Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

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

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

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue that impacts consumers, small businesses, our general economy, and most families. It is the issue of net neutrality. The concept behind this is pretty simple. It ensures that all content on the internet is treated equally so that the internet can remain an openly accessible platform for users and an equal playing field for everyone.

Unfortunately, some leaders at the Federal Communications Commission disagreed. Despite being given the responsibility to make sure they operate in the public interest when it comes to our Nation's communications networks, in December, the FCC walked away from this important responsibility and decided to put the needs of companies ahead of customers.

It appears with this administration that everything is for sale. That means public lands, our privacy, and, in this case, the pathway American families use every single day to get on the internet. Led by Chairman Pai, the FCC voted for a radical plan in December to dismantle net neutrality rules and threaten the existence of a free and open internet as we know it today. This new plan will allow large internet providers the power to freely block, throttle, or manipulate consumers' access to the internet in ways that profit the provider.

Think about your access to apps and the internet today, and compare it to your access to cable channels. If you want more channels, you put in more money. Today the internet is open to us, and we have access to it. The Trump administration, through the Federal Communications Commission, wants to change that. If you want fast internet service, you pay more money. If you want access to certain apps, you pay more money. That changes the nature of the internet as we have known it. It is a dramatic change in the way we communicate and gather information. It is just another bill.

Many people are now facing the prospect of cable TV shows and other things they have to pay more money for on a pretty substantial monthly bill. Now comes the FCC to say: We have another monthly bill for you if you want the same access to the internet today that you had before. Not only does this mean less choice and higher cost for consumers whose access to content could be determined by what is in the best financial interest of

their provider, but small businesses will no longer be able to compete on a level playing field.

For many small businesses and entrepreneurs in my State of Illinois and across the country, the internet has given them the ability to reach consumers across the globe and compete against large companies. The innovation and healthy competition that a free and open internet allows are essential to continue pushing our economy forward. If the FCC has its way, they are going to create internet fast lanes and slow lanes, where winners and losers are no longer determined by how good a business's product is but by whether a small business can afford to pay in. That is wrong. It is not good for the economy, and it is not good for our democracy.

I have heard from hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans who are concerned, and there is concern all across the country, across party lines. We filed a discharge petition today to take up this issue of net neutrality on the floor of the Senate.

We have considered a lot of rules and regulations from the Obama administration. Now we are going to consider one from the Trump administration. We are going to see if there is bipartisan support for net neutrality.

Senator Collins, Republican of Maine, has joined us. Will there be more? Are there a number of Republican Senators who want to stand up for net neutrality and for open access for America to the internet or do they want to sell off this opportunity to the highest bidders?

Keeping the internet a place where content is shared freely and accessed equally by everyone is important to our small businesses, educators, and consumers. We are pleading with America in the hours before we take up this measure to log on and tell the Trump administration to lay off. When it comes to net neutrality, it is too important a value across America to sell at the FCC.

Madam President, before the Senate left for last week's recess, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, filed cloture on six circuit court nominees.

I supported three of these nominees in the Judiciary Committee--Amy St. Eve, Michael Scudder, and Joel Carson--and I opposed three of them--Michael Brennan, Kurt Engelhardt, and John Nalbandian. I carefully consider each nominee's qualifications and record when I cast my votes.

I want to speak today, though, about the process that Senate Republicans are using to move judicial nominations under President Trump. I fear the Republican majority is diminishing the advice and consent role of the Senate in an effort to rush through President Trump's nominees. That troubles me. Just look at what Republicans are doing to the blue slip when it comes to circuit court nominations.

For the last century, the blue-slip process has worked well. It has encouraged negotiation and meaningful consultation between the White House and Senate when it comes to making lifetime appointments to the federal bench. The blue slip serves as a check and a balance, helping to steer the judicial selection process toward the center stripe, and it ensures Senators are meaningfully consulted on judicial nominations in their State.

Many Senators have established expert screening commissions to help evaluate and vet nominees in their States. When blue slips and screening commissions are respected, it leads to consensus and high- quality nominees.

Look at the way the White House worked with Senator Duckworth and me on filling the two current 7th Circuit vacancies from Illinois. We had good-faith consultation and a substantive back-and-forth, and the White House respected our Illinois tradition of having an expert screening committee review and vet candidates.

