Chuck Schumer

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 653 through 665 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2365 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. SCHUMER. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, a few moments ago, the Senate unanimously passed the National Plan to End Parkinson's Act, a bill that for the first time marshals Agencies across the government to tackle this disease--this awful disease--in a comprehensive way. I thank Senators Murphy and Capito and everyone who championed this bill. Parkinson's is truly a terrible illness. It has taken an awful toll on my own family. My mom suffers from this disease. It is very hard on us. I know Parkinson's has affected the families of others in this Chamber as well as over a million Americans in this country. This bill, for the first time, will unite the government in an effort to find a cure for this disease once and for all by promoting better Parkinson's research, encourage more effective treatments and other measures. With this bill, we are taking one step closer to bringing this awful disease to an end, and I thank everyone who made it possible. I also, in particular, wish to thank Representative Jennifer Wexton, of Virginia, who spent months championing this bill even after being diagnosed with a particularly rare form of Parkinson's. She is an inspiration. While many would have been discouraged and lost hope with a disease like this, she has endured. She has used her struggle to help others. Now the bill goes to the President's desk.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 707, which is at the desk.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 706, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 397, S. 4361.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to begin with a few words about Donald Trump's dangerous post last night on Truth Social. What Donald Trump said, falsely suggesting his political opponents are out to kill him, is beyond the pale and is the stuff that leads to political violence. Donald Trump seems to have no consideration for the sanctity and peacefulness and further functioning of our democracy. Everyone who was here on January 6 should immediately see what he is doing--what Donald Trump is doing--using conspiracy theories to spin the hard right into a frenzy, and it is despicable for Members of Congress to spread Donald Trump's lies. This is how people get killed, how the seeds of political violence are sowed, and how people lose faith in this democracy. Donald Trump has no regard for that. He would basically rip up parts of our democracy for what he thinks is his own personal gain. Let's speak truthfully. What the FBI did was follow standard practice. They worked with the Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago ahead of time to coordinate how to carry out a search warrant. Donald Trump wasn't even in Florida but instead in New Jersey on the day of the search. So this idea that his political opponents are out to kill him is absurd. Every single Member of the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, should condemn Donald Trump's outlandish and dangerous statement. It should be the easiest thing they do today. If words like Donald Trump's are not fiercely condemned, we are only begging for something far worse to happen to our democracy down the line. We cannot let this man, Donald Trump, or anybody else throw these kinds of matches to light flames that could burn our democracy. It is just horrible. I can't believe that someone would do something like that.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the border, well, tomorrow, Senators face an important decision: Will both sides come together to advance a bipartisan border security bill or will partisanship get in the way yet again? Three months ago, Donald Trump told his Republican allies to block the strongest bipartisan border security bill Congress has seen in a generation. Luckily, we are trying again tomorrow, and I hope this time Republicans join us to achieve a different outcome. The only way--the only way--we are going to fix the border is through bipartisan legislation, just like the one both sides spent months negotiating a few months ago and which we are taking up again tomorrow. We don't expect every Democrat or every Republican to support this bill. It wasn't designed that way. It wasn't designed to get all the votes of one party, which then almost inevitably means you get none of the votes from the other side. It was intended to be a compromise that could pass and become law. We know there are disagreements, as there always are, about the best way to proceed on the border. But that is precisely why I have emphasized from day one, we need to have strong border support if we hope to get border done. Unlike H.R. 2, a very partisan bill, the bipartisan border bill was written with the goal of getting 60 votes in the Senate, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. It had input from both Republicans and Democrats. H.R. 2 can't claim that. If anything is political, it is H.R. 2. It didn't receive a single Democratic vote in the Senate because Democrats weren't consulted. It didn't even get the full support of Senate Republicans. H.R. 2 was the definition of political theater, one side sitting in a room by itself writing what it wanted not even thinking of how you pass a bill. Our bill, however, is what a serious attempt at border reform looks like. Now, most people might not remember, but a few months ago, there was a lot of bipartisan interest in getting our border bill passed before Donald Trump killed it in its tracks. Our Republican colleagues--including the Republican leader--was adamant. We needed to get border security done as part of the national security supplemental. This is what the Republican leader said right before our bill was released: I think this is the ideal time to do it. He then added, Leader McConnell added: This is a unique opportunity where divided government has given us an opportunity to get an outcome. These aren't the words of someone who thinks our efforts were political theater. These are the words of someone who thinks we were close to reaching a breakthrough, and he wasn't alone. My friend from South Carolina also said that. To those who think that if President Trump wins . . . that we can get a better deal, you won't. He added: This moment will pass. Do not let it pass. Republican Senator from South Carolina. So let's be perfectly clear: Our bipartisan border bill represented a real chance--in fact, the best chance in decades--to act on border security, to make a law, not just to make a political point. Importantly, the bill would have made huge strides toward cracking down on the scourge of fentanyl. It would have given billions for DEA, for DHS to hire officers to focus exclusively on drugs and billions for state-of-the-art equipment to detect the flow of drugs at border crossings and ports. And some of my Democratic colleagues will be talking about that, at 12:30, at an event, how this bill really does more than anything we have done thus far, and we have worked hard on it to deal with the scourge of fentanyl. So, today, my Democratic colleagues will shine a spotlight on the immense good this bill will do to protect our country from the free flow of this dangerous drug, fentanyl. If you told me a year ago that this was the kind of bill we had before us, I would have been certain Republicans would have helped enact this bill into law. By any objective measure, it is strong, necessary. And one final note, the last time we came close here was 2013 when we passed comprehensive immigration reform. We did it bipartisan. It was the only way to do it. I and my late friend, good friend, John McCain had a Gang of 8--four Democrats, four Republicans. We got, I believe it was, 69 votes on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, the House didn't pass it. But it is just a lesson to all of us. Bipartisanship is the only way to go. H.R. 2 is not the least bit bipartisan. Our bill was completely bipartisan. So, tomorrow, we are going to lay out a clear choice. Tomorrow, we will see who is serious about actually wanting to fix the border and who prefers to merely talk about fixing the border.