Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, there is a theme that is beginning to define this new administration: incompetence leading to chaos. Over the weekend, the hastily constructed Executive order on immigration and refugees caused chaos in airports across America and across the world. Folks were caught in detention at airports for up to 12 hours, young children separated from their mothers, husbands from their wives, elderly travelers denied medical care, green card holders and legal residents being denied the right to see an attorney. Some folks were pressured into signing away their permanent legal status. There were scenes of utter havoc.

Nobody seemed to know the legal ramifications of the order, including the most senior officials in charge of enforcing it--at DHS, DOJ, and State. There is a reason no one knows the legal ramifications. No one asked the professionals in the Departments. Isn't it amazing--on one of the most sweeping Executive orders ever issued, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the head of the CIA have said through reports that they did not even know of it.

The level of incompetence of this administration already, only 10 days into the Presidency, is staggering.

The legal ramifications leading to the firing of Sally Yates last night--there is a reason no one knows the legal ramifications. No one asked the professionals in the Departments and agencies responsible for implementing the rules.

A good manager, an administration with even a low bar of confidence, would have given the Department of Justice ample time to shape this policy and review it, as well as 15 or 30 days to implement it. At Kennedy Airport, Customs, the CPB--they had no idea this was coming down.

Last night, incompetence led to chaos at the Justice Department. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Acting Attorney General, issued a notice saying the Department of Justice will not defend President Trump's Executive order on immigrants and refugees from Muslim-majority countries because of its dubious legality and even more dubious constitutionality. To put this in perspective, this was our country's top lawyer, someone who served administrations in both parties, someone who has the reputation of doing things on the merits, of not being political, saying that the Executive order is on such shaky legal and constitutional ground that the administration's lawyers should not defend it.

I have to say that she was our country's top lawyer, because within hours of her principled statement detailing her professional legal opinion, the Trump administration fired her. An hour later, the Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director was dismissed as well.

The hair-trigger response from the White House to relieve them of their duties was a Monday night massacre, eerily reminiscent of the political firing by the Nixon administration during Watergate. But instead of it happening 6 years into an administration, it happened within the first 2 weeks. How many more of these dismissals will take place over the next 4 years? How many more firings because the President and his people in the White House do not want to hear a proper legal opinion?

Sally Yates was the Acting Attorney General. Why wasn't she consulted on the Executive order? Maybe if she had been, they would have learned all of the ways it is legally and constitutionally deficient and the administration would not have issued it.

But here we are, 2 weeks into the new Trump administration. Already we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis. We are already in a crisis of competence.

A dangerous pattern is beginning to emerge because throughout the past week, incompetence led to chaos at the State Department as well. Before the Secretary of State is confirmed, before any Deputy and Under Secretaries have been named, the President unceremoniously cleared out more than a century of experience among senior officials at the State Department. One of the top officials removed last week was in charge of management issues at the State Department, including security of our embassies and associated personnel overseas. This could potentially put our people overseas at risk and could potentially make it more difficult for our government to conduct the business of our Nation overseas. This makes America weaker, not stronger.

Another official was in charge of ensuring the compliance of nations with whom we have arms control and security treaties. This is an area where my friends from the other side of the aisle--most notably, my friend from Arkansas--demanded robust action under the previous administration, especially with respect to Russia. These important issues require continuing senior-level government attention and expertise, not a vacant office.

So, again, incompetence is astounding the American people. It is amazing how poorly done so many things that have come out of the White House in the first 2 weeks have been. It seems the President is treating our Nation's most senior and capable members of his workforce as if this is an episode of ``The Apprentice.''

Unlike on the campaign trail, the President's slapdash decisions, tweets, and the basic incompetence of his administration threatens to spread chaos across the country and across the world, undermining America's global reputation and making Americans less safe--especially the Executive order on immigrants and refugees.

The events of last night make that fact as clear as day. Our country's top lawyers think it is illegal, unconstitutional, and indefensible. An unprecedented number of senior nonpartisan State Department personnel--many of whom served under Republican administrations loyally and ably--signed

onto a letter of dissent, a memo of dissent, actually, arguing that the Executive order ``will immediately sour relations with much of the Muslim world . . . [and] increase anti-American sentiment'' from seven countries from which not a single refugee has ever committed an act of terrorism in America, not a single one.

