Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it has been a frightening 2 weeks for tens of millions of Americans who support a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare choices. Actually, if you believe the polls, there are hundreds of millions of Americans in that category.

Republican legislators across the country have passed some of the most extreme restrictions on a woman's right to choose. With breathtaking speed, they are trying to take us backward, but they have already provoked a fierce reaction among the American people.

Just yesterday, I stood with hundreds before the Supreme Court to speak on behalf of Americans everywhere who believe that women don't deserve to be treated this way by their government. Meanwhile, here in the Senate, the Republican leader is once again stalling--it seems to be his MO--on a bill to improve legal protections for women who are victims of domestic abuse, assault, and stalking. This is VAWA, or the Violence Against Women Act.

VAWA has been a landmark piece of legislation, and it has greatly reduced the abuse of women. Well, there was an improved and expanded VAWA that was passed by the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis. It got significant Republican votes. It brings much needed updates to existing Federal law. It finally expands protections to women who are victims of violence from domestic partners or former partners, not just current or former spouses. It also says that if you are known to stalk your partner or have a restraining order against you, you shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun. Thanks to the work of some of my colleagues in both Chambers, it also brings renewed attention to violence against Native American women who are so often overlooked.

I thank Senators Smith, Klobuchar, and Cantwell for bringing attention to this bill later today.

Unfortunately, Leader McConnell has indicated that he will not bring the House-passed VAWA bill to the floor, despite these many commonsense reforms. Why not? I hope it is not because the gun lobby reflexively opposes any restrictions on gun purchases--even for convicted stalkers. I hope that is not the impediment here, because as Senator Klobuchar has pointed out, if you are abused by your husband, then, you are protected by VAWA. If you are abused by a boyfriend, you are not. What is the difference? What is the difference?

VAWA is yet another example of how Leader McConnell has turned this Chamber into a legislative graveyard. Even the most commonsense bills, with broad support from one end of America to the other, that are passed by the House--here, a bill protecting women from violence--meet the grim fate at the hands of the Senate's self-proclaimed Grim Reaper.

What a shame. The Violence Against Women Act is precisely the kind of legislation the American people expect the Senate to consider. During a difficult few weeks for women across

America, the Senate could have sent a strong, positive signal by moving forward on the Violence Against Women Act. Instead, Leader McConnell carved out another tombstone for his legislative graveyard--another popular bipartisan bill buried with no action by the Senate and tied by the leader in partisan gridlock.

Madam President, earlier this month, a report from Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory found that carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere have now reached the highest level in human history--in human history. It was a chilling reminder that the threat from climate change is real, immediate, and existential. Almost everyone accepts this science and the gravity of the threat it portends. The only group of folks that still seem skeptical of climate science are Republicans and the Trump administration.

Yesterday the New York Times reported that the Trump EPA is planning to rewrite the established benchmarks for unsafe levels of air pollution. You heard that right. They are planning to use dubious math to obscure the real and long-known health risks of air pollution. These new formulations would result in fewer predicted deaths than what the experts have long agreed to. People will still die. The numbers will just be wrong about the effect.

Why, might you ask, would anyone want to obscure the full health risks of air pollution? Because then the Trump administration could use the fake math to justify further rollbacks to clean air rules at a time when global warming is increasing and when Americans know the danger. This Trump administration and the Republican majority are rolling the clock back--more carbon, more coal, more oil, and more gas, when we need less. We all know that.

What kind of Orwellian nonsense is this? The Environmental Protection Agency making it easier to pollute the environment? It is a textbook definition of ``dystopian.''

As my colleague Senator Whitehouse so often points out, dark money lurks behind so much of what the Trump administration does. Big Oil, Big Gas, and big polluters everywhere are the only possible boosters of this decision. It is their money, funneled to political organizations and politicians without a trace of disclosure, that motivates folks in the Trump administration to make it easier to release more pollution into the air.

We should be using the Senate to debate climate policies in search of common ground, but Leader McConnell has decided to bring forward his version of the Green New Deal just so his party could vote against it. We know what Leader McConnell and the Republicans are against. What are they for in dealing with climate change? So far, nada, zero, nothing-- they haven't put a single thing on the floor. The American people see the effects of climate change in their lives, and they know Congress must act. Only the Republican majority stands in the way.

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, over the last year, women's reproductive rights have come under a new level of assault. From Alabama to Missouri, to Texas, to Georgia, and beyond, over 300 new restrictions have been proposed in 39 States--bans on abortion as early as 6 weeks, so-called heartbeat bills, arbitrary waiting periods, and restrictions on clinics so severe that they force any center that performs an abortion to close down, leaving a few of our States with no more than a single clinic.

Ten such bills have now passed into law. These restrictions fly in the face of public opinion. The vast majority of the American public don't want to see Roe overturned or a woman's right to choose curtailed so severely as to render it meaningless.

I understand why many of my colleagues here in the Senate don't want to associate themselves with these extreme anti-abortion laws. Some of them have even publicly opposed the law passed by Alabama's Republicans, including the House Republican leader and the President. But let's face it. There is a sleight of hand going on here, because while many of my colleagues don't support these policies out loud, they are, at the same time, confirming judges to the Federal bench with horrendous records on women's rights, many of whom hold extreme views on Roe. These judges, in many ways, have just as much power as State legislatures to restrict a woman's right to choose and limit access to contraceptives through the courts.

Just look at some of the judges the Republican Senate has approved in the past 2 years with almost unanimous support on the Republican side. Look at Leonard Steven Grasz, who wrote about the ``moral bankruptcy that's the legacy of Roe v. Wade.''

What about Amy Coney Barrett? She said Roe v. Wade had been ``erroneously decided'' and called the ACA's birth control provisions ``an assault on religious liberty.'' A lot of these judges are not just against abortion. They are against contraception. She is on the bench for life. Amy Coney Barrett, who said that, is on the bench for life and on President Trump's short list for the Supreme Court.

Let's not forget Justice Kavanaugh, who refused to affirm that Roe was settled law and now sits on the one body with the power to overturn it.

Just last week, Republicans confirmed Wendy Vitter, who said Planned

Parenthood kills 150,000 a year and once pushed the idea that contraceptives cause cancer.

We have more coming down the pipeline. Soon the Senate may consider the nomination of Stephen Clark, who belonged to an organization called Lawyers for Life. He once compared Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott case.

So Republicans are playing a cynical long game here. They refuse to comment on the anti-abortion bills but are content to install anti- choice judges across the Federal bench who will uphold many of these very same laws. It is hypocritical. It is sort of like that old routine. They are saying: No, no, no, I am not for these laws. Judges, approve them. I am supporting judges who approve them.

It is not fair, it is not right, it is cynical, and the American people are going to get wise to it. We are watching the endgame of a long and concerted campaign by the far right to erode a woman's right to choose through the courts. From the moment that Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the most extreme elements of the Republican Party have plotted its demise.

The Federalist Society was founded with the intent of cultivating a generation of judges loyal to conservative causes. Its founder, Leonard Leo, was, above all, an anti-choice advocate--some would say, even further, a fanatic. Now that they have a Republican President and a Republican Senate, the Federalist Society can push judge after judge after judge onto the bench with barely a delay and with barely a discussion, where they will have the power to severely curtail a woman's right to choose.

My Republican friends who profess opposition or indifference to these extreme anti-abortion bills while voting for hard-right, anti-Roe judges are engaging in subterfuge, if not hypocrisy.

Madam President, finally, there is a topic I have discussed before--the administration's moves to block access to telecommunications equipment to China's state-controlled and state- backed firms, like Huawei. I firmly back these measures. Our defense, law enforcement, and intelligence officials have publicly testified that Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies pose a national threat to the security of the United States. Their technology could allow China to spy on Americans, steal their data, and otherwise conduct espionage.

Also, there is another point. China has taken advantage of us. There is a huge consensus now in America that that has happened. We didn't have that consensus even 5 years ago, but whether it is business or labor, average American citizens, Democrats, or Republicans, everyone agrees that China takes advantage, and one of the main ways they take advantage is they don't let our companies that have top-line products sell them in China, except under restrictions that make it almost impossible for them to do it. Our major tech companies are excluded from China, but China, at the same time, can sell anything it wants here.

``Reciprocity'' should be our watch word. If Google or Facebook or any of our other companies can't sell in China, their top companies shouldn't sell here until they let us in. That is what has happened with Huawei, in addition to the national security concerns, and it makes sense.

