Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to honor Mrs. Barbara Ann O'Malley, who passed away last month at the age of 93 after a long life guided by kindness, strength, grace, and humility. Mrs. O'Malley-- affectionately known as Mrs. O to both Hill staffers and Members alike--served Maryland for 30 years in the office of former Senator Barbara Mikulski. The indelible mark she has left on our State and on Capitol Hill will endure for generations.

Barbara Ann O'Malley was born a pioneer. In her youth, she hungered to fly and earned a pilot's license at the age of 16 on her own initiative. But it was in the arena of public service where she would soar. Inspired by her father's service as chair of the county Democratic Party where she grew up, Barbara started volunteering for political campaigns when she was still too young to vote. Her passion for public service brought her from Indiana to Washington, where she worked for Democratic Congressman Edward Kruse and later became the national committeewoman for the Young Democrats. And as a mother, Barbara O'Malley raised her three children on the value of serving others. Her son Martin grew up to be the mayor of Baltimore, Governor of Maryland, and a candidate for President of the United States.

After her boys left home, Mrs. O'Malley turned to raising a new family on Capitol Hill. She spread kindness, collegiality, and community from the front desk of Senator Mikulski's office for three decades. She was notorious for dropping off treats at coworker's desks throughout the day, shuttling baked goods back-and-forth from the so- called BAMtry, a cache of snacks that kept the staff running. And she gave moral nourishment to the team by sharing advice cultivated through years in politics. Legions of Hill staffers, from new hires to chiefs of staff, turned to her for counsel. But it wasn't just staff. Senator Mikulski likes to say that Mrs. O gave her the ``first briefing of the day'' when she walked into work. Senators Jay Rockefeller and Arlen Specter could often be spotted circling her desk just before heading to the Senate floor. And when I served in the House of Representatives, Mrs. O'Malley was always the first to warmly greet me on my way in to see Senator Mikulski, and I always relished the moment.

If flying was her first love, then history was her second. She knew every fact, detail, and anecdote about the U.S. Senate, and for years, Barbara O'Malley's Capitol Hill tours were the hottest tickets in town. She guided Marylanders of all ages and interests through the halls of American democracy with trademark wit--never compromising between her reverence for the Senate and her taste for a good joke. At the front desk, she was known as the office historian, collecting the stories of constituents who passed through and maintaining a long catalogue of staff directories that she held onto throughout her life. She forged deep friendships and kept up with colleagues even after they left the office.

That was Barbara O'Malley's gift. She saw the multitudes that live in all of us and treated each person who crossed her path like they were the first and last thing in the world. That talent for compassion made her the soul of the Senate for 30 years and makes this loss all the more painful for me and for my State. But though she has passed, her spirit survives. Barbara O'Malley's legacy lives on in the generations of Hill staffers, students, and

public servants whom she taught and trained and who now serve throughout Washington and across the country.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Antony J. Blinken to be U.S. Secretary of State.

Mr. Blinken has decades of experience in foreign policy, beginning in the early 1990s as the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for European and Canadian Affairs. He has since risen to senior foreign policy positions on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch, including as Democratic Staff Director on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as Principal Deputy National Security Adviser and Deputy Secretary of State in the Obama administration. I have had occasion to work with him over the years and can testify to his professionalism, diligence, and good judgment.

Mr. Blinken faces an enormous task. The last 4 years have been rife with chaos, division, and ineffective unilateralism. Under the so- called slogan of ``America First,'' President Trump turned his back on allies and emboldened our adversaries, leaving the United States weakened, vulnerable, and alone. Mr. Blinken must not only reverse the damage done by President Trump; he must reinvigorate U.S. leadership in a manner that meets the challenges we face today--from the existential threat of climate change, to a more aggressive and confrontational China.