Today, even more than yesterday and over the weekend, we have reason to overturn this Executive order. I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink their position, to join us on Senator Feinstein's bill to rescind the order. Then we can actually get to work, actually protecting our country with a smart, thoughtful, and effective policy against terrorism--not with what seems good on a tweet.

I asked a unanimous consent request yesterday because this order is so bad for our safety, for our security, for our troops, for our country, and for the moral leadership that we have always held. There is even a greater need today because we saw what Sally Yates said and the President's actions.

The need to rescind this order is even greater today than it was yesterday, so I am pleading with my colleagues. I know many of you have doubts about this order. You have expressed them. Let's rescind it and really get to work on tightening up our laws and making America safe from terrorists.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 240

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 240; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that there be no amendments, motions, or points of order in order to the bill.

I object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon, like much of America, angry and perturbed but in resolute opposition to the President's Executive order issued on Friday. This Executive order was mean-spirited and un-American. It made us less secure. It put our troops in the field at increased risk. It was implemented in a way that caused chaos and confusion across the country. It must be reversed immediately. Let me give three reasons why.

First, it ought to be reversed because it will not make us safer, as the President argues. It will make us less safe.

The President's Executive order targeted seven Muslim-majority countries. Not one terrorist attack has been perpetrated on U.S. soil by a refugee from one of these countries--not one. Moreover, it could alienate and inflame the communities we need most in the fight against terrorism.

As my friend Republican Senator John McCain noted, it could increase the small number of lone wolves, which pose the greatest threat of terrorism. Both the San Bernardino and Orlando attacks were done by lone wolves, American citizens importuned by the evil ISIS. This rule would have nothing to do with that.

As my friend John McCain has noted, it could increase the small number of lone wolves, which pose the greatest threat of terrorism. As both Senators McCain and Graham expressed yesterday, this order is a valuable propaganda tool for ISIS. We saw that happen today. They predicted it yesterday, McCain and Graham. It happened today. They want nothing more than to paint the United States as a country at war with all of Islam. This order feeds right into the perception ISIS and other extremists want to create. The bottom line is, the policy will make us less safe, not more safe.

Second, while there is no way to defend the order, it was poorly constructed and even more poorly executed. The order was signed into effect without the consultation of the Federal agencies that are responsible for enforcing it: the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of State, and possibly others.

People across America saw utter chaos and confusion that resulted in our airports over the weekend. The people in charge of implementing it weren't even told about it. Folks were caught in detention at airports around the country, young children separated from their mothers, husbands from their wives, green card holders and legal residents being denied the right to see an attorney. Some folks were pressured into signing away their permanent legal status. We are looking into that right now.

It raises serious doubts about the competence--the basic competence-- of the new administration when such an important order is so poorly vetted and executed, just like some of their Cabinet nominations. Such a far-reaching and impactful Executive order should have gotten extreme vetting. Instead, it was rushed through without much thought or deliberation. I could not disagree more with the intention behind the order, but the haphazard and

completely incompetent way in which it was implemented made matters even worse.

Third, and most important of all, the order should be reversed because it is un-American. We are a nation founded by the descendants of asylum seekers, a nation that has been constantly invigorated, replenished, and driven forward by immigrants, many millions of whom came under duress, seeking a new birth of freedom in America. The ability to find refuge from persecution, whether based on one's religion or race or political views, goes to the very foundation of the country, starting with the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock. The Executive order is antithetical to everything we are about.

President Trump seems to want people to believe that all immigrants are terrorists or criminals, but when you meet immigrants, you see they are not the face of terrorism; they are families just like ours. Yesterday I met two. They were at my office. Mr. Hameed, an Iraqi refugee, worked at a local university department in English literature and, because he loved our country and what we were trying to do, he chose to use his language skills to be a translator for American soldiers in Iraq. He worked as a translator for the U.S. Army in Iraq for 10 years. He endured death threats and harassment to himself and to his family because he was helping us and our soldiers. So he began the refugee process about 2 years ago.

He arrived on January 5. If Donald Trump had been inaugurated on January 1 and enacted his order 6 weeks sooner, Mr. Hameed would have had to stay in Iraq. His life would have been threatened for cooperating with our military.

What kind of message does this send to the untold millions of people just like Mr. Hameed throughout the Muslim world who today will be less likely to work for and with our great country?

Then I met the Elias family. They were a different type. They have four children. They arrived here a month ago. Their journey to the United States began 5 years ago from war-torn Syria. After surviving the brutal civil war, where suicide bombs had been blowing up in front of their house, they were finally reunited with their family in the Bronx. You see, the driving force that brought them here were two American citizens, their grandparents. Mr. and Mrs. Elias came in around 1970.