This process resulted in a pair of excellent Illinois 7th Circuit nominees--Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder, whom all sides could agree upon. That is the way it should work.

We know that blue slips and screening commissions can help build consensus and lead to good outcomes. Yet this week the Senate is taking major steps to abandon these processes.

Senator McConnell is calling a vote on the floor this week on 7th Circuit Wisconsin nominee Michael Brennan. Mr. Brennan is a controversial nominee with a history of troubling statements. In particular, I am concerned by his 2001 National Review op-ed in which he argued that judges need only follow ``correct precedent''--which suggests judges can disregard precedent they don't agree with. I am also concerned by his 2004 Marquette Law Review article on personal responsibility, in which he was disdainful of criminal defendants who said they had a difficult upbringing.

The Brennan nomination is controversial on substance, but even more controversial is the way this nomination has been pushed forward. Both Senator Baldwin and Wisconsin's bipartisan screening commission were effectively cut out of the process of selecting this nominee.

Mr. Brennan failed to meet the threshold vote of the screening commission that Wisconsin's senators had set up, but President Trump nominated him anyway. Senator Baldwin has raised serious concerns about Mr. Brennan and has not submitted a blue slip for his nomination, yet Republicans are pressing ahead. This is taking us down a troubling path.

I know that Senators in both parties like to quibble over precedents and point fingers at each other when it comes to judicial nominations, but I think all Senators understand that we have a fundamental responsibility to our constituents when it comes to federal judges in our home States. We must exercise a vigorous advice and consent role for these judges who will sit in our States' courthouses.

It should concern all of us if any Senator is cut out of the judicial selection process in that Senator's State. None of us want that to happen to us.

If the Senate votes to confirm Mr. Brennan, we will be sending a clear signal that home State senators don't matter anymore in the judicial selection process. That is the wrong path to go down, but Senate Republicans appear to be doubling down on this path.

Today, in the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Grassley called a hearing on a 9th Circuit nominee from Oregon, Ryan Bounds. This nominee has not received a blue slip from either home State senator, nor does he have the approval of Oregon's judicial selection committee.

I hope my Republican colleagues stop and think about how they would feel if this happened to them in their home States. I hope our example in Illinois shows that there is a better way--a path of good faith negotiations that can lead to compromise while respecting the Senate's important traditions and home-State practices.

There are other troubling nomination trends besides the bypassing of blue slips and home State screening commissions. Republicans also have been moving very quickly to confirm President Trump's picks for Federal judges. For example, last year the Senate confirmed 12 circuit court judges, a record for a President's first year in office. President Trump's first 15 circuit court nominees have been confirmed in an average of 131 days, including just 20 days pending on the Senate floor. This is a very fast pace. By comparison, President Obama's first 15 circuit court nominees took an average of 254 days to be confirmed, including 167 days pending on the floor.

This fast pace carries risks. Senators who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee need time to review the records of judicial nominees before voting on whether to confirm them to lifetime positions on the Federal bench.

This scrutiny is even more important in the Trump era, when nominees are often not carefully vetted before they are nominated. Just look at nominees like Brett Talley, who was rushed through the Judiciary Committee and reported on a party line vote before many Senators realized his utter lack of qualifications to be a Federal judge.

I understand the need to fill vacancies in the Federal Judiciary, but we must not do so at the expense of careful vetting.

I also want to briefly respond to the argument that somehow Democrats are being obstructionist when it comes to judicial nominees. It is wildly hypocritical for Republicans to make this argument.

Remember, my Republican colleagues retired the trophy for judicial obstruction during the Obama Administration: Republicans forced cloture filings on 36 of President Obama's judicial nominees in his first 5 years-the

same number of judicial cloture filings as in the previous 40 years combined; Republicans used the tactic of withholding blue slips to block 18 of President Obama's nominees; Republicans refused to support any Obama nominee for three D.C. Circuit vacancies, no matter how qualified; Republicans allowed only 22 Obama nominees to be confirmed in his last two years--the fewest judicial confirmations in a Congress since President Truman; and Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from even having a hearing.

Senate Republicans often opposed President Obama's nominees simply because it was President Obama who nominated them. In contrast, Senate Democrats simply want to ensure that nominees are adequately vetted, well-qualified, non-ideological, and in the judicial mainstream.

