary of Health and Human Services has proposed cutting more than $1 trillion from these programs, and now his nominee for OMB Director is someone who wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid to the bone. Congressman Mulvaney has voted to increase the retirement age for Medicare. Hey, you have paid into that program with decades of hard work? Too bad, just keep waiting. He also wants to privatize Medicare, and he wants to slash and burn his way through Medicaid--a program that is a lifeline for millions of people--for parents of people in nursing homes, for people with disabilities, for premature babies. In his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney was asked whether he would set aside his rightwing ideology to fulfill the President's campaign promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid. The Congressman could not have been clearer in his response: Forget all of that. Nope, not interested. Mulvaney is still a true believer in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and whenever he has the President's ear, he will continue to advance his own radical ideas for burning down these indispensable programs. President Trump also promised that he would not cut Social Security. He guaranteed it. Here is his quote--many times: ``We're going to save your Social Security without making any cuts,'' he said. Here was his closer on that: ``Mark my words.'' OK. Nice words. But he could have picked someone--anyone--to run his budget, and instead he picked Congressman Mulvaney--one of Congress's most partisan crusaders against the Social Security program. He wants to raise the retirement age to 70. Heck, this is a person who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and, boy, he is not messing around, either. During his confirmation hearings, Congressman Mulvaney doubled down on his promise to rob American workers and retirees by gutting Social Security. When pressed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham about whether he would urge President Trump to reconsider his promise not to cut Social Security, hey, Mulvaney said that he absolutely would. Is this just a mistake? Did President Trump just pick Congressman Mulvaney by accident? The Congressman certainly doesn't seem to think so. At his hearing he said: ``I have to imagine that the President knew what he was getting when he asked me to fill that role.'' Yes, Mulvaney himself believes he is being brought in to push for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Trump reverses his promise, a second person determined to cut Medicare and Medicaid makes it into a key government role, and who will pay the price? America's seniors, that is who. Apparently, Congressman Mulvaney isn't satisfied with cutting benefits for Americans who have worked and paid into the program for their entire lives. When it comes to abandoning American workers and families, for him, that is just the beginning. He has also called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ``a sick, sad joke.'' Maybe he should spend a little more time talking to his constituents and a little less time talking to bank lobbyists. The CFPB has helped thousands of people in every State--including dozens of people in Congressman Mulvaney's own district--recover unauthorized fees on their credit cards and checking accounts. It has helped them to correct errors on their credit reports. These are students, seniors, servicemembers, and veterans, who may have spent months haggling with their bank or student loan servicer over a wrong charge, only to get quick and complete relief after they went to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In total--the agency has only been up for about 5\1/2\ years now--it has forced the largest banks across this country, many of those who have been out there cheating consumers, to return nearly $12 billion directly to the people they cheated. That is $12 billion that was stolen by big banks, by payday lenders, by debt collectors, and is now back in the pockets of the people who rightfully earned it. The only sick, sad joke is that Congressman Mulvaney thinks we should turn the big banks loose to prey on American families once again. Under Congressman Mulvaney's budget, Americans who have been cheated and scammed by huge financial institutions will just be cast aside. Families who work hard for every dollar, only to have some ruthless corporation steal their savings right out from underneath them, will be cast aside. And the millions of Americans who have worked for decades planning to collect Social Security or Medicare when they retire will be told to just wait four more years. They will be thrown straight to the curb. None of that--none of that--is what America stands for. That is just the stuff that directly contradicts the President's campaign promises. The stuff that is totally in line with the President's campaign promises is genuinely scary too. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump stated that he ``may cut the Department of Education.'' Will Congressman Mulvaney stand up for students? Unlikely. Congressman Mulvaney's record shows that he is fine building a Federal budget that crushes students who are trying to get a college education. Students already pay too much for student loans, and Congressman Mulvaney's solution is to force students to pay more. He supports forcing more college students to borrow more money from private banks that charge sky-high interest rates without any of the basic protections Federal student loans have. He clearly wants to let private banks and Wall Street squeeze as much cash out of hard-working students as humanly possible to build their profits. In fact, Congressman Mulvaney wants to help these giant banks out even more by taking a sledgehammer to the Federal student loan program and making Federal loan terms lousy for students. That is why he repeatedly voted to eliminate subsidized student loans for low-income students and why he helped block legislation to allow borrowers to lower their monthly payments by refinancing their student loans to lower interest rates. Not only has he voted to increase the interest rates the government charges students, he has also voted to cut Pell grants to poor college students. If Congressman Mulvaney had his way, millions more hard- working students would be shoved even deeper into debt at the start of their working lives just because they couldn't afford the high cost of college. Under his budget, students will just be cast aside. In his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney also said he is ``in lockstep'' with Donald Trump's plans to grow military spending, but he said he would pay for that increase in funding with deep cuts to domestic programs that working men and women around the country depend on--programs that could easily include Head Start, which provides opportunities for low-income children; the disaster aid, which supports families in crisis after a hurricane or tornado; or resiliency programs to protect America as worldwide climate changes. Listen to that again. The children who attend Head Start can stay home so Donald Trump can divert more money to military spending. The people who get buried in a 100-year snowstorm can stay buried so Donald Trump can divert more money to military spending. The people who live near coasts and rivers and streams can be washed away by rising oceans and other waterways so Donald Trump can divert money to military spending--and this nominee, Congressman Mulvaney, is in lockstep to make it happen. Under President Trump's new one-in, two-out Executive order, it is Mr. Mulvaney who would have discretion to give each agency a regulatory budget and to approve any proposed regulations that increase that budget. The order is supposedly designed to make life easier and to make government work better, but Congressman Mulvaney isn't interested in making government work better, and he is certainly not interested in making life easier. In fact, he has spent his entire political career working to cripple the agencies that protect American families-- American workers, American consumers, and American small businesses. Nowhere is this clearer than in his attacks on the Federal agencies that protect consumers, that preserve our environment, and that help keep our country safe. He has worked to starve agencies of the resources they need to do their jobs, voting to cut funding to law enforcement, voting to gut the Social Security Program, and voting to completely defund the organization that provides critical legal services to low-income American children, families, seniors, and veterans. But it is not enough for him to starve agencies to the breaking point. He has also supported radical bills to stop agencies from issuing regulations that keep our air clean, our food safe, and our economy from suffering another devastating financial crisis. Congressman Mulvaney wants to require agencies to adopt a bill that imposes the least costs on big businesses, even when those costs are about making sure companies don't cut corners by cheating, poisoning, and killing people. Look, if it is cheaper for a corporation to kill you than it is for the corporation to redesign the product or clean up their mess, Congressman Mulvaney stands with the corporation. I am sure he would be willing to say something nice at your funeral about how your contribution helped give the corporation record profits. If all that wasn't bad enough, Congressman Mulvaney is ready to rock and roll on secret money in politics. Washington is already awash in dark money, but that is not enough for Congressman Mulvaney. He has worked to open the doors even wider to secret spending in politics. Over and over, he has voted to shield the identity of political donors, keep them secret. For example, he opposed a rule that required corporations applying for government contracts to disclose their political contributions. Again, just think about that one for a minute. He doesn't want corporations that bid for government contracts to be forced to tell when they give money to help targeted government officials. We already have a problem with money in politics. Mulvaney just wants to make it worse. Congressman Mulvaney's record shows one thing. He will make sure our Federal Government works well for giant corporations and billionaires who don't like to play by the rules, and he will cast aside the rest of the public to do that. That is definitely not what our Nation stands for. I understand Democrats and Republicans have different priorities when it comes to the Federal budget. I get that, but when one person wants to slash Social Security for American retirees, to cut Medicare for senior citizens, to gut health benefits for low-income families, to drive up the cost of paying for college, and to gut programs that help families in crisis and low-income children, all in the name of making life even easier for giant corporations and billionaires--well, I think it is clear that his priorities do not include the safety and security of millions of Americans. That is a priority that should be at the top of all of our lists in the Senate, Republican and Democratic. I will stand with the Americans whom Congressman Mulvaney will cast aside as Budget Director, and I will vote no on his nomination. Mick Mulvaney wants to slash benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and countless other programs. These are just numbers to him, but behind those numbers are real people. Real lives are at risk with every decision he will make as the Budget Director. So what I want to do is take the time I have remaining and share the stories of just a few of the people who would be affected. Lea from Plymouth wrote to me, worried that Congressman Mulvaney would cut Social Security for her and for others in Massachusetts. Lea had an interesting suggestion. Here is what she wrote: I have just sent off an email message to Representative Mulvaney regarding his spearheading of the cutting of Social Security benefits. I challenged him and many of his colleagues to do this: Live on an income like mine--of $1,219.80--for one month. Having received my first increase of $2.50 in several years, it was offset by a Medicare cost increase of $11.50. Do the math. I hope you and the other Democratic members of both houses fight like hell to raise our benefits. We are definitely in for a bumpy ride for the next 4 years. As the saying goes . . . ``it ain't going to be pretty!'' Thank you for listening. Thank you, Lea. Thank you for writing. I also heard from Janneke from Williamstown, who is worried about several nominees working to cut Social Security. Here is what Janneke had to say: It is terrifying to consider either of these nominees, Price or Mulvaney, being confirmed for the position to which they have been nominated. They will work to undo, not to strengthen, social security. This is a profoundly disturbing possibility. I urge you to do everything you can to oppose their confirmation! Thank you, Janneke. I will. I will keep fighting for your hard-earned benefits. Janet from Florence also reached out to me. She shared the inspiring stories of her and her husband, and then she told me how worried she is that cuts to Social Security and Medicare could be coming under Congressman Mulvaney's watch. Here is what she wrote: I am 60 years old and have always been employed--in higher education jobs where I worked hard and long for modest wages, frequently the case in women-dominated professions. My husband is a childcare worker who works with infants and toddlers. The work we do is meaningful and makes a societal contribution. At 60 and 64, we have always lived like graduate students. We shop at the Goodwill, cook from scratch, bring our lunch, and drive old cars--and bike and walk. We will each be working until age 70, or longer, if our health permits. This is fine. We are fortunate to live as we do. But with market- based retirement funds and with family members needing our support, we need Social Security, which is NOT BROKEN, to remain, and be strengthened. And we need access to health care, for ourselves, children, and grandchildren. This is a plea from the fading middle class to oppose the Price and Mulvaney nominations. We--and people far less fortunate than we are--need your stout support. Thank you, Janet. Thank you and your husband for all you do for your community. I promise I will do my best to protect your benefits. I have received hundreds of these types of letters--letters from constituents who are scared that cuts to Medicaid and Medicare could endanger their basic ability to survive, letters from constituents who have seen how important these services are to thousands across the State and millions across the country, constituents who aren't sure where to turn and whom to blame. They just know they cannot afford to lose these benefits, like a woman from Somerville, who wrote to me about the work she does as an intensive care coordinator. Here is what she had to say: I am an Intensive Care Coordinator through Riverside Community Care, a statewide human service agency that delivers crucial mental health services to at-risk youth. In my program, the Guidance Center Community Service Agency, we specifically provide Child Behavioral Health Initiatives (CBHI) services to youth in Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Malden, Waltham, Woburn, Wilmington, and other northern towns. I am extremely nervous that the new presidential administration will attack Medicaid and put our programs in jeopardy. If you're not familiar with the CBHI wraparound model, I can briefly explain why these services are so important. One: we serve youth in poverty. Two: our services are community based, so we go to the homes of the families we're serving, so they don't need to rely on transportation. Three: we are a form of outpatient care that prevents youth who are suicidal/ homicidal from needing hospitalization. Or, if they are hospitalized, helping the family develop a plan for when they're discharged. Four: Although the child with mental health diagnosis is our identified client, the services benefit the whole family. We understand that taking care of children with special needs is taxing, so we identify resources and services for parents as well. Five: we work with state departments like Department of Children and Families, Department of Health, and Department of Developmental Disabilities. Six: our model works. I myself rarely close a case without having had at least one goal (identified by the family) met and there are growing statistics about the benefit of having us in place. I hope you can bring this argument where it needs to go to ensure that we have a future here in Massachusetts. I want to say on this one: Thank you. Thank you for writing, and thank you for the work you do. I am doing my best to bring this story. This is a story everybody in the Senate should listen to. It is a story about how we reach out to those who most need us and provide the kind of care they need. Thank you. Thank you for your work, and thank you for writing. I also received a letter from an occupational therapist from Massachusetts. She told me all about the important work she has been doing and how Medicaid has been crucial to that work. Here is what she had to say: As a constituent and occupational therapy practitioner, I am writing to you to express my concerns about a major restructuring of the Medicaid program. Medicaid is an essential safety net program for the most vulnerable in our society. In 2015, 39% of children received health insurance either through the Childrens Health Insurance Program or through Medicaid. More than 60 percent of nursing home residents are supported primarily through Medicaid. Additionally, Medicaid provides health care services and long-term services and supports to more than 10 million people living with disabilities, and 1 in 5 Medicaid recipients receive behavioral health services. Restructuring of the Medicaid program through per capita caps or block granting and significant cuts to the Medicaid program would jeopardize the long-term health and independence of current Medicaid beneficiaries. Thus I urge extreme care and caution when considering a major restructuring of the program or other significant changes, waiver of mandatory services, or dramatic cuts. Thank you for all the work you do, and thank you for writing and making this important point about who uses Medicaid and how critical it is to the basic support services that we provide. Another constituent wrote to me about the amazing work that she does in the Boston area for those with severe mental illness and how Medicaid and Medicare help these people. Here is what she had to say: I work with people with severe Mental Illness in the greater Boston area. A majority of my patients receive their therapy and medication through Medicaid and Medicare. Even the thought of losing coverage heightens their anxiety. If coverage is reduced or co-pays raised, they stand to lose not only therapy and group interventions but also the medication which is essential to avoiding higher levels of care. Given the high rate of co-occurring physical and mental health issues, the general health of my patients will be severely compromised with any reduction in access to care. Nearly 1 out of 3 people covered by Medicaid expansion live with a mental health or substance use condition and people with marketplace insurance plans have fair and equal mental health coverage. With this coverage, people have access to mental health services that support recovery. As a constituent, I would like you to keep in mind that Medicaid or insurance marketplace plans are helping all of those who struggle with mental illness who, with accessible supports, can lead healthier lives. Again, thank you for the work you do, and thank you for writing. It is a powerfully important point. Congressman Mulvaney wants to slash these programs. That is why I will be voting against his nomination. I also received more personal stories from people like Michael from Acton, who told me about his son. Here is what he wrote: My particular concern is the attack on the ACA and Medicaid and Medicare. My biggest worry is my 27 year old son, Adam, who was born with microcephaly. He is a very loving person with a great smile, but functions roughly at the level of a 12 month old. He currently lives in a group residence and goes to a day habilitation program during the week. Both of these programs are funded in part by Medicaid. If Medicaid funds are cut, I worry that the day-hab program will not be able to continue or, at the least, will operate at a much reduced level. This would seriously degrade the quality of Adam's life. I worry what will happen at his already understaffed residence. As it is, the staff at Adam's residence and day- habilitation programs are paid very little wages to do very tough jobs. Because of this, there is already a constant problem of finding enough people to staff these. . . . jobs if they are paid less or have to do even more work because of lower staffing levels[.] The prospect of what is coming scares me. What will my son's life be like? Thank you for writing, Michael. I appreciate it. I will be out there fighting for Adam. I hope we can get a lot of people in the Senate to do that as well. Thank you. We also heard from Daniel Mumbauer, who is president of the High Point Treatment Center in Massachusetts. Daniel has experienced firsthand how Medicaid funds can change the lives of thousands of people in Massachusetts alone. This is what Daniel wrote: On behalf of High Point Treatment Center, I am writing to urge and request your support in protecting the Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid expansion in the 115th Congress. High Point served over 30,000 individuals last year. We provide substance use disorder and mental health services to adolescents and adults. Recent health insurance data show that Americans with mental health and substance use disorders are the single largest beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Nearly one in three who receives health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion either has a mental illness, a substance abuse disorder, or both. By repealing the Medicaid expansion, this population of vulnerable Americans would be left without access to lifesaving treatment, driving up costs in emergency department visits and hospital stays. I am also writing to urge your support for the protection of the Medicaid program from proposals to restructure Medicaid as a block grant or capped program. These proposals would reduce federal investment in Medicaid and leave millions of Americans without access to needed mental health and addictions treatment in our communities. Please work with your colleagues to protect our nation's most vulnerable patient population and preserve their access to treatment. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you very much for writing, and thank you for the work you do. Congressman Mulvaney wants to eviscerate health programs that would help Michael's son and the thousands who are treated at the High Point Treatment Center. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. I have also heard from many constituents worried about losing their Social Security benefits under the new administration, like Kensington from Hatfield, who is terrified that his mother, who depends on Social Security, will lose her benefits. Here is what he wrote: Last night scared me for the first time. My mother is 69 and depends on Social Security for her income and has severe COPD and relies on medicare and medicaid for prescriptions and medical supplies to help her breath[e]. She was crying and is afraid of losing everything and that she will die. I know it's extreme thinking, but without her medicine and income it is unfortunately the truth. I didn't know what to say to comfort her and that scared me! What can I say to ease her mind and let her know that she will be OK. Will she be