They are model Americans, the Eliases. I met them. I talked to them. I enjoyed talking to them. Mr. Elias started out as a tailor, a skill that is disappearing. We don't have too many tailors left in America. He is an entrepreneur, like so many immigrants, and he started a small business. He now refurbishes the interior of boats mainly on City Island over there in the Bronx. I have been there. It is a beautiful place.

Well, he wanted to bring his people, his kids and grandchildren, here because their lives were threatened. They came again a month ago. I met the little boy, a beautiful little boy, a red-headed Syrian refugee.

I said: What do you want to be when you grow up?

A policeman.

I asked the daughter: What do you want to be?

A doctor.

The Elias family and their young children are not a threat to America; they are the promise of America, the same types of people, Mr. President, as your ancestors and mine who came here seeking a better life and working so hard for it.

It is my guess, if President Trump met these refugees, Mr. Hameed and the Elias family, he wouldn't be so hard-hearted.

Our country has a grand and proud tradition of welcoming families like these with open arms. America is at her best when she is a safe harbor in a world of stormy seas.

I urge my Republican colleagues to help us overturn this wrongheaded, counterproductive, dangerous, and un-American Executive order. So many of you know it is wrong. I understand party loyalty. I do. But what this order does is go against the grain that there are higher values at stake.

Eleven of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed reservations already. I urge them and others to back up their words with action. Let's repeal the order, then sit down and thoughtfully and carefully construct a better way to keep our country safe from terrorism.

President Obama toughened up vetting. If there is more vetting that has to be done, we will be happy to look at it and work with you on it but not something like this.

At 5:15 today, I will be asking unanimous consent to call for a vote on a bill offered by my friend from California Senator Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, to overturn the order, and I hope our Republican colleagues will join us.

As proponents of this legislation, we believe it shows strength.

Proponents of the order say it shows strength, but it is not true; it is not true. Let me explain why. My middle name is Ellis; Charles Ellis Schumer. I was named after my uncle Ellis, who was named for Ellis Island. My daughter's middle name is Emma. We named her for the poet Emma Lazarus, whose timeless words adorn the base of the Statue of Liberty: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''

The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of our Nation. Around the world, people recognize it, that mighty beacon that I can see from my home in Brooklyn, and they know we are a nation whose might comes not only from our great military but from our morality, whose leadership--our country's leadership is demonstrated not by projecting a fear of outsiders but by inspiring them in a hope for a better life here in America. Our country is a country whose strength comes from its values, and among them is a commitment to be that golden door that Emma Lazarus spoke about, a shelter, a commitment to shelter the oppressed and the persecuted.

Just as we faced down and defeated the threat of communism with our values--a respect for the rule of law, for equality under the law, for free markets and free societies--we must face down the twin threats of terrorism and jihadism, not only with military strength, as important as that is, but also with our values: religious freedom, tolerance, decency.

Our greatest weapon will always be our values. That is what makes us strong. They are ``a new colossus,'' as Emma Lazarus called it over 100 years ago.

The only way we will lose the war against terrorism is if we lose ourselves and retreat from our values. Not only will this Executive order embolden and inspire those around the globe who wish to do us harm, it strikes against the very core of America, our values, our greatest strength. We are better than this. So I will fight with every fiber of my being until this Executive order is gone.

National Security Council

Mr. President, on Friday, the President reshuffled the National Security Council to remove permanent postings for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence and installed a permanent seat for White House Political Adviser Steve Bannon. It is a disturbing and profound departure from past administrations.

On the most sensitive matters of national security, the President should be relying on the informed counsel of members of the military and intelligence agencies, not political advisers who made their careers promoting a White nationalist Web site.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the President's primary military adviser, and his voice, along with that of the Director of National Intelligence, are the only independent, apolitical voices. President Trump's move to strip them of their seats is baffling. It endangers our national security and is contrary to the spirit and intent of the National Security Act.

This morning, Gen. Michael Hayden--I can't think of a more respected general and intelligence leader. He has served bipartisanly, the Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations. He said that the move--and these are his words, not mine, General Hayden's--``puts ideology at the center over the professional kind of information that the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs bring to the party.''

That is a deeply disturbing thought. It reinforces this administration's preference to propagate its own reality, rather than grapple with the facts on the ground, and if that continues, America is going to have real trouble.