We have the ability to make the nominations process work in a consensus way. We have done it in Illinois. I hope we can do it across the country.

Let's start by keeping the blue slip. Sometimes it can be frustrating-we saw that when Republicans used blue slips to block 18 of President Obama's nominees. But it is a tool that compels us to find consensus. Let's keep that tool.

I urge my Republican colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Michael Brennan, both because of his troubling record and because of what his confirmation would mean for the future of the blue slip. I urge my colleagues to vote for nominees like Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder whose qualifications are outstanding, who were selected through a good process, and who have both home State Senators' support.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the Illinois Veteran's Home at Quincy, which houses nearly 400 residents, and has provided quality long-term care to veterans and their spouses since its founding in 1886.

Sadly, for the past 3 years, IVH Quincy has struggled with recurring Legionnaires' disease outbreaks. This tragic issue is nothing short of a scandal.

Legionnaires' disease is a pneumonia-like illness caused by the legionella bacteria and spread through water droplets in the air. At IVH Quincy, residents are elderly and suffer from other medical conditions, making them more likely to get Legionnaires' disease. IVH Quincy has had outbreaks every year since 2015, most recently in February. In total, more than 65 people have been sickened, and 13 people have tragically died.

After every outbreak, Senator Duckworth and I reached out to the State asking Governor Rauner what he needed and offering help. We urged his administration to request assistance from the CDC and the VA, and we committed funds through annual appropriations to help State Veterans Homes like IVH Quincy. We pressed the State to upgrade the plumbing across the IVH Quincy campus and undertake renovations--particularly in those buildings where the bacteria has been most prevalent. We reached out to the CDC and VA ourselves, to help make sure that even though this is a State facility--owned, operated, and managed by Illinois--we were doing everything we could at the Federal level to help support them.

Both agencies assured us they were available to help at any time and have made that clear to State officials as well. In fact, the VA is due to schedule a site visit to provide additional expert assistance any day now.

I have visited IVH Quincy many times in my years representing Illinois, most recently in January and then again on April 30. I had the opportunity to meet with the veterans who reside in the facility, as well as the staff that provide such exceptional care.

While I acknowledge that the legionella bacteria exists in the environment, it was important that the State of Illinois do more to help prevent any future outbreaks.

In 2016, the State finally invested $6.4 million in upgrades to improve the home's water treatment and delivery infrastructure; 65 percent of these funds will soon be reimbursed by the VA.

Governor Rauner visited IVH Quincy on July 27, 2016, and claimed mission accomplished, but clearly it was not enough.

There are also serious discrepancies about the State's handling of these outbreaks. Some families have claimed they were told belatedly about the outbreak or that their loved ones weren't diagnosed or given antibiotics quickly enough to fend off the disease. There are concerns that staff first heard of problems at IVH Quincy through the news or even on Facebook. It is unclear when the Governor himself was notified about the outbreaks or whether his administration requested Federal assistance in a timely fashion. The Governor's office may have also sat for years on formal engineering proposals to renovate older buildings or construct new ones on campus. Now there are outrageous reports that the Governor's staff tried to pin the blame for these outbreaks onto Senator Tammy Duckworth. Can you believe it?

Now, 3 years after the first outbreak, the Governor has finally released a detailed plan of action, and he has finally hired a dedicated staffer to handle the Quincy project. I guess all Governor Rauner needed was an election year to get into gear.

Now I am pleased that Illinois General Assembly officials have been holding hearings in the general assembly on the Quincy Legionnaires' outbreaks. They have committed to providing funds to help prevent these outbreaks from recurring and called for an audit of the State's handling of the outbreaks because, 3 years and 13 deaths later, we still need accountability from this Governor.

At least now we have a plan of action from him, and Senator Duckworth and I will continue to be here, ready to help, because it is about time our veterans at IVH Quincy finally get the respect and care they deserve.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit a mounting crisis in our immediate neighborhood, specifically in Venezuela.

What I saw were in fact three overlapping crises: economic, humanitarian, and political.

Hyperinflation, malnutrition, confounding refugee flows into neighboring countries, political repression, and staggering mismanagement and corruption are all endemic.