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the farm bill, tomorrow, House Republicans will mark up their partisan farm bill that, frankly, completely misses the mark. The farm bill should support the farmers who grow our food. It should protect our land. It should invest in jobs for rural communities big and small to rebuild their economies. The farm bill should provide lifesaving hunger assistance for the millions of Americans who rely on programs like SNAP, and it should extend SNAP benefits to our friends in Puerto Rico who have been excluded from this program for decades, and it will expand it to them. It is sad to see that rather than working together to get a serious farm bill passed, House Republicans are playing games and pushing a one-sided, insufficient partisan bill. Senate Democrats, on the other hand, have released a farm bill proposal that maintains a bipartisan coalition and invests in all of the areas I mention. So I commend Chair Stabenow for her work. Let me be clear: A purely partisan farm bill that departs from the longstanding spirit of bipartisanship has no future in the Senate. And, unfortunately, I might add, it seems to be where this House--the Republican House leadership and party--always goes. They always retreat to a corner of partisanship. They are not interested in improving the lives of American people. They are just interested in scoring political points to a narrow group back home, the MAGA group that seems to have such power in the party. So I hope that doesn't happen on the farm bill. It has always been bipartisan. House Republicans, come on. Wake up. Do you want to help our farmers? Work together with Democrats and pass a bipartisan bill.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on judges, a much better note, today, the Senate reaches a significant milestone: 200 judges confirmed to lifetime appointments under President Biden and this very proud Democratic majority: 200 judges who are restoring balance in excellence to our courts, 200 judges who are increasing the diversity and dynamism of our judiciary, 200 judges who are committed to applying the law fairly, impartially, equally. Of those 200 judges--I am so proud--127 are women; 125 are people of color, both traditionally underrepresented demographics on the bench. We are making our courts look more like America. It is not just going to be male White partners in fancy law firms. It is much more diverse, and the bench is better for it. It is something we can all be proud of. Mr. President, 127 women, 125 people of color, over twice as many women, and more than three times as many people of color have been confirmed under the last administration. We have confirmed more Black judges, more Latino judges, more Asian-American judges. We confirmed the first Muslim-American man and woman on the bench, the first Navajo Federal judge, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, of course, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. We have confirmed more judges who have served as public defenders and civil rights lawyers and consumer lawyers and immigration lawyers and labor lawyers; again, not just partners of big law firms. We have confirmed more judges, in other words, who embody the very ideal of America, a place where the rule of law is protected, where the rights of all are honored, and where everyone--everyone--gets a fair shake. I commend Chairman Durbin. I commend the Judiciary Committee for their great work processing judges in and out of our committee. I commend President Biden for nominating so many of these people and working with our Senate colleagues as to who would be best from their States and regions. Senate Democrats are very proud of our record. We are proud of our judges, and we will keep going.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on contraceptives, yesterday, we began the process for the Senate to consider the Right to Contraception Act led by Senators Markey and Hirono in June. Now, more than ever, contraception is a critical piece of protecting women's reproductive freedoms, standing as nothing short of a vital lifeline for millions of American women across the country. Senate Democrats are committed to restoring women's freedoms and will fight to protect access to contraception and other reproductive freedoms that are essential safeguards for millions of women to control their own lives, their futures, and their bodies. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is an amazing moment in the history of the Senate and of all Senates because in just a few moments, the Senate will confirm Angela Martinez to be a district judge for the District of Arizona. Judge Martinez will be the 200th Federal judge under the Biden administration and this Democratic majority. Reaching 200 judges is a major milestone. Simply put, our 200 judges comprise the most diverse slate of judicial nominations under any President in American history. Our Federal judiciary is now far more balanced, far more diverse, far more experienced than it was just a few years before President Biden took office. I am so proud of the 200 judges. Mr. President, 127 are women, and 125 are people of color. That is a majority of the judges--more than a majority. Over 60 percent are women. Two-thirds women, two-thirds people of color; 58 Black judges, 37 Black women judges--each a record; 36 Hispanic judges, 33 Asian American Pacific Island judges--also a record. It is amazing. Also, there is not just demographic diversity but professional diversity. It is not just a lot of White male partners in big fancy law firms anymore; it is people who are public defenders, civil rights lawyers, labor lawyers, immigration lawyers, consumer lawyers. We have so much greater diversity on the bench, and that is so good for America because the bench, the powerful Federal judiciary filled with lifetime appointments, should reflect America. It has taken too long to get to this point. We still have more ground to make up, but we are getting there, and we are so proud of it. And, of course, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Ever since I have gotten on the Judiciary Committee, it has been my goal to diversify the bench. The judges I have chosen in New York have been like that for over two decades. But now, under the Biden administration and under the great leadership of Chairman Durbin and his Judiciary Committee, we have really moved forward. I want to give special consideration--because she works full time on this--to my nominations director--we work so closely with the White House--and that is Catalina Tam, who has been so important and so dedicated behind the scenes in getting these judges confirmed. This is a really fine day for America. When you look at all the trouble and all the things swirling around, and then you realize so many fine people who never would have even had access to the Federal bench are getting on the bench, it gives you faith in the future of this great country. I yield the floor.