Floor Statements

Mr. President, now on the national emergency, over the weekend, Rand Paul, the fourth Republican in the Senate, announced his support for the resolution to terminate the President's national emergency, giving it the needed 51 votes to pass this Chamber.

It is clear that Members of both parties know there is no actual emergency at the border. The President himself made clear, when announcing the state of emergency, that he didn't need to do this. When the President says ``I don't need to do this,'' he is saying that there is no emergency.

By definition, an emergency is something you need to do; it is an emergency. In the President's own words, this is not an emergency. It is a political bone and a face-saving device for the President to throw to the rightwing, to show he is still fighting for the wall. It goes way beyond simply how you feel on the wall, pro or con; it goes to the fundamental building blocks of how this country was structured.

Congress has the power of the purse. Congress is a check on the Executive. The Founding Fathers feared--probably above anything else, having dealt with King George in the Revolution--that an overreaching Executive was one of the greatest dangers to our democracy. That is why so many Presidents have respected and done emergencies only in the rarest of times.

The last bunch of emergencies were either a war, 9/11, Desert Storm, diseases--real emergencies--things that affect our climate, disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes, in terms of what has happened with our weather and our climate.

If this coequal branch of government allows Presidents--whoever they may be, Democrats or Republicans--to just declare an emergency whenever they want to achieve a partisan policy goal, it will fundamentally alter the balance of power in this country in a way the Founding Fathers would be aghast at.

My guess is if George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison were looking down on this Chamber, they would want us to rise to the occasion; that was the democracy they wanted. I don't know if we will.

The Founders of this Nation gave the Congress one of the greatest powers any government has--the power of the purse. President Trump is trying to take these powers away, even after Congress rejected-- explicitly rejected several times--the money for his wall.

We Democrats know this, and now it is clear that a growing number of Republicans know it, as well: To allow this emergency to persist is a change in the fundamental, necessary, and often exquisite balance of power that marks the genius of the American Constitution.

I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle understand that. In fact, if you are a true conservative and not just a Trump acolyte, you realize that there shouldn't be too much power centralized in any place because conservatism, at its root, believes in maximizing the freedom of the individual and minimizing anything that encroaches on it, including an overreaching Executive. So to look the other way because President Trump wants this and because he is sometimes almost in a temper tantrum about this issue is so shortsighted and so detrimental to the long-term health, stability, and viability of how this balance of power works.

Let us come together on this issue--Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate--and rise to the occasion. If Congress stands up, it will be a reaffirmation of our democracy. It will be a day historians will proudly note decades from now. It will be a reaffirmation of the democracy the Founding Fathers wanted.

Mr. President, for decades, we have known that climate change is not only a major national challenge but an existential threat to our planet and to our future.

Despite the gravity and scale of this challenge, one political party in the United States--the Republican Party--has largely denied the problem even exists, denied the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, and denied most attempts in Congress to tackle climate change.

Today marks day 18 since I first challenged our Republican leader and all of my Republican colleagues to answer these three questions: One, is climate change real? Two, is it caused by human activity? And, three, should Congress act immediately, strongly, to deal with this issue?

We haven't heard an answer from the leader or from almost every Republican in this body. So let me repeat them again.

Leader McConnell, do you believe that climate change is real? Leader McConnell, do you believe that it is caused by human activity? Leader McConnell, do you believe that Congress should take immediate action to address the crisis of climate change?

I suppose it is not a surprise that Republicans are fearful to answer these questions. They know the public is on our side on this issue, overwhelmingly two to one. But the oil industry, which funnels tons of money into Republican coffers, much of it dark money, undisclosed--they are on the other side. That is why they are afraid to answer the question one way or the other.

Today's Washington Post details how the denial of basic scientific facts surrounding climate change is amounting to a political litmus test for President Trump. Perhaps Republicans are avoiding answering questions I have posed for fear that the President would retaliate for siding against him and his radical views. There is no real, rational explanation.

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

Madam President, several hours ago, in the middle of the night here in the United States, we received word that the summit in Hanoi between the United States and North Korea would be ending prematurely. Unable to reach an understanding on either sanctions relief or denuclearization, President Trump decided to walk away from the talks without an agreement.

Though I don't know the details yet, and I look forward to speaking with Secretary Pompeo, I was pleased to see the President recognized North Korea's unwillingness to strike a comprehensive deal. President Trump did the right thing by walking away and not cutting a poor deal for the sake of a photo op.