To begin, Mr. Blinken must restore our alliances, rebuild our global partnerships, expand our commercial ties, and rejoin the critical international agreements and organizations recklessly abandoned by President Trump. Already President Biden has reversed Trump's Muslim ban, rejoined the Paris climate accords, and recommitted to the World Health Organization. In the coming months, Mr. Blinken must work with our allies to develop a united front to counter the threats posed by adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran. He must reaffirm our commitment to NATO. He must reestablish U.S. leadership in providing development and humanitarian assistance around the world, reasserting U.S. values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

As importantly, Mr. Blinken must restore the State Department itself. The Trump administration routinely undermined and smeared our dedicated career foreign and civil service officers. Rebuilding the morale of our talented public servants will be imperative for the successful execution of our foreign policy.

Given the breadth of his knowledge and experience, I am confident Mr. Blinken is the right person to meet America's foreign policy challenges, and I support his confirmation as U.S. Secretary of State.

Madam President, I rise today to support the nomination of Janet Yellen, a dedicated public servant and world- renowned economist, as Secretary of the Treasury.

Janet Yellen's extensive background in economics and accomplished career in the field led her to Chair the Federal Reserve, where she served with distinction in the aftermath of the great recession. Ms. Yellen brought a steady hand and wisdom befitting her experience to her responsibilities at the helm of the Federal Reserve, and as a member of the Banking Committee, I always appreciated her frank testimony and thoughtful analysis.

In her new role as Treasury Secretary, she will inherit an economic crisis caused by a mismanaged pandemic. She will be charged not only with providing historic relief in close coordination with Congress, but also with building back better to create the conditions for a dynamic economy that harnesses the potential of each and every American. I am confident in her ability to take on these urgent challenges. I look forward to voting yes on her nomination and working closely with her in the years ahead to ensure that we build an economy that works for everyone.

Madam President, I was proud to vote in support of Lloyd Austin to serve as our next Secretary of Defense. I cast my vote with confidence that he will capably lead the Department of Defense through this difficult period in our Nation's history.

As a four-star general, Lloyd Austin was tasked with leading the drawdown of American troops from Iraq and helped bring 150,000 U.S. soldiers home. He demonstrated the logistical mastery that will be necessary to help lead the nationwide effort to vaccinate against COVID-19. Through his remarkable life and trailblazing career, he has gained the experience and perspective required of this office, and now, he has broken one more barrier as the first African-American Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history. I am confident he will ensure that our Armed Forces reflect and respect the diversity of our Nation and that everyone in our military upholds the oath they take to protect our Constitution.

I have made no secret of my concerns about the troubling trend of Congress granting waivers to allow recently retired officers to serve as Secretary of Defense, and I voted against such a waiver for Lloyd Austin as I did when that question was previously put before the Congress. Nevertheless, I believe once Congress speaks on the issue of a waiver, each Senator must evaluate the nominee on his or her merits alone. By that measure, Lloyd Austin is superbly qualified. He has the confidence of the President and is the right person for this moment. I support his confirmation.

Madam President, I rise today to once again oppose a waiver to bypass U.S. law and allow a recently retired member of Armed Forces to serve as our Secretary of Defense. On the merits, I support the nomination of Lloyd Austin, and I believe that Mr. Austin is highly qualified for this role. However, the importance of civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is greater than any individual nominee.

The subordination of military authority to civil authority is a bedrock principle of our democracy. In 2017, when I voted against a waiver to allow James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, I stressed that our Founders' emphasis on civilian leadership distinguished the young United States from the other nations of the time. I also noted that in enacting the exception for General Marshall in 1950, Congress expressly stated that: ``the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of secretary of defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.''

I still believe that the 7-year waiting period is a valuable practice--one of many--that preserves our--Nation's long tradition of placing civilian authority above military authority. In 2017, I said ``should Congress vote to waive this law at this moment in time, I will review the nomination [. . .] on its individual merits.'' And I intend to apply my words then to my actions now and will consider Mr. Austin's nomination on its merits when it comes to the floor for a vote.

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Avril Haines to be the Director of National Intelligence. Ms. Haines is a historic nominee and would be the first woman to lead our intelligence community in this critical role. With a background at the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council, she understands the work of our intelligence professionals and the need to ensure a frank and nonpartisan process to deliver the information that underpins national security and foreign policy decisions.

Ms. Haines has applied her keen intellect to a number of pursuits, even including running a bookstore in Baltimore and serving as a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. She has a firm commitment to her country and to encouraging others to serve, including as a member of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.