It is one thing when it comes to a dustup about the size of the inauguration crowd; it is an entirely different story when it is the most sensitive activities undertaken by our Nation's government.

Much like the Muslim ban, this decision was poorly thought out and ill-conceived. It has put a filter on the information going to the President and, like the Executive order, makes us less safe.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be yielded 5 minutes for myself and then 5 minutes for the Senator from Arkansas to answer and perhaps object after I make motions.

Mr. President, I will speak and then make my two motions, and then the Senator from Arkansas can speak and either object or not, whatever he decides.

Mr. President, earlier I spoke at length on the President's Executive order. I just want to repeat that this Executive order has made us less safe, less secure, put our troops in the field at increased risk, and was implemented in a way that has caused chaos and confusion across the country. Most fundamentally of all, it is un-American. It flies in the face of a grand American tradition of granting refuge to those fleeing persecution, regardless of their race, religion, or political views. It is dangerous. It is shameful. It is wrong. It must be reversed immediately. And I know that many of my colleagues agree with me. They know this is wrong. A dozen Republican Senators and counting, including my good friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, have expressed serious concern. One former Republican CIA Director said that it ``makes us less safe than we were on Friday.''

So let's repeal the order and then sit down to discuss a smart, thoughtful, effective way to counter terrorism. President Obama wanted tougher vetting. Democrats are happy to look at proposals to that effect but not this ineffective, un-American policy that will do more to empower our enemies and inspire those around the globe who would do us harm.

Now I am going to make a second unanimous consent request, and I will do them seriatim, as the UC allowed.

The second request is, I ask unanimous consent that we delay the confirmation vote on Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson until these Executive orders are overturned and he commits to opposing them.

So far, this is the most important foreign policy order of the new administration, and in the committee hearing for his nomination, Mr. Tillerson appeared--he wasn't 100 percent certain--to roundly reject the idea of a blanket travel ban just like the one President Trump signed. He said: ``I don't support a blanket type of travel ban on people coming to this country.'' He stressed in his opening statement that moderate Muslims are going to be our greatest allies in the fight against Islamic extremists. The implication was that he wouldn't support a proposal that would in any way alienate and inflame them. He said he didn't think it was helpful to suggest that Americans should be afraid of Muslims. That would suggest he might be wary about a policy that explicitly singles out seven majority-Muslim countries for different treatment under U.S. policy.

Now, many of the comments Mr. Tillerson made to the committee are at odds with the President's policy. So Democrats and Republicans alike and the American people, most of all, deserve to know whether Mr. Tillerson would implement this Executive order or not because it seems to directly contradict comments he made under oath to a Senate committee. Key allies around the world are wondering whether the potential future Secretary of State supports this policy, and so are the American people.

Here are some important questions: Did he have any involvement or consultation in the construction or drafting of the Executive order? How would he answer the outcries from countries around the world that are asking that President Trump rethink this policy? Does he think it would make us less safe? Does he think it would alienate moderate Muslim communities in the United States and around the world? And does he believe current green card holders should be subjected to another round of scrutiny if they come back to the United States, even though they have been vetted before?

We need these answers from President Trump's nominees, and Mr. Tillerson's nomination is before the Senate right now, so it is imperative that we know what he thinks before moving forward.

So, Mr. President, I am making two unanimous consent requests.

First, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 240, introduced earlier today; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that there be no amendments, motions, or points of order in order to the bill.

Thank you.

I have a second unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on Calendar No. 2, the nomination of Rex W. Tillerson for Secretary of State, be postponed until Executive Order 137 is rescinded and Mr. Tillerson has provided in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee information pertaining to his involvement in the development of the Executive order, as well as a statement declaring whether or not he agrees with the order.

Mr. President, so we have had a number, a large number of eloquent speeches about the President's Executive order. While they were going on, of course, we had a Monday night massacre. Sally Yates, a person of great integrity, who follows the law, was fired by the President. She was fired because she would not enact, pursue, the Executive order on the belief that it was illegal, perhaps unconstitutional.

It was a profile in courage. It was a brave act and the right act. I hope the President and his people who are in the White House learned something from this; first, that we are a nation under the rule of law. You cannot just sit down, Twitter something out, and then think: OK. Let's enact it. It is a complicated country. When you do something as major as what the President proposed in his Executive order, you have to think it through. You have to talk to people.