Just like the President, I want a deal with North Korea that will bring an end to the conflict and change the course of the region. However, I have always been concerned about the possibility of a bad deal, especially with the other pressures currently on the President. A deal that fell short of complete, verifiable denuclearization would have only made North Korea stronger and the world less safe, and it would have squandered the substantial leverage our negotiators have now thanks to the bite of sanctions.

President Trump must now apply the lesson of North Korea diplomacy to our trade negotiations with China. President Trump must have the courage to do the same thing with China as he has done for North Korea. The President must be willing to hold the line and walk away if China does not agree to meaningful, enduring, structural reform of its unfair trading policy. President Trump should not fall into the trap of seeking a deal for the sake of a deal, especially now that talks with Pyongyang are on hold.

What he did in North Korea was right. He must do the same thing in China--hold out because he has the upper hand--until we get China to do the right thing. Just because an accord is, for the moment, out of reach in North Korea does not mean that the President should be any more eager to strike one with China if the terms are inadequate or unacceptable.

The President deserves credit for bringing China to the negotiating table with tariffs, but he must not squander that opportunity by cutting a deal that fails to achieve American priorities. Unless China promises to end its predatory cyber theft of American intellectual property and know-how, unless China promises to stop artificially propping up its businesses, unless China promises to end its practice of forcing American companies to give away their IP to their future Chinese competitors in order to do business in China, President Trump should walk away from the negotiations once again.

As important as North Korea is to national security, China is just as critical--maybe even more critical--to American economic security. President Trump and his team have a generational imperative to get this one right. They have a generational imperative not to squander the chance to achieve permanent reforms to China's economic relations with the world, changes that would finally put American investors, businesses, and workers on a level playing field.

Madam President, on guns, I was so glad to see the House passage of a background checks bill. I urge Leader McConnell to take it up in the Senate.

Background checks are supported overwhelmingly by close to 90 percent of the American people--a majority of Republicans, a majority of gun owners. It doesn't take anyone's guns away. It simply says that if you are a felon, spousal abuser, or adjudicated mentally ill, you shouldn't have a gun, and it takes the means to make sure that happens.

Now there are so many loopholes in the background check law--the Brady law, which I was proud to lead the charge on back in the House in 1994. Now, some 25 years later, they have found ways around it through the internet and through gun shows. Just as it was the right thing to do to close the loopholes that existed in 1994 with the Brady law, it is the right thing to do to close those loopholes that have come about since the law passed. It simply updates the Brady law, which has saved tens of thousands of lives.

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

Mr. President, now I want to address two more issues related to this topic.

First, are the reports that the President is planning to create a panel of cherry-picked scientists who question the severity of climate change to ``counter'' the scientific consensus. I mentioned these reports earlier this week, but I want to update my friends in this Chamber that Democrats are in the process of preparing legislation that would defund this fake climate panel. We hope this legislation, like our resolution, will eventually be bipartisan because it shouldn't be partisan to oppose a group of handpicked climate deniers spreading the fossil fuel industry's propaganda under the imprimatur of the White House. It shouldn't be partisan to oppose the administration's setting up its own Orwellian Ministry of Truth on climate change.

So I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle who believe in climate science to sign on to our legislation once we have it ready.

Mr. President, I know my good friend from Georgia has to get somewhere, and I have to get somewhere. I will be very brief.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute. We have staffers here who are just unsung heroes. They work day in and day out. Because of their diligent work, the world and the country is a better place.

One of these people who works in quiet dignity and gets so much done and is so well respected is Bruce King. He has been indispensable at my office, and today, this afternoon, it is my unfortunate duty to say farewell to Bruce.

He has worked in the Senate in some capacity since 1984. He has worked for Judiciary, Senator Lautenberg, the Budget Committee, and as the senior

counsel for multiple Democratic leaders on the Federal budget, stretching from Leader Daschle to Leader Reid to me. In that short time, Bruce wasn't short of legislative achievement, from negotiating the balanced budget agreement of 1997 to blocking the privatization of Social Security in 2006, from shepherding health reform through the Senate to passing the financial rescue bill after the crisis in 2008.

One of our most distinguished Senators would be proud of that record. Their name would be in lights. Bruce did all of that and much more in his, as I said, quiet, steadfast, brilliant dignity.

I have never sat on the Budget or Appropriations Committees, so when I became leader, having his experience and wisdom was incredible. I have met no one who could take these complex issues and put them in terms that even someone like myself could understand, not being an expert on those things. He was able to understand the big picture and never get caught in the minutia, although he knew the minutia extremely well.