After a tumultuous 4 years and a President who routinely scorned the work of our intelligence community, it is critical to restore professional leadership who will work with the administration and Congress, deliver honest assessments, and speak truth to power. Ms. Haines is the right woman for the job.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon, Thursday, January 21; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Thank you, Mr. President. The mob violence and attack we saw on our Capitol today should be a wake-up call to each and every one of us of what happens when we fail to come together, not as Democrats and Republicans but each of us as Americans, to stand up to a President who time and again has shown contempt for our democracy, contempt for our Constitution.

Today, here on the Capitol, we witnessed people taking down an American flag and putting up a Trump flag. That is not democracy in the United States of America.

As every Senator who has spoken has mentioned, we have for hundreds of years had a peaceful transfer of power. Nobody likes to lose, and supporters of the losing candidate are always disappointed. What is different this time?

We all know what is different this time. We have a President who, as the Senator from New Jersey said, even before a vote was cast, that if he didn't win the election, it was going to be a fraud and every day since then has perpetrated that lie.

We have a President who just today criticized the very loyal Vice President, who is presiding right now, urging him to disregard his responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States in order to reinstall Donald Trump as President; the same person who got on the phone to the secretary of state in Georgia and threatened him to change the results of the election.

Mr. President, I read something this week I never thought I would read in a newspaper in the United States of America. It was an op-ed by all the living former Secretaries of Defense, including Secretaries Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Mattis, warning--warning--the country about our tradition of peaceful transfer of power and that it would be inappropriate for the military to take sides in the United States of America. We talk to the world about how we want to promote democracy and our values, and right here at home too many are undermining those values.

Mr. President, Donald Trump could not do this alone. He could only do it if he is aided and abetted by individuals

who are willing to perpetrate those lies and those conspiracies, and that is why it is so important that we as Democrats and Republicans and Senators stand up together--stand up together and tell the truth. You know when you go into a court of law, like those 60 cases, you are testifying under penalty of perjury. That is very different than here in the House and the Senate, and in all those 60 cases, under penalty of perjury, there was no evidence of widespread fraud. So it should be easy for us all together to tell the truth.

On January 20, Joe Biden will be sworn in as the next President of the United States. He has said he wants to bring the country together. He has said he wants to bring Democrats and Republicans together to do some of the pressing business of this country, to defeat this pandemic, to get the economy going again, to face challenging issues of racial and social justice. I hope we will learn from what happened today--the mob attack on this Capitol--the price we pay when we don't stand up for the truth and for democracy.

James McHenry, Maryland's delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote about a famous exchange in his diaries between Elizabeth Willing Powel and Benjamin Franklin. A lady asked Dr. Franklin, ``Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a monarchy?'' ``A republic,'' replied Dr. Franklin, ``if you can keep it.''

My colleagues, this is a test of whether we unite to keep our Republic. I hope we will pass the test together. Thank you

Mr. President, this morning, Americans woke up to a picture of a 25-year-old father lying facedown, holding his infant daughter. They both drowned crossing the Rio Grande River. The border policies implemented by this administration have life or death consequences. Congress should be doing everything in its power to make sure that our southern border is safe and secure and that asylum seekers are treated with dignity and respect.

I share the horror of my constituents in Maryland about the squalid and inhumane conditions in which children are being held at the border. We have an obligation to provide resources to ensure the safety of these children, but this administration has demonstrated only callousness towards migrants seeking asylum at our border, and we have an obligation as a coequal branch of government with the power of the purse to ensure that the resources we provide are spent responsibly and deliver real care. While I appreciate the guardrails that Senators Leahy and Shelby negotiated in this bill, I believe that the House- passed package has stronger restrictions that will better protect children and families at the border.

Also, as I said to my colleagues when we marked up this bill, I have serious concerns with this administration's repeated practice of transferring funding from the purpose that we appropriate to meet its own ends. Today, a group of constituents stopped by my office seeking reassurance that this funding would not be used for interior enforcement. They were understandably fearful of the President's threats of widespread raids and mass deportations. While this bill prohibits transfers within DHS on this supplemental funding, I cannot fully reassure my constituents because the administration could still transfer other FY19 funds to support its draconian immigration agenda.

