Floor Statements

I now move to proceed to legislative session.

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

Madam President, today we celebrate Juneteenth. For those who aren't familiar with this holiday, today marks the 149th anniversary of the emancipation of the slaves in Galveston, TX. Two- and-a-half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect and 2 months after General Lee's surrender at Appomattox, the slaves of Galveston were still being treated as they were years before. Union GEN Gordon Granger and his troops arrived in Galveston with one thing in mind, to right this wrong. General Granger addressed the entire city, declaring all slaves in Texas to be free, and granting them ``an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property.''

Upon receiving the news, the newly freed slaves could not contain their joy. They were crying, they were hugging, they were celebrating, because they were previously confined to shackles. They were slaves in the true sense of the word.

So today, 149 years later, we once again celebrate the occasion of the emancipation so long overdue. Juneteenth is a reminder of promises kept.

Although it may be late in coming, it is the duty of a responsible government to honor its word and never forget any of its citizens. There are millions of Americans who need help today, right now. They are escaping the bonds of hunger, unemployment, and inequality. So may we here in the Senate come to their rescue, just as General Granger did for the slaves of Galveston those many years ago.

I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, June 23, 2014, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on cloture on Executive Calendar Nos. 779, 780, 781, and 836; further, that if cloture is invoked on any of these nominations, on the next day, Tuesday, June 24, 2014, at 11 a.m., all postcloture time be expired, and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order upon which cloture was invoked; further, that following Senate action on these nominations on Tuesday, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on Calendar No. 742; further, that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote and all rollcall votes after the first vote in each sequence be 10 minutes in length; further, with respect to the nominations in this agreement, that if any nomination is confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me after consultation with Senator McConnell, the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 803 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that a Murray-Isakson-Harkin-Alexander substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered; that the only other amendments in order be the following amendments to the substitute: Flake, making the appointment and certification of a new local board permissible instead of required; Lee, evaluation report requirement; and managers' technical amendment--that is three amendments; that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on each amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the votes; that upon disposition, the managers' technical amendment, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time; that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; that if the bill is passed, the Murray-Isakson-Harkin-Alexander amendment to the title, which is at the desk, be agreed to; and the motions to consider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 432, S. 1603.

I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I understand that S. 2491 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4412 and the Senate agree to the request of the House for the return of the papers with respect to H.R. 4412.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment or recess of the Senate from Thursday, June 19, through Monday, June 23, the majority leader and Senators Rockefeller and Feinstein be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, June 23, 2014; that following the prayer and the 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; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Madam President, there will be four rollcall votes on Monday at 5:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will resume consideration of the appropriations bill led by Senator Mikulski.

We hope to begin the consideration of the bill today. We are now postcloture. We had to file cloture to get on the bill, as usual, and I think we have wasted the 30 hours. But that is where we are. So we hope to begin consideration of the bill today and work through the amendments. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Over the last several days the world has looked in horror as the terrorist organization ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has swept across Iraq. As we speak they are sweeping even closer to Baghdad. They are murdering and they are pillaging. The group is now positioned outside Baghdad. It threatens to unleash its violent extremism on the capital of Iraq. ISIS poses a threat to Iraq and the surrounding region--and that is an understatement.

As President Obama and his advisors consider options to combat the threat, conservative Members of Congress--or I should say Republican Members of Congress and their pundit cheerleaders--are more interested in playing their favorite game--their favorite game: blame Obama. It doesn't matter what it is, it is his fault for putting people's lives in jeopardy--our military, special forces. The FBI captured someone who was the ringleader of the Libya Benghazi attack. They have criticized the President for bringing this man to justice.

Yesterday I listened with dismay when the Republican leader suggested and claimed that President Obama prematurely withdrew troops from Iraq. Think about that for a minute--5,500 dead Americans, tens of thousands wounded. Thousands and thousands have been wounded grievously.

I ask my friend and Republicans he leads, would they have preferred the United States stay in Iraq? Would they have preferred our soldiers have stayed in Iraq in harm's way? Is he--are they, the Republicans-- willing to risk more American lives?

The Republican leader and other Republicans seem to have forgotten why President Obama initiated the troop drawdown in June of 2009. Why? The Iraqis wanted us out. The Iraqi government didn't want American forces to stay. Is the Republican leader and the Republicans he leads suggesting that American servicemembers should risk their lives even more, even as the Iraqi people were telling our military to leave?

What has been taking place in Iraq is a civil war. Do the Republicans and their leader believe that service men and women from Kentucky and the other 49 States across this great country should be inserted in the middle of their civil war? I don't think so. Fighting between factions in Iraq has cost thousands of Iraqi and American lives over the last decade, and it spawned a new breed of terrorism now. Yet the original architects of the war--of the invasion of Iraq--would have us believe that this is all President Obama's fault. Think about that.

