Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, it has been more than 100 days since Republicans killed a border deal that they specifically demanded and they actively helped to write. From start to finish, this bill is not some partisan Democratic wish list. In fact, the previous speaker, the senior Senator from California, is correctly upset at our lack of attention to legal immigration, to the plight of DACA individuals, and to try to anchor our policy and our core values of understanding that we are a Nation of immigrants and maybe even, separate and apart from that, immigration is one of the most effective anti-inflation policies out there. But the vote we are about to take is not about immigration. It is about border security, and it is fair to say that the Democratic conference has come a long way on border security. We negotiated with one of the most conservative Members of the U.S. Senate, James Lankford. And when I heard that Chris Murphy and James Lankford were negotiating, I was not hopeful--not because I don't think they are serious legislators, but I just figured they were too far apart. And so when they came to a conclusion, I didn't love everything in that bill; but I still support it, and here is why: because it makes real reforms and meaningful investments to address a real crisis at the border that needs to be fixed. There is no contradiction between believing in legal immigration and believing in the core values of the United States and believing in the need for order and security on our northern and southern borders. And so this bill will expedite the asylum process; it would provide immediate work authorizations; it would expand legal immigration pathways; it would provide billions of dollars to law enforcement to stop the flow of fentanyl. Those are all necessary measures, but the reason the bill failed back in February, the reason the border continues to be the way it is today, is Donald Trump. Donald Trump woke up one day and decided that doing nothing on the border would help him politically. He literally said: Blame me. Blame me. And so the funny thing about this situation is if you describe what happened exactly accurately, which is that we--with Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema and James Lankford--negotiated the toughest border package in many generations that has a chance to pass, a bipartisan bill where Democrats were understandably uncomfortable, that when this thing came out, I was in conversations with Republican Members of the Senate, and they were saying they expected a vote in the high 70s, close to 80 votes. They were very comfortable that this was going to win going away. And then Donald Trump said: Kill it. And that is what happened; it got killed. And so the thing about describing things factually in this instance is it sounds like I am trying to, you know, lob rhetorical bombs or make a partisan statement, but that is just literally what happened: We negotiated this thing. They told us: Work with James Lankford. They told us: Reform the asylum process. They told us: CBP needs more resources. They are overwhelmed. They told us: We need technology. We did all those things. Chris Murphy negotiated all those things. It is not easy for--I am not sure if he would like to be called this--an unreconstructed progressive to negotiate such a bill. He is looking at me right now. I think he doesn't love that term. But they voted to kill it anyway. Republicans chose to preserve chaos at the border, and now this crisis is on them. So spare me the crocodile tears. Spare me the press conferences. Spare me the unanimous consent requests. Spare me the cable news hits. Spare me the memes. Spare me the TV ads. You had your chance. And now the beauty of this is you have your chance again. An hour and 45 minutes from now, you can decide: Am I going to vote for the strongest border package in a generation? Or am I going to vote no because my boss is Donald Trump and he doesn't want this to pass? The choice is theirs. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ. 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. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 695, S. Res. 696, S. Res. 697, S. Res. 698, and S. Res. 699.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Lankford.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, a couple of points. The first point is actually the main point, which is that we had the toughest bipartisan bill on border security in generations on this floor, and when Donald Trump found out how tough it was and how effective it was going to be, he told Senate Republicans to kill it, and that is what they did. So spare me the crocodile tears about the situation at the border. We had the opportunity to fix that, and Donald Trump explicitly said: Don't pass this. Blame me. Blame me. No. 2, my good friend Senator Hagerty, who feels very passionately about this--his quibble is with the Constitution. The Constitution provides that all persons in the United States are counted--all persons. It says nothing about their citizenship status. So if you have a problem with the way the census is conducted, you have to amend the Constitution of the United States--not the law, not the statutory laws of the United States, but the Constitution of the United States. I have lost count of the number of times Republicans have tried and failed to add citizenship questions to the census. We have to see this for what it is--an attempt to reduce the count in immigrant communities. If that sounds like sort of a rhetorical flourish, a little bit too much, let me remind you that it was only a few years ago that the Supreme Court ruled against adding this question. They ruled against it. Why? It is because the real reason they wanted to add it was from a conservative effort who thought it would ``be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.'' ``[B]e advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.'' They wanted to ask people the citizenship question not in a longer census questionnaire, not as part of their annual data gathering, but the first question out of the gate to scare people from interacting with the Federal Government because--listen, someone knocks on your door from the Federal Government, and the first question is ``Are you a citizen?'' You will decline to participate if you have friends or families or cousins or neighbors who may have mixed-citizenship status. And here is the other quote, that it ``would clearly be a disadvantage for Democrats.'' This was never about gathering data. This was never about enforcing the law. It has always been and continues to be a pretext to scare people, particularly immigrants, out of taking the census, out of being counted at all, to undercount people and rig the political system in favor of one political party. And don't take this progressive Democrat from Hawaii's word for it; take this Supreme Court's word for it. I am not a lawyer, but I remember this--I remember they said they had no non pretextual reason to ask that question. In other words, they were asking this question in order to gain partisan advantage. So for those reasons, I respectfully object.