Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, when I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and talk about the fact that President Biden has waited until this point in his first term to issue an Executive order on border security, I can't help but think how long the Senate has waited to do anything on immigration.

The Senator from Kentucky knows as well as I do that for more than 30 years, this Senate has failed to pass any meaningful immigration legislation.

Part of the problem on our border today hearkens back to decades of neglect by the Senate and the House of Representatives to meet their constitutional responsibility to upgrade our laws.

How many times have you heard it said that our immigration legal system is broken? They are right. I happen to know that. I have paid personal attention to this issue for a long time.

For the Senator from Kentucky to berate President Biden because he waited until this moment in his first term to take action is to ignore the obvious.

We passed comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Senate, and it was passed by more than 60 votes. It was sent to the Republican House of Representatives. They refused to act on it.

To bring it closer to home, we were told last October not to pass any defense supplemental bill unless it included a provision related to border security. So we waited for a bipartisan group of three Senators--one Republican, one Independent, and one Democrat. Senator Lankford led the effort on behalf of Republicans. We waited until they produced a work product which, in fact, President Biden embraced. Though it was controversial, I felt it was a reasonable step forward.

What happened at that moment? We had a chance to do something-- finally, to do something--in the Senate on immigration. We had a bipartisan bill, a bill which was crafted by able Members of the Senate and addressed the major problems facing us on the border.

What happened? Do you remember? I will tell you exactly what happened. Donald Trump, former President of the United States, announced he opposed the bill, instructed any Republican who happened to agree with his point of view to oppose it as well, and then said: And if you want to assign any blame, blame me. Well, I am blaming him. A chance to pass legislation was stopped by Donald Trump and the Republicans in the Senate even though they initiated the process themselves.

That is the reality of the status that President Biden faces on the border.

We are facing the largest refugee crisis in modern history all over the world, and we are seeing it on our southern border and in the United States as well. The question is, Will we do anything?

President Biden has decided to step forward with an Executive order which would limit the access of individuals between ports of entry on the border in an effort to slow down the pace of those presenting themselves. That, to me, is a step in the right direction.

I wish he would do more. I wish he would also do something to help those immigrants in the United States who have shown that they can be worthy citizens of this country, have contributed mightily toward the betterment of this country, and have been here long enough to prove that that is true. I think they deserve opportunities and legal recognition. I think that should be included.

But for now to argue from the Senate floor, where little or nothing has taken place on immigration reform in more than 30 years, that President Biden isn't moving quickly enough is a really difficult argument to understand, let alone explain to anyone.

Let me say another word. To call those people who present themselves for asylum in the United States and who are waiting for their case to be resolved in court illegal aliens is a misnomer. They are here by a legal recognition status as asylees seeking protection. A final status has not been determined, and that will determine what their final classification will be. But at this point, they are legally in the United States awaiting a hearing. To call them illegal is not proper.

Mr. President, let me say a word about the situation in Illinois on judges. I was a little surprised the Senate Republican leader raised this issue.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I spent a large part of my time in the last 3\1/2\ years bringing judges to the Federal bench. We now have over 200 judges who have been approved in a very closely divided U.S. Senate, and I have paid close particular attention to my own State of Illinois.

Nancy Maldonado is the nominee for the Ninth Circuit. She is currently serving as a Federal district court judge in Chicago. No one--absolutely no one--on that court has argued that she is lazy or is not carrying her share of the load when it comes to the cases pending before her. She was caught in a situation where she was sent more cases than usual and has not had an opportunity, as other judges have in the

past, to relegate those cases to other judges for consideration.

It is noteworthy that those who are critical of Judge Maldonado should know that in all the decisions she has rendered on the bench in the several years that she has been there, not one single case has been rejected by the reviewing appellate court.

She is a worthy person to serve on the circuit court, not to take anything away from the judge whom Senator McConnell praised, Mary Rowland. She is a dear friend of mine. It took me 10 years to get her on the Federal bench, and it was worth the wait because she is that good. But to argue that she is any better than Nancy Maldonado, I don't think that even Mary Rowland would try to make that case. So I hope Senator McConnell would reconsider the issues which he raised.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, when I went to college here in Washington, at Georgetown, I used to come into this Capitol Building and sit up there where the visitors are now sitting and watch what was going on on the Senate floor.

I can remember so many things, particularly the day that Bobby Kennedy gave a speech about Vietnam that was highly anticipated. He came walking through that door with his brother, Ted Kennedy--both of them Senators, one from New York, one from Massachusetts.

It was a historic moment, it was a magical moment. For a college student, it was just overwhelming to be a witness to that history and to realize what this Chamber has meant to this Nation, what this building has meant to this Nation throughout our history.

That is why I will never forget what happened in this Chamber on January 6, 2021. Violent extremists stormed the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 Presidential election. Donald Trump was engaged in the Big Lie.

For the first time really in the history of the United States, he questioned the legal outcome of an election.

Madam President, you and I both know that is fundamental to democracy--the belief that we can have the peaceful transition of the decisionmakers guided by the people of this country without political interference.

As insurrectionists ransacked this building, many carried flags and banners to show their support for former President Trump in his effort to overturn the election--the Big Lie. Two of the more prominent symbols of the so-called ``Stop the Steal'' campaign on behalf of President Trump were on display that day. One was an American flag flown upside down and the other a so-called ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag.

While the events of January 6 were hard to imagine, reports that the same battle flags flew outside Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's home were nearly as shocking. In January of 2021, less than 2 weeks after the insurrection at the Capitol, an upside-down American flag flew over Justice Alito's front lawn in suburban Virginia. In the summer of 2023, the ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag flew on the flagpole of the Alitos' beach home in New Jersey. While these flags may have once held other meanings, in the year 2021, they were closely associated with election deniers and extreme rightwing politicians. They are, in fact, the battle flags of Trump's MAGA movement.

The Supreme Court's authority ultimately rests on its reputation and public confidence. The Supreme Court doesn't own the Army. It doesn't have a vast Treasury. It depends on people trusting the Justices to make honest, professional decisions. This reputation and public confidence is the strength of the Supreme Court. That is why the Supreme Court's recently adopted code of conduct requires Justices to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Both the code of conduct and Federal law require Justices to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The flying of these flags marks a new, disturbing chapter in the Supreme Court's ongoing ethical crisis. It suggests that Justice Alito has not only chosen sides in an ongoing political dispute but that he has also announced his allegiance in pending legal disputes.

As we speak, the Supreme Court is considering two critical cases relating to the 2020 Presidential election and the January 6 insurrection. In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the election. In Fischer v. United States, the Court--again, the Supreme Court--will determine whether the Federal felony obstruction statute applies to the January 6 rioters who tried to stop Congress from exercising its constitutional duty to certify the election. The Court's rulings on these issues will be critical to ensuring that those responsible for one of the darkest chapters in our history are held accountable.

Displaying the upside-down American flag and ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag creates the appearance that Justice Alito has already aligned himself with the ``Stop the Steal'' campaign. He cannot credibly claim to be an umpire--calling balls and strikes--in these cases. He has donned the jersey of his favorite team. That is why I called on Justice Alito to recuse himself and why I urged Chief Justice Roberts to finally step up and take the steps necessary to ensure that Justice Alito does not sit on those cases and, rather, that he recuse himself. Last week, Justice Alito refused my request.

I am going to keep this letter--the original version that was sent to me and sent to the White House by Justice Alito--in which he makes an argument that these flags should not be taken seriously; that it was his wife's decision. There were complications in her decision. It is hard to accept this. It is hard, first, to believe that this man we are asking to recuse himself from these Supreme Court cases has somehow stood in judgment of himself and decided that he did nothing unethical and should not recuse himself. He refused our request to recuse himself from these cases. In doing so, he claimed he bears no responsibility for the January 6-related flags flying over his homes. Instead, he placed the blame solely on his wife.

He went on to downplay the significance of the upside-down American flag display, claiming it was part of a dispute with his neighbors, and he denied knowing about the connection between the ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag and the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol.

Chief Justice Roberts, likewise, refused my request to take action and simply deferred to Justice Alito's decision. But Justice Alito's refusal to recuse begs the question: Why should he have the sole power to decide whether his recusal from the case is necessary?

Additional reporting has already called into question his version of events with text messages and even a recording of a call to police suggesting the neighborhood dispute occurred after the upside-down American flag flew over the Alito residence. Whether Justice Alito raised these flags himself or stood idly by while his wife did so, the fact remains the same: A reasonable person would question Justice Alito's impartiality to the cases relating to the 2020 election and January 6. Recusal is, therefore, necessary.

But the consequences of Justice Alito's actions go far beyond this. He needs to recuse himself from these cases. By displaying two symbols of the MAGA Republican movement, Justice Alito presented himself to the world as a political actor and an ally of the far right. His actions suggest that no matter what arguments are made or what evidence is presented at the Supreme Court, his decisions will align with his personal beliefs and policy preferences.

And no matter what excuses or explanations he provides now or in the future, it will be hard for anybody before the Court to believe that Justice Alito approaches that case without bias.