Some of you may have seen the front page of Tuesday's New York Times with the heartbreaking photo of Venezuela's indigenous Warao people who are suffering an AIDS epidemic because of the collapse of the country's healthcare system, just one of many such tragedies unfolding in a country without basic vaccinations or adequate food.

The situation and suffering are only getting worse as the government continues to deny the obvious problems or simply blames them all on other countries.

We have heard this canard before, most notably in Cuba where the regime blames the mismanagement and repression under its corrupt leadership on everyone but itself.

Also as in Cuba, the regime is cruelly detaining an innocent American--in this case Josh Holt--who by all accounts is a political hostage.

It didn't have to be this way.

Venezuela used to be a wealthy country with an imperfect but functioning democracy. It also had deep and unaddressed chasms of poverty, a gulf neglected by many ruling parties of the region that led to their ouster at the ballot box, including in the case of Hugo Chavez's initial victories.

But like so many autocrats at heart, Chavez used his position of power to dismantle the country's democracy and democratic institutions. He mismanaged the economy and allowed corruption at a scale that made a mockery of what he initially campaigned against. His successor, President Maduro, has doubled down on this approach. Political opponents are jailed or run out of the country, political opposition parties are arbitrarily banned or disqualified, and the reign of corruption on the backs of the Venezuelan people has only expanded.

Tragically, Maduro had a choice to avoid what appears to be the inevitable collapse of his once proud nation. He could have seized the opportunities offered by the Vatican and other regional powers to mediate a peaceful political path forward in Venezuela. He could have taken obvious steps to restore confidence and abide by basic democratic norms.

Sadly, his government repeatedly rejected such negotiations with the opposition and is recklessly moving ahead with a snap and discredited election on May 20; yet this election does not come close to meeting international democratic standards and will likely only plunge the country into further isolation and crisis.

When I met with Maduro and others in his regime in Caracas last month, I pointed out that Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much in Washington these days, but they do agree on Venezuela. The Trump administration is correct this week in urging a suspension of this election under such absurd conditions.

Let me give you just one example, that of leading opposition figure and former mayor of a district of Caracas Leopoldo Lopez who remains under house arrest and disqualified from competing in the upcoming election. I was able to meet with his brave wife, Lilian Tintori, in Venezuela--whose passport has been taken by the government--and speak with him by phone. We were not allowed to visit him in person.

Why was Lopez jailed, kept in solitary confinement, and now put under house arrest? Because, according to the government, he was using subliminal messages to direct protesters to act unlawfully.

That is right. One of the country's leading opposition candidates is in jail for sending ``subliminal messages.''

One of the prosecutors who led the case against Lopez later fled the country and said the trial was a farce based on false evidence and that Lopez is innocent. This tells you the nature of the outrageous political disgrace at play in Venezuela.

Senator Menendez, I, and 10 other Democrats made the same point as the Trump administration in a resolution introduced earlier this year, specifically that the results of this rushed election will not be considered legitimate if basic conditions are not met.

Let me repeat them here as they are so obvious: All political prisoners and jailed candidates, including Leopoldo Lopez, should be immediately released and free to participate in the election process; all parties should be free to peacefully participate in the election; the discredited election commission must be reformed into a credible nonpartisan body to administer the election; there must be no linking of government food to one's political participation or support of the ruling party, a particularly cruel tactic when many are suffering from severe malnutrition; local and international election monitors must be allowed, accredited, and given genuine access in the pre and actual election periods; and there must be at least 6 months to allow for a legitimate campaign under these conditions.

I believe the Venezuelan Government provided me a visa to visit because it was looking for a way out of its increasing and deserved international isolation.

Well, the path forward is actually quite clear and entirely in the Venezuelan Government's control, and it begins with running a clean and fair election as just described. Quite simply, have the courage and decency to allow the Venezuelan people the same fair and open process afforded Hugo Chavez when he first won at the ballot box. Have the courage to allow the world, including the American people, to help your people who are suffering and fleeing in desperation.

In terms of the relationship with the United States, also let Josh Holt and his Venezuelan wife come home. Don't continue down the path of a hostage-taker.

Mr. President, I think we should be honest with ourselves and the people around the world and present the reality of what Iran is today.