Sally Yates was the Acting Attorney General. Why wasn't she consulted? Maybe they would have known what she felt and maybe they would not have done what they did. Clearly, that lack of consultation went up and down the line. Sally Yates is from a different administration. General Kelly was President Trump's selection.

He learned of this Executive order when he got a phone call from the White House while he saw it being announced on television. How can you run a country like that? I am hearing from my constituents in New York. There are hard-core Trump supporters. They are for him. But they are a small minority of New Yorkers.

There are many progressive, liberal, and pro-immigrant people. Obviously, they are horrified, but I would say this to the President and his minions. There are a lot of people who voted for

President Trump--not the hard core--and they are appalled by the simple ineptitude of this administration. Substantively, even more important, how can you run a country like this? How can you make a major order, major doing, and not check it out with your Homeland Security Secretary, with the Justice Department and the Attorney General?

I will say, if this continues, this country has big trouble. We cannot have a Twitter Presidency. We cannot have a Presidency that thinks: Oh, this sounds good. Let's just go do it and not think the consequences through. Most of all, we cannot have a Presidency that does not understand the beauty and depth of America, in this case when it comes to immigrants.

We have been an amazing country. In the city in which I live there is a big lady in the harbor with a torch. It is a beautiful symbol. Americans revere it and admire it. The world reveres it and admires it. Why? Because it says: America will be a place where people can take refuge if they are persecuted religiously, politically, and then they can build a great life for themselves.

That is a beautiful thing. That moral force of America helps us win wars, helps us win support, helps us be the greatest country in the world that everyone admires.

Of course, we need a strong military. Of course, we need a strong economy. Praise God, America has had both through the decades, but we also have been a moral beacon, ``God's noble experiment,'' as the Founding Fathers called it. In those days, as now, we have welcomed people from distant shores and said: Come be Americans.

Our President is trampling on that, to be honest with you. The idea that immigrants are preponderantly criminals and preponderantly terrorists is absurd. They are the future of America. In my State of New York, 25 percent of the people are foreign born, probably as high as 40 percent if you are either foreign born or had a parent foreign born.

They are great New Yorkers. I was with a Syrian refugee this week. He and his wife and his children had just come. His parents were American citizens. They had come to America in 1970. The parents and Mr. Elias, who lived in the Bronx, came here. He was a tailor. We don't have that many fine tailors in America these days. It is a lost art. So people who do it tend to be immigrants; mainly from Italy is my experience.

But he was a tailor from Syria. He then did what immigrants do in America. He founded a little business. He reupholsters boats, a lot of them in a place in the Bronx called City Island. He built a company. He made America better. He is a Syrian immigrant.

His children and grandchildren were in danger. A suicide bomber had even blown up himself in front of their home nearly killing them. They just got in this month. Had Donald Trump's Executive order been in effect several weeks earlier, they would not have been able to get here. They might have perished. They might have been hurt.

Similarly, another guy I met is Mohammed. Mohammed knows English. He was so impressed by America, by the lady with the torch, by our values, by what we stand for, that he volunteered to be a translator for our soldiers. He put his life in danger for doing that.

Then he began to get threats from the terrorists in Iraq. He is an Iraqi. His wife was in danger. His children were in danger. He came January 5. Again, had President Trump and his evil order--and that is what it is, it is evil--gone into effect January 1, for all we know Mohammed would have died for helping our soldiers.

Do we have to prevent terrorists from coming into America? Absolutely.

The greatest source of terror are lone wolves. Americans, citizens-- ISIS gets its evil ideas in their heads, and they do terrorist things.

John McCain, my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona who is an expert on this stuff, said: This Executive order will encourage and increase the number of lone wolves.

Here is another group that needs tightening, I would suggest to the President and his minions: those available in the Visa Waiver Program. If you are a country that has generally been friendly to us, there is something called the Visa Waiver Program, which means you can come into this country with very few questions asked, very little vetting.

Refugees are vetted for 2 years. That is why not a single refugee from any of the countries that were proscribed by the President has committed an act of terror here--not a single one.

I heard someone defending the President saying: Well, all these people would have come in; the terrorists would have come in had they done it slowly and announced a date.

Well, we have done it like this for 15, 20 years, and we haven't had a single terrorist come in. What kind of absurdity is that?

Anyway, the Visa Waiver Program allows people from, say, France and Belgium to come into this country with few questions asked. We have seen French citizens, Belgian citizens do terrorism. They would be allowed to come into this country to do it here. Why aren't we tightening that up? That is what should be done.

