Floor Statements

Mr. President, on the border, well, tomorrow, Senators face an important decision: Will both sides come together to advance a bipartisan border security bill or will partisanship get in the way yet again?

Three months ago, Donald Trump told his Republican allies to block the strongest bipartisan border security bill Congress has seen in a generation. Luckily, we are trying again tomorrow, and I hope this time Republicans join us to achieve a different outcome.

The only way--the only way--we are going to fix the border is through bipartisan legislation, just like the one both sides spent months negotiating a few months ago and which we are taking up again tomorrow. We don't expect every Democrat or every Republican to support this bill. It wasn't designed that way. It wasn't designed to get all the votes of one party, which then almost inevitably means you get none of the votes from the other side. It was intended to be a compromise that could pass and become law.

We know there are disagreements, as there always are, about the best way to proceed on the border. But that is precisely why I have emphasized from day one, we need to have strong border support if we hope to get border done.

Unlike H.R. 2, a very partisan bill, the bipartisan border bill was written with the goal of getting 60 votes in the Senate, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. It had input from both Republicans and Democrats. H.R. 2 can't claim that. If anything is political, it is H.R. 2. It didn't receive a single Democratic vote in the Senate because Democrats weren't consulted. It didn't even get the full support of Senate Republicans. H.R. 2 was the definition of political theater, one side sitting in a room by itself writing what it wanted not even thinking of how you pass a bill.

Our bill, however, is what a serious attempt at border reform looks like. Now, most people might not remember, but a few months ago, there was a lot of bipartisan interest in getting our border bill passed before Donald Trump killed it in its tracks. Our Republican colleagues--including the Republican leader--was adamant. We needed to get border security done as part of the national security supplemental. This is what the Republican leader said right before our bill was released:

I think this is the ideal time to do it.

He then added, Leader McConnell added:

This is a unique opportunity where divided government has

given us an opportunity to get an outcome.

These aren't the words of someone who thinks our efforts were political theater. These are the words of someone who thinks we were close to reaching a breakthrough, and he wasn't alone. My friend from South Carolina also said that.

To those who think that if President Trump wins . . . that

we can get a better deal, you won't.

He added:

This moment will pass. Do not let it pass.

Republican Senator from South Carolina.

So let's be perfectly clear: Our bipartisan border bill represented a real chance--in fact, the best chance in decades--to act on border security, to make a law, not just to make a political point.

Importantly, the bill would have made huge strides toward cracking down on the scourge of fentanyl. It would have given billions for DEA, for DHS to hire officers to focus exclusively on drugs and billions for state-of-the-art equipment to detect the flow of drugs at border crossings and ports.

And some of my Democratic colleagues will be talking about that, at 12:30, at an event, how this bill really does more than anything we have done thus far, and we have worked hard on it to deal with the scourge of fentanyl. So, today, my Democratic colleagues will shine a spotlight on the immense good this bill will do to protect our country from the free flow of this dangerous drug, fentanyl.

If you told me a year ago that this was the kind of bill we had before us, I would have been certain Republicans would have helped enact this bill into law. By any objective measure, it is strong, necessary.

And one final note, the last time we came close here was 2013 when we passed comprehensive immigration reform. We did it bipartisan. It was the only way to do it. I and my late friend, good friend, John McCain had a Gang of 8--four Democrats, four Republicans. We got, I believe it was, 69 votes on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, the House didn't pass it.

But it is just a lesson to all of us. Bipartisanship is the only way to go. H.R. 2 is not the least bit bipartisan. Our bill was completely bipartisan.

So, tomorrow, we are going to lay out a clear choice. Tomorrow, we will see who is serious about actually wanting to fix the border and who prefers to merely talk about fixing the border.

Mr. President, now on the farm bill, tomorrow, House Republicans will mark up their partisan farm bill that, frankly, completely misses the mark.

The farm bill should support the farmers who grow our food. It should protect our land. It should invest in jobs for rural communities big and small to rebuild their economies. The farm bill should provide lifesaving hunger assistance for the millions of Americans who rely on programs like SNAP, and it should extend SNAP benefits to our friends in Puerto Rico who have been excluded from this program for decades, and it will expand it to them.

It is sad to see that rather than working together to get a serious farm bill passed, House Republicans are playing games and pushing a one-sided, insufficient partisan bill.

Senate Democrats, on the other hand, have released a farm bill proposal that maintains a bipartisan coalition and invests in all of the areas I mention. So I commend Chair Stabenow for her work.

