Chuck Schumer

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I want to thank Senator Murphy for organizing this important floor block. I want to thank all of my colleagues who participated. I see Senator Blumenthal, of course Senator Klobuchar, and others who participated. What we are talking about is the need to pass our bipartisan border bill to crack down on fentanyl entering our country. Every one of us in our States has talked to families who have lost loved ones because of fentanyl, particularly young people, and it breaks your hearts. Some of these family members didn't even know their loved ones had taken fentanyl and were dead within 24 hours--just gone. I have experienced that with some families. So now we have a chance to do something with it in this bill. 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 bill Congress has seen in a generation--something that would have done a great deal to stop the flow of vicious fentanyl into the United States. So we are trying again tomorrow because we hear about these families that Senator Klobuchar mentioned, that I mentioned, that others have mentioned. We have to. And I hope this time our Republicans will join us to achieve a different outcome. Unlike H.R. 2, a very partisan bill, this bipartisan bill was written with the goal of getting 60 votes in the Senate. It had input from both Republicans and Democrats. H.R. 2 can't claim that. It was totally put together by Republicans, got virtually no Democratic support. If anything is political, it is H.R. 2--has been used politically but never seriously to get something done. So let's be perfectly clear. Our bipartisan border bill represents a real chance--in fact, the best chance in decades--to act on border security. The bill would make huge strides towards cracking down on the scourge of fentanyl, deliver billions for the DEA, for DHS, to hire officers to focus exclusively on drugs, and billions--we now have state-of-the-art equipment that can detect the flow of drugs at the border. Why the heck aren't we allocating the money to pay for it instead of playing political games? We should be doing that right now. I thank my Democratic colleagues who today are here highlighting how this bill does more than anything we have done thus far to deal with the scourge of fentanyl. If you told me a year ago that this was the kind of bill that we had before us, that really cracked down on fentanyl, which we must fight, I would have thought we would have had a good chance, and we thought Republicans would have leapt at the opportunity to enact this bill into law. By objective measure, it is strong, it is necessary. So, tomorrow, we are going to have a clear choice. Tomorrow, we will see who is serious about actually wanting to fix the border, who is serious about actually cracking down on fentanyl, and those who prefer to merely talk about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