I have visited the border, and I have seen the tragedy the President's policies have created there. His family separation policy is a dark mark on our Nation's history. His Justice Department has argued that toothbrushes, soap, and even sleep are not necessary for the well-being of children. It is clear that Congress cannot simply trust this administration to do the right thing.

I urge my colleagues to work to include the stronger House-passed restrictions to protect children's safety and to strengthen restrictions on reprogramming as we continue our appropriations process.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jim Kurth for his 41 years of public service and congratulate him on his recent retirement.

On May 7, 1978, Mr. James Kurth was hired by the U.S. Forest Service as a biological technician having recently graduated with a degree in wildlife management from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. On Friday, May 31, Jim retired from public service, after a 41-year career, working mainly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He ended his career after serving more than 4 years as the agency's deputy director for operations.

Jim's story is an inspiring example of dedication to the vital mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He grew up in Columbus, OH. He married his high school sweetheart. He picked a career in public service, quickly finding his way to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and moving his family across the country as he accepted positions at Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge, Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Seney National Wildlife Refuge in Michigan, and Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island. From there, he jumped to Alaska where he became manager of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Nation's largest protected land area at nearly 20 million acres.

He left Alaska in 1999 and journeyed to the Nation's Capital, to take the position of deputy chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world's largest system of protected lands and waters, including Maryland's Blackwater, Eastern Neck, and Patuxent National Wildlife Refuges. He served as deputy chief for 11 years and then chief for nearly 4 years before accepting the job as the Service's deputy director in 2015.

Former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said, ``Jim served as my Deputy twice. Once when I was Refuge Chief, and again when I was Director. He was fond of saying, `It's better to have a Deputy than be a Deputy' but Jim was much more. He was a friend and mentor. The kind of person who would tell you what you needed to hear, not what you wanted to hear. His strength is his character and deep and authentic concern for the people who do the organization's work.'' A culture of character and integrity in an organization like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grows through the examples of principled conduct from those in positions of authority.

For 41 years, Jim Kurth served the American people. His legacy is in the legions of people whom he has mentored and in the millions of acres of habitat he has helped conserve for wildlife and for people.

On May 31, 2019, Jim Kurth retired from public service. We are better as a nation for his service, and we take a moment to celebrate his career and his example of public service.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address a matter that I believe should alarm every Member of this Senate, regardless of party, and that is the President's and the executive branch's increasing use of declared emergency powers to seize powers that are not lawfully theirs to take.

Just in the last week, we have seen two examples of this. We saw an administration claim emergency authority to move forward with an arms sale to Saudi Arabia and others. Last week, we also saw the President claim emergency powers in order to threaten an escalating set of tariffs on the country of Mexico.

Earlier this year, the President claimed emergency powers to divert funds away from important military and national security priorities to fund part of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. There was a headline, May 10, 2019, ``Pentagon Shifts $1.5 Billion to Border Wall From Afghan War Budget and Other Military Projects.''

I, personally, oppose the outcomes the President is seeking in each of these emergency declarations. I oppose selling weapons to Saudi Arabia under the current circumstances. I oppose putting huge tariffs on Mexico that will harm American consumers and American businesses. I oppose diverting moneys from the Defense Department to spend on a wasteful, ineffective wall along the entire U.S. border.

Those are my views with respect to these outcomes. I suggest that all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, should focus not only on the outcomes of each of these emergency declarations but the means the President is using to achieve them because, in each case, the President is claiming emergency powers to justify these actions. If this Senate stands by and allows that to happen, we will be surrendering our coequal powers as a separate branch of government and, in the process, undermining the integrity of our democracy itself. We should not leave this to the courts. We should not say, well, we don't think the President should be able to declare these emergency powers, but we are not going to deal with it here in the Senate; we are going to leave that to the third branch of government. That will undermine our democracy and this institution. Whether you like the outcomes or dislike the outcomes, the claim of emergency power to achieve these goals establishes a terrible precedent for our democracy, and we cannot sit idly by and allow that claim to continue unchecked.