Let me be clear: A purely partisan farm bill that departs from the longstanding spirit of bipartisanship has no future in the Senate. And, unfortunately, I might add, it seems to be where this House--the Republican House leadership and party--always goes. They always retreat to a corner of partisanship. They are not interested in improving the lives of American people. They are just interested in scoring political points to a narrow group back home, the MAGA group that seems to have such power in the party.

So I hope that doesn't happen on the farm bill. It has always been bipartisan. House Republicans, come on. Wake up. Do you want to help our farmers? Work together with Democrats and pass a bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, on contraceptives, yesterday, we began the process for the Senate to consider the Right to Contraception Act led by Senators Markey and Hirono in June.

Now, more than ever, contraception is a critical piece of protecting women's reproductive freedoms, standing as nothing short of a vital lifeline for millions of American women across the country.

Senate Democrats are committed to restoring women's freedoms and will fight to protect access to contraception and other reproductive freedoms that are essential safeguards for millions of women to control their own lives, their futures, and their bodies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this is an amazing moment in the history of the Senate and of all Senates because in just a few moments, the Senate will confirm Angela Martinez to be a district judge for the District of Arizona. Judge Martinez will be the 200th Federal judge under the Biden administration and this Democratic majority. Reaching 200 judges is a major milestone.

Simply put, our 200 judges comprise the most diverse slate of judicial nominations under any President in American history. Our Federal judiciary is now far more balanced, far more diverse, far more experienced than it was just a few years before President Biden took office.

I am so proud of the 200 judges. Mr. President, 127 are women, and 125 are people of color. That is a majority of the judges--more than a majority. Over 60 percent are women. Two-thirds women, two-thirds people of color; 58 Black judges, 37 Black women judges--each a record; 36 Hispanic judges, 33 Asian American Pacific Island judges--also a record. It is amazing.

Also, there is not just demographic diversity but professional diversity. It is not just a lot of White male partners in big fancy law firms anymore; it is people who are public defenders, civil rights lawyers, labor lawyers, immigration lawyers, consumer lawyers. We have so much greater diversity on the bench, and that is so good for America because the bench, the powerful Federal judiciary filled with lifetime appointments, should reflect America. It has taken too long to get to this point. We still have more ground to make up, but we are getting there, and we are so proud of it. And, of course, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Ever since I have gotten on the Judiciary Committee, it has been my goal to diversify the bench. The judges I have chosen in New York have been like that for over two decades. But now, under the Biden administration and under the great leadership of Chairman Durbin and his Judiciary Committee, we have really moved forward.

I want to give special consideration--because she works full time on this--to my nominations director--we work so closely with the White House--and that is Catalina Tam, who has been so important and so dedicated behind the scenes in getting these judges confirmed.

This is a really fine day for America. When you look at all the trouble and all the things swirling around, and then you realize so many fine people who never would have even had access to the Federal bench are getting on the bench, it gives you faith in the future of this great country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first, I want to thank Senator Murphy for organizing this important floor block. I want to thank all of my colleagues who participated. I see Senator Blumenthal, of course Senator Klobuchar, and others who participated.

What we are talking about is the need to pass our bipartisan border bill to crack down on fentanyl entering our country. Every one of us in our States has talked to families who have lost loved ones because of fentanyl, particularly young people, and it breaks your hearts. Some of these family members didn't even know their loved ones had taken fentanyl and were dead within 24 hours--just gone. I have experienced that with some families.

So now we have a chance to do something with it in this bill. Tomorrow, Senators face an important decision: Will both sides come together to advance a bipartisan border security bill or will partisanship get in the way yet again?

Three months ago, Donald Trump told his Republican allies to block the strongest bipartisan border bill Congress has seen in a generation--something that would have done a great deal to stop the flow of vicious fentanyl into the United States.

So we are trying again tomorrow because we hear about these families that Senator Klobuchar mentioned, that I mentioned, that others have mentioned. We have to. And I hope this time our Republicans will join us to achieve a different outcome.

Unlike H.R. 2, a very partisan bill, this bipartisan bill was written with the goal of getting 60 votes in the Senate. It had input from both Republicans and Democrats. H.R. 2 can't claim that. It was totally put together by Republicans, got virtually no Democratic support. If anything is political, it is H.R. 2--has been used politically but never seriously to get something done.

So let's be perfectly clear. Our bipartisan border bill represents a real chance--in fact, the best chance in decades--to act on border security.