Iran pursues a host of dangerous activities around the world that threaten the United States, its interests, and its allies. It is fomenting a proxy war in Yemen. It supports Hezbollah and Hamas. It appears to be using its foothold in Syria to test Israel's defenses. And in tragic irony, Iran supports the Syrian butcher Bashar al-Assad, who has stooped to using chemical weapons and barrel bombs to kill his own people. How a regime like the Iranian regime--whose own people suffered under heinous chemical attacks from Iran during the Iran-Iraq War--can stand behind Assad and Syria is incredible.

Having said that, we entered into an agreement with Iran to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. Despite all these other challenges and all the differences we continue to have with Iran, we said that-- gathering together with allies around the world--we wanted to make certain that Iran did not develop a nuclear weapon. There were lengthy negotiations and agreements, which led to the nuclear agreement with Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons. I think it was a critically important step forward because Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a danger not only to Israel and the Middle East but also to the world.

It was that agreement which I supported and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in the Senate when President Obama negotiated it. The Republicans opposed it. The candidate for President on the Republican side, Mr. Trump, said that it was a terrible agreement, and he thought we should never have entered into it. He had all sorts of derogatory things to say about the Iran nuclear agreement. But the fact is, that agreement went in place and was implemented. International inspectors were sent into Iran. Those inspectors enforced that agreement and have reported to the United States--and personally to Members of the Senate, including me--repeatedly that Iran is complying with the terms of this agreement and is not developing a nuclear weapon. For all of the differences we have with Iran, the facts and the evidence are clear: They were living up to the terms of the nuclear agreement so that they would not develop a nuclear weapon and threaten Israel and that region of the world.

Despite the progress made by this agreement, today President Trump announced his decision to halt the waiver of sanctions related to Iran and the nuclear agreement--in essence, to step away from the agreement and to say that the United States will no longer be party to it. That nuclear agreement with Iran removed the threat of nuclear weapons being used to pursue destabilizing Iranian activities. Just imagine how hard and difficult it would be to push back on Iranian aggression if, in fact, they had a nuclear weapon. The purpose of the agreement was to avoid that possibility--the very agreement President Trump walked away from today.

Because of this agreement, Iran's nuclear weapon program has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, you have to go back over 10 years to find any plans being made in Iran in the past to even consider it. The agreement was working. International inspectors have unprecedented access to Iran to watch for cheating. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a quick breakout ability to make one. These are real accomplishments toward world peace.

We live in a dangerous world. President Trump's decision today will make it more dangerous. By eliminating U.S. participation in this agreement to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, we run the real possibility that terrible things will follow--terrible things that will cost human life and cause even more misery around this world.

Let's be clear. That agreement clearly states that ``Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.'' That is an unequivocal statement. And to ensure that Iran never does, the agreement provided for ongoing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. They weren't just inspecting the obvious places; they were inspecting the entire supply chain that Iran would have to turn to to develop a nuclear weapon.

Ernest Moniz was Secretary of Energy under President Obama. He is a physicist by training. He has received global recognition for his expertise. He sat at the table because he knows what it takes to develop a nuclear weapon. He put into this agreement which President Trump is walking away from today the kind of access for inspection that gives us the assurance that Iran cannot cheat, and if they tried, we would catch them.

Anyone arguing that Iran is allowed to build a nuclear bomb under this agreement after a certain period is simply wrong and misleading the American people. I have met with IAEA Director General Amano several times. Each time, I was very blunt and direct with him: Tell me what your experience has been in Iran. Tell me, if your inspectors wanted to go through a certain door, inspect a certain installation, go inside a certain facility, were they stopped by Iran?

He told me: If we were stopped and protested, they opened the door. We have never had a failure of access.

That is what he told me repeatedly, over and over again. He said the same thing to Democratic Senators he spoke with--that Iran was in compliance with the nuclear agreement and that IAEA inspectors were able to resolve any

areas. Where they contested and said ``We should have access,'' they were given access.

I hope President Trump will actually read this agreement. I wish he had sat down and spent a few minutes with Inspector Amano before making this fateful decision today. I know it is probably good political theater for some to blast any international agreement or related effort that was taken up by President Obama, but let me remind my colleagues of other negotiations undertaken with troubling regimes that served our national security interest.