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump talked a big game about Wall Street. He said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.'' He claimed that he was not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. His closing ad expressed outrage at Wall Street ``controlling the levers of power in Washington.'' It pictured Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as part of ``the global special interests that were rigging the economy against working families.'' Then Trump won, and within days he hired and nominated enough Goldman Sachs alumni to open a new bank branch in the White House. 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 be second in command at the bank. His Senior Counsel for Economic Initiatives, Dina Powell, came directly from Goldman Sachs, where she has been a partner since 2010. Finally, Donald Trump nominated Steve Mnuchin to serve as his Secretary of Treasury. Mr. Mnuchin spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs, much of it in the distribution that created and peddled the kinds of mortgage-backed securities that would later blow up the financial system. Personnel is policy. The selection of all of these Goldman Sachs executives to serve as core members of Trump's economic team shows that the President has no interest in reducing Wall Street's influence in Washington and leveling the playing field for working families. Instead, it will be the same Republican playbook--gutting the rules for big banks, firing the cops on Wall Street--the same playbook that paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis. But even among the group of Goldman Sachs bankers surrounding the President, the selection of Mr. Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary stands out. The Treasury Secretary leads the Council responsible for making sure Wall Street doesn't blow up our economy again. The Council cannot do anything without the support of the Treasury Secretary. No other official has greater responsibility to stand up to Wall Street if they threaten the economy again. Yet there is nothing-- nothing--in Mr. Mnuchin's record to suggest that he could stand up to Wall Street. In fact, there is nothing in Mr. Mnuchin's record to suggest that he would even want to stand up to Wall Street, that he has even thought of standing up to Wall Street. Mr. Mnuchin is the ultimate Wall Street insider. From the moment he graduated from college until today, he has worked at a big bank or a hedge fund. If Wall Street threatens to blow up the economy again, does anyone seriously expect Mr. Mnuchin to get tough with his old buddies and tell them to knock it off? In fact, you can expect just the opposite. Mr. Mnuchin pretty much laps the field when it comes to personal experience in tilting the playing field in favor of financial interests and against working families. In late 2008, as the financial crisis was sweeping across the country, Mr. Mnuchin lead a team of millionaires to purchase IndyMac Bank out of Federal receivership. He rebranded the bank as OneWest and put himself in charge as CEO. Then, Mr. Mnuchin and OneWest acted swiftly and decisively to boot more than 60,000 families out of their homes across the country. Look, I get it. Foreclosures happen in an economic crisis. But OneWest, Mr. Mnuchin's bank, was different. It quickly gained a reputation as a foreclosure machine, both because it was so aggressive at foreclosing on families and because the bank hardly did anything else. Countless homeowners who were trapped by a OneWest mortgage had their lives turned upside down. Some ended up homeless. How sleazy and out of line was Mr. Mnuchin's bank? Well, the bank paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits for predatory foreclosure practices. They were so sleazy that they even got hit with almost $3 million in fines for violating the rights of dozens of Active-Duty servicemembers. You really have to ask: What kind of a man does something like that-- cheats our soldiers while they are on Active Duty? The model Mr. Mnuchin developed for OneWest was terrible for homeowners, but it was fabulous for him. Six years after buying the bank, he sold it and reportedly pocketed as much as $200 million in personal profit--$200 million for 6 years of throwing families out of their homes--wow, only on Wall Street. Mr. Mnuchin's leadership of OneWest is critical to evaluating his fitness to serve as Treasury Secretary. That is why I joined 24 other Democratic Senators in asking Chairman Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee to include some of Mr. Mnuchin's foreclosure victims as witnesses at Mr. Mnuchin's hearing. The chairman refused. So Democrats invited some of those homeowners to come to the Senate anyway to share their stories at a forum. We invited every Senator--Democrat or Republican--to attend the forum. We also invited Mr. Mnuchin to attend. Not one single Republican showed up--not one. Mr. Mnuchin refused to attend. But Senate Democrats turned out to listen. The stories that we heard will break your heart. We heard from Colleen Ison-Hodroff, from Minneapolis, MN. Colleen is 84 years old. She and her husband Monroe got a reverse mortgage on their fully paid-off home from Financial Freedom, which is a OneWest subsidiary. At the time, the broker assured them that Colleen could keep living in her home even if her husband passed away before she did. But just days--just days--after Monroe's funeral, Mr. Mnuchin's bank told her she needed to pay off the entire loan or face foreclosure. She has been fighting them off for 2 years now, but the threat hangs over her and her family. Sylvia Oliver from Scotch Plains, NJ, also told us her story. She had been trying for years to get a loan modification from OneWest. For years, the bank refused to work with her in good faith. Sylvia choked up as she described how she felt when her young daughter told her: Mom, I love our home. She had to smile and look her daughter in the eye, not knowing whether they could keep that home for more than even a few more weeks. We heard from Cristina Clifford, from Carlsbad, CA. Cristina is a real go-getter, a self-employed small business owner who saved up enough money to buy her first home soon after she turned 20. When the financial crisis hit, the income from her business dried up, and she reached out to Mr. Mnuchin's bank for a modification. But when she sent in her modification paperwork, along with the check for her first new payment, she sent them in a single envelope, and Mr. Mnuchin's bank claimed they had never received the paperwork even though they cashed the check that was in the same envelope. Ultimately, Mr. Mnuchin's bank foreclosed on Cristina, just days after an employee personally had assured her that she could still work out a modification to keep her home. But she lost her home. We also heard from Heather McCreary, a mother of twin boys from Sparks, NV. Like a lot of families, Heather and her husband Jack were hit hard in the financial crisis. She lost her job as a home health aide, and Jack, who worked construction, got fewer hours and lower wages. Heather and Jack applied to OneWest for a modification. They did everything they were told. But it did not matter to Mr. Mnuchin and his friends at OneWest. The bank strung them along for years and then, in the blink of an eye, foreclosed so abruptly that it literally put Heather, her husband Jack, and their twin boys out on the street. All four of these women begged the Senate to reject Mr. Mnuchin's nomination. Heather said: Putting Steve Mnuchin in charge of the country's financial system is an insult to families like mine, families who worked hard and did everything they could to get by after the economy collapsed. Take it from my experience, I know he will not be looking out for working people. Instead, he will use his position to make the economy work better for people like himself. No track record of independence from Wall Street, a history of profiting off the financial crisis by squeezing working families to the breaking point--each one of those should be disqualifying to serve as Treasury Secretary. That should be the end of his nomination. We should be done with this. But there is more. During Mr. Mnuchin's nomination process, he flat-out lied to the Senate. Senator Casey from Pennsylvania asked Mr. Mnuchin a straightforward factual question about foreclosure abuses at OneWest. Mr. Mnuchin claimed they did not happen. That is not even a good lie. Within days, reporters found court documents contradicting Mr. Mnuchin's claim. You know, something like that should not be a partisan issue. A person who lies to Congress should not be the country's top economic official--period, done. But when Senate Democrats demanded that Mr. Mnuchin come before the Finance Committee again to account for his statement, Republicans on the committee unilaterally changed the rules and rammed Mr. Mnuchin's nomination through without a single Democrat present. Do Senate Republicans care about Mr. Mnuchin's lies? The American people should. If Mr. Mnuchin is willing to lie about something that is so easily disproved by public court documents, what else is he willing to lie about? How can Congress or the American people believe him ever again? We know Mr. Mnuchin has the full support of Wall Street. The big bank lobbyists, Mr. Mnuchin's hedge fund pals, man, they want to see him confirmed. They are lobbying hard. They know he will help out his old buddies and give them all the financial rule rollbacks and sweetheart deals that they want. What we know is that is usually enough to carry the day around here. But me? I am going with Colleen and Heather and Sylvia and Cristina. I heard what Mr. Mnuchin and his bank did to them and to thousands more like them in Massachusetts and all across the country. The U.S. Senate should not reward that kind of sleazy, cruel, and sometimes illegal conduct by making him the Secretary of Treasury. We cannot say to the millions of people who lost their homes, who lost their jobs, who lost their savings during the financial crisis, that a man like Mr. Mnuchin will be entrusted with the keys to our Treasury. We cannot say to the American people that someone who lied to Congress--who lied and didn't even have to come back and explain his lie--can become a senior Cabinet official. A lot of people believed Donald Trump when he said he would be tough on Wall Street. A lot of people voted for him because of that promise. By hiring half of Goldman Sachs to run the economy, Donald Trump has made clear he has no intention of keeping his promise. And now, with the vote on Mr. Mnuchin, the American public will have the chance to see whether Senate Republicans are serious about keeping Wall Street in line too. Don't hold your breath, America. I will be voting no on Mr. Mnuchin's nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I want to read some of the stories that we have about Mr. Mnuchin's time at OneWest. You know, you don't have to take this just from me. I may be the one speaking here today, but it is the voices of Colleen and Heather and Sylvia and Cristina and thousands of others whose lives were ruined by Steve Mnuchin's aggressive foreclosure tactics that really deserve to be heard. I have already told you about Colleen Ison-Hodroff, the 84-year-old woman who is getting cheated out of her home, her home that she lived in for over 50 years and that was fully paid off. She is getting cheated out of that home by Steve Mnuchin's bank. Now what I would like to do is to share her full story in her own words. This is what she had to say: My name is Colleen Ison-Hodroff. I am 84 years old. I am a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. My husband Monroe Hodroff and I purchased our home located at 2753 Ewing Avenue in 1963 as a home for our family of six children. They called us the Brady Bunch of Ewing Avenue. Our house was the heart and soul of our family. Monroe and I were married for 55 years, and we successfully ran four small grocery stores. I would like to thank you all very much for allowing me to share my story. I am here today because Financial Freedom, my reverse mortgage servicer, is trying to foreclose on my home. This is despite the fact that when my husband Monroe and I took out this loan, they told us that I could remain in the home if Monroe should die before me. In July of 2006, my husband and I decided to take out a reverse mortgage loan with Financial Freedom. It was a very complicated process. Someone came to our house and I was asked to sign a number of papers. Usually, Monroe handled the financial matters for our household. We were told that I could live in the house if Monroe passed away. It was never Monroe's or my intention that the survivor of the two of us would have to sell the house or leave if one of us died. We would not have signed for the loan if we thought that was the case. My husband Monroe passed on September 12, 2014. A mere 10 days later, despite what we had been told, Financial Freedom contacted me and told me that I needed to pay off the loan immediately. This was news to me. I was in no financial position to do so. Since then, Financial Freedom has been trying to foreclose on me. I think this is an injustice in that an elderly woman was deceived, and now Financial Freedom is trying to take my home. Why would Financial Freedom do this to me? I relied on what I was told, and now they are trying to kick me out of our family home. How was I supposed to know if what I was told wasn't true? What am I supposed to do now? My understanding is that in such circumstances, Financial Freedom blames HUD for it kicking out Non-Borrowing Spouses. Experts who have reviewed my paperwork have told me that this isn't even a HUD-backed loan, so Financial Freedom has no one to blame but themselves. It seems Financial Freedom should be working to keep people like me in their homes, and not fighting to kick us out. I hear that Steve Mnuchin was a leader of the bank that is doing this to me and other seniors. I do not think a man like that should be the Treasury Secretary and in charge of our economy. We can't let that happen. Thank you again for allowing me to tell my story on behalf of those who have had bad dealings with Financial Freedom and OneWest. Thank you, Colleen. I appreciate you telling your story. I also talked about Heather McCreary, her husband, and her twin boys, and how her family was left out on the street because of the greed of Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank. Heather courageously shared her story with us, and here is what she said: My name is Heather McCreary. My husband Jack, my two kids Jaden and Clara, and I are from Sparks, Nevada. This is my story about how my family's American Dream turned into a nightmare. I'm sharing my story with the hope of explaining why we cannot let Steve Mnuchin become Secretary of the Treasury. Putting Steve Mnuchin in charge of the Treasury Department would mean that a man who profited off the struggles of families like mine would be one of the most powerful people in the U.S. economy. For a while, it was looking like our shot at the American Dream was going pretty well. In 2006, Jack and I bought our dream home in Sparks--just a mile away from my parents, and a short walk to Jaden and Clara's school and to parks the kids could play in. I was working as a home health care worker and Jack was working in construction, and together we were managing just fine. Then, in 2008, when the economy started to get worse, I was laid off. The following year in 2009, Jack was laid off too. Though Jack was able to find another job pretty fast, he had to take a big pay cut--from about $25 an hour to $8.50 an hour. Between the cut in Jack's pay and the loss in income I experienced when going on unemployment insurance benefits after I got laid off, we were pinched and we were drowning financially. However, we were determined to keep our dream home, so Jack and I were tenacious about doing whatever we could to get help. We sought help from the Hope Now Alliance, which is an alliance of HUD-approved counselors who provide free foreclosure help, and from the Washoe County Senior Law Project. We worked side-by-side with both organizations to do everything required of us by our mortgage servicer IndyMac, which later became OneWest. When we first asked for help, OneWest gave us a short forbearance and allowed us to make a smaller payment for several months with the goal of a reduction in our monthly mortgage payments through the Home Affordable Modification Program (or HAMP). By applying for the HAMP program, we thought we were back on the road to keeping our home. We complied 100 percent with OneWest's requirements for HAMP--we were incredibly nervous about being able to keep our house, so we were extremely careful to make sure we did everything we could to keep the process going forward. Our application for HAMP was processed and we were approved for a modification. I sent in the signed paperwork and the first payment under the modified payment amount. But then the process started to fall apart. After a whole 30 days, OneWest returned our personal check and told us that only certified checks would be accepted, so they were now voiding the modification offer. We had followed the instructions to the letter on OneWest's paperwork, crossing our ``T''s and dotting our ``I''s. But in the end, this didn't matter--and OneWest's rejection of our HAMP application put us on the road to foreclosure. We applied two more times for loan modifications over the next six months because we were given assurances by people at OneWest that they would approve our application. We again complied with every request OneWest made of us, taking care to send in extra documents whenever OneWest requested them. But as far as I can tell, OneWest never attempted to process the loan modification. The foreclosure went through and we lost our home on September 10, 2010. The foreclosure left us without a home, and finding a new rental was extremely difficult because of our credit. Juggling the demands of raising our twins and this was so hard--the foreclosure even meant that our kids had to miss school. Eventually we did find a new place, but we had to pay an outrageous rent--even though it was not a good home for us at all. It's hard to explain the shame, embarrassment, and grief that Jack and I felt. I've cried a river of tears over this. I really didn't think we were asking too much: we wanted to hang onto our home for the sake of our kids, and we did everything we could to stay in our home. And while I will probably never know exactly what OneWest did, the outcome of my story proves that Steve Mnuchin's company had no interest in helping us. They wanted to foreclose because they were focused on their profits. Putting Steve Mnuchin in charge of the country's financial system is an insult to families like mine: families who worked hard and did everything they could to get by after the economy collapsed. Take it from my experience--I know he will not be looking out for working people. Instead, he will use his position to make the economy work better for people like himself. On behalf of my family and others like it, I ask you to please reject Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary. Thank you, Heather, for sending in your letter. I appreciate it. And remember Sylvia? She and her family are facing foreclosure later this month, yet she still came all the way to Washington to stop the Senate from putting Steve Mnuchin in a position to harm millions of others. Sylvia told us her story, and this is what she said: My name is Sylvia Oliver, I am a homeowner from Scotch Plains, New Jersey. I got my mortgage from IndyMac in May 2008, and about a month later, IndyMac failed. I want to share my story because it is more than a