When you ask Bruce's opinion on a matter, he presents it so succinctly and persuasively that you know it is the right answer in a matter of minutes, until he decides to play devil's advocate against his first opinion and convinces you of the opposite because he is one of those staffers who has never had an ax to grind. He said: Let my Senators know both sides, and let them decide.

But we knew both sides so well and so lucidly because of Bruce's ability to take these issues and help us understand them.

He can juggle so many variables in his head at once. He can weigh the pros and cons. He has an instinctive knowledge of how to deal with the tradeoffs, and he can keep it all in a simple way.

He is a modest man. He has sat at the same desk in the Capitol for 14 years. Every day, he brings his lunch--peanut butter and jelly sandwiches--and he leaves the office at almost the same time every night to have dinner at home with Janis, his beloved wife.

Senators get the spotlight and the credit when our initiatives succeed, but so many initiatives would never have succeeded without Bruce King. Bruce, through the years, deserves an ocean of credit for his work. He would never claim a drop of it because he is a humble man.

For all his expertise, he is humble, kindhearted, and thoughtful. Everyone likes him. In all the years he has worked here, I never heard a single person say a single bad thing about him. That is a pretty good tribute in a place like the Senate.

Bruce's departure will be a loss to his friends and colleagues and to the Senate as a whole and, of course, to my office.

There is only one bad thing I can say about him. He switched his allegiance from the New York Mets to the Nationals. The good news is that he will be able to catch some more games with Janis, his son Aaron, and his daughter Liana.

Bruce, you are a blessing to our office, to the Senate, and to the country. We wish you the best.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am joined this morning by a group of my Democratic colleagues to talk about the greatest threat facing our country and our planet--climate change. Despite the gravity and scale of the problem, at no time in the past 5 years have Republicans brought even a single bill to the floor to meaningfully address climate change. They brought CRAs to the floor to repeal critical environmental protections that limited the emission of greenhouse gases like methane. They brought legislation to open up more Federal lands to oil drilling, but they haven't brought forward a single meaningful bill to address climate change.

Ironically, the first bill Leader McConnell would bring to the floor on climate change is a bill that he and his party intend to vote against. What a ridiculous sham; what a pathetic political stunt. It would be a stunt on its own from a leader who just a month ago claimed he didn't bring sham bills to the floor, but it is an even greater stunt because they have nothing positive to say about dealing with this climate crisis.

So today, Democrats will be introducing a resolution to steer the direction of this conversation about climate change back in the right direction--all 47 Democrats, every single one.

We are introducing a resolution that affirms three simple things: First, climate change is real; second, climate change is changed by human activity; and third, Congress must act immediately to address this problem. These are three simple things--three things that the vast majority of the American people agree with. Two are plain facts, and the third is just a statement that Congress should take action in light of those two facts.

Our resolution does not prescribe what action we should take. It doesn't say that someone has to be for this solution or that solution. It simply states that climate change is happening, and we ought to do something about it. It is like saying that opioid abuse is a problem, and we should do something. Surely every Senator agrees with that.

In an ideal world, every single Republican Senator would sign on to our climate change resolution because there should be nothing controversial about it at all. But because one political party in America largely denies the science or, as I am sure my colleague from Rhode Island will address, is so in the pocket of Big Oil that it refuses to admit the severity of it, I suspect many of our Republican colleagues will not sign on, and what a shame--what a shame--that would be. At least the American people will know which of their Senators denies the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

So if and when Leader McConnell moves to proceed to the Green New Deal, Democrats will demand a vote on our resolution, and we will see if Leader McConnell is so eager to take that vote.

Again, I have asked him every day; I asked him earlier this morning: Leader McConnell, do you believe climate change is real? Leader McConnell, do you believe it is caused by human activity? And, Leader McConnell, do you believe Congress has to act to deal with climate change? We have simply heard silence from the leader and from just about every other Republican so far.

So we are going to push this resolution, and we hope the American people will let their Senators who are not on this resolution know that they should be on it. It is the first step to moving something in a positive direction because we intend to go on offense on climate.

Mr. President, I am joined this morning by a group of my Democratic colleagues to talk about the greatest threat facing our country and our planet--climate change. Despite the gravity and scale of the problem, at no time in the past 5 years have Republicans brought even a single bill to the floor to meaningfully address climate change. They brought CRAs to the floor to repeal critical environmental protections that limited the emission of greenhouse gases like methane. They brought legislation to open up more Federal lands to oil drilling, but they haven't brought forward a single meaningful bill to address climate change.