So I am going to conclude. The evening is late.

Sally Yates was a profile in courage, a profile in courage. Maybe some of her courage, her insight, and her wisdom would rub off on the people in the White House. Maybe they will back off and repeal this Executive order, and then we can work together and truly try to tighten up the laws, the actions of the administration to prevent terrorists from coming in.

This Executive order makes us less safe. It was poorly done in a slipshod, quick way that foretells real trouble in the White House, and, most of all, it has done more to tarnish the great American dream, the great moral force of America that has, in part, made us the greatest country in the world--in 1, 2 days, undoing the work of generations.

Please, Mr. President, reconsider. Really think about this. Don't just tweet. Don't just get mad. Don't just call names. Think about it. Change it. Repeal it.

It is too far gone to change; we have to repeal it. And then maybe we can work together on tightening up some of the areas that I have talked about.

I see my friend from Arizona has come to the floor, and I will not hold him up, so I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, according to President Trump's words, yesterday--not Friday--was his first official day in office. It is an important distinction because throughout the campaign, President Trump made numerous promises about what he would do on his first day. So we went through them. Turns out he made upwards of 30 promises of Executive actions or plans that he would announce on day 1. This didn't require any congressional approval; he could just announce it. Even by a generous count, the President fulfilled only two or three of them. Let me mention just a few of the important omissions.

The President campaigned against both establishments, promising to oppose elites and the powerful in Washington, ``to drain the swamp.'' He campaigned against the Democratic establishment, but he also campaigned against the Republican establishment. As a result, he explicitly promised to introduce an 18-point plan for ethics reform on day 1. How did he do on that? He promised to sign a 5-year ban on lobbying after officials worked in Congress or the White House, but he did not deliver. He promised to institute a lifetime ban on White House officials from lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, but he did not deliver. He promised to put in place a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections, but again he did not deliver.

On day 1, did President Trump fulfill his pledge to bring ethics reform to Washington? No. In fact, looking at his ``swamp Cabinet''-- stacked with billionaires and bankers with myriad conflicts of interests--he may have already lowered the ethical standards in our government.

On trade--this is an issue where I am probably closer to the views of the President's than I was to either President Obama's or President Bush's, but it seems President Trump is again failing to deliver on his day 1 promises. He promised over and over again--it was one of the few things he said in the campaign I really liked. He said he was going to label China a currency manipulator on his first day. But he did not deliver. Instead, he issued an Executive action withdrawing from the

Mr. President, I would like to discuss five topics this afternoon: the President's remarks this weekend and the lack of Republican reaction to them, his Executive order on Friday about mortgage rates, the continuing nominations process here, the President's withdrawal from TPP, and the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act that was announced this morning.

First, the need for Republicans to speak out when President Trump engages in the kind of rhetoric he engaged in this weekend. The first few days of the new administration are traditionally a time for an incoming President to call for unity and to try and bring the country together. Instead, President Trump kicked off a bizarre first weekend in office that alternated between braggadocio and furor. The President quarreled over the size of inaugural crowds, bragged about his election victory in a speech at CIA headquarters, with a wall commemorating fallen American intelligence officers behind him, and then sent his Press Secretary out to hold an emergency briefing to present ``alternative facts,'' as one of President Trump's advisers described them yesterday, about the size of the crowds again.

Whatever your politics, in order to debate, argue, compromise, and get things done for the American people, we have to be able to agree on a base line of facts. Facts aren't partisan. They don't have alternatives. The alternative to fact is fiction. If this Presidency is going to be based on ignoring the facts on the ground, we are going to have huge problems. It is not that important when you are talking about the number of people who attended an inauguration, but what about the facts if Russia is doing something that is very bad or something terrible is happening to our economy or something else? If the Presidency looks away from the real facts, we have trouble. You cannot govern a country like that.

So if the White House is ignoring the facts on the ground and is willing to make up ``alternative facts'' about crowd size, what else are they willing to stretch the truth about? National security? What Vladimir Putin is up to? The implications are terrifying.

A White House that presents alternative facts needs to be called out for doing so by both parties. The folks who can really help rein in the President are the members of his own party who have a special responsibility to do so, but they have been silent, totally silent when President Trump has been saying and doing things they know are wrong. They should be speaking out for the good of the country.

I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to help us hold the President and his White House accountable for the truth; otherwise this country is going to have a lot of trouble. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative, you cannot ignore the facts and govern and move the country forward.