house--it is a home for me, my husband, and my three children and my grandchildren. In early 2009, my husband and I were facing financial difficulties. Because of the economy being in bad shape, my husband was between jobs. We reached out to OneWest to request a modification. We were told that we had to make three payments in order to move forward on a permanent modification, and so we made those three payments. After making those payments, I reached back out to OneWest to find out what the next steps were. But I couldn't get a straight answer from them, so we continued making partial payments, even though it was a challenge for us financially. In February 2010, I submitted a modification application to OneWest Bank. About six weeks later I received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose. However, the person I had been talking to at OneWest, a man named Albert, told me not to worry, and encouraged me to continue submitting updated documents to the bank. So, for the next year, I would submit new documents to the bank, through FedEx and through faxes. And, every week, I would call Albert and ask if he had an update on my situation, and every week I was told there was no answer and to call back the next week. After a year of my weekly phone calls, I finally a received a denial letter from OneWest in February 2011, when they said they couldn't modify my loan. Albert at OneWest told me I could reapply for a modification, which I did, because I really wanted to keep our home. For the next several months, the cycle would repeat with the bank telling me to reapply for a modification, me believing that they were sincere, and then a few months later being told that we had been declined again. This was surprising, because during this time we were back on our feet and our incomes were both increasing, which meant we were in a better position to pay for our mortgage. At the end of 2015, I received another notice of foreclosure from the bank. At this point it became clear to me that OneWest never had any intention of modifying the loan in such a way that they would still get paid back and we would be able to keep our home. In March of 2016, I hired a lawyer because I thought they might have more success in working with the bank than I did. At my attorney's advice, I filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy as part of another modification application. That process went on for about five or six months, with the same cycle of me sending paperwork over and over to the bank, and the same answer again. Last year I was facing foreclosure three weeks before Christmas. However, that was then postponed until this month. In fact, I was supposed to be foreclosed on by OneWest today-- That is the day she came to Washington-- however, after Senator Menendez's office called OneWest, I learned that my sale had been postponed at least until next month. Earlier this month, I sought help from a HUD approved housing counselor. She worked with me and my husband to document our income and to submit a modification application. After analyzing the situation, she was surprised to hear that we had not qualified for a modification earlier, especially since my husband and I both had good incomes. As of right now, I am still facing foreclosure next month-- That would be February-- and I know in my heart this is because OneWest's only intent was to foreclose on my home. This bank has had ample opportunities to modify my loan. In fact, they told me that they own the loan, so I know they can't blame the situation on an investor not allowing them to modify my loan. Nobody should have to go through the experience that I have gone through during the past several years with OneWest Bank. It has been very painful and stressful not knowing if my kids and my family were going to have a home to live in or if it is going to be foreclosed on. I would ask you to remember my experience when you consider whether Mr. Mnuchin is qualified to lead the Department of the Treasury. As the CEO and Chair of OneWest Bank, Mr. Mnuchin had the opportunity to help families like mine with responsible loan modification, and he didn't. I don't think this is a track record that anybody should be proud of. Thank you, Sylvia for telling your story. Then there is Cristina, a small business owner who owned her own home at the age of 20. I already told you about how Steve Mnuchin's bank ran her in circles until they could foreclose on her house. But now I want you to hear the full story from Cristina. Here is what she said: Good afternoon. My name is Cristina Clifford. I'm hoping that by sharing my story today I can explain why I believe confirming Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary would be a serious mistake for our country. I experienced firsthand what it was like to be subject to OneWest's greed, and I can tell you that the person who ran OneWest Bank should not be the person responsible for oversight of the U.S. economy. In 2001, when I was 20, I bought my first home--a great condo in Whittier, California, just outside Los Angeles. I was young, but I've always been a motivated self-starter. I'm also a self-employed, small business owner--my primary source of income. Things were going just fine, and I was never, ever late on my mortgage payments. However, that changed in 2008--like it did for so many of us--when the economy took a turn for the worse. My business struggled, and I started relying on credit cards to stay afloat. In March of 2009, I was unable to make my mortgage payment for the first time in eight years as a homeowner. I called OneWest directly to see what options I would have for keeping my home. They told me flat out that because I had never been delinquent, they had no way of helping me. In order to get help, they said, I would have to fall behind on my payments. Of course this was misleading--and, I've since found out, a common tactic that mortgage lenders use to push people into default. From there, I began the long, long process of loan modification through the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (or HAMP). I sent in numerous documents to OneWest, and in May, I was offered my first loan modification. I was thrilled--the new payments would fit perfectly in my budget, so I signed the loan modification papers and sent them via FedEx along with a check for my first payment under the new, modified payment amount. In July, I expected OneWest to send me a statement with the new lower payment amount. Instead, I received a letter saying that they had not received my loan modification paperwork, so the modification terms were no longer valid. I called them and OneWest confirmed that they had not received my returned loan modification agreement. I knew right away this wasn't right, because they had cashed the check for the first modified payment in the same FedEx envelope. That they managed to cash the check but completely neglect the loan modification agreement--again, in the same envelope--is absolutely outrageous. I had no choice but to apply again, this time submitting even more documents; I was told to submit and resubmit many duplicative documents in many different formats. Despite how difficult OneWest made the process, I did everything they asked because I was determined to keep my home. On August 3, 2009, I received a notice of default from OneWest but proceeded with my second attempt at modifying my loan. I received my second loan modification offer later that month. The terms were almost identical to the offer they made me in May, so I quickly signed the offer and mailed it in with another check. In October, I got a letter exactly like the one I received earlier saying that they had not received the loan modification paperwork and that the modification offer was no longer valid. Yet as they did the first time, they cashed the check I sent with the signed offer. At this point, I felt I had no choice but to get an attorney, who worked to get my foreclosure postponed while the loan modification process played out. He spoke with people at OneWest who told him that they would postpone the sale of my condo until the loan modification process was completed. This simply wasn't true: on the evening of December 3, 2009, I received a knock on my door from a man that introduced himself as the new owner of my property. And in March of 2010, I received a final notice telling me that I had five days to leave my apartment--five days to pack up the ten years of my life I'd spent in my home. The reason I am sharing my story is because there are so many other people out there like me who got left in the dust. Steve Mnuchin profited from people like me, even when we did everything we could to keep our homes. You might say that Steve Mnuchin did not personally authorize OneWest to cheat me out of my home, but his fortune rose as a direct result of managing a company that routinely engaged in irresponsible behavior. The Treasury Secretary will be tasked with making sure the economy is working in a way that benefits all of Americans, not just the top 1 percent. However, Steve Mnuchin is not that person; he is just the opposite. Please make a statement for people like me and oppose his confirmation as Treasury Secretary. Thank you, Cristina. Thank you for coming to Washington. Thank you for submitting your story. Now these are just four stories--four experiences--among the thousands more like them, all leading to the same simple but startling conclusion: Under Steve Mnuchin's leadership, OneWest Bank took advantage of homeowners all across the country in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. And why did they do it? They did it to make a quick buck. But don't just take my word for it. Paulina Gonzalez, the Executive Director for the California Reinvestment Coalition also came to Washington to speak to us. Paulina and her organization have been closely tracking OneWest's destructive practices for years. Here is what Paulina told us: My name is Paulina Gonzalez. I am the Executive Director of the California Reinvestment Coalition. Over the past 30 years, CRC has grown to the largest state reinvestment coalition in the country with a membership of 300 organizations that serve low-income communities and community of color. It is critically important that our elected representatives and the American public hear directly from people who have lost their homes due to the egregious practices by OneWest under Mr. Mnuchin's leadership, before deciding on his nomination to the high and important office of Treasury Secretary. I'm going to share some data and information with you in the next few minutes, but know that the wreckage from OneWest is not really about numbers, data, and legal briefs. It's about the tens of thousands of Americans who have suffered devastating personal and financial losses as a result of OneWest's abusive foreclosure practices. Whether it's the story of the Minnesota woman who sought a loan modification from OneWest and returned to her home in a blizzard only to find that her locks were changed. Or the 90 year old woman who was nearly kicked out of her home for mistakenly paying 27 cents less than [the amount] OneWest said she owed. Or the 80 year old former Christian missionary who was notified at his home that Financial Freedom was foreclosing on him because the bank said it had no record of him living there. The issue is the same: instead of helping people stay in their homes, Mr. Mnuchin devised a foreclosure machine that used every trick in the book to profit from their suffering. And foreclose he did. CRC and Urban Strategies Council analyzed data showing that OneWest foreclosed on over 36,000 families in California and 24,000 families nationally. All of these foreclosures occurred after Mr. Mnuchin purchased IndyMac Bank. In addition, we suspect that OneWest's reverse mortgage subsidiary, Financial Freedom, has foreclosed on more seniors, widows, and widowers, and heirs than any other company participating in the federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program. A Freedom of Information Act request that we filed with HUD revealed that Financial Freedom had foreclosed on over 16,000 seniors, widows, widowers, and their families, or 39 % of all Home Equity Conversion Mortgage foreclosures, roughly twice the rate one would expect given the bank's market share. I just want to say that one more time. They foreclosed on seniors, on widows, on widowers, and on families at about twice the rate of anyone else doing the same business. Mr. Mnuchin may defend his record by saying he inherited these bad loans, that the foreclosures were inevitable, and that his bank followed the law in dealing with his customers. We strongly disagree, and it appears we are not alone. In a CNN story that aired on January 3rd about Mr. Mnuchin and Financial Freedom, a HUD spokesperson was quoted as saying, ``while HUD doesn't dispute that it has strict rules for government backed reverse mortgages, OneWest had the ability to give survivors more time but chose not to.'' Mr. Mnuchin's spokespeople have also praised his modification record. But, we are not sure there is much to praise. 2013 data from the Treasury Department shows that OneWest had among the highest denial rates for the Home Affordable Modification Program, [HAMP,] the federal government's main foreclosure prevention effort. Under Mr. Mnuchin, OneWest denied three-quarters of the thousands of loan modification requests that came in from families trying to save their homes. OneWest was much more likely to deny loan modifications under this program than peers, such as Bank of America or Wells Fargo. A January 2013 memo from the California Attorney General's office revealed a staff investigation finding of ``widespread misconduct'' at the bank, including backdating thousands of foreclosure documents, improper foreclosure auction credit bidding which meant the bank could claim tax exemptions it wasn't entitled to, proceeding with foreclosures without the proper authority to do so, and speeding up foreclosure timelines. All of these practices deprived working families in California a fair chance to stay in their homes. The Treasury Secretary leads our economy. The Secretary helps oversee our banking system and will have much to say about important policies relating to banking, housing, and economic development that will impact all Americans. The country needs a Treasury Secretary who will consider the needs of all Americans, including working class Americans. Mr. Mnuchin's tenure at OneWest Bank shows him to work in his interest and in the corporate interest, at the great expense and harm to everyday Americans. Thank you, Paulina. I appreciate your sending in this information, and I agree. Unfortunately, Mr. Mnuchin's history of oppressive foreclosure practices isn't the only thing that disqualifies him from serving as Secretary of the Treasury. I already told you that Mr. Mnuchin flat-out lied to the Senate when he told my colleague, Senator Casey, that his bank didn't engage in certain foreclosure practices. I wish to share an article from the Columbus Dispatch uncovering the exact practices Mr. Mnuchin told the Senate that his bank never engaged in. The article says: ``President Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. treasury secretary was untruthful with the Senate during the confirmation process, documents uncovered by The Dispatch show.'' Steve Mnuchin, former chairman and chief executive officer of OneWest Bank, known for its aggressive foreclosure practices, flatly denied in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee that OneWest used ``robo-signing'' on mortgage documents. But records show the bank utilized the questionable practice in Ohio. ``This guy is just lying. There's no other way to say it,'' said Bill Faith, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio. The revelation comes with the committee's vote on whether to confirm Mnuchin's nomination, currently scheduled for Monday night. ``Robo-signing'' is the informal term for when a mortgage company employee signs hundreds of foreclosures, swearing they have scrutinized the document as required by law when in fact they have not. ``OneWest Bank did not `robo-sign' documents,'' Mnuchin wrote in response to questions from individual Senators, ``and as the only bank to successfully complete the Independent Foreclosure Review required by federal banking regulators to investigate allegations of `robo-signing,' I am proud of our institution's extremely low error rate.'' I just want to read that one more time. Steve Mnuchin said: ``OneWest Bank did not `robo-sign' documents.'' And he is proud of what he did. But a Dispatch analysis of nearly four dozen foreclosure cases filed by OneWest in Franklin County in 2010 alone shows that the company frequently used robo-signers. The vast majority of the Columbus-area cases were signed by 11 different people in Travis County, Texas. Those employees called themselves vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, managers and assistant secretaries. In three local cases, a judge dismissed OneWest foreclosure proceedings specifically based on inaccurate robo-signings. The Dispatch found more than 1,900 OneWest foreclosures in the state's six largest counties from 2009 to 2015. Carla Duncan, a social worker from Cleveland Heights, was snared by OneWest's robo-signing machinery. On her way out of town for a short trip in 2010, Duncan stopped by her home to get her mail and found a note from a field inspector for her mortgage company, saying that her house was vacant and was going to be boarded up. ``It wasn't vacant, I was living there,'' Duncan said. ``There were curtains on the windows. The radio was playing and the dog was there.'' What Duncan didn't know at the time was that OneWest had begun foreclosure proceedings on her three-bedroom home even though she was up-to-date on her payments. OneWest refused to accept a loan modification approved by a previous lender that had been purchased by OneWest, and it wanted to substantially increase Duncan's interest rate and monthly payment and add late fees. The company also put a lock box on a separate rental property she owned in Cleveland. After hiring former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, waging a five-year court battle and filing personal bankruptcy, Duncan was finally able to get the foreclosures dismissed and keep her home and rental property. She said the experience was devastating. ``It got to the point that I was afraid to open my own door.'' Court records show that Duncan's mortgage was robo-signed by Erica Johnson-Seck, vice president of OneWest's department of bankruptcy and foreclosures. From her office in Austin, Texas, Johnson-Seck robo-signed an average of 750 foreclosure documents a week, according to a sworn deposition she gave in a Florida case in July 2009. Under oath, Johnson-Seck acknowledged that she did not read the documents she was signing, taking only about 30 seconds to sign her name. To speed up the process, Johnson-Seck said she shortened her first name in her signature to just ``E.'' In the deposition that OneWest's practice was to review just 10 percent of the foreclosure documents for accuracy. Dann, who now specializes in representing clients who have problems with banks and other lenders after he was forced to resign as attorney general nearly 10 years ago, said Mnuchin's businesses were a ``major offender'' in problem mortgages. Dann said Mnuchin's firms were known for dual tracking [which means](pursuing foreclosure simultaneously as they allegedly worked with homeowners), fabricating documents and other tactics ``that caused unbelievable devastation in people's lives.'' In 2010, federal laws were changed, enabling borrowers victimized by lenders to sue them. Dann said he worries that Mnuchin, as treasury secretary, would quietly work to repeal reforms collectively known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That appears to be the case. ``It has been over six years since the passage of Dodd- Frank and it seems like an appropriate time to review all of the regulations from Dodd-Frank to understand their impact on the market, investors, small businesses and economic growth,'' Mnuchin said in a written answer to the Senate. The Dispatch analysis showed thousands of Ohio homeowners-- including 245 in Franklin County--found themselves in OneWest's crosshairs when they defaulted on their loans, the majority of them with high interest rates. Many mortgages had terms that housing and financial experts view as predatory: prepayment penalties, interest-only loans and no-money-down loans. Mnuchin was labeled by critics at the time as the ``Foreclosure King.'' That is it--the ``Foreclosure King.'' That is who is just hours away from becoming the chief financial officer of our country. Steve Mnuchin is a Wall Street insider who has spent his career looking out for himself and his billionaire buddies. He led a bank that forced thousands of hardworking Americans out of their homes, and he lied to the Senate. The Constitution demands that Senators advise and consent on the President's nominations. Well, here is my advice: Steve Mnuchin is not fit to be Secretary of Treasury. He will not look out for the millions of Americans still recovering from the recession, like Heather and Cristina. He certainly will not defend the interests of middle-class families like the McCrearys and the Olivers. And I know he will not stand up to Wall Street and fight to protect the interests of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Mnuchin's nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Tom Price to be the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The decisions made at HHS touch the lives of every family in America. The Secretary who runs this agency makes decisions about everything from safety of the food we eat to the drugs we take, to the health insurance we buy and the quality of