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, for years, our Republican colleagues have insisted that the only real long-term solution to fixing the southern border was for Congress to pass legislation. We Democrats agree: Congress must act. We need to fix the border and reform immigration to make it fairer and more humane. This week, Republicans will have an opportunity to join us in taking action. A few moments ago, I filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the bipartisan Border Act, the same bill negotiated 3 months ago by the bipartisan group of Senators Murphy, Sinema, and Lankford. The Senate will vote on this bipartisan border bill on Thursday. Last night, the President called both Leader McConnell and Speaker Johnson and urged them to go forward with our bill. All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance this week to show they are serious about fixing the problem. Unlike H.R. 2, the bipartisan Border Act was written explicitly to win support from both parties with input--significant input--from both sides. The Border Act is an exercise in legislating; H.R. 2 is not. When Republicans pushed H.R. 2, it couldn't even get a single Democratic vote here in the Senate, much less all Senate Republicans, for that matter. That was not a serious bill. What we are voting on this week is serious. It is the same bipartisan bill both sides negotiated for months last winter. It is the same bill endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, a very conservative group; by the Chamber of Commerce; and by the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page. By any objective measure, it is strong and realistic, and, most importantly, a bipartisan proposal. If our bipartisan bill was good enough to win the support of the union that represents border agents, why isn't it good enough for Senate Republicans? Are Senate Republicans saying they know better than our agents patrolling the border? I hope that is not true. I hope our Republican colleagues are ready to join us. I will be clear: We don't expect every Democrat or every Republican to come out in favor of this bill. That is why, as I have said before, the only way to pass this bill or any border bill is with broad bipartisan support. If you go by what Republicans said over the last few months, you would think they would leap at an opportunity like the one we have right now. In the words of Speaker Johnson, ``The time to act on [the border] is yesterday.'' In the words of my colleague from Texas, ``It makes no sense to me for us to do nothing when we might be able to make things better.'' And in the words of my colleague from South Carolina, ``To those who think that if President Trump wins . . . that we can get a better deal--you won't.'' And he added, ``This moment will pass. Do not let it pass.'' Well, I wholeheartedly agree. We should not let this moment pass. Border legislation is just about the hardest thing Congress ever wrestles with. Bipartisan border bills are rare opportunities here in Congress. That is precisely why we have it in front of us this week. I urge everyone not to let the politics get in the way.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on guns, 2 years ago, serious-minded Democrats and serious-minded Republicans came together to pass the most significant bipartisan gun safety bill in 30 years. We passed several new, commonsense rules in our gun safety bill, including rules closing dangerous loopholes on background checks. And I salute so many of my colleagues--led by Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema--who helped make this happen. Yesterday, those rules on background checks were supposed to go into effect, but, sadly, MAGA extremists had other plans. Instead, MAGA extremists exploited our justice system and put our background check reforms on ice. How did they do it? By taking their case to their favorite judge in the country, in the Northern District of Texas, to rubberstamp a nationwide injunction. The decision out of Texas is terrible for America for two reasons: First, the decision out of Texas is another consequence of judge shopping, a deeply unfair practice which jaundices the whole fairness and support a judicial system has where radicals--rightwing MAGA radicals--all but guarantee a favorable outcome by going to a judge of their choice, often in jurisdictions where there is only one sitting judge in that local division, guaranteeing a favorable audience and guaranteeing a favorable outcome. No one had any doubt when these rightwing anti-gun safety groups went to this one judge--the very same judge who knocked out mifepristone--no one had any doubt what decision they would receive. Judge shopping jaundices our legal system like few other abuses do. I have introduced a bill to rein in judge shopping, and I hope both sides can work together on this legislation to restore fairness to the judicial system. If not, we are going to see injustice after injustice, a slanted judicial system, leaning in favor of hard-right radicals imposing its will on the rest of the Nation. And the courts will have less and less respect because of it. I urge the Judicial Conference--they agree judge shopping is bad, forum shopping is bad, but they are doing nothing to implement it. They should. But second, maybe even worse, the decision out of Texas means MAGA radicals have temporarily succeeded in blocking commonsense gun safety measures and making our communities less safe. There were outrages in Uvalde, in Buffalo. And, finally, the Congress, in a bipartisan way, enacted the strongest gun safety laws in decades, ever since probably I passed the Brady Law and assault weapons ban--those were my bills in the House--in 1994. And now people are less safe--less safe--because people who shouldn't have guns, young people, are getting them. Closing loopholes on background checks help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people should be something both sides can agree on. But, sadly, MAGA Republicans and the rightwing gun lobby thinks the opposite. And with forum shopping, they can almost automatically get their way at least in the district courts.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, on abortion, shortly, I will join Senators Murray, Baldwin, Kelly, and some of the Nation's leading reproductive rights activists to highlight the terrible consequences of repealing the protections of Roe v. Wade. The MAGA Supreme Court repealed Roe nearly 2 years ago. It will go down as one of the worst--if not the worst--Supreme Court decisions of modern American history. In one fell swoop, MAGA radicals on the Court made it so that our children and grandchildren will sadly grow up with fewer civil liberties than those who came before them. Repealing Roe was tragic. It was alarming. It was outrageous, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because Senate Republicans packed our courts with hard-right judges, plucked right out of the Federalist Society checklist. It happened because Donald Trump appointed not one, not two, but three MAGA Justices, all who voted to overturn Roe. Remember what Donald Trump said a few weeks ago? He was ``proud'' to be the person who paved the way to overturn Roe. And after Roe was eradicated, MAGA radicals opened the floodgates for draconian and cruel bans for women's choice across America. And we know this is just the beginning. Does anyone seriously doubt that should Trump become President again, he won't try to add even more extreme jurists to the bench so he can continue his assault on women's reproductive freedoms? Of course, he will. And the Republican Senators, if past is prologue, are likely, unfortunately, to go along. If Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans get into power, the hard right will not rest until a national abortion ban becomes the law of the land. Mark my words, that is the direction that they will take America in. House Republicans already included the national abortion ban in their recent Republican Study Committee budget. Remember, the Republican Study Committee includes a majority of House Republicans and their leadership. Roe may be gone, but, sadly, the hard right's obsession with eliminating reproductive rights is not. Make no mistake, Republicans will have to answer for their anti-abortion records today, tomorrow, and at the ballot box in November.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the farm bill, later this week, House Republicans on the House Committee on Agriculture intend to mark up their version of the farm bill that I believe falls terribly short. The farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress works on, with consequences that affect tens of millions of Americans and a broad range of interests, from farmers, both big and small, to nutrition advocates, to climate champions and rural development advocates who rebuild local economies and create jobs--lots of jobs--in rural America. Some of these agriculture programs have helped rural parts of Upstate New York over and over again. A good farm bill represents all of the interests I just mentioned. So passing a farm bill has always been--and must be--bipartisan, but, once again, the path MAGA-right House Republicans are taking with their farm bill breaks with the bipartisan tradition, which has always enshrined the ag bill. A purely partisan bill that departs from the longstanding spirit of bipartisan cooperation, unfortunately, will not have a future in the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, finally, on the PACT Act, this is some good news. Today, President Biden will announce some very good news. It is very good news for our Nation's veterans. The Biden administration has now approved over 1 million claims from over 880,000 veterans still suffering from burn pit exposure thanks to our PACT Act. When we passed the PACT Act 2 years ago, it was the most significant expansion of veterans' healthcare benefits in generations. It sent a message to our veterans suffering from cancer, lung disease, and other ailments from burn pits that we are here for you. I am glad to see the PACT Act is delivering on its promise and helping our veterans to get the care and benefits they deserve. And like the gun bill I mentioned before and like the IRA and like the Chips and Science bill, it reminds us, when Democrats led in the House, led in the Senate, and had the Presidency, we got so much done for the American people.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, May 20, be waived.

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

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I would like to begin with a statement about the ICC prosecutor's announcement from earlier this morning. The ICC prosecutor's decision seeking arrest warrants for Israeli leaders alongside Hamas terrorists is not only profoundly unfair, but it is reprehensible. As disappointing as the ICC's decision is, it comes as no surprise because, for decades and decades, the ICC has shown it harbors deep biases against Israel. This decision suggesting an equivalency between Israel and Hamas is another glaring example of that bias against Israel. As I have said many times, there has never been and there can never be any equivalence between Israel's right to defend itself against terror and Hamas's barbarity. The ICC's decision seeking warrants against Israeli leaders is not only shameful, but it also fails to follow protocol and process in a country where it has zero jurisdiction. I fiercely oppose the ICC's decision, and I will work with President Biden and Members on all sides to keep support for Israel strong and unwavering.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 571.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 552.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER. 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 understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SCHUMER. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 21; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Lanham nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during Thursday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m.; and that following the cloture vote on the Lanham nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that if cloture has been invoked on the Lanham nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.