I want to start by reviewing the Trump administration's invocation of so-called emergency powers to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and others. The President's desire to please the Saudi regime and promote the Crown Prince's reckless conduct apparently knows no limits. It is a bottomless pit. We all recall President Trump vetoed a resolution that passed both Chambers of Congress with bipartisan support to end U.S. military support for the disastrous war in Yemen. When his own CIA Director concluded that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia was complicit in the murder of U.S. resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the President refused to hold the Crown Prince accountable. Instead, he ran to his defense saying that ``it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event--maybe he did and maybe he didn't!''

That was the President's attitude, go ahead and murder a resident of the United States, go ahead and murder a columnist for a major U.S. paper. It doesn't really matter.

The administration went on to flout the law by refusing to provide a determination to Congress on whether the Saudi Crown Prince was responsible for the murder of Khashoggi. Despite the fact that Saudi leaders have openly talked about acquiring a nuclear weapon, the President is singularly determined to conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement with the Saudis, attempting to dodge oversight and accountability at every turn.

That was just the prelude to what the President did last week when Congress was in its work period. The President invoked a so-called emergency authority to sell precision-guided munitions and other arms to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others. Why? It is pretty obvious. He knew that arms sale would be challenged by Congress, and it would be very likely that Congress would not approve that sale.

What happened? Here are the facts. Under the law, the administration must submit a formal notification to Congress of a proposed arms sale, if it is large enough. After the sale is notified, Congress has a short window in which we can act to block the sale. We would do that by introducing and passing a joint resolution of disapproval through the House and the Senate. The President knew the Congress was not going to support that sale and that we would likely vote to block it. What did he do? Instead of trying persuasion, instead of going through the constitutional process, the legal process, he decided to fake an emergency because under the law, the President can bypass congressional review if he states that ``an emergency exists,'' which requires the sale to be made immediately ``in the national security interests of the United States.''

By making that declaration, the President was able to commit an end- run against Congress, and we should not allow it to happen because it is abuse of power and, I believe, an abuse of the law.

That emergency authority has only been used a handful of times in the last few decades. In fact, the last President to invoke it was President George H. W. Bush following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Let's be clear. There is no emergency here, and the President is invoking it under false pretenses simply to hand another favor to the Saudi Crown Prince.

Where are these bombs and munitions going to end up? The war in Yemen and the Saudi-led coalition's war against the Houthis in Yemen has raged for 5 years now, costing the lives of more than 100,000 civilians. Millions are on the brink of starvation. The United Nations has declared Yemen the world's largest humanitarian catastrophe. Where are we 5 years into this war? The Houthis are more entrenched and militarily sophisticated. Iranian influence in the region has expanded.

In short, the Trump administration's strategy has been totally counterproductive. Instead of prioritizing a diplomatic solution of the conflict, the President is fueling the fire and perpetuating a humanitarian crisis.

What was the claimed emergency here, the emergency the President invoked to try to bypass the Congress

and sell these weapons to Saudi Arabia? The administration cites in its documents, in its notice, Iranian malign activity in the region. The administration claims that the ``rapidly-evolving security situation in the region requires an accelerated delivery of certain capabilities to U.S. partners in the region.''

We all know that Iran is a malign actor in the region. This is nothing new. It has kept the Assad regime in Syria alive. It supports the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and a constellation of Shia militia groups in Iraq--all of which have contributed to instability in the region for a very long time.

The administration has not explained why all of a sudden this ongoing malign activity justifies an emergency declaration to circumvent this body in the House of Representatives, nor has it shown how the delivery of these weapons is going to provide some kind of an immediate benefit to either the United States or our allies.

What we really have is, this administration has, under the direction of National Security Advisor John Bolton, in a calculated effort, dramatically increased tensions with Iran to a point where we could easily have a miscalculation that leads to war.

This administration has ripped up the nuclear agreement, choked off Iran's oil exports, and, against the advice of America's military leadership, designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization while accelerating the movement of American ships and bombers into the Persian Gulf.

