Floor Statements

Madam President, yesterday, the Trump administration released the outlines of its plan for immigration reform. Truth be told, the reported White House plan isn't a serious attempt at immigration reform. If anything, it is a political document that is anti- immigration reform. It repackages the same partisan, radical, anti- immigrant policies that the administration has pushed for 2 years, all of which have struggled to earn even a simple majority in the Senate, let alone 60 votes. The hands of Stephen Miller are all over this plan, and, of course, he had a watchful eye when other administration officials came into the Republican lunch yesterday and talked about it.

The plan they put together holds immigration precisely at current levels, meaning that for every new immigrant the plan potentially lets in, it must kick one out. What kind of logic is that? What kind of harebrained logic is that--the idea that for every immigrant you help you have to hurt another? How arbitrary. How simplistic. How cruel. It is like the Procrustean bed of immigration policy.

We need immigrants in America. Our labor force is declining. If you go to businesses at the high end, the middle end, and the low end, they say their greatest problem is a lack of workers. And we come up with a policy like this? Make no mistake about it. It is cruel and inhumane, but it also hurts our economy significantly. If you don't believe me, talk to business leaders--any business leader you know.

Shockingly, the White House's immigration proposal fails to deal with Dreamers or the 11 million undocumented immigrants now living in the United States. The White House Press Secretary said Dreamers were ``left out on purpose.'' What does that say about the administration? That goes to the root of what is wrong with this administration's approach to immigration. If they think they can repeat what they failed to do in the past, if they try to repeat it, saying ``OK, we will let Dreamers in, but you accept a whole lot of bad things,'' which is why immigration reform failed last time, last year, it ain't happening. It ain't happening.

I would say two things. If you are going to do major immigration reform through Congress, you are going to need bipartisan support. That means you sit down and talk to Democrats. Four of us on the Democratic side and four of us on the Republican side in the Gang of 8 spent hours and weeks and months together and carved together a bill that got overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber and was overwhelmingly supported by the American people and still is. I think 68 percent still support comprehensive immigration reform.

But what does the White House do? Typically, they put together their own plan--Stephen Miller, chief cook and bottle washer--and they say that Democrats should support this. Ain't happening.

No consultation, no nothing--that is not the way you would go about putting together a bill that you really want to pass. That is not the way to go about things if you really want to solve our immigration problem.

When Stephen Miller, one of the President's most virulently anti- immigrant advisers, is in the room crafting an immigration plan, it is a surefire failure. The fact that the President is announcing his bill today provides a further bit of irony because, this afternoon, the new Statue of Liberty museum opens. There is no greater symbol of Americans' openness to immigration, of the greatness of America, than the Statue of Liberty, which reaches out to people from every corner of the globe. It towers over nearby Ellis Island, where generations of hopeful strivers shuffled off boats into a new life and into a new country and helped build America into the greatest country in the world.

The White House immigration bill is an insult to our grand tradition of welcoming immigrants from all walks of life, and it is an appropriate metaphor that the President, today, is skipping the opening of the new Statue of Liberty museum, even though he is in New York, simply to go to political fundraisers. He skips real immigration reform and offers a political document, and his trip to New York embodies that ironically and metaphorically.

Madam President, on Iran, this has been a chaotic week in the news about the Trump administration's position on Iran. We have gone from reports that the Trump administration's national security team was discussing possible troop deployments--one newspaper, the New York Times, reported 120,000--to coverage now of infighting among the President's staff about the credibility of the threat from Iran.

As usual, the signals indicate chaos coming out of the White House-- individuals fighting with each other, no real plan, no real pattern, and no discussion with the American people or with the Congress.

Yesterday, personnel were evacuated from our Embassy in Iraq, and Republicans in Congress have now started to echo the same saber- rattling we typically hear from folks like Ambassador Bolton. At this moment, the only thing that is abundantly clear about the administration's Iran policy is its lack of clarity and the lack of consultation with Congress and with the American people.