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, over the past year, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on legislation to protect kids from the harms of social media. The role of platforms like Instagram and TikTok in turbocharging the mental health crisis among our kids is clear--the data shows it; our personal experience shows it; warnings from experts like the Surgeon General confirm it--which is why last month, after months of work with the Commerce Committee and outside stakeholders, I introduced an updated version of my bipartisan bill called the Kids Off Social Media Act with Senators Cruz, Murphy, Britt, and many others. The bill does a few very straightforward things. First, it sets the minimum age of social media use to 13. Second, it bans platforms from targeting kids under 17 with their powerful black-box algorithms. Third, it blocks social media sites from school networks--something that almost 90 percent of all schools already do. Over the past several weeks, my team and I have continued to work with other Member offices as well as a wide range of outside stakeholders to refine the bill in important ways, and we continue to have productive conversations on strengthening the bill in order to best protect kids online. Colleagues may have seen the hotline run on my bill, and we continue to work toward a markup. There are also several other bills pending on this issue, which I support. It is my hope that the Senate will consider all of these bills in short order and finally give kids the help and the protection they need. Congress has to act in this area. We now have many good proposals, most of them not in competition with each other. Let's take some action.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I have seven 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. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m., Monday, May 20; that following the prayer and 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 if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, disaster survivors are running out of time; disaster survivors are running out of money; and they are running out of patience. These people have been to hell and back, enduring the worst horrors of Mother Nature: wildfires, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes. They have lost loved ones. They have lost their homes. They have lost livelihoods. And after all that, after having their lives totally upended overnight, many have been stuck in limbo for months or even years waiting for help to arrive. It hasn't always been this way. Over the years, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has consistently stepped up to help hundreds of communities decimated by disasters, no matter the political color of the State or the size of the town or the pricetag of the cleanup. Why? Because we have recognized--correctly--that disasters do not discriminate and that helping communities recover is one of our most fundamental responsibilities in the Federal Government. What is the Federal Government for if not to help our fellow Americans in their hour of need? What are we doing here if we can't agree that disaster relief is urgent and important and necessary for the well-being of our country? It is not acceptable to keep survivors waiting. Congress must act. We need to pass disaster relief funding with the urgency that it demands and get survivors the assistance that they need to fully recover. Nine months ago today, fires, fueled by 70-mile-an-hour winds, stormed the town of Lahaina on West Maui, incinerating everything in their path and leaving behind little more than ash, rubble, and smoke: 101 people died; 2,200 structures were leveled; and almost 12,000 people were immediately displaced. Just about everyone in that tight- knit community lost someone or something that day. A few weeks after the fires, when President Biden came to Lahaina, he promised the survivors that his administration and the Federal Government would be there to help as they recovered--not just in those early weeks and months but throughout--for as long as it took; for as long as it took. Nine months later, cleanup is still ongoing, not a single home has been rebuilt. And the infrastructure that was destroyed--the harbors, the roads, the water and sewer systems--all of it has yet to be restored. The recovery was never going to be quick. The damage was so vast, the destruction so total and so toxic that bringing Lahaina back to anything close to normal was always going to be a multiyear endeavor. And that is the case for so many communities across the country that have been devastated by disasters. When the President declares disaster in a community, it means a very specific thing. It not just like it is the President's whim or whether they like the place that has been hurt. It means that the community's recovery needs are so great that the State and local governments can't handle them alone. It means that the capacity of the local government has been exceeded, and the President is declaring that this place is a Federal disaster, so the Federal Government has to step in and help, which is why almost 7 months ago, the President of the United States submitted a supplemental funding request to Congress which included funding for disaster relief and specifically for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, or CDBG-DR, Program. The CDBG-DR serves a simple but essential purpose. It provides survivors with the funding and flexibility to rebuild their homes, small businesses, and communities over the long term. For more than 30 years and in practically every State in the country, the program has been a lifeline for people trying to get back on their feet and economies trying to get back on their feet. But it has been a year and a half since Congress last funded CDBG-DR, and in that time, disasters have piled up in every part of the country. Unfortunately, we know more are coming, especially with hurricane season around the corner. So for Lahaina and dozens of communities nationwide, this funding is urgent. Rebuilding after a disaster--as a community but also as a family or an individual--is among the hardest things that anybody is ever going to go through. One moment you are going about your day--going to work, dropping off your kids at school, making dinner for your family--and the next thing you know, you are living out of a hotel, if you are lucky, not knowing where your next paycheck will come from or when or where you will have a permanent place to call home again. The ordeal of recovery is hard; it is long; it is confusing; it is painful; and it is expensive. And, understandably, survivors look to their government for help. They have waited a long time. But time is running out, and money has run dry. Congress must act and pass disaster aid as soon as possible. We have done full-year appropriations. We have done an international supplemental appropriations bill. We are about to finish the FAA. The next big bill that we pass has to be providing disaster relief across the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 35.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 673, which is at the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ. 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. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 34.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 423, 207, 271, 484, 519, 485, 577, 580, 583, 584, 586, 587, 588, 589, 591, 592; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos: 381, 612 through 619, 624 through 629, 631 through 633, 634, excepting Col. Catherine V. Barrington, and 635 through 646; and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Space Force, and Foreign Service, excepting PN 587; 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; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the following bills and that the Senate proceed to their en bloc consideration: S. 3249, S. 3285, and H.R. 593.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 89, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I have five 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: