Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, before I begin the bulk of my remarks, I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt condolences to the victims of the shooting on Saturday, in California, when a gunman opened fire in a synagogue during services after yelling anti-Semitic slurs. His heinous attack left a 60-year-old woman dead, the rabbi wounded, a man and an 8-year-old girl with shrapnel wounds.

We have seen so many different houses of worship attacked in recent weeks. Just 1 week ago on Easter Sunday, hundreds of Christian Sri Lankans were massacred in their churches. What happened at the synagogue in California is rooted in the same White supremacist hatred and bile that drove attacks against the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh; mosques in New Zealand, and the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston.

We must recommit ourselves today and every day to fighting anti- Semitism and all forms of bigotry in our country and around the world.

Remembering Richard Lugar

Madam President, I also want to share a word on the passing of our friend and former colleague, Dick Lugar of Indiana. Dick personified the Senate at its best--honest, decent, and with an eye for consensus. He represented the kind of thoughtful bipartisanship that is so missing in our politics today. His work on the Foreign Relations Committee-- twice as its leader--made the world a safer and fairer place, whether it was combating proliferation of nuclear weapons, apartheid in South Africa, or world hunger.

His legacy as a legislator and as a man is something for all of us to aspire to. Senator Lugar will be greatly missed.

Mueller Report

Madam President, while Congress was away during the State work period, Attorney General Barr released a redacted version of Special Counsel Mueller's report to Congress and to the American people.

The report documents, yet again, a concerted effort by President Putin to interfere and influence our elections and to assist the current President.

Members of the Trump campaign were aware of, and at times amplified, that foreign influence campaign, including President Trump himself, for the likely purpose of winning a Presidential election. That alone constitutes attacks on our democracy.

Just as alarming was the behavior of the President and his team concerning Special Counsel Mueller's investigation itself. Special Counsel Mueller's report documents a persistent effort by the President to stonewall, thwart, and undermine the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation. The report includes no less than 11 instances during which the President may have obstructed justice.

There is no question that the President engaged in a pattern of intimidation and interference with the Federal investigation. Special Counsel Mueller explicitly states in his report that if he could have exonerated the President on the charge of criminal obstruction of justice, then he would have, but ``evidence about the President's actions and intent . . . prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.''

Also, it appears that the Justice Department's policy against the indictment of sitting Presidents played an important role in the special counsel's analysis. Now the Congress and the American people must grapple with this damning portrait of a President who was dishonest, lawless, and regularly abused the powers of his office.

The House of Representatives is going to pursue hearings. The Senate will hear from Attorney General Barr this week, where he must answer for his mischaracterizations of the special counsel's findings, his outrageously partisan press conference, and, in general, his failure to behave with the impartiality demanded of the Office of Attorney General.

Special Counsel Mueller must testify before Congress to further explain the findings in his report and provide clarity on areas where the Attorney General twisted his words, and Congress must be given access to an unredacted version of the report. Knowing Attorney General Barr's conduct, we cannot trust him to be a clean pair of hands in all of this.

So while many on the other side of the aisle want to move on from these issues, we simply cannot move on. Congress--Democrats and Republicans--must grapple with the facts of the Mueller report. We must defend our democracy, and, yes, hold the President accountable. These are not partisan issues. This is about our country, the sanctity of our elections, and the future of the Presidency.

In the wake of the Mueller report, I have been asked a lot, what are Democrats going to do with the Mueller report? Well, the real question should be, what are my Republican friends going to do with it?

Disaster Relief

Madam President, Congress shamefully recessed for the State work period without passing relief for Americans who are affected by natural disasters that occurred recently. This needs to be a top legislative priority over the next few weeks. We are already one-third of the way into 2019, and millions of Americans are still waiting for us to provide necessary funding so they can recover and rebuild from disasters that happened months ago--in some cases, longer than that.

The Democratic position is clear: We support an ``all of the above'' approach that provides relief for every American affected by natural disasters--Americans in the Midwest, Americans in the South, Americans on the West Coast, and, yes, Americans in Puerto Rico.

Everyone knows why Senate Republicans have blocked our proposals, and that is because President Trump has shown a borderline obsessive hostility to the people in Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have followed President Trump's lead. It has caused us to fail in our responsibility to provide long overdue aid to Americans struggling to piece their lives back together after hurricanes, floods, fires and droughts.

Well, my friends on the other side have had a few weeks to think about it. I sincerely hope we can press the reset button. We have a legislative proposal introduced by my friend Congresswoman Lowey that takes care of all of these disaster victims, and it is ready to go in the House.

So as we get back to legislative business this week, I urge my colleagues to put politics aside. Let's do the right thing. Let's tell President Trump that his obsessive nastiness to Puerto Rico, unfounded by fact, is not going to prevent millions of people in the Middle West, the West, and the South from getting the relief they need. Let's provide disaster relief for every American who needs it.

Infrastructure

Madam President, tomorrow morning, at the Democrats' request, the Speaker and I will meet with President Trump at the White House to discuss the glaring need to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. During the Presidential campaign, Candidate Trump promised a trillion- dollar infrastructure bill. It was one of the few areas where most Democrats, myself included, believed we could find common

ground with the President after he was elected.

Unfortunately, it has been over 2 years. The President hasn't proposed anything close to a trillion-dollar investment and has shown little interest in pursuing an infrastructure bill in Congress. Senate Democrats, however, have put together a trillion-dollar infrastructure investment, a real plan that invests Federal dollars not just in roads, bridges, and highways--as important as they are, and they are--but also in schools, housing, electric grids, rural broadband, and green energy.

There are several different ways to pay for such a bill. For example, by reversing only the most egregious giveaways in President Trump's tax bill--those given to the wealthiest of the wealthy--and raising the corporate tax rate a smidge, we could finance the entirety of a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

So, while we look forward to an open discussion tomorrow, it is important to remember two things. First, our country has large infrastructure demands. We need to go big and address roads and bridges but also schools, housing, broadband, green energy, and more. Second, we need to remember that since the Republicans have handed out a mammoth tax break to big corporations and the already wealthy, it would be extraordinarily unfair to ask the middle class to shoulder the cost of an infrastructure bill. The Tax Code shouldn't be made any more regressive than it is now in order to pay for an infrastructure bill.

We look forward to our discussion tomorrow, and, hopefully, the President will have an open mind.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, well, if anyone wonders whether Attorney General Barr is a straight shooter, this week, we got our answer.

Yesterday, at the Senate Appropriations Committee, the country saw another disconcerting performance by the Attorney General. In the face of serious questions surrounding the release of the Mueller report, the Attorney General did exactly what President Trump wanted: He dodged questions, peddled a conspiracy theory, and, like the President, lobbed baseless accusations. It is clear that for Mr. Barr, the title he holds is far less important than the boss he serves.

What he did not say is that Russia attacked our democracy, as all 17 Agencies of our intelligence community have confirmed. What he did not say is that the intelligence community concluded that the Russians infiltrated our democracy to help Donald Trump. What he also didn't say is why he continues to wait on releasing the Mueller report. It took him less than 48 hours to summarize over 300 pages but over 2 weeks, and counting, to release the report itself.

Instead of giving straight answers, Mr. Barr seems to be nothing more than a spokesperson for the President's campaign. He seems more like the President's Press Secretary than the Attorney General. He is even using the President's own tactics: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counteraccusations.

Many of us tried to give Mr. Barr a chance, but after this week's performance, it is clear as day he and the President are working off the same playbook and planning to withhold crucial facts from the American people.

What is really important is this: When Attorney General Barr issues his report, his objectivity will be in total doubt. No one will believe, when he redacts large parts of the report, that it was done on the merits; people will believe he redacted parts of the report to help President Trump. How will the American people be able to trust Mr. Barr, and how will the American people be able to believe that his version of the report is the real version when he has been so, so partisan and was willing to peddle FOX News conspiracy theories before the Appropriations Committee yesterday?

When Mr. Barr was first nominated as Attorney General, the question posed to him was, would he be part of the Trump legal team or an independent agent of the law? I think we have our answer, as we watch him echo President Trump's statements and enable President Trump's worst instincts. Whether it is defending the administration's dangerous healthcare lawsuit or perpetuating conspiracy theories, Mr. Barr is acting more like a member of the President's campaign than the independent Attorney General he is supposed to be.

Mr. Barr is letting down thousands--tens of thousands--of hard- working people at the Justice Department. They are doing their job. When someone is given real information that Russia interfered with our elections, of course they are supposed to look into it. That is part of their job. For Mr. Barr to label this as spying, echoing some of the worst conspiracy theorists in the country, he loses all credibility, and that credibility is vital because he will be issuing a report with redactions.

When Mr. Barr issues his report, in terms of what should be redacted and what shouldn't, his objectivity will be in total doubt because of his performance yesterday.

Again, how will the American people be able to trust that the Attorney General has given them the most information he can rather than the least and that he has given them a full view of what happened rather than protecting the President? People are just not going to believe it.

The bottom line is that yesterday's performance calls into complete question the objectivity and even the judgment of the Attorney General. He does not seem to be an independent actor pursuing the rule of law. Rather, he seems to be somebody simply ready to help the President no matter what the price.

Mr. President, on another matter, disaster relief, it is an absolute travesty that this Chamber is recessing without a compromise on much needed funding for disaster relief.

From the start, Democrats have supported an ``all of the above'' approach to helping every part of America that is struggling from natural disasters. We need to help everyone hurt last year and everyone hurt this year--everyone hurt in Puerto Rico, everyone hurt in the Midwest, everyone hurt in Florida, and everyone hurt in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. In the American tradition, everyone comes together when we have disasters, and we help everyone.

Our Republican friends seem to have a different view. They want disaster relief that explicitly denies Puerto Rico the help it needs, even though they are American citizens like everybody else. They heard President Trump's temper tantrum at their lunch a few Tuesdays back, and they have obeyed. This is un-American. We should not be picking and choosing who gets disaster relief.

When Americans suffer, we all step in. We all help. President Trump does not believe that, but where are our Senators who are standing up for this principle? The compassion of the American people is much greater than President Trump's small-minded contempt for the people of Puerto Rico. The Senate, particularly Senators from the disaster States who need that money, ought to have the courage to resist it instead of making up stories and pointing fingers of blame.

Republicans have refused to present a serious solution that can pass the House and the Senate. We all know that if Puerto Rico is not treated equally, it will not be seen on the floor of the House. We all know that the Governor of Puerto Rico has said that the solution Republicans are supporting is not adequate for Puerto Rico. We all know that.

It is a tragedy that the Republican leadership in this Chamber has refused to help American citizens before going into recess. They own the mess they

are creating across America, and with each passing day, the American people see it.

Mr. President, tax day is coming up, and we have seen another travesty of the Republican Senate.

When the Republicans pushed their tax scam, it was sold as a ``middle-class miracle.'' They promised it would prioritize middle- class families. President Trump and others promised Americans would get a $4,000 raise every year. That is what President Trump promised about his tax cuts. He said that his tax cuts for the very wealthy and the big corporations would benefit every American to the tune of $4,000 a year. Unsurprisingly, this Republican tax scam has now defaulted on its promise to lift up average American families.

For too many Americans expecting a tax refund, they have gotten nothing or worse. After this tax season, the jig is up.

In fairness, there is one part of America that has made a killing-- the very wealthy. Indeed, 83 percent of the benefits in the Republican tax bill will eventually go to the top 1 percent of earners, and the American people know it. A recent poll shows more than 60 percent of Americans believe the wealthy and corporations--big corporations--have been helped by the tax law. They are right.

Unfortunately, corporations aren't using their windfalls as our Republican friends promised. They are not boosting worker pay, by and large, or increasing benefits or creating jobs. According to a recent survey, 84 percent of companies say they have not changed their plans because of the tax law.

What are they doing with the money they got? They are spending billions in windfall on record corporate stock buybacks, not benefiting their workers, not benefiting their community but benefiting the CEOs of the corporations, because the shares generally go up, and benefiting the top 10 percent of America who own 85 percent of all the stocks.

Unfortunately, this story doesn't end in making the rich richer. American workers are suffering while those same corporate executives and the very wealthy shareholders cash in.

Take the case of CSX, a freight rail company spending billions of dollars on stock buybacks after benefiting from the tax law. Just last week, we heard CSX announce that they are laying off 100 workers in Kentucky, Leader McConnell's own backyard--not a $4,000 raise but a pink slip. You would think with all of these tax benefits that workers would benefit. It doesn't seem to be happening. That story that happened in Kentucky can be repeated throughout the country.

It is hard to look at these examples with a straight face and say that the middle class factored at all into the Republican tax bill. It was a trick--no trickle down, just a trick.

As Americans finish their filings this year, they will know exactly who to blame if they see their taxes go up. They will know who to blame if they don't get a refund or if they owe the IRS.

The tax bill is already a stunningly unpopular piece of legislation. I don't recall a single Republican campaigning on it. It shows they weren't proud of it. After this tax season, the Republican tax bill will be even further crystalized in the minds of everyday Americans as a scam that left them out to dry while soaking the ultrawealthy with even more wealth.

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

Mr. President, later this week the Senate will vote on the confirmation of David Bernhardt, a longtime lobbyist, to the position of Interior Secretary. An oil and gas lobbyist will be entrusted with our sacred--sacred--inheritance, the great lands of America.

I urge Senators to oppose this nomination.

The Department of the Interior is the Agency entrusted with protecting our Nation's public lands, our water supplies, our wildlife, and our energy resources. It grapples directly with some of the biggest questions our country faces: how to respond to climate change, how to protect endangered species, and how to care for our precious natural resources. Yet to lead our Interior Department, President Trump has nominated Mr. Bernhardt, an oil and gas lobbyist who has made a career harming the environment, subverting environmental protections, and helping polluters sidestep Federal regulation.

As former Secretary Zinke's deputy, he has paved the way for even more polluters to run rampant without accountability. Under his watch, the Department of the Interior has already opened a colossal 17 million acres of Federal land for oil and gas leases, generating millions in revenue for energy companies, all while Bernhardt recklessly managed our national parks during the government shutdown.

I am especially troubled this morning because POLITICO reported that under Mr. Bernhardt's watch, the Department of the Interior might even greenlight offshore drilling off the coasts of Florida--a prospect both parties in the State say they oppose. This should be a wake-up call to my colleagues all up and down the coast--Atlantic, Pacific, and the gulf. If they can't find a reason to oppose this nominee based on the other serious and troubling issues that have been raised, maybe this is reason enough for them.

It is hard to imagine someone whose background is so at odds with the Department's mission as Bernhardt's. For all his talk of draining the swamp, President Trump wants to add yet another Washington swamp creature lobbyist to his Cabinet.

By the way, our resources--our oil and gas resources--are large. The motivation here to spoil public lands for oil and gas drilling--it is the power of the oil companies. It has nothing to do with the plan for natural resources. Bernhardt is an exemplary example of the power of these oil companies.

Gravely troubling is the long list of conflicting interests that Bernhardt brings to Trump's Cabinet. Up to 20 of his former clients have lobbied the Department of the Interior since his arrival, and the New York Times reported last week that he very likely has been less than forthcoming about when he stopped lobbying. No other Cabinet-level nominee in the Trump era has so many conflicts of interest, and that is a low bar. It is a distinction no one should be proud to hold.