Congress has not been fully informed about the intelligence. We have not been properly consulted about the administration's strategy, to the extent one exists.

More importantly, the American people deserve to know what is going on here. They are rightfully skeptical and tired of wars in the Middle East--a skepticism many of my Republican friends across the aisle don't seem to share. We need to get a better public understanding of what President Trump and Republicans in Congress plan to do.

Yesterday, I called on Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dunford to testify publicly before the Armed Services Committee so that the American people can at least get an idea of what is being cooked up here. We have learned, sadly, in Iraq, when things are done behind closed doors and the American people aren't fully informed, it can lead to significant foreign policy blunders. So they should come up here--General Dunford, Acting Secretary Shanahan, as well as Secretary Pompeo--and I hope that request will be granted.

Now, Madam President, on healthcare and our friends creating the Senate graveyard, as well as the abortion bill in Alabama, the House has passed over 100 pieces of legislation, many of them with bipartisan support, only to get buried in this graveyard of a Chamber. Leader McConnell, who controls the calendar, prefers to run it as a legislative graveyard.

Let's take healthcare as an example, the No. 1 issue the American people care about. Our colleagues in the House passed a modest bill to protect families from getting charged more if they have a preexisting condition. It should be bipartisan, and most Republicans--or many of the Senate Republicans say they agree with that policy when asked. Well, we have a bill that does it, and what does Leader McConnell do? He just deep-sixes it and sets aside another tombstone for his legislative graveyard.

What about today's House vote on another set of healthcare bills to protect people with preexisting conditions and help them sign up for insurance? What is the fate of those bills in the Senate? Will Leader McConnell sentence them to the same legislative death as all of these other proposals or will Leader McConnell actually allow us to debate something of great importance to the American people, to amend it, and then vote on it? Hopefully it will pass. I believe it would.

What is Leader McConnell afraid of? Is he afraid the American people will get protection from preexisting conditions? Is he afraid he might anger some special interest? Is he afraid he might anger President Trump? We have a higher obligation here.

Instead of debating those crucial pieces of legislation, Leader McConnell has treated the Senate like a rubberstamp for the Trump administration's often radical nominees. For 3 straight weeks, we have only processed nominations, including several judges who are merely unqualified ideologues or merely unqualified.

This matters. The judges we have heard from are narrow. Many have offered bigoted remarks in the past, really bigoted. They are not who a judge should be. A judge is supposed to walk in the plaintiff's shoes and the defendant's shoes, and then come up with a decision that is governed by existing law. These people are ideologues, many of them stooges and acolytes for the Federalist Society. Now we have in Alabama the most radical anti-abortion bill in the country, inviting a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the courts. So the effort by the Republican leader to remake the Federal judiciary into a conservative redoubt has a direct impact on these legal challenges.

If you ask most of the Republican Members in this Chamber ``Are you for repealing Roe v. Wade, hook, line, and sinker?'' they would say, no, they are not or they would mostly be silent; they would be afraid to answer. Then they vote for judges who want to do it, either frontally or by various deep cuts. When our Republican friends vote for these radical, hard-right judges, they are saying they want to repeal Roe v. Wade, even if they will not say it directly.

So I say to my colleagues, much as you prefer to remain silent on the Alabama Republican abortion bill, your votes for the hard-right, anti- Roe judges speak volumes--volumes. I would say the whole impetus of the Alabama bill is now that we have very conservative, anti-Roe judges on the Supreme Court, supported universally by the Members of the other side, they feel they have the boldness to introduce a bill that actually repeals Roe instead of just curbing it.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for always staying on top of things like this.

Mr. President, first, I would like to talk about Police Week. Today we observe Peace Officers Memorial Day, the heart of National Police Week. We all remember the men and women in law enforcement who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and we pause to say thank you to all of our police officers who work day and night to keep our communities safe.

I want to share a special thanks to all of our law enforcement members visiting from New York, who, in my view, are the gold standard in police work.