So I say to the Commerce Department: Stay strong.

We are now talking about some 90-day delay. I hope this is not a prelude to what we did with ZTE, when we stood tough at the beginning. It had an effect, and then we backed off.

President Trump, don't back off on Huawei.

Commerce Secretary Ross, don't back off on Huawei.

Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin and Ambassador Lighthizer, stay strong.

This will get the Chinese to play fair; talking won't. Tariffs are one tool; this is another. We need all the tools in our toolbox to get China to play fair.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have two bits of sad news about long- time Senate employees.

David Miles Knight, a beloved barber in our barbershop and one of the Senate's master barbers for the last 36 years, lost a lengthy battle with cancer.

His most noticeable and notable trait was kindness--not just friendliness but actual kindness--and a generosity of spirit. He was always eager to ask about a customer's day or a colleague's weekend and was just as eager to regale those folks with stories about his family-- of Joanne, his wife; of his three sons; of his eight grandchildren; and of his two great-grandchildren. Dave's life was filled with these people--his friends and his family.

I offer my prayers to them now--to Dave's family, his friends, and his Senate family. He was considered a member of the Senate family and had been here for decades. He was beloved. We miss him.

Berner Richard Johnson III, a staff member for 30 years, known to all here as ``Bud,'' also passed away last night. He was a victim of a violent crime last week in DC and recently succumbed to the injuries this crime involved.

Bud was beloved by his Senate family, the softball team he coached, and his many friends and family. I offer my prayers for Diane, his partner; for Bo, his son; and for all who loved him and who will miss him.

May the memory of these two men be a blessing to their loved ones and a reminder to all of us that life is fleeting and to hold tight to those we love.

Mr. President, on disaster relief, millions of Americans have waited long enough for their government to provide relief in the wake of recent natural disasters. We have 1 week left in this work period. This is crunch time. It will be an awful conclusion to this work period if we leave without passing a relief package. We must focus on concluding our negotiations and reaching consensus on our final legislation.

That is why I am alarmed by rumors that the Republican majority may attach a simple extension of the Violence Against Women Act to the disaster bill rather than to the new reform bill that was passed by a huge bipartisan majority in the House. That is a formula for deadlock when we pass it here and send it to the House, but they will not vote for it.

Why do we have to load up the disaster bill with extraneous provisions, especially those that might bring conflict?

We must be very careful not to allow this and other extraneous provisions to get on the bill that have opposition from Members. It would only imperil the success of bipartisan disaster relief. We have come to a conclusion on Puerto Rico, and I am glad our Republican friends have finally seen the light and have not treated Puerto Rico unfairly so that we can move forward with all disaster relief.

The President sent over a proposal on the border, and we have sent back a counter proposal with many of the things--but not all--that he included. Some are objectionable. That is extraneous, but we might be able to come to an agreement on that.

These other extraneous provisions? Our Republican leader has said that he wants to get this done Thursday. Well, a surefire way of not doing it is jamming the House, filling it up with provisions that would not pass the House.

So let's all roll up our sleeves, get to work, refrain from our desires to put other things on this must-pass bill, and get disaster relief done. We Democrats will work in good faith to resolve all the remaining issues. But before the week is out, let's get a bill we can vote on. Let's deliver relief to disaster-stricken Americans and put an end to what has been a needlessly partisan episode.

Mr. President, on women's health and a woman's right to choose and the judges we are appointing, the past week marked a low point for our country on the issue of women's reproductive rights.

While an overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade, a total of 30 States have now sought to restrict the rights of women to make their own healthcare decisions, and some would either directly or virtually undo the Roe v. Wade decision. Alabama's Republicans have passed the most extreme example--that is the one I was talking about-- but Republicans in Missouri and Texas are not far behind. And this is not merely a few fringe politicians making a statement way out of the mainstream; this is a systematic effort by Republicans in State legislatures to restrict women's reproductive rights and ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade, even though the vast majority of Americans don't want that to happen.

Meanwhile, here in the Senate, Leader McConnell has lined up a conveyor belt of far-right judges who have reprehensible records on women's rights.