It was President John Kennedy who negotiated with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, bringing us back from the brink of nuclear war.

It was President Richard Nixon who negotiated with the Chinese on normalizing relations, even while that Communist regime was providing weapons to the North Vietnamese who were fighting our soldiers.

Of course, who can forget that it was President Ronald Reagan who negotiated with the Soviets while that Communist nation had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the United States of America? They were occupying Eastern Europe, and they were supporting troubling regimes around the world. Yet President Reagan sat down and negotiated with them.

Let's recall how many on the right of the political spectrum savaged President Reagan for negotiating with the Soviets on nuclear arms reduction. Let me read an excerpt from the January 17, 1988, New York Times about the opposition President Ronald Reagan faced in negotiating an arms agreement with the Soviets--criticism eerily familiar to what we have been hearing today from President Trump. Here is what they said about President Reagan:

Already, right-wing groups . . . have mounted a strong

campaign against the INF treaty. They mailed out close to

300,000 letters opposing it. They have circulated 5,000

cassette recordings of Gen. Bernard Rogers, former Supreme

Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,

attacking it. And finally, they are preparing to run

newspaper ads this month savaging Reagan as a new Neville

Chamberlain, signing an accord with Hitler--

Of his day--

and gullibly predicting ``peace for our time.''

The conservative National Review's May 22, 1987, edition had a cover titled ``Reagan's Suicide Pact.''

While opposed by some at the time, I doubt few in this Chamber on either side of the aisle would look back today and say that President Reagan's negotiations with the Soviets and the eventual agreement weren't in the best interest of America's national security.

So here we are today with President Trump plunging us and our allies into uncertainty when it comes to an Iranian nuclear weapon and the credibility of America's word around the world. It is not very good timing if we seriously hope to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula by putting the American signature and name on the line in a negotiation to stop the development of nuclear weapons in that area of the world.

What will President Trump do if Iran restarts its nuclear weapon program? Is he prepared to face the prospects of another war in the Middle East--a war with nuclear weapons? Certainly we will have no inspectors there anymore if President Trump has his way, and that can only set us back and open the door to the possibility of a nuclear Iran in the future. Does that make America safer? Does that make the world safer? Of course not. Is this just about undoing what President Obama did, keeping some campaign promise, which, frankly, doesn't serve the best interest of peace in the world or our own national security.

Mr. Trump and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support this move and are unwilling to speak against it, the situation being created by walking away from the nuclear agreement with Iran is now in your hands, on your watch. I hope something good can come from this.

By all accounts, the American people overwhelmingly oppose what President Trump did today. The American people know we live in a dangerous world. They have heard over and over again about the prospects of a nuclear attack from North Korea. The notion that Iran would now develop a nuclear weapon does not make America feel any safer, and by a margin of 2 to 1, they tell President Trump: What you announced today was wrong. It does not make us any safer.

There have been many opportunities in this country to work together on a bipartisan basis on foreign policy. Historically, that was almost always the case--as it should be. Sadly, those days are behind us. Instead, now it is straight partisanship. If President Obama wanted it, President Trump happens to oppose it.

Look at the decision on the Paris climate agreement. That was an agreement reached by every nation in the world, and President Trump stepped away from it, saying: When it comes to climate change, the United States does not want to engage in this global conversation.

When it came to healthcare in the United States, President Trump said: I want to eliminate ObamaCare--eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Across the United States, we are now seeing dramatic increases in health insurance premiums because of President Trump's decision and the opposition by Members of Congress on the Republican side against the Affordable Care Act.

Now we are walking into a new territory. It is not just climate change; it is not healthcare; it is the safety of this world. It is a question about whether another nation will join the nuclear club--a nation we have plenty of differences with.

We had an agreement, a good one. It was brokered by a group of nations that were unlikely allies: China, Russia, Western European nations, and the United States. Of course, that is an unusual grouping, but they all agreed Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, and we moved forward with an agreement that was working until this President, just 2 hours ago, came before the American people and said the United States is walking away from that agreement.

Sadly, it is a reckless decision. It is a historic, tragic, and reckless decision, which runs the risk of allowing this country, Iran, to develop a nuclear weapon, threaten the region, and threaten the world. We live in a dangerous world, and we need a President who understands that.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.