The bill would make huge strides towards cracking down on the scourge of fentanyl, deliver billions for the DEA, for DHS, to hire officers to focus exclusively on drugs, and billions--we now have state-of-the-art equipment that can detect the flow of drugs at the border. Why the heck aren't we allocating the money to pay for it instead of playing political games? We should be doing that right now.

I thank my Democratic colleagues who today are here highlighting how this bill does more than anything we have done thus far to deal with the scourge of fentanyl.

If you told me a year ago that this was the kind of bill that we had before us, that really cracked down on fentanyl, which we must fight, I would have thought we would have had a good chance, and we thought Republicans would have leapt at the opportunity to enact this bill into law. By objective measure, it is strong, it is necessary.

So, tomorrow, we are going to have a clear choice. Tomorrow, we will see who is serious about actually wanting to fix the border, who is serious about actually cracking down on fentanyl, and those who prefer to merely talk about it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 397, S. 4361.

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. President, for years, our Republican colleagues have insisted that the only real long-term solution to fixing the southern border was for Congress to pass legislation. We Democrats agree: Congress must

act. We need to fix the border and reform immigration to make it fairer and more humane.

This week, Republicans will have an opportunity to join us in taking action. A few moments ago, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the bipartisan Border Act, the same bill negotiated 3 months ago by the bipartisan group of Senators Murphy, Sinema, and Lankford.

The Senate will vote on this bipartisan border bill on Thursday. Last night, the President called both Leader McConnell and Speaker Johnson and urged them to go forward with our bill. All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance this week to show they are serious about fixing the problem.

Unlike H.R. 2, the bipartisan Border Act was written explicitly to win support from both parties with input--significant input--from both sides. The Border Act is an exercise in legislating; H.R. 2 is not.

When Republicans pushed H.R. 2, it couldn't even get a single Democratic vote here in the Senate, much less all Senate Republicans, for that matter. That was not a serious bill. What we are voting on this week is serious.

It is the same bipartisan bill both sides negotiated for months last winter. It is the same bill endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, a very conservative group; by the Chamber of Commerce; and by the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.

By any objective measure, it is strong and realistic, and, most importantly, a bipartisan proposal. If our bipartisan bill was good enough to win the support of the union that represents border agents, why isn't it good enough for Senate Republicans? Are Senate Republicans saying they know better than our agents patrolling the border? I hope that is not true. I hope our Republican colleagues are ready to join us.

I will be clear: We don't expect every Democrat or every Republican to come out in favor of this bill. That is why, as I have said before, the only way to pass this bill or any border bill is with broad bipartisan support.

If you go by what Republicans said over the last few months, you would think they would leap at an opportunity like the one we have right now. In the words of Speaker Johnson, ``The time to act on [the border] is yesterday.'' In the words of my colleague from Texas, ``It makes no sense to me for us to do nothing when we might be able to make things better.'' And in the words of my colleague from South Carolina, ``To those who think that if President Trump wins . . . that we can get a better deal--you won't.'' And he added, ``This moment will pass. Do not let it pass.''

Well, I wholeheartedly agree. We should not let this moment pass. Border legislation is just about the hardest thing Congress ever wrestles with. Bipartisan border bills are rare opportunities here in Congress. That is precisely why we have it in front of us this week. I urge everyone not to let the politics get in the way.

Mr. President, now, on abortion, shortly, I will join Senators Murray, Baldwin, Kelly, and some of the Nation's leading reproductive rights activists to highlight the terrible consequences of repealing the protections of Roe v. Wade.

The MAGA Supreme Court repealed Roe nearly 2 years ago. It will go down as one of the worst--if not the worst--Supreme Court decisions of modern American history. In one fell swoop, MAGA radicals on the Court made it so that our children and grandchildren will sadly grow up with fewer civil liberties than those who came before them.

Repealing Roe was tragic. It was alarming. It was outrageous, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because Senate Republicans packed our courts with hard-right judges, plucked right out of the Federalist Society checklist. It happened because Donald Trump appointed not one, not two, but three MAGA Justices, all who voted to overturn Roe. Remember what Donald Trump said a few weeks ago? He was ``proud'' to be the person who paved the way to overturn Roe.

And after Roe was eradicated, MAGA radicals opened the floodgates for draconian and cruel bans for women's choice across America. And we know this is just the beginning.

Does anyone seriously doubt that should Trump become President again, he won't try to add even more extreme jurists to the bench so he can continue his assault on women's reproductive freedoms? Of course, he will. And the Republican Senators, if past is prologue, are likely, unfortunately, to go along. If Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans get into power, the hard right will not rest until a national abortion ban becomes the law of the land. Mark my words, that is the direction that they will take America in.