We cannot afford the further erosion of public confidence in our courts. Our faith in the impartiality of judges is essential to the functioning of our legal system and our form of government. For more than a year, story after story has broken about ethical misconduct by sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. We have learned that some Justices, including Justice Alito again, accepted gifts and travel from billionaires with interests before the Court. The Senate and the American people deserve to know the full extent of how immense wealth is used to buy private access to the Justices. That is why the Senate Judiciary Committee is exercising its constitutional authority to investigate what has been provided to the Justices.

I will continue to push for legislation--a bill sponsored primarily by Sheldon Whitehouse, but many of us have joined as cosponsors--to establish a binding code of conduct and recusal standards for the Justices.

Why in the world should the highest Court in our land have the lowest standard of ethics? If every other Federal judge is held to a standard of ethics to make certain that their reputations are intact, why would that not

apply to the Justices sitting on the highest Court of the land?

We will continue to push for legislation to create a binding code of conduct and recusal standards that the American people can see. Last year, the Judiciary Committee reported to the floor the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Importantly, this legislation's ethical and recusal requirement would apply equally to every Justice of the Supreme Court regardless of the party or the President who appointed them. The Supreme Court has failed to act to address the ethical crisis that has engulfed it, and so the Senate must do so.

This is a simple fact: There is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. It is within his power to resolve this ethical issue tonight--to have it done by the morning--to make it clear that the Supreme Court is taking a different course, one that is credible to the American people.

Justice Alito cannot stand in judgment of himself. The fact that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to plead this case makes it clear that there are no avenues to be followed for ethical consideration for the Court today. That can change. The bill that is pending on the calendar is a step in the right direction, and I totally support it.

Madam President, I close by asking unanimous consent that the letter sent to me by Justice Alito be printed in the Congressional Record.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of violent crime should be detained and removed from the United States--period. Sadly, the Laken Riley Act does nothing to address violent crime.

Under current law--current existing law--noncitizens who enter the country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their visas revoked can be detained now, under the law, by officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.

Current law also requires--requires--the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions--those who have committed murder, rape, or any crime of violence or theft offense--with a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year.

The law also gives ICE discretion beyond that to detain a noncitizen in any case in which a noncitizen has been charged with a crime. To make this decision, ICE assesses the individual's circumstances in the case, ensuring the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and public safety.

The reality is that Congress has never appropriated nearly enough money for ICE to detain every--every--undocumented immigrant who is charged with a crime.

And, remember, the vast majority of Senators on the other side of the aisle--including the sponsors of this measure--blocked the bipartisan national security supplemental in February that would have given ICE more funding to detain more undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our country. They voted against it.

They will have another chance to vote to provide that additional funding in just a short time today. I hope they will finally take this opportunity. Vote for more ICE agents if you want more ICE enforcement of existing laws that are serious on the books.

Here is the reality: The sweeping approach in this bill would actually harm national security. Why? Because it would eliminate ICE's discretion to prioritize dangerous individuals--certainly, people who are being convicted of a violent crime or charged with a violent crime or more serious offenders than, perhaps, those who are guilty of theft. We don't know the circumstances in each case.

This proposal would, instead, require ICE to treat those arrested for nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who are actually convicted of violent crimes. With limited ICE agents, you have to make a choice: What is the priority? Who is the most dangerous individual?

This proposal before us would overwhelm ICE facilities and make us less--not more--safe.

For example, this law would require ICE to detain every immigrant who is simply arrested for shoplifting--arrested--even if it quickly becomes clear the person is innocent, because this bill does not require a charge or conviction.

Tell me, does it make sense to treat a noncitizen arrested for shoplifting the same as someone convicted of murder? I think we all know the answer.

This bill would also grant State attorneys general the standing to sue Federal immigration authorities if a State disagrees with immigration enforcement decisions made by the Federal Government.

For example, this bill would give a State attorney general the standing to challenge the use of the parole authority--like Uniting for Ukraine, which allows Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war to temporarily come to the United States--if the State can show harm of $100.

Let me tell you, they talk a lot about parole and how many--70,000 or so in the last 6 months or so. Among those were the Ukrainian refugees. They were brought to the United States from the war-torn zone because of Vladimir Putin's invasion. And 36,000 of them came to Chicago. The conditions of their coming to Chicago: a background check; secondly, they had a sponsoring family so that they have someone who will help them assimilate into the United States; and, third, they were given the right to work.

We have had little or no publicity, negative publicity, about these Ukrainians. We are a very proud Ukraine-American community. They are absorbing these individuals who are the victims of the war in Ukraine. These are part of the parole numbers that have just been alluded to.