nursing homes we live in. This is an extremely important job, and we should not hand over the keys to this agency unless we are certain that the person will put the American people first every minute of every day. President Trump has nominated Congressman Tom Price to serve in this job. Unlike many of the President's other nominees who are stunningly inexperienced in areas where they will be setting policy, Congressman Price has a lot of experience in health care policy. Yes, he has experience, but it is the kind of experience that should horrify us if we care about Medicare, if we care about Medicaid, or if we care about our own insurance coverage. Congressman Price's record is perfectly clear. He wants to destroy fundamental protections that millions of Americans depend on for their health and economic security, and, frankly, he isn't very subtle about it. He has described ACA's ban on discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions as ``a terrible idea.'' He has voted 10 times to defund Planned Parenthood--voted 10 times against a group that provides lifesaving cancer and sexually transmitted infection screenings to millions of patients a year. He has tried to privatize Medicare and raise the age of eligibility. Privatize Medicare; think about that. And he has been one of the chief boosters in Congress for gutting the Medicaid program--the Medicaid program, which provides health care for millions of kids, for people with disabilities, for families with parents in nursing homes--cut money to keep people in nursing homes. Nonpartisan analyses of these plans are not pretty. Millions of people in this country, young and old, children and grandparents, poor and middle-class workers would be denied access to lifesaving care. Congressman Price touts his own magic numbers that say differently, but make no mistake, this is the record of someone who wants to use his position at HHS to advance a radical, reckless agenda that puts rightwing, anti-government ideology ahead of the health and safety of the American people. During his hearing before the HELP Committee, I asked Congressman Price some pretty simple questions. I asked him about more than $1 trillion in cuts that he has proposed to Medicare and Medicaid. I asked him if he would keep or undermine President Trump's campaign claim that he would protect these programs. I asked him to guarantee that not one dollar in cuts to Medicare would take place on his watch. I asked him to guarantee that not one dollar in cuts for Medicaid to help people living in nursing homes would happen on his watch. I asked him to guarantee that not one dollar in cuts for people with disabilities would happen on his watch. I asked him three separate times to make this commitment, and three separate times he refused to do so. Think about that--cut Medicare for millions of seniors, cut help for people with disabilities, cut Medicaid for people living in nursing homes. This is the person Donald Trump wants to put in charge of those programs. We have a lot of work we need to do on health care. We need to reduce the cost of insurance. We need to make sure insurance is available to small business owners, gig workers, and part-time workers. We need to make sure insurance continues to cover health care for women and people with preexisting conditions who otherwise are not going to be able to get insurance. What we don't need is to put someone in charge who is hell-bent on destroying health care in America. For me, this is easy. When someone says he wants to cut Medicare, I am done with him. When someone says let's take away the money that people rely on to pay for nursing homes, this guy is finished. When someone says that protecting people with preexisting conditions is a bad idea, they don't get the job. This should be easy for everyone in Congress. This is a moment for Senator Republicans to step up and say no. There is another reason to reject Congressman Price's nomination, a reason that has nothing to do with his terrible ideas, a reason that would disqualify him even if we agreed on every single issue. The reason is basic ethics. During his time in Congress, Mr. Price has made money by trading hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of stock in healthcare-related companies at exactly the same time that he pushed legislation that could affect the value of these stocks. His formula has been pretty simple. First he buys the stock, then he pushes bills to help the company, which helps the stock price go up. For example, Congressman Price bought stock in a company that makes hip and knee replacements, and then he introduced a bill to suspend a Federal rule affecting Medicare reimbursements for hip and knee replacements. Congressman Price bought stock in a bunch of pharmaceutical companies, then cosponsored a bill to suspend a Federal rule that would hold down drug prices for the drugs that these companies manufacture. Congressman Price bought stock in an Australian biotech company with an experimental drug to treat multiple sclerosis, and then he voted for a bill that would make it easier for the FDA to approve these drugs. So what does Congressman Price have to say for himself? How does he explain this connection between buying stock, then supporting changes in the law that would boost the value of the stock he just bought? Well, he has his excuses lined up, and I have to say they are doozies. He says he didn't know about the trades; his broker made them without asking him first. Oh, wait. He did know about the trades. He just happened to know about an obscure Australian biotech firm, and he just happened to decide to invest as much as $100,000 in it because it was a good investment. Then he hit his last excuse: It is all OK because he paid the same price as anyone else who bought the stock. Wow, that is really a heaping, steaming pile of excuses, and the excuses stink. These are Congressman Price's stock trades, not anyone else's. He made those decisions to buy those stocks, and then he repeatedly pressed for rules that would increase the value of those stocks. In fact, with one of the deals, it isn't just a question of stinkiness; it is a question about whether he broke the law. By his own account, Congressman Price found out about an Australian biotech company called Innate Immunotherapeutics from a fellow House Member who, it just so happens, sits on the company's board and holds the largest stake in the company. So when he decided to buy his latest batch of stock, Congressman Price got access to a private sweetheart deal, meaning he got a discount on the price of the shares the general public couldn't get. This sequence of events might break the law. That is not good at all. And getting special access to a sweetheart deal doesn't help your claim that you are just an ordinary guy with a boring stock portfolio. So when Congressman Price appeared before the Finance and HELP Committees, he said he had not paid a lower price than had been available to other investors. That is just not true. The company itself pointed it out. In fact, Congressman Price got a special discount that went to only 20 people in the country--20 special friends, including the Congressman who could help write the laws that would make the company even more valuable. An outside watchdog has called for an SEC investigation into whether Congressman Price committed insider trading. Price lied to Congress about his trades, and that should be the end of it. No more nomination for Secretary of HHS. The Congressman should have the decency to withdraw his nomination. It should have happened weeks ago. And if he didn't go voluntarily, the President and his friends in Congress should have quietly but forcefully pushed him out, but that is not what happened either. Instead, Republicans barreled straight ahead, and they changed the rules to do it. Since Congressman Price lied to the committee, Democrats wanted him back for another hearing to ask him about it. Republicans refused, and Democrats boycotted the Finance Committee to try to force Price to explain why he lied. So the Republican response was to just suspend the Senate rules so they can run around the Democrats and move forward Price's nomination anyway. Do we do not care about basic ethics anymore? Is that just gone? A Congressman should not be buying stocks then pushing laws to help the company, and that Congressman sure shouldn't be lying to the United States Senate about it. Because Congressman Price has no shame, it will take three Senate Republicans to reject his nomination. Where are the three Republicans who will say no to a man who bought stock and then tried to get the rules changed in Washington so the companies would be more profitable? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who got a special stock deal that went to only 20 people in the whole country? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who lied to a Senate committee? This has nothing to do with politics. It is about basic ethics. It is about potentially illegal behavior. Where are three Republicans who will say no to this man? When Donald Trump selected Congressman Price for this job, he said Price was part of a ``dream team that will transform our healthcare system for the benefit of all Americans.'' Over the past few weeks, I have been trying to understand exactly what that dream looks like. For families all over this country, the dream is pretty simple. They want to know that when they get sick, they can go to the doctor and not be hit with a surprise bill they can't pay. When they buy insurance, they want to be sure it covers birth control or cancer screenings and preexisting conditions. They want to be able to fight cancer and not lose their house or declare bankruptcy because their insurance company imposes a lifetime limit on benefits. President Trump does not share this dream for health care in America, and neither does Congressman Price. From his first day in office, President Trump has acted to undermine access to health care. Now he has nominated an HHS Secretary who will help him sabotage our Nation's health care system from inside the Department of Health and Human Services. Yes, we have our differences over health care, and, yes, there are fixes we need to make, but where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who wants to cut Medicare? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who wants to cut nursing home care? Where are three Republicans who will say no to a man who wants to cut insurance coverage? Democrats can't do this alone. Three Republicans need to put aside partisanship and stand up for the American people. We need you. The American people need you. With my remaining time, I want to share some of the letters I have been getting from families in Massachusetts who have seen the reckless, radical plans that President Trump, Congressman Price, and Republicans in Congress have put forth for the Nation's health care system. These families know exactly what is at stake in this debate. Congressman Price didn't have an answer when I asked him to protect Medicare and Medicaid, but these letters are from constituents and they show just how important these programs are. Lee from Holliston wrote to me, concerned about cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. I am just going to read an excerpt from his letter: I am a 65 year old disabled woman who depends on the generosity of MassHealth and Medicare to survive. I am terrified that Medicare and Medicaid will be so drastically cut that I will no longer be able to maintain my life. I live in HUD housing, receive Medicare and MassHealth which covers all of my healthcare and allows me to continue to live on my own through senior services and the Personal Care Attendant program. I guess I am just feeling scared and hopeless as I realize the potential for destroying the lives of seniors who live on Social Security and nothing else. I wear an insulin pump, have type 1 diabetes going on 53 years, and I have multiple complications--including an amputation 11 years ago. My healthcare costs are just unaffordable without all the assistance. Medicare and MassHealth covers everything for me so that the $1,050 per month I receive is doable for living expenses. I just need to know it is going to be OK. Lee, we need three Republicans to help out here. Congressman Price has made it clear that he wants more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and that affects you. We have to find three Republicans to help out and to help stand up for you and the rest of America. I also heard from Alan from South Shore, who is worried about his daughter Meg. Here is what he wrote: My daughter Meg is 29. She was born with a condition called neurofibromatosis. As a result of this, she has benign but inoperable tumors on her spine. They cause her chronic pain and problems walking. On some days, she cannot walk even one step. On other days, she might begin walking with a walker, then suddenly collapse on the floor. Meg cannot hold down a job: She spent the last quarter of 2016 in and out of hospitals. She receives about $700/month from Social Security Disability. She has no savings. She pays for her Medicare prescription drug Part D supplement out of her Social Security. MassHealth is free for her, and it pays for Meg's Medicare Part B. I am retired, so I can only help her a bit. If Trump's first idea about TrumpCare goes into law--where he assumes you will buy your health insurance out of savings--I fear Meg will live in her bed, watching repeats of quiz shows on her television. And her network of care-- including emergency services, rehab physical therapy, chronic disease management prescription drugs--will be reduced. I understand why you are worried, Alan. I am worried, too, because I think that is exactly the path we are on with Congressman Price's nomination to head up HHS. That is why we are fighting back. Boston Center for Independent Living also shared with me a story from a constituent named Jill who receives health care from the State's Medicaid Program. Let me tell you a little bit about Jill. Jill is 62 years old. She has a heart defect, a seizure disorder, and serious osteoporosis. She had a varied career as a manager of a women's clothing company a decade ago, and in the 1980s, she installed some of the first computer networks in public schools. In the past several years, Jill has had significant health problems: surgery for her heart condition and multiple broken bones due to her worsening osteoporosis. MassHealth, the State's Medicaid Program, has covered hospital bills, appointments with specialists, rehab stays, and an affordable medication plan. Jill is now hoping to use a personal care assistant to give her support with shopping, making meals, and basic housekeeping. Jill said: ``For me, Medicaid is a lifeline--any cuts from Washington would be a disaster.'' I hear you on that, Jill. I just hope that Congressman Price, President Trump, and the Republicans hear you as well. Medicaid helps a lot of people in Massachusetts, including the very youngest. I got a very powerful letter from Marika from Duxbury, who wrote to me about giving birth to her son Jack after just 28 weeks of pregnancy. I want to read parts of her letter: I'm writing to you today because I am horrified about the changes that may be happening to healthcare in the United States. My husband and I welcomed our son, Jack, at 28 weeks in July of 2015. I had a very normal, healthy pregnancy--until suddenly it wasn't. I ended up with rapid onset of HELLP, a rare and life-threatening syndrome, and an emergency C- section saved both my life and Jack's. Jack was 1 pound, 14 ounces when he was born. We were both in the ICU for some time, my son Jack for 110 days. He had all the issues you'd imagine at 28 weeks--cardiac, pulmonary, feeding. Today, at 18 months old, Jack is a fighter--my hero really--and despite still needing oxygen and a continuous feeding tube that is surgically inserted into his intestines, he is cruising, talking, and ALIVE. He is alive, and quite frankly, I'm alive because of our amazing healthcare. I have the benefit of an exceptional employer plan from Harvard University. But Jack also qualified (because of his birth weight) for MassHealth. And our public health insurance has been an incredible resource: Jack's hospital bills were in the millions after his 110 day stay in the NICU. This doesn't even include my own hospital costs for my stay. Despite having excellent jobs and resources, my husband and I would have been bankrupt, and immediately so, without our private health insurance and MassHealth benefits. Since coming home from the NICU, Jack is still on a feeding tube and oxygen, and he cannot be accepted into regular daycare. He would go to a medical day care, but he has no cognitive delays, and so placing him in such a facility would not ensure that he gets the regular developmentally appropriate engagement that he needs. And so MassHealth pays for skilled nursing care in our home with no out of pocket costs. This means that Jack gets the care that he needs, and my husband and I can still work at the jobs that we love. Jack participates in early intervention programs and receives feeding therapy, physical therapy and occupational therapy free of charge. Jack's Synagis shots cost zero dollars. Synagis is a prescription medication that is used to prevent a serious lung disease caused by respiratory syncytial virus, RSV, in children at high risk for severe lung disease from RSV. The average wholesale price is $780.15 for the 50 milligram Synagis vial, and $1,416.48 for the 100 milligram vial. Jack gets a 150 milliliter shot every month. I cannot imagine this life without my son's public health insurance. I recently enjoyed the NICU Family Advisory Board at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Hospital in Boston (where Jack and I were cared for) as a way to give back. Today, I mentor other families who have unexpectedly found themselves the parent to a tiny premature baby fighting for life. In nearly every case, navigating the insurance system and fears about money are top of mind. I am glad to hear that Jack is doing well, but I understand why it is that you want to hang on to MassHealth and why it is that we cannot take the cuts Congressman Price has proposed. Families in Massachusetts are also deeply worried about the future of the Affordable Care Act. Jackie from Norwood wrote to me about how the ACA helped her get coverage for therapy after her mother was killed. She wrote: My mother was murdered when I was 24. I was on her healthcare, which kicked me off the day after she died. I had recently accepted a new job and I was set to start that Monday (she was killed on Saturday). I had already left my previous full-time job the Friday before. Due to having to move states after her death, I couldn't start my new job. I didn't know when I'd have work again that could provide insurance, nor did I have another parent whose plan I could join. I also had no way of affording COBRA payments. So in the matter of one night, I was left helpless in so many ways. Not having health insurance was one of many side effect issues that no homicide victim's family should have to worry about. Especially the next day and when planning a funeral. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, I was able to get covered almost immediately, which meant I could still afford my current medications and I was able to get into needed therapy right away. If it weren't for the ACA, I would have been left struggling and sick as a result of something FAR out of my control. Very true, Jackie. Jackie goes on to say: I ended up finding work within a couple of months, and I am still in treatment for PTSD. I was lucky enough to find employment at Harvard University and no longer needed coverage through the ACA. I have generous health benefits provided to me. However, I never want a fellow citizen or victim of homicide to be without medical care due to cost, preexisting conditions, or other setbacks. I am happy my tax dollars go to help programs like MassHealth and the ACA. We all work hard, but that doesn't mean we are all as fortunate. I am not the typical poster child for a homicide victim/ survivor. I am white and college educated. I work for an Ivy League school. I still needed help when disaster struck, and so many others less privileged than me need help finding affordable health care. Please continue fighting for me and other victims and survivors of homicide. That is what we are here for, Jackie. That is what we are supposed to do. We just need three Republicans to help us out on this. I also heard from Jennifer from Northampton, who is terrified for her family if the ACA is repealed. She says: I suppose I can't say when our story starts. Maybe the day I met my then-life partner (now wife) of 16 years. Maybe it begins when she had to have emergency surgery in Maryland when she wasn't covered under my insurance, because our union wasn't legally recognized. Maybe it begins with the tens of thousands of dollars of debt we incurred in uncovered medical expenses when we tried to get pregnant with our son. Or maybe it started two days ago when the unthinkable happened. My wife got laid off. After seven years of exemplary services to a large human services agency whose mission is supporting individuals and families affected by homelessness, my wife was given no warning, no severance and no compassion in her sudden dismissal from the agency. For any family this would be devastating. Now we come to the dire part. About a year ago, my younger sister, Stephanie, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of Triple Negative Breast Cancer at 35 years of age. But this story isn't about that. Six months later, my mother got diagnosed with Stage 4 Metastatic Breast Cancer. I didn't have to be an over-educated lesbian to know that there was something genetic going on in my family. I got tested for the BRCA gene and was found positive for the mutation that causes breast cancer, specifically Triple Negative (like my sister had) and am currently looking at an 80% chance of developing Breast Cancer in my lifetime. I need a double mastectomy and I need it soon. It's scheduled, in fact, for March 6th, 2017. And now, my wife doesn't have a job. I am a Behavior Analyst who specializes in the treatment of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. I have a small private practice and don't make enough money to support our household. I also don't have access to health insurance through any of my contracts. That is why it's dire. One laid-off spouse, one four year old son, one self- employed wife with an 80% chance of developing breast cancer and fear of the ACA being repealed. This is dire. We are terrified, I am terrified. This isn't a ``wait and see'' situation for my family. This is us. This is now. And this is real. Yes, Jennifer, and that is why we are here tonight, in the U.S. Senate, to debate whether or not Congressman Price--a man who wants to cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act--is going to be the next head of Health and Human Services. That is why we are fighting. That is why we are looking for three Republicans to step up with the Democrats and turn him down. We must protect the Affordable Care Act. I also got a letter from Olivia, a college student from North Reading. Olivia wrote me about what the ACA means to her as someone living with multiple chronic illnesses. She wrote: I am a twenty-two year old white woman from a middle-class suburb of Boston. I attend the University of Massachusetts Amherst and will be applying to graduate school next year. I eat an anti-inflammatory diet, I exercise regularly, do not smoke, and drink lots of water. I am on my parents' insurance, which they receive through their employer. I am a patient at some of the best hospitals in the world. I am so fortunate to live in a state that protects my right to affordable health care. I was also hopeful when I heard that President Trump was considering modifying ObamaCare rather than repealing it. However, I am still worried about the actions that will be taken in 2017 by his administration and by Congress. If you met me you would see a ``young, vibrant, and ambitious woman''--other people's words, not mine. Many people and politicians in this country would meet me and not assume that I rely on the ACA. I am not from a low-income family, I don't live in an area that doesn't have adequate medical facilities, and I appear well. I am, however, living with multiple chronic illnesses. I suffer from asthma, fibromyalgia, chronic urticaria, chronic migraines, irritable bowel system, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and a rare-genetic kidney disorder. I take multiple medications daily that keep me alive, prevent further health complications, and that allow me to take care of myself. I also seek other therapies to manage my conditions, such as chiropractic care and physical therapy. I currently have great health insurance, yet I still pay hundreds of dollars a month just to give myself any quality of life. I read the Trump/Pence administration's health care plan and I am aware of the efforts by the GOP to repeal Obamacare and their readiness to do so now that President Trump has taken office. I don't believe I have to explain to you why this worries me. No, you don't. I won't go on a rant about why health care reform should be about the people not the money (though I could). I will also not talk about why we should have universal health care (though I could). I am hoping that my story offers a slightly different perspective on why certain aspects of the ACA cannot be modified. Please remind your fellow senators that millions of Americans suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, many of which are invisible, and that we are a minority that is often forgotten. Many people are just like me. We are college students and new graduates who have to learn to manage our medical conditions before going out into the real world. To do this, we may have to stay on our parents' insurance until we are twenty-six years old. We are people who can only work part-time jobs and will need insurance to help keep our medical costs down. We may require expensive prescriptions and numerous doctor visits a year; we cannot have a cap on our care because our conditions are chronic and unpredictable. We are people who will have to apply for insurance with pre-existing conditions which should not be held against us. We are thankful for preventative care because it prevents illnesses that would exacerbate our other conditions. Health care is a business that we need but that we didn't ask to be a part of. It is a business we all take part in, whether we plan to or not. We are NOT burned-down houses--we are citizens who provide meaningful contributions to our country. I hope that Congress can work together to continue to give people like me a fighting chance. I am with you on that. I hope Congress can work together to give people like you a fighting chance. I also got a letter from Christine in Canton, who wrote to me about her son. She writes: My oldest child is a 21-year-old college student (soon to turn 22 in February), who is also transgender. He suffers from anxiety and depression. He's been working very hard to complete college while also seeking treatment for his mental health issues. He sees a therapist weekly and has also been hospitalized twice for mental health issues since he's been in college. Luckily, due to the Affordable Care Act, he is able to remain on our insurance, where the co-payments for both therapy and hospitalization are at least manageable. If he were not to have coverage through our insurance, I'm not sure that we could afford to pay for his treatment--and as a college student, he certainly could not afford to pay for it. It frightens me to think of what will happen to him if he is not able to receive treatment to keep him healthy. Like so many others covered by the Affordable Care Act, it is a life or death situation. I need to know that you will fight by any means possible to keep the Affordable Care Act from getting repealed. I also have a 19-year old college freshman and a 17-year old high school senior. While they do not have the same health issues as their brother, we all know how that can change in an instant. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act will also have consequences for them down the line. I guarantee, Christine, I will be here to fight for you, to fight for keeping the Affordable Care Act for you and for families like yours. Denise from southeastern Massachusetts wrote to me about how her family is fighting cancer. Here is what she said: We are family of four, with three cancer survivors. My husband is a childhood cancer survivor who is now fighting a blood disorder and is a patient at Dana Farber. I am a three- time cancer survivor. Having been diagnosed with breast cancer at age 42 (with no family history), I have since had two recurrences. I have had radiation, five years of tamoxifen therapy, a bilateral mastectomy, and reconstruction. My reconstruction has been difficult, with five surgeries within 18 months. I have been postponing another surgery due to cost, since my insurance has changed for the worse. At age 23, my daughter was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and underwent surgery and seven months of chemotherapy. We are a family that has always been proactive and responsible in receiving regular health care. Now, my husband and I have been rejected for long-term care. My daughter, who has two children, pays a higher premium for life insurance and has been denied cancer insurance. We are in a position where we cannot even succeed in our attempts to take responsibility for ourselves. This outreach to you is a further attempt to do just that; to maybe give you one more example of reality in your fight for us. We are not whining; we are fortunate to be a close, loving family that has had the strength to rally every time adversity has struck. But we are tired from the fight and very afraid for the future. It is shocking to us that, in the richest country in the world, after years of working, planning and saving, that we are at the point of fearing a possible bankruptcy in our later years. We also fear financial destruction for our hard- working children due to uncovered medical expenses or the possible exorbitant premiums of a high-risk insurance pool. Please, please never tire in the fight for access to comprehensive affordable healthcare. Good medical care should not be a privilege for the rich, but a fundamental right for all. Boy, I am with you on that one, Denise. It is a fundamental right for all, and that is what we will continue to fight for. I also received a letter from Jenny in Worthington. And I want to read you Jenny's entire letter because she really underlines what is at stake in this fight. My husband and I have spent our entire careers in the arts. I write music for the theater; my husband is a novelist, playwright, and freelance medical writer. We have two children. We own a home. We paid back every dime on our student loans and we contribute regularly to our self-funded retirement accounts. We have no consumer debt. In short, we are hardworking, fiscally responsible people. We recognize the trade-offs that come with being our own bosses. We enjoy the freedoms of self-employment, and take seriously the extra burden that society imposes on us, including making our own Social Security payments, contributing to Medicare, and buying health care on the individual market, something we have done our entire adult lives. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, we were thrilled. For the first time, we had adequate coverage for our family. Our deductibles shrank. We lost the dreaded co-insurance provision and began to think that we could prepare financially should we face the worst. Or so we believed. Our difficulties began in late 2014, when I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Over the weeks that followed, I endured 5 surgeries, including a unilateral mastectomy and reconstruction. Almost immediately after, I began to experience complications. Since then, I've come to learn that I was having a reaction to the silicone implant used in my reconstruction and that was just the early stage of a complex autoimmune condition that still lacks a name. Back then, all I knew was that I was wracked with constant, severe pain. I lost the ability to walk. I could no longer think straight and I lost sight in my right eye. Luckily, we stumbled upon an article by a Dutch team that had examined a cohort of women suffering from the same condition. After consulting with the lead author of the paper, we decided that my implant was to blame, and we determined to have it removed. Although I experienced some relief immediately after ex- plantation, I have never fully recovered. The joint pain and exhaustion persist. I have shed more than a third of my body weight. The battery of medications I take do little more than keep my pain at bay, permitting me to drive my son to school or shop for groceries, but not much more. As for my artistic life, it has been put on hold. I have unfinished commissions from two theaters--Chicago Shakespeare Theater and Playwrights Horizons, in New York City--and both institutions have been incredibly patient. Yet the truth is that I have been unable to work for more than two years. Severe cognitive impairment is a hallmark of my condition, and I have serious problems with my short-term memory. Holding the thread of conversation is incredibly difficult, and I experience blinding headaches if I write music for more than a couple of hours. Frequently, it feels as though someone has reorganized my brain but forgotten to leave me the instructions. It is frustrating; it's terrifying. Only one thing has made it possible for me to survive this at all: the coverage I receive through the ACA. The day I got my cancer diagnosis, I was in the process of re-certifying through the Massachusetts Health Connector. I was thrilled when my local Navigator told me that thanks to my new diagnosis, I qualify for Massachusetts' Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program, a Medicaid-backed initiative designed to cover middle and low-income women through their treatments. Not only would I be covered, but our two children would also be insured by MassHealth, our state's Medicaid program. Though my husband continued to purchase care through a separate plan, this single event saved our family from financial ruin. Now, all of that stands to change. With the repeal of the life-saving provisions guaranteed by the ACA, we are faced with the complete erosion of our savings. The Republican Congress has already voted to eliminate the ban on denying individuals coverage on the basis of previously existing conditions, meaning that I will most likely be uninsurable. What will happen then? Will we go bankrupt? Will we lose our home? How will I cope without my medications when we can no longer afford to pay for them? The passage of the ACA did more to shore up our little family than any other piece of legislation in my lifetime. It has enabled me to face my grave illness without worrying whether cost would be a factor in my treatment or whether I could try the next medication my doctors prescribed to relieve my pain. In sharing our story on social media, I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of concern from our tiny community of theater professionals. The President of the Dramatists' Guild, a professional association for theatre artists, called me to offer the assistance of their Emergency Fund should we need it. And while it is heartwarming to receive the support of my professional community, the hard truth is that even the most doggedly determined not-for- profits can't possibly replace the broad social safety net of the Federal government--a safety net Republicans are determined to shred. In every industrialized country but ours, health care is considered an inalienable human right. It is abhorrent to claim that care is something Americans should have to ``shop for.'' Price-comparison shopping may seem like a wonderful market- driven design, but in reality it forces us to confront the terrifying arithmetic of balancing how much care we need against what we can afford. The sicker one grows, the harder it becomes to solve that equation. We have no idea what the Republicans intend by way of a replacement to the ACA. They refuse to specify, despite their years of claiming that the ACA is a failure. They talk of expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), though such accounts represent nothing but a disingenuous transfer of the cost to the consumer. Even if such an approach made sense, how far would $6,750 (the current HSA limit) go in meeting actual health care costs? That amount would be wiped out after a single visit to the emergency room. What's more, where do they expect sick Americans--those fighting for their lives and unable to work precisely because of their illnesses--to suddenly uncover $6,750 to sink into a tax-sheltered HSA? Clearly, this idea has been put forward by people who do not depend on their health insurance for their very lives. They pretend that this sort of thing will save ``our system,'' but their proposal is like offering a patient an Advil for an amputation--laughably inadequate at best; an utter horror at worst. What's more, efforts like the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA have already saved us. Or many of us. Certainly me, in any case. A Republican friend wrote me recently, venting about the ``third-world'' coverage Medicaid provides. What he had to say was ignorant and false. Medicaid isn't failing. To the contrary, it has saved my life and the lives of many others who have simply had the misfortune of falling ill. And isn't that, after all, one of the primary functions of government? To care for its citizens and return them to the ranks of the healthy and productive? We have no idea what the year ahead holds for us. It is likely we will face health premiums of $24,000 or more for a low-level plan. Our premiums will consume 30% of our income, more than our mortgage. Despite MassHealth, we shelled out nearly $15,000 for uncovered medical expenses in 2016, and we are already on track to surpass that number this year. On top of everything else, this is the year our daughter starts college. I'm not the typical Medicaid patient that people seem so fond of demonizing, nor am I some poster child of the ACA. I am simply one of the countless individuals whose story does not fit the narrative the Republicans are attempting to feed us about the ACA and about what it means to be sick in America. Medicaid is on the chopping block not because it is failing, but because the people who benefit from it too often fail to speak up on their own behalf. Their silence has nothing do with a lack of will or words. They are simply too busy struggling to survive. Medicaid benefits our poorest, yet it also assists those slightly higher on the income ladder--people like me who would vastly prefer to be thriving without it. Many more people than you suspect have turned to it in a time of need. They aren't merely characters in some musical or play. Trust me, I know. They are your friends and neighbors. They are families whose lives have been unended by illness. This is what happened to my family. And, with a single diagnosis, it could be your family too. Thank you. Thank you for writing. This is why we are here to fight. I also heard from Kaitlyn, from Cambridge, who said the ACA has allowed her to continue pursuing her postdoctoral research. She says: I am postdoctoral fellow at MIT, and I have a pre-existing condition. In 2012, during my second year of grad school, I started having debilitating pain in my abdomen. The pain was so bad I couldn't eat or sleep, and I lost 30 pounds over two months. The pain was so bad I couldn't wait the full 3 months to see a specialist, and I went to the ER and finally got a diagnosis for an autoimmune disease and began treatment. However, my condition was so advanced that a little over a year later I needed an emergency surgery while I was visiting family out of state. I spent six nights in the hospital and rang up a bill in excess of $50,000. Luckily, I was 25 and still on my parent's insurance. Additionally, I was doubly insured by the student health insurance from the University of California, for which I was automatically enrolled through my graduate program. Other than a $200 deductible, my hospital bill was paid in full. Now that I have a chronic illness, having quality healthcare and regular checkups is vital to staying healthy and productive. My medication, Humira, costs $5,000 a month out-of-pocket, which was more than double my grad school stipend. With insurance, I only pay $25 a month. Though surgery helped me tame the inflation in my intestines, my disease began to express itself as arthritis in my joints. The pain was so bad that one Christmas I canceled my trip home to see my family and spent the whole time alone on my couch. I had a bad reaction to some of the medications and became so severely anemic that I needed a blood transfusion. Additionally, one of the medications I take causes severe birth defects. So I needed an IUD to prevent pregnancy. Easily, all these conditions could become overwhelmingly expensive. But with my student health insurance through the University of California, I could afford it. The premium was $300 per month, part of which was covered by the university. My medications cost $110 a month, and I had a yearly out-of- pocket maximum of $2,000. While I didn't get my insurance through the exchanges, the other conditions of the ACA which determine the minimum quality of care made it possible for my care to be affordable. By having proper treatment and care, I can be a productive member of society. I have received my PhD in Applied Mathematics and my research contributes to the design of medical devices that can be used for cancer screening. I am able to mentor young girls and encourage them to study math and science. And who knows--one of them may cure cancer one day! Since I am no longer in pain and I am not in debt, I was able to find a prestigious job after graduation. When a state provides for the health of its people, they can thrive at home and at work. It is not only the moral choice, but also a good choice for the economy. Kaitlyn, thanks for writing and thanks for being one of the big success stories under the Affordable Care Act. This is what we are fighting for tonight. I also heard from a young woman in Somerville named Samantha. Here is what she wrote: I've been dealing with severe mental health issues since I was a kid. I am now 27. In that time, I have been through numerous hospitalizations, residential treatment, day treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, and outpatient treatment. When I was 18, I had to drop out of college and spent 3 months in residential treatment for my eating disorder. The year prior, I spent 2 months in residential treatment and 6 months between day and intensive outpatient treatment, and I had been in therapy for 4 years. Due to Massachusetts law, I was still covered by my parent's insurance, but the Massachusetts health care reform didn't stop insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits. At 18 years old, fighting for my life, I overheard my parents discussing lifetime limits in regard to my health care. I don't know how much all that treatment cost, or how much of my lifetime limit I had consumed. For the next 7 years, I was in and out of treatment at various levels. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my time by 10 minutes, if I might, to finish my stories.