Ironically, the first bill Leader McConnell would bring to the floor on climate change is a bill that he and his party intend to vote against. What a ridiculous sham; what a pathetic political stunt. It would be a stunt on its own from a leader who just a month ago claimed he didn't bring sham bills to the floor, but it is an even greater stunt because they have nothing positive to say about dealing with this climate crisis.

So today, Democrats will be introducing a resolution to steer the direction of this conversation about climate change back in the right direction--all 47 Democrats, every single one.

We are introducing a resolution that affirms three simple things: First, climate change is real; second, climate change is changed by human activity; and third, Congress must act immediately to address this problem. These are three simple things--three things that the vast majority of the American people agree with. Two are plain facts, and the third is just a statement that Congress should take action in light of those two facts.

Our resolution does not prescribe what action we should take. It doesn't say that someone has to be for this solution or that solution. It simply states that climate change is happening, and we ought to do something about it. It is like saying that opioid abuse is a problem, and we should do something. Surely every Senator agrees with that.

In an ideal world, every single Republican Senator would sign on to our climate change resolution because there should be nothing controversial about it at all. But because one political party in America largely denies the science or, as I am sure my colleague from Rhode Island will address, is so in the pocket of Big Oil that it refuses to admit the severity of it, I suspect many of our Republican colleagues will not sign on, and what a shame--what a shame--that would be. At least the American people will know which of their Senators denies the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

So if and when Leader McConnell moves to proceed to the Green New Deal, Democrats will demand a vote on our resolution, and we will see if Leader McConnell is so eager to take that vote.

Again, I have asked him every day; I asked him earlier this morning: Leader McConnell, do you believe climate change is real? Leader McConnell, do you believe it is caused by human activity? And, Leader McConnell, do you believe Congress has to act to deal with climate change? We have simply heard silence from the leader and from just about every other Republican so far.

So we are going to push this resolution, and we hope the American people will let their Senators who are not on this resolution know that they should be on it. It is the first step to moving something in a positive direction because we intend to go on offense on climate.

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

Mr. President, I heard Leader McConnell knocking the Green New Deal. I would ask the leader--and we are going to keep asking him and every Republican in this Chamber--what they would do about climate change, about global warming.

So, Leader McConnell, do you believe that climate change, global warming, is real? Yes or no.

Second, do you believe that climate change, global warming, is caused by humans?

And, three, do you believe that Congress should take immediate action to deal with the problem?

Until Leader McConnell and his Republican majority answer those questions, the games they are playing here will have no meaning. This is not a debate. It is a diversion. It is a sham.

Democrats will be introducing a resolution in a few days--shortly-- that says we believe in these three things, and we will be asking our Republicans if they support or oppose that resolution.

The silence of the Republican majority on climate change is enormous. Is it because the oil industry gives so much money to our Republican friends? Is it because they are antiscience? What is the reason?

Not a single bill has been brought to the floor to deal with climate change or global warming in the 5 years Leader McConnell has been the majority leader. What is your plan, Leader McConnell? What is your answer? We know what you don't like. What do you like? Anything?

Now, the Trump administration is in the middle of two crucial negotiations with foreign capitals, the result of which will have ramifications for decades.

In Vietnam, President Trump will meet with Chairman Kim to continue discussions over the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while at the same time administration officials continue negotiations with Beijing over a major trade pact. In both instances, President Trump would have the best chance of having success if he articulated clear objectives and maintained a hard line until those objectives were achieved.

For a time, that approach--the right approach--seemed to hold sway at the White House, as sanctions and tariffs brought both North Korea and China to the negotiating table. Recently, however, President Trump seems headed

down the path of capitulation on both North Korea and China, prepared to trade away our leverage in exchange for flimsy agreements. The President can't seem to stick to a policy, even when it is beginning to work. So eager is he for that quick photo op.

There is an old expression that March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. Well, based on all reports, when it comes to North Korea and China, spring is coming a little early at the White House. President Trump, on both China and North Korea, came in like a lion, with tough rhetoric and hard-line policies, but now President Trump is poised to go out like a lamb, meekly accepting half-baked agreements from both capitals for the sheer sake of it.