Worst of all, Bernhardt is a hardened enemy of climate science. If you are a lobbyist for oil and gas companies, you would say that climate change isn't real too. The Washington Post reported he attended a session of administration officials that ``debated how best to establish a group of researchers that could scrutinize recent federal climate reports.'' Translation: Bernhardt is actively working to set up the White House's fake panel to deny basic science.

I have already introduced legislation to prohibit any funding from going to this fake climate panel, but knowing Mr. Bernhardt's role in setting it up should send shivers down the spines of every American who is worried about the impact of our changing climate on their families, their farms, and future generations.

We cannot entrust our public lands to someone known to wage a campaign of censorship against facts and reason. Now, later today, I am going to be able to meet with Mr. Bernhardt to discuss his qualifications. I am letting him know now that I will ask him the same three questions I have asked my Republican colleagues in this Chamber. One, does Mr. Bernhardt agree that climate change is real; two, does he agree it is a product of human action; and three, should the Federal Government have a role in combating its effects? His record suggests his answer to all these questions is no, but let's see what he says today.

Caring for our planet and being good stewards of our natural resources are the most important responsibilities we owe to future generations, so I am gravely concerned about Bernhardt's nomination to the Department of the Interior, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on his confirmation.

One final point. It still amazes me that Donald Trump campaigns on cleaning up the swamp, and he does exactly the opposite when in office. An oil and gas lobbyist is head of the Department of the Interior? My God, that is an example of the swampiness of Washington, if there ever was one. When are Donald Trump's supporters going to understand this; that what he promised them, in so many different instances, he is not delivering. It is befuddling. It is a sign of the weakness of our democracy that someone can walk into the Presidency promising so many things and then just immediately do the opposite and still a large chunk of Americans say they support him. It is amazing to me.

Mr. President, for months, American citizens have been reeling from natural disasters and are in desperate need of Federal aid. Parenthetically, I remind Mr. Bernhardt that a lot of these disasters, scientists believe, are because the climate is warmer, and the weather is changing, but rather than work with us to provide the much needed aid to large chunks of America, our Republican colleagues have once again decided to follow President Trump and refuse to compromise. They are so afraid of him that even when he proposes something they know is wrong and irrational, they do a 180-degree hairpin turn and support what he is doing.

Now, that would be just politics, except millions are awaiting aid and need help. Their homes, their farms, their offices, and their factories are underwater, literally, in a lot of places still.

Just yesterday, House Democrats offered a solution. We said: Let's provide disaster relief not to some Americans but to all Americans struggling to recover and rebuild from natural disasters.

Their new proposal that the House offered includes an additional $3 billion--this is House Democrats, not Senate Democrats, by the way. Their new proposal includes an additional $3 billion to address urgent needs following the floods in the Midwest and the tornadoes in the South. This plus-up includes $1.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to support flood risk reduction so crucial in the Missouri River Valley, $1 billion in CDBG for long-term recovery needs, and $500 million in agriculture funding to help

the farmers and ranchers rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters and replace some of the farm animals that have been lost.

Yesterday's House bill comes in addition to the proposals Senator Leahy and I offered last week--and it is similar to them--and in addition to the work Senator Leahy did last month. So, again and again, Democrats presented option after option for disaster funding that helps the Midwest, helps the coasts, helps the South, and helps Puerto Rico and other territories. None of our offers are either-or, help this but not that.

Enough excuses from our Republican colleagues. We have had enough of the slow playing, but, more important, the people who need this help have had enough. The bottom line is very simple. The aid we seek is what Americans have always done. When there is a disaster, we all come together and aid those areas in a disaster because we know when a huge natural disaster hits from God, an area can't deal with it on their own. They don't have the resources or the ability, and they are, many times, in trouble because of the disaster itself.

We say: Come to the aid, but all of a sudden Donald Trump goes into the Republican lunch a week and a half ago and says: I don't want any aid for Puerto Rico. He falsely claims they have gotten $91 billion-- not true--and then all our Republican friends go along.

Well, we are not. The House will not. Senate Democrats will not. Plain and simple, we don't believe you should pick and choose. Why did President Trump single out Puerto Rico, which are American citizens like everybody else? A lot of theories, but regardless of what your theory is, that is not the way to govern as President, and, frankly, it is not the way we should govern as Senators. It is bewildering that our Republican colleagues have caved to President Trump's--what can we call it--temper tantrum, even though they are well aware of the problems and were ready to help Puerto Rico before he threw that temper tantrum.

Some say: Well, Puerto Rico is getting a little money. They are getting food stamp aid.

Well, great. Then let's just give food stamp aid to everybody else. Let's give it to everyone else. Now, what about all the farms that are underwater? What about all the homes that are flooded and needing help? If you give food stamp aid, that doesn't help them.

So let's be fair. Let's treat each area the same. Let's do what we have done in the American tradition: Come together, when there is a disaster, to help Americans. Let's not be so afraid of Donald Trump that when you know he is wrong, you just go along.

The idea that Puerto Rico should be treated differently from the rest of America is insulting. It is against our American values and a betrayal of the promise to look after all American citizens, not because of their politics and not because of what their last names might sound like; as American citizens, we come together during times of need.

Democrats will not yield in our responsibility to all American citizens, and I tell that to all my friends from the farm States, even those who voted against aid to New York when we had our hurricane. I never even considered not voting for aid to any other place in the country. I always have.