Second, I want to address again the President's Executive action on Friday that would make it harder for Americans to afford mortgages. President Trump said in his inaugural address that ``for too long a small group in our Nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.'' He promised to combat that trend, but only 1 hour later--1 hour after that speech--in one of his first acts as President, President Trump made it harder for average Americans to afford a mortgage by reversing a recent decision by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to reduce annual insurance premiums that many borrowers pay, saving homeowners about $500 a year. These are young families just starting out. They want part of the American dream--a home. There is no need to raise their mortgage rates, which is what was done 1 hour after those populist words were delivered on the steps of the Capitol. Yes, it only took 1 hour for those populist words delivered on the steps of the Capitol to ring hollow. Actions speak louder than words.

So I will just say this. If Dr. Carson wants to earn my support for his nomination to run HUD, he ought to reverse the President's decision and reinstate the policy that makes mortgages more affordable for working Americans.

Third, on nominations, the evidence continues to mount that our Republican friends are trying to ram through the President's Cabinet nominations without a fair and complete vetting process. Totally different, I would say to my good friend the majority leader, than what happened when President Obama took office. As I said, our constitutional duty to advise and consent does not mean ramming through nominees. Here are three instances, just new ones. They pile up. Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson did not adequately respond to our questions for the record, and a number of Democrats still await more complete responses. Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos refused to return to the HELP Committee now that her ethics paperwork is in, even though her ethics agreement gains her

the ability to retain interest in companies that will be directly affected by the policies of the Department of Education. Representative Price, the nominee for HHS, refused to meet with several members of the committee before his nomination is scheduled for a vote.

This is not how nominations should go. Now, I know--with a swamped Cabinet of bankers, billionaires, more wealth, more potential conflicts of interest, more positions way far over from what the American people want--why our Republican colleagues want to rush these nominees through. But let me reiterate that they will have tremendous power over the lives of average Americans. A few extra days to examine and explore what they believe to make sure that they don't have conflicts of interest--who wouldn't be for that, unless they don't want the facts to come out?

So we are not stalling nominations. This isn't sport. This is serious stuff. We have genuine concerns about the qualifications and ethical standards of these nominees, and we are going to continue to seek an open, transparent, and thorough vetting process for the President's Cabinet. These folks are going to be in power for 4 years, maybe. Then they deserve a few days of careful vetting. They should not be all rushed in a day, with hurried debate, hurrying them through in the dark of night--no way. We are going to use whatever abilities we have here to make sure that doesn't happen.

Fourth, on the Executive action that the President will be withdrawing the United States from the TPP, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as you know, my views on trade are probably closer to President Trump's than they were to President Obama and President Bush. I opposed NAFTA and TPP. But the fact that the President announced with fanfare that he will be withdrawing the United States from the Trans- Pacific Partnership is not news. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was dead long ago, before President Trump took office. That is why Leader McConnell didn't bring it up on the floor in the lameduck session. It didn't have the votes and was even further away from getting votes in the Senate. It was over.

We await real action on trade, one of the President's signature campaign issues. Now, what President Trump said in his campaign over and over was that, on his first day as President, he would label China a currency manipulator. That hasn't happened. Even though China is letting their currency float at the moment, you can be sure they will return to manipulating their currency--hurting our exports, helping them unfairly compete with American jobs and businesses--as soon as it is in their best interest to do so.

I worked, frankly, with the nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and with many others to try and get both President Bush and President Obama to label China a currency manipulator. It didn't happen, unfortunately. But President Trump promised that he was going to do it on his first day in office, and it has not happened. If President Trump wants to send a shot across the bow that he is getting serious on trade, addressing the currency issue would have been a lot more effective than a meaningless and redundant Executive order on the

Finally, this morning, two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Louisiana, introduced a proposal purporting to be a Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act. While I sympathize with my two colleagues, whom I respect a great deal and who understand that repeal without replace would be devastating for our country, their proposal would create chaos, not affordable care for millions of Americans. It is much like the vague Executive order issued by the President on Friday that my friend, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, called ``confusing.''

Their proposal today illustrates the dilemma that both the Republicans and the White House are in. It is nearly impossible to keep the benefits of the Affordable Care Act without keeping the whole thing. There is an easier way out of the pickle our Republican friends have created for themselves. Republicans can and should stop repeal plans, which are disruptive, and work with Democrats to improve, not gut, the Affordable Care Act and health care system for all Americans.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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