I grew up in a neighborhood where police officers lived. I played with their children at their houses. You would always know sort of instinctively, even as a kid, when that phone rang and the spouse-- almost always, in those days, the wife of a police officer--heard the phone ring, what went through her head a little bit is this: I hope that is not the call I dreaded. This is the job of police officers and their families--that is, to risk their safety for our safety--and they do a great job.

As we recognize their contributions, we should acknowledge what we could do in Congress to make their jobs safer and easier. We can make our streets safer by passing comprehensive background check legislation. We can help law enforcement combat foreign opioid trafficking by passing the bipartisan Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the POWER Act, which provides handheld scanning devices. When a police officer is on a drug bust, they can tell if fentanyl is part of a crime scene there, and they can take precautions to protect themselves, because we know how deadly fentanyl is, even if it gets on your skin or in your nostrils. We can also do more to care for the families of fallen officers.

That is why I have been so proud to fight alongside my colleague Senator Gillibrand and so many others to make sure that the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund has the necessary funding.

Last Friday, the New York Police Department, or the NYPD, added the names of nearly 50 police officers to the 9/11 memorial wall, all of whom died in 9/11-related illnesses. It is our duty to take care of these families, and the first step is making sure that the Victims Compensation Fund has enough funds to compensate them.

I say to our law enforcement officers two words: Thank you. Thank you for your service. It is an honor to represent you in the Senate, and we are all grateful for the sacrifices you make every day.

Mr. President, now on judges, during the same week that we mark the 65th anniversary of the historic ``Brown v. Board of Education'' decision, Leader McConnell has scheduled votes on nominees whose views directly contradict the spirit of equality and justice that Brown represents.

It is appalling. These new people we are putting on the bench turn the clock so backward after we have made so much progress, many of it through the courts.

Consider the nomination of Michael Truncale of Texas. He has peddled conspiracies of ``widespread voter fraud'' and once called President Obama an ``un-American imposter'' who ``bows to Arab Sheikhs and other world leaders.'' This is a man who we are putting on the bench, a man who is supposed to be judicious, thoughtful, and sees both sides. What we are putting on the bench is hard-right ideologues who will do damage to this country for a generation. Mr. Truncale was approved by the Republican Senate yesterday for a seat on the district court in Texas, and he is going to sit on that bench for life--a man who says things like this and who thinks like this.

I have always tried to put on the bench people who are moderate. So many of us have. Bill Clinton did. Barack Obama did. Here we have a parade of narrow ideologues, and that is not who should be on the bench because they will make law rather than interpret the law.

Here is another one, Kenneth Lee of California. His past writings reveal shocking positions on race and diversity, affirmative action, educational opportunity, and women's reproductive freedom. He once wrote that multiculturalism is a ``malodorous sickness'' and that sexism--sexism, which we have all seen and heard about and a little more than half of our population experiences--is ``irrelevant pouting.'' That is a man who should be on the bench? If confirmed today, Mr. Lee may preside over cases dealing with gender discrimination.

Consider Wendy Vitter, nominated to the Eastern District of Louisiana. She once promoted the idea that contraceptives caused cancer and claimed that Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 women annually. She also refused to acknowledge that Brown v. Broad was correctly decided. On this very anniversary, that is who is on the floor to be voted on in lockstep by all the folks here on the Republican side. She refused to acknowledge that Brown v.

Board was correctly decided, saying instead that the decision was correct with the benefit of hindsight--whatever that means. In the same district, where 6-year-old Ruby Bridges became the first African- American child to attend an all-White elementary school in the South, the Senate will consider confirming someone who claims that hindsight was needed to understand why the decision that allowed Ruby to go to the same school as a White child wasn't correct. That is who we are putting on the bench.

These are not just conservatives. We understand that the President and Republicans will put in conservatives, but hard-right, narrow ideologues who show no understanding or sympathy for people who don't look like them or pray like them or marry like them--what is wrong here?