I say to my friends: Let's treat everyone fairly, and we can get the much needed disaster aid out there quickly.

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

Madam President, the watchword in the executive branch today is ``chaos.'' This chaos stems from one source and one source only--President Donald Trump and his extreme agenda--and America is paying the price.

Everyone agrees there are issues at the border, but if you are the President and if you are in charge of our national security, you don't tweet your way into a strategy; you don't keep changing policies; and you don't keep switching personnel if you want to make progress on the most challenging issue that is facing our country.

Every day, we hear this is the President's new policy, and 2 days later, we hear it is not happening. People are being fired because they tell the President, according to news reports, that he can't break the law when he wants to do something. You cannot keep changing personnel, changing strategy, and tweeting your way through a problem as serious as this. That is why there is chaos when it comes to border issues--all created by the President and his whimsical, erratic, and oftentimes nasty pursuit of policy.

Even the Republicans are worried sick about the chaos President Trump has created over the week. My friend John Cornyn says this is all a giant ``mess''--his words. Well, my friend from Texas is correct. Yet this dysfunction is not confined to a few Agencies; this chaos is throughout the executive branch because Donald Trump has the same kind of switching of personnel, changing of policies, and trying to tweet his way through a problem in other areas as he does with regard to the border.

Let me remind my colleagues that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Interior Secretary, and the EPA Administrator each resigned amid scandal. The Trump administration has not yet nominated anyone for probably the most important Cabinet position, the Secretary of Defense, since Secretary Mattis's departure, and when he departed, Secretary Mattis had a scathing rebuke of President Trump's policies.

Look at the chaos at the State Department, where the damage extends way beyond America's borders. Because of incompetence and inaction, there are no nominees to more than 30 vacant key positions at State, including Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights. There are no nominees to be our Ambassador to Pakistan or Egypt and none for Qatar or Thailand.

This is not the Senate blocking nominees as much as the President likes to blame somebody else for his problems; this is the President's own administration that has failed to nominate people for such important positions, and many of these positions have been long vacant. The areas we mentioned are ever important in our changing world, and this administration is simply failing to nominate anyone.

We should be projecting stability and continuity through our State Department. Instead, it has been battered and belittled by its own administration to the point at which both sides in Congress have spoken out. Just yesterday, we learned the administration is pushing out the head of the Secret Service amid a new scandal surrounding a security breach at Mar-a-Lago, the so-called winter White House. Now joining the others who are gone--fired by Twitter or whatever--is the head of the Secret Service. All of this chaos has one source and one source only-- the President of the United States and his erratic, vacillating attitudes toward policy and personnel.

Across a broad spectrum of issues, his policies are so extreme that even good-faith nominees eventually face a choice--leave the administration or be consumed by the quicksand of the Trump swamp.

I hope the President or some of the people around him will realize that his administration is far from a fine-tuned machine; it is a slow- motion disaster that the American people see in action every day.

Women's Health

Madam President, on women's health, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today on a sham bill that would further restrict women's access to care.

Every woman and every family in America should shudder at the Republicans' campaign to take away the rights of women to make decisions about their own health just to satisfy a hard-right, radical agenda that the vast majority of Americans completely disagrees with.

This bill would unduly restrict women's rights to make their own health decisions. Dr. Jennifer Conti, who is a clinical assistant professor of OB/GYN at Stanford, described the 20-week mark set by the bill as ``just an arbitrary limit set in place by politicians that has no medical or scientific backing.'' Let me repeat--``an arbitrary limit set in place by politicians''--politicians making decisions about women's health. That is what is wrong here.

What is more, a 20-week ban is, arguably, unconstitutional. Just 2 weeks ago, a Federal judge in North Carolina ruled it was. We know the 20-week ban is just a start among those who want to take away women's rights. They will try to go for a 10-week ban, then a 6-week ban. It is all part of a radical, relentless effort to completely and unequivocally strip women of their right

to make their own healthcare decisions.

The rhetoric we will hear from the Republicans in this hearing will be much the same we have heard for years. Whether it is a vote we took in the Senate or a new law protecting one's rights in my home State of New York, the Republicans have repeatedly used scare tactics and falsehoods to mislead the public. Yes, these are nothing but scare tactics, but don't take my word for it. Time and time again, fact checkers have ruled the Republicans' rhetoric on these issues to be outright false.

Let's be clear. Across the country, the reproductive rights of women are under attack. In statehouses across the country, the Republicans are forcing through radical proposals that would dramatically limit women's rights to make their own choices--in Mississippi, in Georgia, in Kentucky. This is a threat to women in all 50 States, not just in those 3. It is dangerously out of step with the American people.

The Trump administration is even imposing a gag rule on healthcare providers to stop them from discussing the full range of options with women who consider having abortions. They are literally preventing doctors from doing their jobs. It is illogical, intrusive, and hypocritical that the Republicans in Washington would tell a doctor what he or she can or cannot say to a patient in a private medical conversation.

I have been around here long enough to remember when the Republicans were preaching that government should never come between a patient and his or her doctor. Why the change? Since taking office, President Trump and his Republican colleagues have repeatedly prioritized restricting women's reproductive freedoms and have strategically placed obstacles in the way of their accessing the healthcare they deserve. Donald Trump and our Republican friends believe they know better than American women. That is wrong, and American women totally disagree with them.