Last week, the Republican majority considered a judge, Kenneth Lee of California. Here is what he said about sexism. He said it is ``irrelevant pouting.'' Tell that to women who have been discriminated against in so many different ways that we read about. How about Ms. Wendy Vitter? All of our Republican friends voted to put this woman on the bench. She once promoted the idea that contraceptives cause cancer and claimed that Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 women a year. Both were confirmed to lifetime appointments. It is incredible. These are people way on the extreme--way on the extreme.

And here comes another one. The Senate is voting on yet another judge with a horrendous record on women's rights--Mr. Daniel Collins, nominated to the Ninth Circuit over the objection of both of his home State Senators. He has defended the rights of pregnancy clinics to withhold from their patients that they don't provide abortion services and filed an amicus brief in support of the Hobby Lobby's petition to deny its female employees contraceptive care. He is a longtime donor and member of the Federalist Society, and he has ensconced himself in one of the most anti-choice organizations in the entire country. Let's make no mistake about it--to read some of the articles about the Federalist Society, it was formed with the goal of curtailing women's rights. Many of its advocates believe that Roe v. Wade should be repealed.

Let me just call out my friends on the Republican side. When the Alabama law came about, the vast majority of my friends on the other side stayed silent about the extreme anti-abortion measure in Alabama and some of the other States, and then some

said: We oppose what Alabama does. At the same time, they are rubberstamping judges who would do the same thing--repeal Roe. There is a direct contradiction here. There is hypocrisy. Republicans who say they don't like the Alabama decision and then vote for judges who would ratify and repeal Roe or cut back so dramatically on Roe that it hardly exists are engaged in subterfuge. They say: Watch this hand. I am saying that I am not that extreme. Don't watch this hand where I am putting extreme judges on the bench who will do exactly what I say I am opposed to.

It is outrageous. They will be caught. It is outrageous that they are on the bench.

Mr. President, finally, on Huawei, there is positive news about an administrative action. I am in full support of what the Commerce Department did on Huawei, and I want to give a shout-out to Google for joining in and urge all other American companies to join as well. The administration issued an Executive order laying the groundwork to ban the purchase of telecommunications equipment from China's state-controlled firms. The decision, as I said, is having an impact because of Google. We are waiting for other companies to join in.

For years, China has prevented great American technology companies like Google, Facebook, and so many others from operating in China. They put barrier after barrier in the way because we are better, and they know American firms would capture the Chinese market. They put barriers in the way, they steal our technology and then develop it, and then even try to sell it back here. It has happened with computers. It has happened with so many other things that America and American know-how developed.

Huawei is a national security concern. It is a Chinese company that could pry into all of us. But it is also an excellent weapon to get China to finally start treating us fairly, which they haven't done for 30 years. We have lost tens of millions of good-paying American jobs and trillions of dollars because of what China has done to us. I have to say that both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past just sat there under some guise of free trade, which wasn't free or fair at all. And now we have some weapons.

A lot of these folks--these pundits, these critics, these editorial writers--say tariffs is the wrong way to go. Talking is the wrong way to go. It got us nowhere. But one other way to go is reciprocity.

China, we are going to treat some of your companies the way you treat our companies.

That is what we did with Huawei. It was the first time I have seen something very strong. I hope the President doesn't back off. He did with ZTE because President Xi asked him to. The head of China asked him to.

Don't back off, Mr. President.

This is the right thing to do, and I have been advocating for decades. I asked President Bush and President Obama to use reciprocity as a tool to stop China. It is another tool in our toolkit and an effective one.

If China won't let our most productive companies compete in its markets, we shouldn't let China's state-driven companies compete in ours. They get subsidies from the state.

We should not give Huawei--particularly Huawei, which is a security concern as well--free reign in the United States. China has to learn something. It has to open up its markets if it wants access to ours. They talk about, oh, we are an affront to China because we are asking for fairness? Give me a break. Give me a break. We know what fairness is.

I believe the administration's decision to put pressure on China to reform its economic policies was very smart, and I am really glad they did it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Casey for, as usual, his thoughtful, erudite, on-the-money remarks--this time about judges. I am going to talk about that in a minute.

We see something happening here. We see State after State trying to repeal Roe. When we ask our Republican colleagues directly ``Do you want to appeal Roe?'' they are usually silent. Their votes on judges say they do, and that is what they are doing. The voters should hold them accountable. I will get to that more in a minute, but I wanted to follow up on the remarks about judges by my good friend from Pennsylvania.