It is not hard. If you need the benefit of hindsight to understand that Brown v. Board of Education, which brought an end to school segregation and led to the end of American apartheid, was correctly decided, you shouldn't be a Federal judge. I urge my colleagues, in the spirit of the Brown anniversary and what it means, to oppose Ms. Vitter's nomination this afternoon.

Mr. President, now on Puerto Rico, briefly, as negotiations on a final package of disaster aid continue, I want to stress to everyone that we must remain focused on reaching an agreement as swiftly as possible. Disaster-stricken Americans in the West, the South, the Midwest, and 3 million citizens of Puerto Rico are waiting on Congress to deliver relief, in some cases for disasters that occurred over a year ago.

Why is this held up?

We know why. Republicans are not willing to give aid to Puerto Rico. There was a bill that would never pass the House and something they didn't think originally, when President Trump said: Don't do it. And they just bowed down. They thought they could roll over the House and the Democratic minority in the Senate, who wouldn't stand up for certain Americans.

Well, we did. Now, thankfully, we are making progress. Republicans are realizing that Puerto Ricans cannot be left out of the package, but now we must avoid poison pills at all costs. President Trump, if he sticks his thumb into this again and asks for something unreasonable, will delay disaster aid once again, just as he did before.

To my Republican colleagues, let's do this together. Let's do it in the right way. Let's do it in the way that can pass the House.

President Trump will sign the bill. We have to make sure this legislation gets across the finish line. Every time the President intervenes and Republican colleagues go along, it gets held up even further.

Mr. President, on the Alabama abortion bill, last night the Republican Alabama Senate passed, perhaps, the most draconian abortion law in the country. It bans abortion in every stage of pregnancy, imposes criminal penalties--criminal penalties--on any doctor who performs one, and includes no exception in the case of rape or incest, even if the victim is a child. If a child is raped, they have to have the baby.

The Alabama bill is as extreme as it gets. It is a clear attack on women's freedom. It contravenes a woman's constitutional right to make private medical decisions. It would deeply harm women, turn doctors into criminals, and deny the right of rape victims, even if they are children, to make personal medical decisions.

The Alabama abortion bill is plainly inhumane. It should never have passed. The Governor should not sign it. If she does, it ought to be swiftly struck down by the courts.

Mr. President, on Iran, over of the past few days, it has come to light in public reporting that the Trump administration's national security team has reviewed a plan to deploy as many as 120,000--yes, you heard that right, 120,000--U.S. troops in the Mideast should tensions with Iran escalate. I was stunned to read this report in the New York Times yesterday.

The administration just started a maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against Iran, but is it simultaneously reviewing plans for war? That would make no sense.

Meanwhile, the President oddly denied the report while also saying he would ``absolutely'' send ground troops to the Middle East. But if he did, it would be a ``heck''--and I am paraphrasing--``of a lot more troops [than 120,000].''

Did we learn the lessons of the last decade? Do we know that we have to spend our time focusing on building up this country here, not build roads and bridges in the Middle East but do them here?

There is an alarming lack of clarity here. There is a lack of strategy, and there is a lack of consultation. The President ought to come up with a strategy and make it clear to Congress. An adventure like this--120,000 troops or a large number of troops--should have to be approved by Congress. It certainly should be discussed with Congress ahead of time. There need to be open hearings and closed briefings with the committees of jurisdiction immediately.

Any potential increase in our military presence in the Middle East should require consultation with Congress, and anything beyond that would require this body to act.

President Trump, what is your strategy? Where are you headed? Why aren't you talking to Congress about it?

Madam President, first, I want to thank the Senator from Minnesota--the senior Senator--for all of the great work she has done in working to reduce the high cost of drugs for the American people.