Yet, while the Republicans across the country push these proposals, they look the other way when President Trump proposes cutting programs that help newborns and young children.

The President wants to cut Medicaid by more than $1 trillion. That provides healthcare coverage for 37 million children. He wants to eliminate programs that support emergency medical health services for children and that address autism and developmental disorders.

I hope my Republican colleagues will join us instead of slipping down this radical, ideological, and deeply misguided path to strip away the rights of women.

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

Madam President, today I wish to start off by just sharing a few words about our former colleague, Senator Fritz Hollings--Ernest F. Hollings, to be precise--of South Carolina. He passed away this weekend at his home in Isle of Palms.

With Fritz Hollings, the people of South Carolina, the Senate, have lost a giant. Hollings was the longest serving junior Senator in American history--behind, of course, Strom Thurmond--representing his constituents for 38 years in the Senate.

Before that, he was a Governor, State legislator, and World War II veteran. Public service was his life's calling. He championed education reform, increasing teachers' pay, a national voice in the fights against hunger and poverty.

He was brought up in the old Jim Crow days, with a great deal of segregation, but as he went through South Carolina, he realized how terrible that was and began to move in the opposite direction.

He was an original. You could always go over to Fritz Hollings. Even when I was a younger legislator, he would pay attention, and he would have something very interesting to say.

Everyone talks about the days of blow-dried, look-alike Senators. Fritz Hollings certainly wasn't one of them. He was an original, and we were all much better for it.

So Fritz, we will miss you, and our thoughts go with your family, as do our prayers and well wishes.

Now, on another matter, Puerto Rico. Last week, Senator Leahy and I offered this Chamber a chance to pass a natural disaster funding package that would have addressed everyone's concerns in the Senate.

The ``all of the above'' solution we presented contained $16.7 billion in relief for all Americans affected by natural disasters. I would add, I see my two friends from Iowa on the floor today, one in the President's chair, one ready to speak. That would have included far more money for the Midwest than the Republican bill because the Republican bill that was on the floor, while it added 2019 to disaster relief, didn't add in any more money despite the devastation in Iowa and Missouri and Nebraska.

Well, our bill added an additional--an additional--$2.5 billion in funding for the disasters of 2019, and the vast majority of that would go to Iowa, to Missouri, and to Nebraska, but it also provided much needed aid for the people of Puerto Rico and other territories. They need the help, too, and they are Americans citizens as well.

Let's face the music, folks. Everyone knows what is going on here. Democrats and Republicans had agreed, as we always do, when there is a disaster, we help. The original bill that was put together had aid for Puerto Rico, as

well as aid for the other areas of disaster. The original bill was put together before the Midwest so it didn't have that.

What happened? Is it that somehow our Republican friends from the Midwest and elsewhere thought Puerto Rico didn't deserve the aid? No; President Trump went to a Tuesday lunch, banged his fist on the table-- figuratively, I suppose--and said: I don't think any aid should go to Puerto Rico.

Did our Republican friends, especially those from States with disasters and who needed the aid, say: No, no; we are not going to do that; we are not going to let you divide us? No; they went gamefully along with it, hurting their States.

We all know that if there is no real aid for Puerto Rico, the House will not pass the bill. We in the Senate on the Democratic side do not want to hold Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and the other States, Florida, Texas, Alabama, that are getting the aid hostage for what we want, and our Republican friends shouldn't hold Puerto Rico hostage for what they want.

This grand tradition seems to crumble here day by day, minute by minute, of helping States that need help; that when one American is hurt in one area, Americans in every other area come together and say: We are going to help. That is why we have disaster aid because the enormity of a tornado or a wildfire or a hurricane--the taxpayers of that State can't afford to do it all themselves. So citizens throughout America have had, in effect, a compact that says, when one area is hurt, we all come together.

Look, I suffered a little from that when New York had Sandy. We had some of our Senators from the very States--from the very States--that now are requesting aid say: Don't give aid to New York for Sandy. I have never done that. I have always been for aid to States that are far away from New York and just have Republican representation. We don't do that here--until now. Until now.

So I would say to all of my friends on the other side of the aisle, there is a way out of this--provide the aid that originally Senators Shelby, a Republican, Leahy, a Democrat, agreed on. Don't let Donald Trump's nasty temper tantrum somehow about Puerto Rico get in the way. Do the right thing, and he will sign the bill. We know he will sign the bill. He is not going to stop aid for Texas or Florida or Iowa or any other State because this body and the House have put in aid for Puerto Rico.

Let me just mention, just as the people in the Midwest are suffering, people in Puerto Rico are suffering. That island has had a slower recovery from a storm of greater magnitude than any others we are talking about.

So we need to vote on this legislation. It is not an either-or situation. To say you are putting $600 million in food stamps for Puerto Rico so people will not starve, when they are not getting the same aid everybody else gets--CDBG, FEMA--that is not right, that is not fair, and that figleaf will not cover up the real motivation of President Trump, which, unfortunately, I don't think most of our Republican colleagues agree with, but they go along with. Everyone is afraid on the other side of anything President Trump does--right or wrong. Unfortunately, he is wrong far too often.