House Republicans already included the national abortion ban in their recent Republican Study Committee budget. Remember, the Republican Study Committee includes a majority of House Republicans and their leadership.

Roe may be gone, but, sadly, the hard right's obsession with eliminating reproductive rights is not. Make no mistake, Republicans will have to answer for their anti-abortion records today, tomorrow, and at the ballot box in November.

Mr. President, on guns, 2 years ago, serious-minded Democrats and serious-minded Republicans came together to pass the most significant bipartisan gun safety bill in 30 years. We passed several new, commonsense rules in our gun safety bill, including rules closing dangerous loopholes on background checks. And I salute so many of my colleagues--led by Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema--who helped make this happen.

Yesterday, those rules on background checks were supposed to go into effect, but, sadly, MAGA extremists had other plans. Instead, MAGA extremists exploited our justice system and put our background check reforms on ice. How did they do it? By taking their case to their favorite judge in the country, in the Northern District of Texas, to rubberstamp a nationwide injunction.

The decision out of Texas is terrible for America for two reasons: First, the decision out of Texas is another consequence of judge shopping, a deeply unfair practice which jaundices the whole fairness and support a judicial system has where radicals--rightwing MAGA radicals--all but guarantee a favorable outcome by going to a judge of their choice, often in jurisdictions where there is only one sitting judge in that local division, guaranteeing a favorable audience and guaranteeing a favorable outcome.

No one had any doubt when these rightwing anti-gun safety groups went to this one judge--the very same judge who knocked out mifepristone--no one had any doubt what decision they would receive.

Judge shopping jaundices our legal system like few other abuses do. I have introduced a bill to rein in judge shopping, and I hope both sides can work together on this legislation to restore fairness to the judicial system.

If not, we are going to see injustice after injustice, a slanted judicial system, leaning in favor of hard-right radicals imposing its will on the rest of the Nation. And the courts will have less and less respect because of it.

I urge the Judicial Conference--they agree judge shopping is bad, forum shopping is bad, but they are doing nothing to implement it. They should.

But second, maybe even worse, the decision out of Texas means MAGA radicals have temporarily succeeded in blocking commonsense gun safety measures and making our communities less safe. There were outrages in Uvalde, in Buffalo.

And, finally, the Congress, in a bipartisan way, enacted the strongest gun safety laws in decades, ever since probably I passed the Brady Law and assault weapons ban--those were my bills in the House--in 1994.

And now people are less safe--less safe--because people who shouldn't have guns, young people, are getting them. Closing loopholes on background checks help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people should be something both sides can agree on. But, sadly, MAGA Republicans and the rightwing gun lobby thinks the opposite. And with forum shopping, they

can almost automatically get their way at least in the district courts.

Mr. President, finally, on the PACT Act, this is some good news. Today, President Biden will announce some very good news. It is very good news for our Nation's veterans. The Biden administration has now approved over 1 million claims from over 880,000 veterans still suffering from burn pit exposure thanks to our PACT Act.

When we passed the PACT Act 2 years ago, it was the most significant expansion of veterans' healthcare benefits in generations. It sent a message to our veterans suffering from cancer, lung disease, and other ailments from burn pits that we are here for you. I am glad to see the PACT Act is delivering on its promise and helping our veterans to get the care and benefits they deserve.

And like the gun bill I mentioned before and like the IRA and like the Chips and Science bill, it reminds us, when Democrats led in the House, led in the Senate, and had the Presidency, we got so much done for the American people.

Mr. President, on the farm bill, later this week, House Republicans on the House Committee on Agriculture intend to mark up their version of the farm bill that I believe falls terribly short.

The farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress works on, with consequences that affect tens of millions of Americans and a broad range of interests, from farmers, both big and small, to nutrition advocates, to climate champions and rural development advocates who rebuild local economies and create jobs--lots of jobs--in rural America. Some of these agriculture programs have helped rural parts of Upstate New York over and over again.

A good farm bill represents all of the interests I just mentioned. So passing a farm bill has always been--and must be--bipartisan, but, once again, the path MAGA-right House Republicans are taking with their farm bill breaks with the bipartisan tradition, which has always enshrined the ag bill. A purely partisan bill that departs from the longstanding spirit of bipartisan cooperation, unfortunately, will not have a future in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I would like to begin with a statement about the ICC prosecutor's announcement from earlier this morning.