The Middle East

Madam President, on a much different subject but a very important one--Iran and the Middle East--I have returned to the floor this afternoon amid several concerned reports about the Trump administration's position on Iran.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the administration's national security team discussed a plan that would deploy at least 120,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East. Today we learned that personnel were removed from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. The President himself initially denied there was a plan and then seemed to confirm the reports by saying that he would ``absolutely'' send troops, and, if he did, ``it would be a hell of a lot more than 120,000.''

The news comes as quite a surprise to the American people, who have grown quite tired of wars in the Middle East, of the loss of life and fortune when there is so much that has to be done in America.

The American people deserve to know what is going on here. We are talking about not only putting 120,000 troops in harm's way in this possible deployment but also about the safety and the actions of the thousands of troops we have stationed in the Middle East right now.

So I am calling on Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, to come testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee in an open setting before the end of the week. The hearings that are done in secret do not inform the American people of what is going on, and they are entitled to know because the lessons of history teach us that when things are done in secret, behind closed doors, mistakes can be made and momentum built for a course of action that the Nation ultimately regrets.

So I repeat: The American people deserve to know what is going on. If the President and Republicans in Congress are planning to take the United States into a conflict, even a war in the Middle East, the American people deserve to know that, and they deserve to know why.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, this morning's New York Times contained a stunning report that President Trump's top national security aid had been presented with a plan that would ``send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons''--120,000 American troops in the Middle East. This report is completely baffling and incredibly alarming.

What is the strategy here? The administration just began a maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against Iran to squeeze its economy. Doesn't it make sense to see if your policy is working before preparing for potential troop deployments, particularly in such large numbers? Six months ago the President was trying to pull U.S. forces out of the Middle East entirely, against the advice of many in our defense and diplomatic communities. Now his national security team is reviewing plans for war?

Meanwhile, President Trump has not laid out what his plans are, what his long-term strategy in the Middle East is, or even given a speech about Iran. So why on Earth are his advisers discussing plans to entrench U.S. ground troops in the Middle East for who knows how long? It seems that hardliners in the administration are pushing the conversation in a very dangerous direction, and I am very concerned.

U.S. foreign policy depends upon the stable execution of a consistent policy, but all too often the Trump administration has seemed capable of neither stability nor consistency. The erratic behavior of the President and the chaos he instills in his administration has led to numerous blunders at home and abroad. We should all hope that this report is just that--another blunder--and not the beginnings of a rush by the President's hawkish advisers to heighten military tensions with Iran.

There are many questions for the President, but here are two. Why do we need more troops in the Iran area right now? Why? And why such a large number--120,000, which is as many as the total number of troops we have had in Iraq at significant times.

Now, there are a lot of Americans still waiting at this point for Puerto Rico and the disaster bill. A lot of Americans are still waiting for the Senate to put politics aside and help them piece their lives back together from natural disasters last year, from wildfires to floods, from tornadoes to hurricanes. Because of climate change, our weather is different--considerably different--and Americans are paying the price. We are also paying the price for not taking leadership on climate. But now I am here to discuss this relief package. Throughout our discussions here in Congress about the relief package, Democrats have maintained that it must include relief for all Americans affected by disasters last year, not just those Americans who live in the West and Midwest or South, but also the 3 million citizens living in Puerto Rico. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not that if you help Puerto Rico you would not be helping Florida or Iowa. You can help them all, and that is what Americans have always done.

But there is some good news. I must say that I am encouraged that Republicans are starting to realize that we cannot leave Puerto Rico out. It may not have happened had Democrats not insisted all along that Puerto Rico be included, but our Republican friends are beginning to realize that if Puerto Rico is not in the package, no package will pass. As for their intransigence and obeisance to President Trump, when he came in out of the clear blue one day and bollixed up the package that had been carefully worked out between the Democrats and Republicans by insisting that no aid to Puerto Rico be in the package, it is clear to our Republican friends that is not working, and I am encouraged that Republicans have moved into our direction when it comes to disaster in Puerto Rico. I hope that we can find agreement soon and put this totally unnecessary political fight behind us and finally deliver relief to disaster-stricken Americans, wherever they may be.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.