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. In 2014, when I had my own health care, I had a bad relapse. For the first time I was paying for my own treatment. I had health insurance through my employer that was really good, but even with that, for 1 month of residential treatment, 1 month of day treatment, and 3 months of intensive outpatient, plus therapy, a nutritionist, a psychiatrist and medication--all crucial to my recovery--my out-of-pocket health care costs reached almost $10,000. These days, I am much more stable and have remained in relatively good health, but all because of the continued support I get from my therapist, psychiatrist, and doctor. I can only imagine how much money has been spent and how close I'd be to my lifetime limit if those were still in place. And of course, all that adds up to being a ``pre-existing'' condition. The simple fact is that I would most likely be dead today were it were not for the protections provided by the ACA, and if I lose those protections, if I have another relapse, I will either end up dead or unemployed and mired in debt. Samantha, thank you for writing. Thank you for fighting. That is why we are on the floor of the Senate tonight, to continue to fight for the Affordable Care Act and to continue to fight against cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. This is what is at stake for families in Massachusetts. As Jennifer said in her letter: This is us. This is now, and this is real. Congressman Price wants to cut more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. But I am not giving up, because I am here to fight for Lee and Meg and Jill and Marika's baby Jack. Congressman Price wants to rip up the behavioral health protections in the Affordable Care Act. But I am not giving up, because I am here to fight for Christine's son and Jackie and Samantha. Congressman Price wants to get rid of the ACA's ban on discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions. But I am not giving up, because I am here to fight for Jenny and Kaitlyn and Olivia and Denise and Jennifer. I will fight for every one of them and for the tens of millions of people who are counting on Medicare and who are in need of Medicaid to pay nursing home bills and to help with home health care for people with disabilities and who need that Medicaid money for children with serious problems. I will fight for every one of them. Where are three Republicans who will do the right thing and fight alongside me? That is what tonight is all about. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to call on my colleagues to reject the nomination of Betsy DeVos as the next Secretary of Education. It is difficult to imagine a worse choice to head the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos doesn't believe in public schools. Her only knowledge of student loans seems to come from her own financial investments connected to debt collectors who hound people struggling with student loans. Despite being a billionaire, she wants the chance to keep making money off shady investments while she runs the Department of Education. We need someone in charge of the Nation's education policy who knows what they are doing and who will put America's young people first, and that is not Betsy DeVos. Let's start with her record. Betsy DeVos has used her vast fortune to undermine Michigan's public schools. She is sure she knows what is best for everyone else's children, even though she has no actual experience with public schools. In Michigan, the K-12 policy she has bankrolled has drained valuable taxpayer dollars out of the public schools and shunted that money into private schools, sketchy online schools, and for-profit charter schools. Even worse, DeVos believes these schools should get the money with virtually no accountability for what these schools do with taxpayer dollars. The results have been a disaster for Michigan kids. Let's be perfectly clear. This is not a debate about school choice. It is not a debate about charter schools. There are people on all sides of this debate who are genuinely pouring their hearts into improving educational outcomes for children. Massachusetts charter schools are among the very best in the country, and they understand the difference. Before her nomination hearing, I received an extraordinary letter from the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. The letter outlines their opposition to Betsy DeVos's nomination, citing her destructive record of promoting for-profit charter schools without strong oversight for how those schools serve students and families. People who work hard to build good charter schools with high accountability are offended by the DeVos nomination. This abysmal record is troubling because the Secretary of Education is responsible for safeguarding the investments that the Federal Government makes in public schools and for holding States accountable for delivering a good education for all their students, especially those who need the help the most. The Secretary is also responsible for enforcing critical civil rights laws, like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but Betsy DeVos's confirmation hearing demonstrated to the entire world she is embarrassingly unprepared to enforce these laws. Her apparent unfamiliarity with these critical civil rights laws has terrified families who have children with special needs, terrified families in Massachusetts and all across the country. These parents are afraid we could have an Education Secretary who doesn't even have a basic understanding of the Federal laws that guarantee their kids a chance to receive a public school education. We still have a long way to go to make sure all kids in this country have a shot at a decent education, particularly children living in poverty, children of color, children with disabilities, and children who are immigrants or refugees. That is why the Federal Government got involved in education in the first place, to make certain that all of our children, not just some of them but that all of our children get a chance at a first-rate education. Public education dollars should come with some basic accountability for how that money is spent and some basic expectations about what we get in return for these investments, not just doled out to some for- profit school that doesn't even meet basic standards in educating our children. This is also true in higher education, where the financial stakes are huge for America's college students. The Department of Education is in charge of making sure that the $150 billion that American taxpayers invest in students each year through grants and loans gets into the right hands and that students get an education that will help them pay back their loans. The student aid program is not well understood, but it is vitally important to get it right because $1 trillion of student loan debt currently out there will impact the future of an entire generation. Betsy DeVos has no experience in higher education. During her confirmation hearing, I gave her the opportunity to show that she is at least serious about standing up for students. I asked her basic, straightforward questions about her commitment to protecting students and taxpayers from fraud by these shady for-profit colleges. Her response was shocking. She refused to commit to use the Department's many tools and resources to keep students from getting cheated when fraudulent colleges break the law. In her responses to my written questions, she even refused to commit to doing what the law requires by canceling the loans of students who have been cheated by lawbreaking colleges. An Education Secretary who is unwilling to cut off Federal aid to colleges that break the law and cheat students would be a disaster for both students and taxpayers. Betsy DeVos's refusal to guarantee debt relief for defrauded students could leave thousands of Americans saddled with student loan debt that by law they are not required to pay. Betsy DeVos also refused to rule out privatizing the Direct Loan Program. Think about this. As if our students don't have enough problems already, DeVos is ready to let Wall Street banks get their claws into our students and start charging extra profits on top of the already high cost of student loans. If Betsy DeVos won't commit to strengthening the Federal student loan program and running it for students, then she is absolutely unfit to be in charge of it. I am also deeply concerned about the conflicts of interest and potential government corruption if Betsy DeVos is allowed to take the reins of the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos is a multibillionaire, and that is fine, but for her, that is apparently not enough. She already makes money off of several businesses that could profit from decisions she makes as Secretary of Education--several businesses, at least, that we know about. She said she will get rid of the ones we know about, but she wants to keep her family trusts and whatever investments two of them hold a secret--a secret from Congress and a secret from U.S. taxpayers. She says she doesn't have to follow rules that everyone else follows and tell the Senate what her investments are or what they will be in those secret trusts. I want you to think about that for just a minute. She already has billions of dollars, but she won't give up her secret trust and her chance to make investments that could create conflicts of interest while she is running the Department of Education? Who exactly does Betsy DeVos want to help out--the young people of America or her own bank account? You know, I really don't get this. I disagree with her education policy, but the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that no one, especially not some billionaire, ought to keep investments that go up or down in value depending on the decisions she makes while she has a job working for the U.S. Government. Because of that concern, I wrote a letter with several of my Democratic colleagues to raise concerns about her potential conflicts that aren't clearly resolved by her public ethics agreement. We asked her some simple questions about the lack of financial transparency and the shady investments she plans to keep while she has a government job. What did we get back? Nothing. Zero. Bupkes. She thought our basic questions about ethics weren't even worth an answer. That stinks. This whole process stinks. At every step along the way, the Republicans have made it clear that no matter her inexperience, no matter her radical views, no matter her potential conflicts of interest, no matter her secrecy, no matter her blowing off basic anti-corruption practices, they will ram this nomination down the throats of the American people sideways. Here are just a few egregious examples. First, committee Democrats were allotted 5 minutes--5 minutes total-- during her hearing to question Betsy DeVos on her troubling record. Republicans suddenly invented a new rule that we couldn't ask additional questions. This is an important job. I asked President Obama's Secretary of Education multiple rounds of questions, and he had led a public education system in the past, but I guess when a Republican nominee and megadonor is in line to run education policy, we are supposed to fall in line and keep quiet. Second, breaking with standard practice and what we did for President Obama's Education nominees, we were forced to hold Betsy DeVos's hearing before the ethics review of her billions was completed. The complicated ethics review raised a ton of additional questions, but we got absolutely no chance to question her about it. Third, Betsy DeVos is the first nominee ever to go through the HELP Committee who has flat-out refused to fully disclose her financial holdings. She will be the first nominee in recent history to hold secret trusts. She was supposed to complete a form that requires nominees to list in detail all of their assets, investments, and gifts so that the committee has a full understanding of the nominees' potential conflicts of interest. No, she wants to keep many of her holdings in a family trust a secret, so she just won't tell. Fourth, Republicans ignored and overrode the rules of the Senate in order to barely squeeze the DeVos nomination out of committee as quickly as possible. And now, with at least 50 Senators--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--publicly opposed to this nomination, the Republican leadership has rigged the vote so that Senator Sessions can drag her across the finish line just before he is confirmed as Attorney General. Why is Senator Sessions even voting on this nomination? It is a massive conflict of interest. As the AG, Sessions will be responsible for enforcing the law against DeVos if her cesspool of unresolved financial conflicts results in illegal behavior, but apparently the Republicans just don't care. Let's face it: The Republican leadership wants DeVos, and they are willing to ignore her hostility to public schools, willing to ignore her indifference to laws that protect special needs kids, willing to ignore the giant ethical cloud that hangs over her--ignore it all so that billionaire and Republican campaign contributor Betsy DeVos can be Secretary of Education. The American people can see what is happening here. I commend my Republican colleagues, Senators Collins and Murkowski, for standing up for what is right and saying they will vote against Betsy DeVos's nomination on the floor. I know how difficult it can be to stand up for what is right even under overwhelming pressure from your own team to just keep your head down and go with the flow. They have been listening to the teachers and parents in their States, and I deeply respect their principled opposition to this nomination. I have also heard from thousands of teachers, parents, and education leaders in Massachusetts raising deep concern about Betsy DeVos's nomination. I hear their concern, and I share their concern. You know, this isn't just politics, this is deeply personal. It is personal for me. My first job out of college was as a teacher. I taught little ones, children with special needs, in a public elementary school. I have never lost my appreciation for the importance of strong public education because I have seen how public education opened a million doors for me, and I know it opens doors for young people in Massachusetts and all across this country. I believe that strengthening America's public schools is critical for securing a better future for our children and for our grandchildren. I also understand the vital role the Secretary of Education plays in making sure every young person has real opportunities and a fighting chance to succeed. We are one vote away from making sure this job is not entrusted to Betsy DeVos. One vote. We need just one more Republican to stand up for the children of America, to stand up for public education, to stand up for college students, to stand up for basic decency and honesty in government. With just one more Republican, we can say this Senate puts kids ahead of partisan politics. With just one more Republican, we can say this Senate still cares about public officials who put the public ahead of their own interests. Just one more Republican, that is all we need. Just one. I assumed that the rush to complete this nomination has something to do with the fact that Republicans' phones have been ringing off the hook from citizens who are outraged by the idea of this nomination. Before these Republicans decide whether to help Donald Trump reward a wealthy donor by putting someone in charge of the Department of Education who doesn't really believe in public education, I want them to hear from the people of Massachusetts, the people who on their own have contacted me about this nomination. I have received countless letters and calls from constituents in Massachusetts, including a batch of letters from a new local grassroots organization--Essex County #6 Indivisible--that is very concerned that Betsy DeVos is a danger to our schools. So I just want to share a few of those letters with my colleagues right now. I heard from Matt Harden, who is a teacher from Plymouth, and he wrote this: I have been a teacher for fifteen years and a parent for seven. I feel incredibly proud of the schools in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and view my position as a music educator not simply as a job but a vocation. The recent referendum in the Commonwealth regarding the expansion of cap on Charter Schools was soundly defeated by the electorate. I have grave concerns about Ms. DeVos and her ties to corporate interests in education. Schools are not businesses, and students are not products on an assembly line. This line of thinking is a clear and present danger to our students, and reflects a lack of familiarity with the public education system. In this matter, my concerns are not limited to the borders of our own state but the equitable access to education across our nation. Ms. DeVos is not the right person to be an intellectual and educational leader for our nation--we need real change and ideas, not privatization and politicization of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. I also heard from Alexandra Loos, a special education teacher from Cambridge. She had this to say: I am a special education teacher who works with children with developmental disabilities, and I urge you to vote against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. I have grave concerns about the qualifications of Ms. DeVos due to her lack of experience in the public education system as well as her record of support for charter and private schools that are not obligated to follow Federal education standards or guidelines. Most urgently, as a professional who specializes in evaluating and treating children with autism, Down syndrome, learning disabilities, ADHD, and other developmental and behavioral disorders, I am extremely concerned about Ms. DeVos's apparent lack of understanding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal law that guarantees ``a free and appropriate public education'' to children with disabilities. During her confirmation hearing this week, Ms. DeVos appeared to be unfamiliar with IDEA . . . stating that she felt that enforcement of this federal law should be left up to the states. This is unacceptable and clearly indicates that Ms. DeVos is unqualified to serve as Secretary of Education. With approximately 13% of public school children in special education, it is essential that an Education Secretary be knowledgeable and supportive of the federal laws that guide special education services. Please vote ``no'' on Ms. DeVos's confirmation. Yes, Alexandra. Yes. My office also heard from Diana Fullerton, a school adjustment counselor from Salem. Diana said she had never written to a politician before, but she felt strongly enough about Betsy DeVos to write: I am a school adjustment counselor in an elementary school in Gloucester. I have never gotten involved much in politics until this election. I went to the Boston Women's March on Saturday and this is my first time writing to a politician. I am extremely concerned about Trump's nomination for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. In my work I support students who are very vulnerable: on IEPS, in high-poverty environments, identifying as gay or transgender, and coming from backgrounds where English is a second language. I believe that Ms. DeVos' extreme and uneducated positions on the needs of students in public schools could harm my children. Please vote against her nomination as Secretary of Education. Thanks, Diana. I will. I heard from another teacher from Newton, who said: I am opposed to Betsey DeVos as the next Secretary of Education. I have spent my entire life as a teacher--first in public and private schools for 14 years teaching French, then as a member of the faculty of Lesley University for 26 years, and now as a teacher in a Life Long Learning program at Brandeis. I cannot imagine having a Secretary of Education who has never had any direct educational experience. I am also very worried about her views of public education and her appalling record on civil rights. Strong education is the foundation of our democracy. Please do what you can to maintain and improve our current system. Thank you. Yet another teacher contacted our office, this one from Abington. She wrote: I believe in my community's public schools. In fact, I've worked in them as a teacher for over 15 years. The nomination of Betsy DeVos has me seriously considering a change of employment. Betsy DeVos believes in school privatization and vouchers. She has worked to undermine efforts to regulate Michigan charters, even when they clearly fail, and yet she has never worked in a school. The marketplace solution of DeVos will destroy our democratically governed community schools. Her hostility toward public schools disqualifies her. I am asking you to vote against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos. We also heard from parents all across the State, including Leslie Boloian, a mother from Andover. Leslie said: I am a mother of an 8 year old who is dyslexic. She is smart and very capable of learning what other kids can learn; however, she needs specialized education. Through the public school system, she is learning to read and continues to reach new milestones daily. I fear that Betsy DeVos could put my daughter's education at risk. I urge you to oppose Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos, who is best known for her anti-public education campaigns! The chance for the success of a child should not depend on winning a charter lottery, being accepted by a private school, or living in the right ZIP code. It is our duty to ensure all students have access to a great public school in their community and the opportunity to succeed. Betsy DeVos has consistently worked against these values, and her efforts over the years have done more to undermine public education than support all students. Betsy DeVos has no experience in public schools, either as a student, educator, administrator, or even as a parent. She has lobbied for failed schemes, like vouchers to fund private schools at taxpayers' expense. These privatization schemes do nothing to help our students most in need, and they ignore or exacerbate glaring opportunity gaps. We need a Secretary of Education who will champion innovative strategies that we know help to improve success for all students, including creating more opportunities and equity for all. Betsy DeVos is not that person, and I urge you to vote against her for Secretary of Education. Thank you, Leslie. Kate Brigham, a mother from Somerville, also wrote. She said. My name is Kate Brigham, and I am a constituent of yours from Somerville. . . . I'm writing to urge you to vote against Betsy DeVos' confirmation as Secretary of Education. The future of our kids here in Somerville and across the country are depending on you to see the difference between education progress and privatization. The majority of America's school children attend public schools. We cannot leave their futures and the future of our country in the hands of a woman whose ideas to privatize school funding have already left the state of Michigan and its children in shambles. Her personal financial conflicts of interest are staggering. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--which DeVos did not know was a federal law--guarantees rights to both students with disabilities and to their parents. So this isn't just about civil rights; it's also crucial to families. We cannot afford a Secretary of Education who's ``confused'' on what the law is. My own 2-year-old daughter benefits from MA's wonderful Early Intervention program and will need special education services when she turns 3 in September. IDEA and the ADA were both signed into law by Republican Presidents. Disability rights are not and cannot become a partisan issue. Thank you for ensuring that public education for ALL will be protected. Somerville, and Massachusetts, needs it. And we won't succeed with Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Thank you, Kate. Thanks for writing. Samantha Lambert, a mother of four from Everett, also contacted us with her concerns. Samantha wrote: I am a voter from MA who has struggled with the change coming as a result of this election. . . . It is difficult to focus when there is a new outrage at every turn. No one frightens me more than Betsy DeVos. Why? The impacts of her ignorance and disdain for public education will remain with us for a generation. I have 4 children, all educated in the Everett Public School System, one of whom benefits from Special Education. We have one opportunity to get it right with our children. I was asked by a conservative friend who was curious why this appointment brought such a backlash, and the answer was simple for me. Our job is to protect our children, the nation's children. Those unable to influence their future with a vote. There is no mandate for the destruction of our most treasured institution, the foundation of our democracy. My son deserves a free and fair education, as do his siblings. As do their peers. The children in our school district are in the lower socioeconomic rung. Many rely on public transportation and neighborhood public schools. That takes the choice out of school choice, doesn't it? It favors students on economic lines, furthering the divide and putting an undue burden on the schools left behind who will struggle to serve the students that need this gift of education most. The public hearing demonstrated that Mrs. DeVos is wholly unqualified for this appointment. Her answers or lack of answers, specifically regarding IDEA and school choice, were frightening. As a parent, I was literally shaking. My nine-year-old son was listening to a portion and heard Senator Hassan mention dyslexia in her question. He cheered and asked if we were going to make sure all kids get special help to read. I couldn't answer him because in her answer, Mrs. DeVos seemed not to know that IDEA is a Federal law protecting these beautiful minds. Protecting them from being a line item that can be wiped away, their future successes and achievements going right along with it. I ask you, please oppose Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary, for the good of ALL our nation's children. Thank you, Samantha. Thanks for writing. We also heard from Laura Fukushima, a mother and former teacher from Dedham. She wrote to say: Before having my own children, I taught in public schools for five years--three in Boston and two in Tennessee (Sumner Country)--and I'm writing to ask you to vote against confirming Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. It's evident that Ms. DeVos is passionate about education-- judging from the enormous amounts of money she has poured into shaping policy--and I have no reason to doubt her intentions are good. But that doesn't qualify her for this job. Here are my concerns: 1) Aside from having no experience in public schools, either as a parent or a student, she has no experience in any kind of school as an educator. 2) At her confirmation hearing, she demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of many pertinent issues and concepts--an intimate knowledge of which is required to shape good educational policy. 3) Despite lacking both the prerequisite knowledge and experience within the field of education, she actively used her wealth to sway legislators in Michigan away from their initial support of bipartisan measures, based on a broad coalition of informed participants, to regulate and improve charter schools. (For the record, I do support charter schools, but understanding that there is a vast disparity in their quality, I see the need for rigorous oversight.) Her efforts, I believe, have been more detrimental than beneficial to the children of Detroit. 4) Her suggestion that enforcing IDEA should be left to the states is very troubling. Such policy would leave our most vulnerable students very far behind. While I agree with Ms. DeVos that our educational system would benefit from some additional choice for parents, I think she's wildly mistaken if she believes a completely free market will fix our schools. We need a Secretary of Education who believes in proper oversight and can help create effective measures of assessment and accountability to improve education for all our children. That's what the Department of Education is for. To run it successfully, we need a Secretary, unlike DeVos, who is well trained in the field. Thank you, Laura. A mother from Clinton also wrote about how she would be personally affected by Betsy DeVos, saying: I have an 8-year-old daughter with Autism Spectrum Disorder who receives services through our public elementary school. I believe that every individual deserves an equal education. IDEA must be upheld! My daughter is doing very well with her studies because of the supports she receives. She is a very smart girl but needs and deserves accommodations. I am thankful there are laws to protect her. Betsy DeVos thinks that states should decide how to fund education for individuals with disabilities. I believe it should remain federally mandated. I wouldn't be able to afford a private education for my daughter in a special school. I know there are many more parents like me. I also opposed expanding Charter schools in our state. I believe publicly funded schools should be publicly run and overseen. I request you reject Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary. Thank you. Another parent wrote to say: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. She has demonstrated NO commitment to public education throughout her life, and her support of charter schools in Detroit has been a demonstrated failure. The framing of for-profit charter schools as providing ``choice'' for parents is a false framing--it provides the illusion of a poorly regulated and poorly supervised choice for some parents while limiting the resources and choices left to the other parents and leading to a downward spiral in the quality of public education. Transferring public funding of education to for- profit charter schools, creaming off the children of the most motivated parents, and leaving the more difficult, lower income, and children with special education challenges is a prescription for failure of public schools and will result in herding lower-income students into dysfunctional schools, setting them up for a lifetime of underemployment. I am not a teacher, nor a member of a teacher's union. I am a mother, and I was proud to send my son to the Brookline Public Schools for his entire K-12 education. I want other children to have a chance for a quality education, not to be the fodder for a private, for-profit charter school with no commitment to the public good. Quality public education is the foundation of a free society and the key to sustaining a vibrant economy in the future. Please oppose the confirmation of Betsy DeVos. A woman from Canton also wrote in. She said: As a parent of public school children, I urge you to reject the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. A free and appropriate education is the cornerstone of our democracy, but Ms. DeVos has shown no interest in preserving public education. In fact, she has worked tirelessly to divert public funds into private pockets by way of deregulating and expanding charter schools and to offer vouchers which can be used at private and religious schools. This is a clear violation of our principle of separating church and State. Ms. DeVos's strategies have had disastrous consequences in Michigan. Eighty percent of charter schools there operate for profit. When schools look first to satisfy investors, they rely on teaching to standardized tests, not on educating children. Here in Massachusetts, we overwhelmingly rejected the idea, one funded by billionaires, and resisted by parents and public school teachers. Please join us in opposing a ``lead educator'' who has never gone to a public school nor sent her children to one. Please consider that the nation's future depends on educating every child, and that to do so, we need to restore and strengthen our public school system, not dismantle it in favor of profiting off the backs of our youth. Thank you. It is no surprise that we also heard from many constituents struggling with student loans. One of those was Liam Weir, a college student from Brighton, who had this to say: As a college student and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, I am writing you to express my deep concern over the potential appointment of Betsy DeVos to the position of Secretary of Education. Ms. DeVos is extraordinarily unqualified to lead such a department. The fact that the President has chosen such a person, with no experience in education administration in any capacity at any level, is an insult to the millions of teachers, students, and school administrators across the country. Ms. DeVos's policies will undermine already struggling public school systems by allocating taxpayer funds to advance a cynical and deeply troubling agenda against established science. I myself am a recipient of Federal college grants and loans, and I am growing increasingly concerned about Ms. DeVos's competency in managing the looming student debt crisis. Now more than ever is a time for the Education Department to be run by capable and caring individuals, not willfully ignorant ones. A young mother from Winthrop also reached out to us. She had this to say: I urge you to vote No on the confirmation of Betsy DeVos, a singularly unqualified individual . . . among a veritable sea of unqualified individuals this administration has chosen to lead our country. My husband and I have no personal stake in public education over the next 4 years. Our daughter is only 7 months old. But I am the child of two public schoolteachers in RI, my friends are teachers, my friends' children are in school, my nephews, cousins, etc. I believe in public schools and I believe that Betsy DeVos is not the right direction for our public education system. She is dangerous, and her lack of knowledge is appalling. Also, and I thank you so much for asking about this at her hearing--student loans are not a business, they are a crisis in this country. My husband has a six figure debt, with interest rates at 7.5 percent. He had to take a job . . . rather than pursue his dreams of working in criminal justice because he needed a job that could pay his $1,000 a month student loan bill. Our saving grace is that I have a good job, and my student loan debt is nearly paid off--because I was loaned a reasonable amount at a reasonable 2 percent interest rate. We are a case study in how the program should work vs. predatory lending. That is so true. Thanks for writing. Liz Bosworth, a mother of two from North Dartmouth, had this to say: While I am fully aware that you do not support the nominations for many of President Trump's nominees, I am currently most concerned about Ms. DeVos. I watched parts of her hearing and I remain concerned that there was a denial for a second hearing. I hope this leads to continued questions and a final opposition of her as Secretary of Education. Your lines of questioning served to highlight her lack of qualifying experience but still, in light of this last six month's politics, I believe anything is possible. As the mother of two small children and a daughter-in-law, niece, cousin, friend, and wife of public school teachers, I find her to be quite alarming and somewhat scary as the potential leader of that office. We are strong proponents of public education and of teaching our children to value their time in school and to achieve high levels of success. With that comes some anxiety around their aspirations to higher learning. As a master's level social worker, I will be paying off my loans until I start to pay for my son's higher education. I do not want the debt for my children that I have. At this rate, I am saving far much less money per month for their college funds while paying off my own. I want my children to go higher than myself, but I want them to do so with a level of confidence in their finances that I was not afforded. Ms. DeVos, highlighted by you in her confirmation hearing, has not been involved with student loans on any level and does not have the experience to become entrusted with my current debt or the debt of my children. Finally, I would like to highlight my abject fear of the treatment of those students with learning disabilities, particularly severe and profound disorders, if she is confirmed. While I see many walks of life in my field, my mother was a proud special education teacher in New Bedford for 33 years. She was proud to be able to teach life skills like budgeting, simple cooking and social skills to her students who may not ever be college ready. We worry about those kids and what will become of them if Ms. DeVos is confirmed. My husband is currently employed in a collaborative that works with mentally ill children who need a different kind of educational process but can still achieve the same goals. I am not sure they would ever qualify for a voucher to attend some Charter school. We are committed to families and community maintenance of all students with the right care at the right time. I am not sure that Ms. DeVos is committed in the same way. Please vote to oppose Ms. DeVos. Thank you, Liz. Thanks for writing. I heard from another student in Boston who told me the following: I am writing to you today as a public school teacher and a Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Education, Leadership and Policy Studies. I believe in public schools. Betsy DeVos believes in school privatization and vouchers. She has worked to undermine efforts to regulate Michigan charters, even when they clearly failed. The ``marketplace'' solution of DeVos will destroy our democratically governed community schools. She has no professional experience in the education field. She does not truly understand the nuances of public education nor does she want to understand. I managed to earn scholarships that took care of most of my schooling, but I still have about $80,000 in student loans. (Not bad for 2 expensive private institution degrees!) I am a first generation college student and my single mother could not afford to help me pay for my schooling. Betsy DeVos just doesn't have experience in K-12 public schools, but she has no experience in running the student loan department. The Federal student loan program is far from perfect. We need someone running it who is knowledgeable in the process, believes in making college more affordable, and understands what it feels like to not be sure how you will pay for college. She has no qualifications of any kind in this area. I am asking you to vote against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos. Please consider this request and the thousands of other people across the country who vehemently disagree with Ms. DeVos's candidacy. Thank you. Sarah Rothery, a mother of two from Northborough, told me about her two sons, saying: I am writing to ask that you oppose the confirmation of Ms. DeVos for the cabinet position for which she was nominated under President Trump. I have put 2 sons through college thanks to Stafford loans and personal savings and I think she has no idea what is involved in middle class families financing college educations today. One of my sons is now an 8th grade history teacher in a public charter school, Abbot Kelly Foster, in Worcester, and worries that Ms. DeVos has no real understanding of urban education as well. Thank you, Sarah. Thanks for writing. I have also heard from Alicia Bettano, a former student from Merrimac who bravely shared with me her own experiences. This is from Alicia: I suffer from a Non Verbal Learning Disorder. Up until I was 13 years old I was not diagnosed with anything. I went to aides, speech therapists, everyone. I had trouble in the maths and in sciences. I was thought of as stupid. I was yelled at by aides. When I was 13 and diagnosed, my teachers didn't understand. They thought sitting me closer to the white board would allow me to understand better, despite the fact that it was their teaching methods that confused me. I was told I would not go to college or graduate. My parents had to hire an advocate to work for me to get my teachers and school to understand my disability. It took me some time to figure out what I wanted and needed, but in May I graduated college. Betsy DeVos would be a horror for those with disabilities; not just learning ones, but mental ones. I was lucky I had parents and one teacher backing me. What about the ones that don't? Putting Betsy DeVos into office will hurt our children in America--that's not making America great. Alicia, thank you for writing. I really appreciate it. Congratulations on your graduation. A man from Brookline also wrote in, saying this: As someone passionate about education, especially the education of students in Massachusetts, and as a graduate of a public elementary school, middle school, high school and college; as a young professional burdened by education debt; as the husband of an early childhood educator working in a struggling Boston neighborhood; as a member of a family filled with men and women dedicated to careers in public education, I strongly urge you to oppose Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos. My vote for or against candidates in future elections will be informed by whether the candidate publicly opposed this Secretary of Education nominee. Betsy DeVos has consistently worked against public education and she is incredibly unqualified for this position. At best, she should be an undersecretary focused on public-private partnerships. If you must work with the incoming administration, suggest her nomination for that role, but you must oppose her cabinet-level appointment. DeVos has no experience in public schools, either as a student, educator, administrator or even as a parent. She has lobbied for, and been employed by, initiatives that have undermined public education in America. We need a Secretary of Education who will champion innovative strategies that we know help to improve success for all students, including creating more opportunities and equity for all. I urge you to vote against Ms. DeVos for Secretary of Education. What does Betsy DeVos have to say to Matt and Diana or to the thousands of other teachers who have more experience in public education than she does? What does she have to say to Leslie and Samantha, whose children have benefited from the programs she wants to cut? What does she have to say to Sarah, who relied on Stafford loans to put her sons through college? It is not just individuals who are worried about Betsy DeVos. We have heard from groups across the State as well. The Massachusetts Charter Public School Association wrote me, saying this: Dear Senator Warren, As the Association representing the 70 Massachusetts commonwealth charter public schools, we are writing to express our concerns over the nomination of Elisabeth DeVos as U.S. Secretary of Education. We do not express these reservations lightly, but we believe it is important to raise certain issues that should be addressed by the nominee. Both President-elect Trump and Ms. DeVos are strong supporters of public charter schools, and we are hopeful they will continue the bipartisan efforts of the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations to promote the continued expansion of high quality charters while pursuing reforms that will strengthen traditional public schools. But we are concerned about media reports of Ms. DeVos' support for school vouchers and her critical role in creating a charter system in her home state of Michigan that has been widely criticized for lax oversight and poor academic performance, and appears to be dominated by for-profit interests. As the senior Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP), which will hold hearings on the nomination, you will be in a position to ensure the nominee commits to holding the national charter school movement to the highest levels of accountability and oversight that are the hallmark of the Massachusetts charter system. By all independent accounts, Massachusetts has the best charter school system in the country. We are providing high quality public school choices for parents across our state. Our urban schools are serving the highest need children in Massachusetts, and are producing results that have researchers double-checking their math. These gains held across all demographic groups, including African American, Latino, and children living in poverty. The cornerstone of the Massachusetts charter public school system is accountability. The process of obtaining and keeping a charter is deliberately difficult. The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is the sole authorizer and historically has approved only one out of every five applications. Once approved, each charter school must submit to annual financial audits by independent auditors and annual performance reviews by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Every five years, each charter must be renewed after a process as rigorous as the initial application process. For-profit charter schools are prohibited by Massachusetts law. Our schools have also created partnerships with many Massachusetts public school districts to foster collaboration and best practices sharing, and have forged an historic Compact between Boston charter public schools and the Boston Public Schools that has become a national model. Bipartisan support has been key to the development and success of the Massachusetts system. Created in 1993 by a Democratic Legislature and a Republican Governor, public charter schools have continued to receive support from all Governors, Republican and Democratic alike, and Democratic legislative leaders. If the new President and his nominee intend to advance the cause of school choice across the country, they should look to Massachusetts for their path forward. The history of charter schools in Michigan offers a more cautionary tale. The same researchers from Stanford that declared Massachusetts charter public schools an unqualified success, had mixed reviews for Michigan's charters. According to media reports, last year Ms. DeVos actively campaigned against bipartisan legislation that would have provided more oversight for Michigan's charters. If these reports are true, we are deeply concerned that efforts to grow school choice without a rigorous accountability system will reduce the quality of charter schools across the country. We hope you agree that quality, not quantity, should be the guiding principle of charter expansion. Without high levels of accountability, this model fails. We ask that you use the hearing to probe the incoming Administration's intentions regarding education policy in general and school choice and quality specifically. We'd be happy to provide you with more information on the Massachusetts model and would welcome a meeting with your staff to brief them on our concerns. Sincerely, Massachusetts Charter Public School Association Board of Directors. The people of Massachusetts cannot afford Betsy DeVos. This is why I will vote no on her nomination and why I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate. I ask leave of the Senate to continue my remarks.