Is there anything further from the truth?

I don't think so. This is an Iraqi civil war, and it is time for the Iraqis to resolve it themselves. Those who attack President Obama for bringing our troops home from Iraq are wrong and out of step with the American people. After a decade of war the American people have had enough. American families have had enough. I do not support in any way putting our men and women in the midst of this civil war in Iraq. It is not in the national security interests of our country. It is not worth the blood of American soldiers. It is not worth the monetary cost to the American taxpayer.

Rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars--the war in Iraq is at about $1.5 trillion. Rather than spending more money doing that-- fighting George W. Bush's war--how about we use that money to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure--roads, bridges, dams, water systems, sewer systems. We have a deficit in infrastructure of trillions of dollars.

How about doing a better job of educating our children? Maybe we could raise the minimum wage or give the long-term unemployed unemployment compensation or maybe we could help men and women draw the same amount of money for doing the same work or maybe we could fully fund the Veterans' Administration and ensure that our veterans--more than a million have come back from Iraq--are getting the care they need and deserve. Instead of addressing these issues at home, they are stuck in the same game. And it is not blame Obama; this is a new one--new yesterday or the day before. They are stuck listening to the very same neocons--obviously, that is where the Republicans are getting their information again--the same neocons who pushed us into the Iraq war in the first place, as they try to plunge our military in yet another foreign misadventure.

What is absurd is the fact that after all these years their suggestions haven't changed. They are in a time warp. Those who are the so-called experts are so eager to commit American soldiers to another war. Why is their advice so valuable?

Take President Bush's Paul Wolfowitz, who some say was the architect of the war. He has accused President Obama recently of not taking a strong position in Iraq. Wolfowitz took a strong position on Iraq's sectarian violence when he stated--listen to this bizarre statement-- and this is a quote: ``There's been none of the record in Iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another.'' No, only for centuries. Look at what he said: There is none of the record in Iraq of militias fighting each other. That is Wolfowitz.

How about Bill Kristol--not the comedian. He is a writer. Bill Kristol is another one of the architects of the Iraq war who infamously predicted that American soldiers would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. He said the war would last 2 months. Well, he was only wrong by about 9 years and 10 months. Kristol also claimed there was no evidence of discord among Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. No? Only centuries of discord--centuries. Yet even in light of this incorrect assertion about Iraq, Kristol went on to say that we need to have more fighting in Iraq, beating the drum alongside all the neoconservative friends.

This morning there was an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Who would write that? How about Dick Cheney? Just to remind everyone, he is the former Vice President of the United States, who clearly was the chief architect of the war. If there is one thing this country does not need, it is that we should be taking advice from Dick Cheney on wars. Being on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is being on the right side of history.

To the architects of the Iraq war, who are now so eager to offer their expert analysis, I say thanks but no thanks. Unfortunately, we already tried it your way, and it was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. Now people come back and say they can give me some examples that have been worse, and I listen. But for me--I know a little bit about history--this was a foreign policy blunder that would be hard to take away from being the number one foreign policy blunder in the history of the country.

President Obama and his military advisors are considering their options to address ISIS, but putting combat troops back in Iraq isn't one of them. I have no doubt that President Obama and America will meet this threat head-on without the advice of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol-- the architects of the invasion of Iraq. President Obama will meet the threat with the same smart foreign policy which has been the hallmark of his administration. The President will continue to identify and protect what is truly in our national security interests, using our full array of national security tools and standing up to terrorism where it threatens our national stability.

I appreciate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee being so kind.

There are 27 tribes in the State of Nevada, Native Americans. The issue regarding the name Redskins is very important to every one of those tribes. Every time they hear this name, it is a sad reminder of a long tradition of racism and bigotry.

A month or so ago, Daniel Snyder, the owner of the team, had some people come to Nevada and agree to buy one of the Indian tribes a car if they would say nice things about the Redskins. They refused.

This is extremely important to Native Americans all over the country, that they no longer use this name. It is racist.

Daniel Snyder says it is about tradition. I ask: What tradition? The tradition of racism, that is all this name leaves in its wake.

The writing is on the wall. The writing is on the wall in giant blinking neon lights. This name will change and justice will be done for the tribes in Nevada and across the Nation who care so deeply about this issue.

The Patent and Trademark Office today took away all the trademarks. The Redskins no longer have trademarks. They are gone.

So as I understand the law, if the Presiding Officer wants to use the name Redskins and sell them shirts, she can do that. There is no trademark anymore for the Redskins.

Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it is only a matter of time before he is forced to do what is right and change the name.

The leader on this issue is the junior Senator from the State of Washington. Senator Cantwell has been tireless in showing the American people how unfair it is for the Redskins' name to be used as it is. I think she is one of the leading causes that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said it is no longer--no longer--a trademark. They did that this morning.

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