Maybe most troubling is that even when given multiple opportunities, Secretary of State Pompeo, has refused to acknowledge that the 2001 authorization to use military force, AUMF, would not justify the administration taking military action against Iran. The administration's failure to make that very clear shows the need and urgency for us to act in these areas. In fact, what we know from our intelligence communities, cited in public reports, there is zero evidence that Iran and al-Qaida have carried out any joint operations against the United States. In fact, to the contrary, ISIS, which we know is an al-Qaida descendant in Syria and Iraq, took credit for a 2017 attack on Iran's Parliament building and tomb of the Islamic Republic's founder, the Ayatollah Khomeini, which according to Iran's state media killed at least 12 people.

Anyone who knows anything about the history in this region knows that while Iran is a malign actor, they have been an enemy of al-Qaida and an enemy of ISIS--Iran, of course, being a majority Shia country and ISIS and al-Qaida being extreme elements of a Sunni ideology.

As we sit here and watch the President invoking these emergency powers to undermine the separation of powers, we are not doing our job so we need to begin to take action. Yet what the President is learning from our inaction is the ability to continue down this road of claiming emergency powers to take further measures.

As I said just last week, we also saw the President invoke emergency powers to put in place a mechanism to dramatically increase tariffs on Mexico over a period of time. That, of course, would be incredibly costly to American consumers, costly to American businesses, but it is also incredibly costly to our system of government and separation of powers, where article I clearly gives this Congress power in the area of setting trade policy. Yet where are we? We are AWOL, totally AWOL when it comes to standing up for the Constitution. We are allowing this President to, time after time, claim emergency powers to accomplish certain goals. Some may justify it by saying: OK. I agree with the outcome in that particular use of emergency powers.

This pattern of conduct is going to set a very dangerous precedent. While some of my colleagues may like some of these outcomes today, you have another President in the White House who starts claiming emergency powers left and right, and all of a sudden, I can assure you, my colleagues will take a different view. This is the moment when people need to come together and stand up for the Constitution and do our jobs as a separate branch of government. We can't contract this all out to the courts to make these determinations. Of course, earlier in the year, the President claimed emergency powers to divert moneys from important national security efforts, including the effort in Afghanistan and to build the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Again, I suggest, don't be lured into going along with this process simply because you like the outcome. We can disagree about whether it is smart and cost-effective to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but we should not disagree that it is an abuse of power to continue to manufacture or claim emergency authorities to override the will of Congress.

This is an important moment, especially as we consider the fact that Secretary Pompeo has not clearly indicated that the 2001 AUMF does not give this administration or any administration the power to use military action against Iran.

If we don't start standing up and doing our job, we will be undermining important constitutional principles that the Founders put in place to prevent an Executive from running wild over the legislative process. So I hope, as the Republicans and the Democrats see the President invoke these emergency powers of whether to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, to increase tariffs on Mexico, or to build a wall, we recognize that we are going down a very, very slippery slope and that we have a constitutional obligation to protect our democracy and the principles outlined in the Constitution.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Andrew Saul to be Commissioner of Social Security. I am deeply concerned about the treatment of unions who represent workers at the Social Security Administration, and Mr. Saul declined to give meaningful assurances that anything will change under his leadership. Americans everywhere count on the Federal employees of the Social Security Administration to ensure fairness and efficiency in the benefits provided by Social Security for retirees, people with disabilities, and surviving spouses and dependents.

The Social Security Administration demonstrated particular hostility towards its workforce in the way it implemented Executive orders that were issued by President Trump on May 25, 2018, which would have undermined lawful civil service protections. Despite a court order striking down significant portions of these Executive orders, management at the Social Security Administration has continued to insist on positions in collective bargaining agreements that closely mirror the invalidated Executive orders. The Federal Service Impasses Panel recently imposed a contract on one of the unions representing Social Security workers that hews closely to the Executive orders, including provisions to deny the union use of office space in government buildings and slash the official time available to the union to fulfill their statutory duties to represent workers.

When asked about these attacks on the rights of Social Security workers, Mr. Saul provided only vague statements that included no commitments to take meaningful action to improve labor practices at Social Security. Workers at the Social Security Administration and the American people who are counting on Social Security deserve better, and I hope Mr. Saul will prove me wrong by proactively engaging with his workforce and reversing the damage that has been done.