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. I will pick up, then, with Mrs. King's letter to the Judiciary Committee when the Judiciary Committee was considering, not then-Senator Sessions, Nominee Sessions for a position on the Federal bench. She makes the point: However, Blacks still fall far short of having equal participation in the electoral process. Particularly in the South, efforts continue to be made to deny Blacks access to the polls, even where Blacks constitute the majority of the voters. It has been a long, up-hill struggle to keep alive the vital legislation that protects the most fundamental right to vote. A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those rights by Black people, should not be elevated to the federal bench. The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that if confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods. Twenty years ago, when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, the fear of voting was real, as the broken bones and bloody heads in Selma and Marion bore witness. As my husband wrote at the time, ``it was not just a sick imagination that conjured up the vision of a public official, sworn to uphold the law, who forced an inhuman march upon hundreds of Negro children; who ordered the Rev. James Bevel to be chained to his sickbed; who clubbed a Negro woman registrant, and who callously inflicted repeated brutalities and indignities upon nonviolent Negroes peacefully petitioning for their constitutional right to vote.'' Free exercise of voting rights is so fundamental to American democracy, that we can not tolerate any form of infringement of those rights. Of all the groups who have been disenfranchised in our nation's history, none has struggled longer or suffered more in the attempt to win the vote than Black citizens. No group has had access to the ballot box denied so persistently and intently. Over the past century, a broad array of schemes have been used in attempts to block the Black vote. The range of techniques developed with the purpose of repressing black voting rights run the gambit from the straightforward application of brutality against black citizens who tried to vote to such legalized frauds as ``grandfather clause'' exclusions and rigged literacy tests. The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984 voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique used to intimidate Black voters, and thus deny them this most precious franchise. The investigations into the absentee voting process were conducted only in the Black Belt counties, where blacks had finally achieved political power in the local government. Whites had been using the absentee process to their advantage for years, without incident. Then, when Blacks, realizing its strength, began to use it with success, criminal investigations were begun. In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney, exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three leaders of the Perry County Civic League, including Albert Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, in initiating the case, Mr. Sessions ignored allegations of similar behavior by whites, choosing instead to chill the exercise of the franchise by blacks by his misguided investigation. In fact, Mr. Sessions sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors and colleagues of my husband, who had been key figures in the civil rights movement in the 1960's. These were persons who, realizing the potential of the absentee vote among Blacks, had learned to use the process within the bounds of legality, and had taught others to do the same. The only sin they committed was being too successful in gaining votes. The scope and character of the investigations conducted by Mr. Sessions also warrant grave concern. Witnesses were selectively chosen in accordance with the favorability of their testimony to the government's case. Also, the prosecution illegally withheld from the defense, critical statements made by witnesses. Witnesses who did testify were pressured and intimidated into submitting the ``correct'' testimony. Many elderly blacks were visited multiple times by the FBI, who then hauled them over 180 miles by bus to a grand jury in Mobile when they could have more easily have testified at a grand jury twenty miles away in Selma. These voters, and others, have announced they are now never going to vote again. I urge you to consider carefully Mr. Sessions' conduct in these matters. Such a review, I believe, raises serious questions about his commitment to the protection of the voting rights of all American citizens. And consequently his fair and unbiased judgment regarding this fundamental right. When the circumstances and facts surrounding the indictments of Al Turner, his wife, Evelyn, and Spencer Hogue are analyzed, it becomes clear that the motivation was political, and the result frightening--the wide-scale chill of the exercise of the ballot for blacks, who suffered so much to receive that right in the first place. Therefore, it is my strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions to the federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their lives and freedom over the past twenty years to ensure equal participation in our democratic system. The exercise of the franchise is an essential means by which our citizens ensure that those who are governing will be responsible. My husband called it the number one civil right. The denial of access to the ballot box ultimately results in the denial of other fundamental rights. For, it is only when the poor and disadvantaged are empowered that they are able to participate actively in the solutions to their own problems. We still have a long way to go before we can say that minorities no longer need to be concerned about the discrimination at the polls. Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans are grossly underrepresented at every level of government in America. If we are going to make our timeless dream of justice through democracy a reality, we must take every possible step to ensure that the spirit and intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution is honored. The federal courts hold a unique position in our constitutional system, ensuring that minorities and other citizens without political power have a forum in which to vindicate their rights. Because of this unique role, it is essential that the people selected to be federal judges respect the basic tenets of our legal system: respect for individual rights and a commitment to equal justice for all. The integrity of the Courts, and thus the rights they protect, can only be maintained if citizens feel confident that those selected as federal judges will be able to judge with fairness others holding different views. I do not believe Jefferson Sessions possesses the requisite judgment, competence, and sensitivity to the rights guaranteed by the federal civil rights laws to qualify for appointment to the federal district court. Based on his record, I believe his confirmation would have a devastating effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my husband's dream that he envisioned over twenty years ago. I therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny his confirmation. I thank you for allowing me to share my views. Mrs. King's views and words ring true today. The integrity of our Justice Department depends on an Attorney General who will fight for the rights of all people. An honest evaluation of Jeff Sessions' record shows that he is not that person. My concerns regarding Jeff Sessions go far beyond his disappointing record on civil rights. Take immigration, for example. The Daily Beast published an article a few weeks ago entitled, ``Donald Trump's Refugee Ban Has Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions's Fingerprints All Over It.'' Here is what the article says: To longtime Jeff Sessions observers, the chaos that unfolded in American airports on Saturday morning wasn't a surprise. At all. Rather, the refugee ban was the predictable culmination of years of advocacy from two of President Donald Trump's most trusted advisors: White House Senior Advisor Stephen Miller, and attorney general designate Jeff Sessions. For years, Sessions and Miller--who was the Alabama Senator's communications director before leaving to join the Trump campaign--pushed research and talking points designed to make Americans afraid of refugees. Press releases, email forwards, speeches on the Senate floor--Miller and Sessions used it all to make the case against Obama's refugee program was a huge terror threat. The executive order Trump signed late in the day on Friday is just the logical conclusion of their work. I started getting press releases that Miller sent on behalf of Jeff Sessions in March 2013, shortly after I moved to D.C. to cover Congress. The emails went to my Gmail, and kept coming over the years--hundreds and hundreds of them. By the time he left Sessions' office to join the Trump campaign, Miller's press releases were legendary among Hill reporters: There were just so many of them at all hours of the day, and they never stopped. Some were lengthy diatribes; some were detailed, homemade charts; some were one-liners; one was just a link to Facebook's stock page on Google Finance with the subject line, ``Does this mean that Facebook has enough money now to hire Americans?'' ``I wanted to put together a little book of the best emails I ever sent,'' Miller told Politico last June. ``I spent hours and hours of research on those.'' Some of that research had serious methodological problems, according to Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute. ``Miller's work vastly overstates the threat of foreign terrorists to the homeland,'' Nowrasteh said. He pointed to Miller's efforts to chronicle cases of refugees implicated in terrorist activity. It is true that some refugees in the U.S. have been indicted for terrorism- related crimes, Nowrasteh said. But instances of refugees actually planning terror attacks on American soil, he added, were vanishingly rare. ``Almost all the refugees that I was able to specifically identify in his set were trying to support a foreign terrorist organization, mostly Al Shabab in Somalia, by giving them money or something like that,'' Nowrasteh said. ``I don't know about you, but I think there's a big difference between sending a militia in your home country funds and trying to blow up a mall in Cincinnati.'' The collective effect of Miller and Sessions' messaging was to enthusiastically push a narrative that now dominates the Trump administration: that refugees and other immigrants steal Americans' jobs, suck up too much welfare money, incubate terrorists in their communities and, overall, are a big problem. The conclusion was always the same: The government should let in far fewer refugees, and it should think twice about welcoming Muslims. And now, that's exactly what Trump is doing. For instance, in one ``Dear Colleague'' letter that Sessions co-authored with conservative Republican Rep. David Brat--a letter Miller blasted out to his press list--the would-be Attorney General ripped into the refugee program. ``There can be no higher duty as lawmakers than to keep our constituents and their families safe,'' Brat and Sessions wrote. ``Yet our reckless refugee programs, lax green card and visa policies, utter failure to enforce rampant visa overstays, along with our wide open southern border, put the U.S. at grave and needless risk.'' ``Grave and needless risk''--it is a view that clearly informs Trump's decision to temporarily ban refugees. And a Miller press release, blasted out on November 25, 2015, included this ominous title: ``U.S. Issued 680,000 Green Cards to Migrants from Muslim Nations Over the Last 5 Years.'' Sessions then forwarded that email to his email list on Jan. 12, 2016, the day of Obama's final State of the Union address, and added this note: ``Some numerical context for any discussions of refugee policy that may arise tonight. As further context, the top-sending country for migrants are Iraq and Pakistan, according to Pew, `Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support Sharia law as official law.' '' The implication was clear as a bell: Muslim immigrants are flooding into the U.S., and they are bringing Sharia with them. Someone who agreed with Miller's assessment would do what Trump just did. Just about any time a refugee living in the U.S. was charged, implicated, or otherwise connected to terrorism, Miller emailed his list about it. Another Sessions press release, sent jointly with Sen. Richard Shelby, also included ominous intonations about refugees and Muslims. ``Congress must cancel the President's blank refugee check and put Congress back in charge of the program,'' Sessions and Shelby said. ``We cannot allow the President to unilaterally decide how many refugees he wishes to admit, nor continue to force taxpayers to pick up the tab for tens of billions of unpaid-for welfare and entitlement costs.'' ``The omnibus''-- Still quoting the letter from Senators Shelby and Sessions-- would put the U.S. on a path to approve admission for hundreds of thousands of migrants from a broad range of countries with jihadist movements over the next 12 months, on top of all the other autopilot annual immigration--absent language to reduce the numbers,'' the release continued. That same statement also suggested that refugees were robbing elderly Americans of their benefits. ``Refugees are entitled to access all major welfare programs, and they can also draw benefits directly from the Medicare and Social Security Disability and retirement trust funds--taking those funds straight from the pockets of American retirees who paid into these troubled funds all their lives,'' Sessions and Shelby said. Now that Trump is president, those numbers are getting reduced--and fast. Another foreboding subject line from Miller showed up in reporters' inboxes on Nov. 20, 2015: ``ICYMI: Each 5 years, U.S. issuing more new green cards to migrants from Muslim nations the population of Washington, D.C.'' Sessions also took to the Senate floor to argue that Muslim immigrants are uniquely dangerous. On Nov. 19, 2015, the Alabaman said the following about Muslims: ``It is an unpleasant but unavoidable fact that bringing in a large unassimilated flow of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalization and extremism to take hold.'' In the speech, Sessions argued that the U.S. should set up safe zones in Syria where refugees could settle--instead of allowing any of them into the United States. Miller emailed reporters as Sessions spoke to highlight his argument. Now it's Trump's position. At Breitbart, Julia Hahn covered Sessions' speech, in an article headlined ``Afghanistan Migration Surging into America: 99% Support Sharia Law.'' News broke earlier this week that Hahn got a job in the White House as an assistant to Trump and senior advisor Stephen Bannon. And on and on and on, for hundreds of emails, without even a whisper of flip-flopping. Trump's crack-down on Muslims and refugees should not surprise anyone. He is just taking his advisors' advice. Trump's Executive order sparked protests and resistance all across the Nation. People across the country and around the world are standing up to say that it contradicts our core values and that it violates the law. Massachusetts is on the frontlines of challenging this illegal and downright offensive Executive order. Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey joined a Federal lawsuit to challenge that Executive order. This is what she said. I am quoting Attorney General Healey: Harm to our institutions, our citizens, and our businesses is harm to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. . . . The President's Executive order is a threat to our Constitution. Rather than protecting our national security, it stigmatizes those who would lawfully immigrate to our State. With this policy, our global universities, hospitals, businesses, and startups and far too many students and residents have been put at risk. On behalf of the Commonwealth, my office is challenging the immigration ban to hold this administration accountable for its un-American, discriminatory, and reckless decision-making. In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that expanded protections and services provided to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. There is a piece from the Bedford Minuteman that really tells the story of how sexual violence impacts Massachusetts. This is what it said: ``They are mothers, daughters, sisters, fathers, sons, and brothers.''

Ms. WARREN. I am asking what this rule means in this context. So can I continue with Coretta Scott King's letter?

Ms. WARREN. So let me understand. Can I ask a question, in the opinion of the Chair? I want to understand what this rule means.

Ms. WARREN. Is it the contention of the Chair, under the rules of the Senate, I am not allowed to accurately describe public views of Senator Sessions, public positions of Senator Sessions, quote public statements of Senator Sessions?