The ICC prosecutor's decision seeking arrest warrants for Israeli leaders alongside Hamas terrorists is not only profoundly unfair, but it is reprehensible. As disappointing as the ICC's decision is, it comes as no surprise because, for decades and decades, the ICC has shown it harbors deep biases against Israel. This decision suggesting an equivalency between Israel and Hamas is another glaring example of that bias against Israel.

As I have said many times, there has never been and there can never be any equivalence between Israel's right to defend itself against terror and Hamas's barbarity. The ICC's decision seeking warrants against Israeli leaders is not only shameful, but it also fails to follow protocol and process in a country where it has zero jurisdiction. I fiercely oppose the ICC's decision, and I will work with President Biden and Members on all sides to keep support for Israel strong and unwavering.

Now, Madam President, on the border, 3 months ago--3 months ago-- Senate Republicans blocked the strongest, most comprehensive border security bill we have seen in a generation. This week, Republicans will get another chance to do the right thing.

Border security, we all know, is one of the most contentious issues that we have to wrestle with in Congress, but most people agree the status quo cannot continue. Our southern border is in desperate need of more resources, and our immigration system is in serious need of repair.

President Biden, in recent weeks, has taken many actions to increase sanctions against human rights abusers, reform asylum, and enhance drug enforcement to the maximum extent his office allows. But, as our Republican colleagues have said for years, the only long-term solution to the border is bipartisan--bipartisan--legislation from Congress.

Well, there is good news. Such bipartisan legislation does exist and is ready to go. I am talking, of course, about the bipartisan border act negotiated earlier this year by Senators Murphy and Sinema and Lankford and endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page. This week, the Senate will have an opportunity to move again on this bill.

For the information of my colleagues, tomorrow I plan to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the bipartisan Border Act. The Senate will then vote on our bipartisan border bill on Thursday. All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance this week to show they are serious about fixing the problem.

Let me repeat: The Senate will vote on our bipartisan border bill on Thursday. All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance this week to show they are serious--serious--about fixing the border.

I implore my Republican colleagues to join us in advancing this bill. We are going to need bipartisan support if

there is any hope of getting this bill done.

I will be clear: We do not expect every Democrat or every Republican to come out in favor of the bill, but as I have said before over and over again, the only way to pass this bill is with broad bipartisan support. I expect to see that on the Democratic side, and I hope we will see it on the Republican side as well.

This bill was written explicitly with the goal of getting support from both parties, unlike messaging bills like H.R. 2, which did not have bipartisan support to get through both Chambers.

The bill we are voting on this Thursday is practically the same bill that Senators Murphy and Sinema and Lankford and others negotiated 3 months ago. Republicans agreed to the substance of this bill. It is not at all some new measure or something that comes only from the Democratic side. The bill we will vote on this Thursday reforms asylum, boosts staffing at the border, cracks down on drugs like fentanyl, and gives emergency powers to shut the border when crossings meet a certain threshold--all issues Republicans have said we must address.

If our bipartisan border bill was good enough to win the support of the union that represents Border Patrol officers, it should be good enough to win the support of Senate Republicans.

If you judge this bill by its substance and take out the partisanship injected by Donald Trump, it is an objectively tough, serious-minded, and critically bipartisan--bipartisan--solution to the border. In fact, when we released this bill earlier this year, many of our Republican colleagues were surprised at how strong it was, at least in private.

For a short while, it seemed like we finally had a bill both parties could link arms on and pass together. Of course, we all know what happened. Donald Trump happened. He barged into the border debate and publicly came out against the bill, and the rest of his Republican supporters fell into place like dominoes.

Let me be clear: The border bill did not fail 3 months ago because it was too weak. On the contrary, the border bill failed because it was too strong for Donald Trump's liking, and it risked taking away an issue he wanted to exploit on the campaign trail. He said that himself.

Again, the border bill did not fail 3 months ago because it was too weak. It failed because it was too strong--too strong for Donald Trump's liking--and it risked taking away an issue he wanted to exploit on the campaign trail.

As we all know, he was explicit about his intentions. He said, ``Blame it on me,'' as if this were all one giant game to Donald Trump. He really doesn't care about the border. He just cares about the politics and the gamesmanship.

Well, we the American people do not have the luxury of playing games with border security. The issue is too important to ignore, and the bill we negotiated earlier this year is too good to pass up. So we are going to give Republicans another chance this week.

In the words of one of my Senate Republican colleagues, when we worked on the border bill earlier this year, ``this moment will pass. Do not let it pass.''

I couldn't agree more.