In contrast, we have received 46,000 migrants sent by the Governor of Texas on over 880 buses to Chicago without any warning, without any preparation. That has been a difficult situation, and it has really put a taxing strain on the governments in the area. But to argue that parole for Ukrainian refugees is wrong--I disagree with that. It was a humanitarian

gesture on the part of the United States, and it has worked well, at least in our community. The situation with the Governor of Texas is a sharp contrast in this circumstance.

Laken Riley's murder, by any standard, was a tragedy. Every description I have read about this young woman suggests she was an amazing person, and the fact that she lost her life is terrible. There are no excuses. We must do everything possible to prevent crimes like this from happening. But this legislation before us makes our system less orderly and less safe. It does nothing to help the situation, the circumstances that affected her.

The reality is that most immigrants in the United States are law- abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in our Nation.

Many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natural-born U.S. citizens. But Donald Trump recently said that undocumented immigrants were ``poisoning the blood of our country''--a phrase that closely mirrors one used several times in Hitler's ``Mein Kampf.'' He has also promised to round up and deport every single undocumented immigrant in our country, including Dreamers who grew up here.

When the bipartisan border supplemental came to a vote, the vast majority of Republicans opposed it at the request of Donald Trump. Do you know what he said publicly and clearly? ``Blame it on me'' if the bill fails. I am blaming it on him.

The former President has made it clear he does not want a solution to our challenges at the border--he wants a campaign issue for November.

I urge my colleagues to reject Donald Trump's advice, support the actual solutions which will be before us in the next hour and a half.

I object.

Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

What intervening event prohibited or stopped this bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the Senate?

At 2 o'clock this afternoon, we are going to have a vote on that bipartisan measure. It will be an opportunity for those who have amendments to come forward with those amendments after we pass it; is that not correct?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand this bill is intended to ``require a DNA test to determine the relationship between'' asylum-seeking adults at the border and ``any accompanying children.'' However, it fails to accomplish this goal, and our current laws already include provisions to allow for DNA testing.

Under current law, as written, DHS and the State Department already have the necessary authority to collect DNA when there is any question about the familial relationship between a noncitizen and a minor child traveling with them.

At the southwest border, the Department of Homeland Security currently conducts DNA testing when there is any question about the validity of the parent-child relationship, and additional scrutiny is placed on individuals who are not related to the child to ensure that a child is not being trafficked.

Due to what I assume is a drafting error in this proposal before us, I have to note that this bill will not even apply to families seeking asylum at the border. As it is currently written, this bill only applies to someone who is ``admitted'' to the United States, but under our immigration laws, asylum seekers at the border ``enter'' the United States but are not usually ``admitted.'' There is a big distinction here. That means that this bill would apply to any noncitizen family coming to the United States through our legal immigration system but not families crossing the border to claim asylum--exactly the opposite of what the Senator says she wanted to achieve.

The family relationships of those who are coming to our country through the legal immigration system are usually validated by multiple agencies before applicants are issued a visa. For example, assume that a family from Mexico wanted to come to Disney World in Florida and applied for visitors visas for that purpose for themselves and their children. They would need to prove at the airport, under this bill, that they are the relatives or guardian of the children or submit to a DNA test. Is that what we are going to expend our energy on? If the family refuses, the adults may be arrested. The children would be treated as unaccompanied children and placed in custody. Is that what we want to achieve?

This bill would require every such family to prove their relationship with their children at the airport or other ports of entry. The burdensome requirements in this bill could bring our system for processing lawful travelers to a halt and deter legitimate trade and tourism in the United States.

As the Senator from Tennessee knows, protecting kids has been one of our top priorities in the Judiciary Committee. Last year, we held two hearings on the safety and well-being of children seeking refuge in the United States. We heard from child trafficking experts and government witnesses. Following up on these hearings, the committee is in the midst of ongoing investigation into the issue.

We all agree that no child should be abused, exploited, or trafficked, whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat.

I vigorously opposed the Trump administration's inhumane family- separation policy, and I have demanded that the Biden administration do more to protect migrant children.

It is easy to criticize the executive branch, but let's take a look at the reality of the situation. We need to look in the mirror. It has been decades--over 30 years--since Congress passed meaningful immigration legislation. In less than an hour, at 2 o'clock, every Senate Republican and Democrat will have a chance to make history, to start us on a bipartisan conversation for a better immigration system.

Instead of lobbing pro-partisan attacks, let's come together across the aisle to fix the broken immigration system. We should provide funding for enforcement against child labor violations and ensure child migrants have the services they deserve.

I have introduced legislation to improve sponsor vetting and placement,

help children navigate our legal system, and better protect minors in government custody. I welcome my colleagues from either side of the aisle to join me. I would be more than happy to sit down with any of my colleagues to discuss solutions that would prevent child trafficking. Sadly, this bill does not accomplish that goal at all.

I object.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

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