In North Korea the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy has been the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, as well as the cessation of human rights abuses by the brutal, despotic, and murderous Kim regime. But just this weekend, before leaving for Hanoi, President Trump said: ``I don't want to rush anybody; as long as there's no testing, we're happy.'' That is a far cry from the complete denuclearization that he called for in the past, and it signals a dangerous softening of our position before the talks even started.

The irony of ironies is that for all the talk of ``maximum pressure'' and ``fire and fury,'' President Trump's stance on North Korea may wind up far weaker than Hillary Clinton's. I know he doesn't like to hear that, but the truth is the truth.

President Trump seems more interested in touting his warm relationship with Chairman Kim as an accomplishment in and of itself. President Trump's calling a brutal autocrat a friend on Twitter is no substitute for actually achieving something for the American people in Hanoi.

I hate to say it, but it would be absolutely incredible and even pathetic if President Trump were giving in to North Korea for the sake of a photo op to knock Michael Cohen's hearing from the front page, but if the past behavior of the President is any guide, something like that is, unfortunately, totally conceivable.

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

Madam President, today, the House of Representatives will take up a motion to terminate the state of emergency proclaimed by President Trump. For many reasons, the measure should pass with bipartisan support.

First, Members of both parties know there is no actual emergency at the border. Nearly 60 former national security advisers--Democrat and Republican, bipartisan--including former Secretaries of State and Defense, have written a statement saying there is ``no factual evidence of an emergency at the border.'' The President himself said, when announcing the state of emergency, that he ``didn't need to do this.''

An emergency, by definition, is something you need to do. It is an emergency. In the President's own words, this is not a state of emergency.

If we let Presidents, whomever they be--Democrat or Republican-- willy-nilly, because they want to get something done, just declare an emergency when it is clear it has been a long-term

condition, a long-term issue, this country is a different country.

That leads to my second point. Members of both parties should be concerned about the President diverting money away from military construction projects in their districts.

Again, the President doesn't like you for some reason. He says there is an emergency and takes money away from a project in your State that you have worked hard for. That is no way to govern.

But at the top of the list is this: the Founding Fathers looking down upon this Chamber and upon these United States of America. They set up an exquisite balance of power. They were worried about an overreaching Executive. They knew what King George was all about. So they named the Congress, the House and Senate, the article I--article I, not II, III or IV--part of the government. Second, they gave the Congress one of the greatest powers any government has, which is the power of the purse.

When the President tries to take these powers away, which clearly he is doing in this case--he called for an emergency when he couldn't get his way in Congress, not because some new facts came on the scene--it is a change in the fundamental, necessary, and, often, exquisite balance of power.

I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle understand that. In fact, true conservatism worries about too much power being centralized in any place because conservatism exalts the freedom of the individual.

So to look the other way because Donald Trump wants this--because he is almost sometimes in a temper tantrum about this issue--is so short- sighted and is so detrimental to the long-term health, stability, and viability, even, of how the balance of power works.

So I implore my friends on the other side of the aisle to contemplate what it might portend for our democracy to allow this emergency declaration to stand. What would stop any future President from claiming an emergency every week and doing what they wanted--a total subversion of the balance of powers, a derogation of huge power to the Executive, which has plenty of power already?

The National Emergencies Act has been used only once in its relatively short history, and that was to take action after 9/11-- clearly, an emergency. Now President Trump is trying to bend the law to his will, not to address a military emergency, not to address any real emergency. This has been an ongoing issue. He would say ``problem.'' That is OK, but he is doing it for personal political gain, to accomplish something Congress rejected and the American people oppose.

He has tried several times to get this wall. Congress has resisted. Congress even resisted when Democrats didn't have control of the House, and now they do. Elections do matter. We are a democracy, President Trump. So it is hard to imagine a more senseless and destructive use of emergency powers than what the President has proposed.

So let us, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, rise to the occasion. This will be a moment in history, a point where things may turn a bit. If Congress stands up, it will be a reaffirmation of our democracy. It will be a reaffirmation of the democracy the Founding Fathers wanted. If Congress stands up--Democrats and Republicans--when the Founding Fathers look down on this Chamber after the vote occurs, they will smile because this is the democracy they wanted. They did not want a democracy where a President could simply declare an emergency on a whim and overrule what Congress has done.

So let us--Congress--first the House and then the Senate, speak up with one bipartisan voice to remedy this injury that President Trump is trying to do to our constitutional order.

Whatever you think of the best way to secure our border, this is not the way for a President--any President--to exercise his authority. This is not about whether you are for or against a wall, and I, of course, am against it. It is about what America is all about, whatever your view on the wall.