Puerto Rico needs aid so they can rebuild. They need the food aid, but they need more than that. Trump wanted to cut out all of it. Someone on this side said: Well, you have to at least do food aid. He said: Well, I will do that and nothing more. That is not right. Should we do food aid just for every State? Should we do food aid just for Texas or just for Florida or just for Iowa? No rebuilding? Let all of those houses and homes and factories and stores suffer? No. We wouldn't do it for those States. We shouldn't, and we shouldn't do it for Puerto Rico.

So then we decided to compromise even more. There is $20 billion of aid already for Puerto Rico that hasn't been allocated. The President, in his nastiness to the people of Puerto Rico--citizens, they are American citizens--refused to allocate that money.

Well, Senator Leahy then said: Let's just take $8.3 billion of that and free it up. Our colleagues will not even do that.

So when the American people want to know what is holding up this bill, when the people in the flooded areas and the areas that have been hit by wildfires and hurricanes want to know what is holding it up, it is Donald Trump picking one part of the country and saying: ``I don't want to give aid to them,'' and too many--just about every one of our colleagues, at least thus far--going along.

Elections have consequences. The House is now Democratic. It is their strong view that we ought to give aid to Puerto Rico. It is a view I share, but if we don't do the right thing in this body, where we have a tradition of coming together, and you say President Trump will not sign something, when he originally had nothing to do with putting together this bill, we are all going to be stuck for quite a while. We are all going to be stuck for quite a while. Let us in the House, in this body, the Senate, come to a compromise that satisfies the Midwest, that satisfies the hurricane States of Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama, that satisfies Texas, and get moving. That is what we should be doing.

This idea that we are holding up this bill, when the House wouldn't pass it anyway; the idea that we are holding up this bill, when we know the history that President Trump went into that lunch and changed everything around in the nasty way that he can't even explain--uh-uh; that is not going to fly. That is not going to fly.

Madam President, on Secretary Nielsen, Kirstjen Nielsen submitted her resignation as the Secretary of Homeland Security. When we look back at this moment, I think we are going to remember Secretary Nielsen's tenure as a cruel chapter, in which the Agency followed through on President Trump's worst impulses. Those include advocacy for Trump's ineffective and expensive wall; her support for the longest government shutdown in history that didn't produce anything for President Trump; most regrettably, her full embrace of the child separation policy, leading to thousands of children being ripped away from their families.

Some say Secretary Nielsen argued inwardly against some of these. Well, she should have left a long time ago. She shouldn't be advocating for policies that are so, so wrong. Maybe it is better, maybe it is worse if she knew they were wrong, but it is not good, no matter what.

Through it all, in fact, she continuously misled the American public, even insisting once that ``we do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.''

Well, that was just absolutely false, and Americans from every part of the country were just appalled by that. In fact, some people say one of the reasons the House went Democratic is a lot of suburban Republican women didn't like that policy, as they shouldn't have. So it wasn't even politically as smart as maybe President Trump thought it was.

Despite Secretary Nielsen's advocacy for the wall, for her support of the shutdown, her embrace of the child separation policy, which she always misled Americans about, she still wasn't radical enough for President Trump.

As NBC News reported this morning, President Trump has urged for months that his administration reauthorize the awful practice of separating little, tiny children and babies from their parents.

This is further proof that the President is kowtowing to the worst instincts of people and to the conservative, hard-right, and extreme voices in the Republican Party, with no or little regard for our national security or the ability to function efficiently.

What he has done by these constant firings, the constant change of policy, has simply created chaos at the border. Nobody knows what the policy will be from day to day and week to week and month to month. He doesn't tell the top people in his departments that he has changed his plans.

He fired, evidently, Mr. Vitiello, without even Secretary Nielsen knowing about it.

This erratic, nasty style of governing is not solving any problems at the border, and the more problems and chaos there is, the more people are going to see it is President Trump, as President, can't solve this problem, despite his rhetoric, where he appears tough but doesn't solve the problem.

Mr. President, rather than spend time yesterday on a terribly destructive rules change, Leader McConnell could have focused the Senate on an urgent matter that this Chamber has failed to act on: disaster relief.

In a few moments, Senator Leahy and I will ask unanimous consent to have a vote on a new version of the emergency disaster relief that couldn't get through the Senate earlier this week. Our new amendment offers this Chamber a path forward from this week's impasse. It is a plan that meets everyone's needs. It doesn't say only aid this or only aid that; it recognizes

all American citizens deserve to be helped when disaster strikes.

The amendment Senator Leahy and I will offer provides $16.7 billion in relief for Americans struck by natural disasters last year and in the last 2 years. It includes $2.5 billion in new funding--funding that the bill from the Republican side that failed, offered by Senators Shelby and Perdue, did not have--$2.5 billion in new funding for the recent flooding in Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri. We all agree these communities need assistance now. This amendment also crucially includes aid for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico and other territories. It doesn't say to pick one or to pick the other. It says to do both.

All of us in this Chamber should agree that we must do something now to help all Americans in need. This amendment offers our Republican friends--those who have said we need aid in the Middle West--the opportunity to do just that. So, if this Chamber wants to help families in Nebraska, in Iowa, in Missouri and if we want to help the families of Texas and of Florida, this amendment is the path forward. It is the key to moving forward. This is the solution that has the ability to pass the House. This is the option that has enough support to reach the President's desk. The Speaker of the House has said the original Republican bill wouldn't even have been put on the floor. This bill will.

Now, some will say and, I know, my dear friend from Alabama--and he is my good friend--will say that the President will not sign this. Well, I have something else to say. If my colleagues on the other side pass this measure, the President will dare not veto it. That is my prediction. We all know the President has huffed and puffed about vetoing bills in the past. He has said he would veto ``this,'' and he has said he would veto ``that.'' Yet, in most instances, when the Republicans in the Senate have stood up, he has caved. In this case in particular, he will not want to veto legislation that helps Nebraska and Iowa and Missouri and Texas and Florida. So let's not play this game.

We all know what happened. There was a bipartisan agreement. President Trump went to the Republican lunch and said: No aid for Puerto Rico. That is why we are in this mess, but we can change that. It is time to call the President's bluff. Elections have consequences. There is a Democratic House. The time has come for the Republicans of this Chamber and for the Republicans in the House to have a frank conversation with the President about what can and cannot pass the Congress.

If the President cares about farmers in Iowa and Texas and Missouri and all American citizens who have been affected by natural disasters, he will not veto this bill. We know that. The measure we are presenting today isn't some solution that has been cooked up out of left field; it is a simple proposal. We need disaster relief for all Americans, plain and simple.

Senators Leahy and Shelby worked in good faith earlier this year, as they always do, and I appreciate the great relationship our Appropriations Committee chair and ranking member--vice chair--have. It would have worked had the President not gone to that lunch. Who knows why, where, or when he pounded the table and said: No aid to Puerto Rico. He said that, OK? The only problem is when we are at the brink of a compromise, all too often, President Trump torpedoes things, and then the Republicans act powerless. They don't act.

If Leader McConnell and the Senate Republicans will not support this measure--a measure that notes the needs of all affected Americans--then what is their plan that can pass the House and pass the Senate and go to the President's desk?

If this measure just had aid to Puerto Rico and not to the Middle West, the President might veto it, but he is not going to veto a bill that gives aid to the Middle West nor should he.

So, if an ``all of the above'' solution will not work, what on Earth will?

So far, the answer from this Chamber on the other side seems to be nothing--none of the above. That doesn't make sense. This is an emergency. People are suffering. People can't get back into their homes. Small businesses need help starting up again. This is not the time to duck, to look for cover, to know when the President has done something sort of wrongly and seemingly on a whim to just bow to what he says. We should agree on the need to do something now to help communities that are recovering from natural disasters. Our amendment offers the Republicans the opportunity to do just that.

Nobody--no Member of this body--should pick and choose which American citizens get help in times of crises. It is a profound shame that my colleagues on the other side, thus far, have allowed the President to derail this process and have gone along with appeasing him. I say the power of this Chamber is greater than they realize. If we vote on this package and if it passes the Senate and if it passes the House and reaches the President's desk, the President will sign it. He will not follow through on a veto threat even if he knows that doing so will be a profound betrayal of his promise to look after the well-being of all Americans.

I urge the Senators to support our amendment today that gives aid to the Middle West, to the South--those from Florida to Texas--and to the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in legislative session, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 268; that all pending amendments be withdrawn; that Leahy amendment No. 246 be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I will hold it up.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my good friend the Senator from Illinois for those great

words. We have had police officers in New York hit the same way. There is a bridge in New York on Southern State Parkway that we named after an officer who died a few years ago in the same situation, and I thank Lucy for caring and pushing hard.

Nomination of Mark Anthony Calabria

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Mark Calabria to become the Director of FHFA. I hope every Senator who has homeowners in their districts will pay attention here.

For decades we have had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac providing mortgages at lower rates for people because there is a Federal guarantee. Because housing is such an important part of our economy, it stimulates jobs and the growth in the economy.

It is utterly amazing that, once again, we are in a sort of ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The nominations from this administration go directly in the face of what I bet almost every Member on the other side believes--that interest rates should be low for mortgages and that there should be some kind of Federal guarantee.

Well, here is what Dr. Calabria believes. First, he believes that the 30-year mortgage is not necessarily part of our Federal housing finance system. He believes that Fannie and Freddie guarantees should be no higher than $200,000.

I would ask Dr. Calabria to visit some of the middle-class neighborhoods of New York--policemen, firemen, teachers, construction workers. Their homes would be put in jeopardy by this, and a home is the middle class's piece of the rock.

What the heck are we doing around here?

President Trump doesn't pay attention to who the nominees are. They are put forward by Mick Mulvaney, who believes in no government involvement in anything, and people get hurt.

What about the young couple with a new job, a new baby? They want to buy their first home. What about the person of color? Finally, when zoning laws and other things have changed, they can get a home. What about parents who are about to retire and want to sell their home so that they can move to smaller quarters and have a little bit of extra money? What about grandparents? To put in somebody who wants to undo the FHFA and undo our rock solid housing system would be ridiculous.

I hope my colleagues will listen. If you believe in homeownership, if you believe the middle class ought to have homeownership, you can't support somebody who wants to eliminate Federal guarantees, who wants to lower the amount, and who wants to say that the 30-year mortgage, which has had such a success in America, should no longer be the bedrock of our system.

I hope people will look at who this nominee is and vote no. I certainly will.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.