[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1369-1370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, there is a theme that is beginning to 
define this new administration: incompetence leading to chaos. Over the 
weekend, the hastily constructed Executive order on immigration and 
refugees caused chaos in airports across America and across the world. 
Folks were caught in detention at airports for up to 12 hours, young 
children separated from their mothers, husbands from their wives, 
elderly travelers denied medical care, green card holders and legal 
residents being denied the right to see an attorney. Some folks were 
pressured into signing away their permanent legal status. There were 
scenes of utter havoc.
  Nobody seemed to know the legal ramifications of the order, including 
the most senior officials in charge of enforcing it--at DHS, DOJ, and 
State. There is a reason no one knows the legal ramifications. No one 
asked the professionals in the Departments. Isn't it amazing--on one of 
the most sweeping Executive orders ever issued, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the head of the CIA 
have said through reports that they did not even know of it.
  The level of incompetence of this administration already, only 10 
days into the Presidency, is staggering.
  The legal ramifications leading to the firing of Sally Yates last 
night--there is a reason no one knows the legal ramifications. No one 
asked the professionals in the Departments and agencies responsible for 
implementing the rules.
  A good manager, an administration with even a low bar of confidence, 
would have given the Department of Justice ample time to shape this 
policy and review it, as well as 15 or 30 days to implement it. At 
Kennedy Airport, Customs, the CPB--they had no idea this was coming 
down.
  Last night, incompetence led to chaos at the Justice Department. 
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Acting Attorney General, 
issued a notice saying the Department of Justice will not defend 
President Trump's Executive order on immigrants and refugees from 
Muslim-majority countries because of its dubious legality and even more 
dubious constitutionality. To put this in perspective, this was our 
country's top lawyer, someone who served administrations in both 
parties, someone who has the reputation of doing things on the merits, 
of not being political, saying that the Executive order is on such 
shaky legal and constitutional ground that the administration's lawyers 
should not defend it.
  I have to say that she was our country's top lawyer, because within 
hours of her principled statement detailing her professional legal 
opinion, the Trump administration fired her. An hour later, the Acting 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director was dismissed as well.
  The hair-trigger response from the White House to relieve them of 
their duties was a Monday night massacre, eerily reminiscent of the 
political firing by the Nixon administration during Watergate. But 
instead of it happening 6 years into an administration, it happened 
within the first 2 weeks. How many more of these dismissals will take 
place over the next 4 years? How many more firings because the 
President and his people in the White House do not want to hear a 
proper legal opinion?
  Sally Yates was the Acting Attorney General. Why wasn't she consulted 
on the Executive order? Maybe if she had been, they would have learned 
all of the ways it is legally and constitutionally deficient and the 
administration would not have issued it.
  But here we are, 2 weeks into the new Trump administration. Already 
we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis. We are already in a 
crisis of competence.
  A dangerous pattern is beginning to emerge because throughout the 
past week, incompetence led to chaos at the State Department as well. 
Before the Secretary of State is confirmed, before any Deputy and Under 
Secretaries have been named, the President unceremoniously cleared out 
more than a century of experience among senior officials at the State 
Department. One of the top officials removed last week was in charge of 
management issues at the State Department, including security of our 
embassies and associated personnel overseas. This could potentially put 
our people overseas at risk and could potentially make it more 
difficult for our government to conduct the business of our Nation 
overseas. This makes America weaker, not stronger.
  Another official was in charge of ensuring the compliance of nations 
with whom we have arms control and security treaties. This is an area 
where my friends from the other side of the aisle--most notably, my 
friend from Arkansas--demanded robust action under the previous 
administration, especially with respect to Russia. These important 
issues require continuing senior-level government attention and 
expertise, not a vacant office.
  So, again, incompetence is astounding the American people. It is 
amazing how poorly done so many things that have come out of the White 
House in the first 2 weeks have been. It seems the President is 
treating our Nation's most senior and capable members of his workforce 
as if this is an episode of ``The Apprentice.''
  Unlike on the campaign trail, the President's slapdash decisions, 
tweets, and the basic incompetence of his administration threatens to 
spread chaos across the country and across the world, undermining 
America's global reputation and making Americans less safe--especially 
the Executive order on immigrants and refugees.
  The events of last night make that fact as clear as day. Our 
country's top lawyers think it is illegal, unconstitutional, and 
indefensible. An unprecedented number of senior nonpartisan State 
Department personnel--many of whom served under Republican 
administrations loyally and ably--signed onto a letter of dissent, a 
memo of dissent, actually, arguing that the Executive order ``will 
immediately sour relations with much of the Muslim world . . . [and] 
increase anti-American sentiment'' from seven countries from which not 
a single refugee has ever committed an act of terrorism in America, not 
a single one.
  Today, even more than yesterday and over the weekend, we have reason 
to overturn this Executive order. I urge my Republican colleagues to 
rethink their position, to join us on Senator Feinstein's bill to 
rescind the order. Then we can actually get to work, actually 
protecting our country with a smart, thoughtful, and effective policy 
against terrorism--not with what seems good on a tweet.
  I asked a unanimous consent request yesterday because this order is 
so bad for our safety, for our security, for our troops, for our 
country, and for the moral leadership that we have always held. There 
is even a greater need today because we saw what Sally Yates said and 
the President's actions.
  The need to rescind this order is even greater today than it was 
yesterday, so I am pleading with my colleagues. I know many of you have 
doubts about this order. You have expressed them. Let's rescind it and 
really get to work on tightening up our laws and making America safe 
from terrorists.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 240

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the

[[Page 1370]]

immediate consideration of Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 240; that there 
be 2 hours of debate equally divided; and that upon the use or yielding 
back of time, the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that there be no 
amendments, motions, or points of order in order to the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Reserving the right to object, I feel like Yogi Berra 
when he said ``It's deja vu all over again.''
  Just 18 hours ago, the Senator from New York and I stood here, and he 
made the exact same request, and I objected to it. And I will object 
again. I will object tomorrow, and I will object for as long as he 
wants to make these requests.
  I will point out, though, that the business of the people is not 
being done. For all of you up there in the Gallery, we just started 20 
minutes ago. That is the regular order under which the Senate starts 
when it can't reach agreement on when to start earlier. We typically 
would start around 9:30 or 10, but the Democrats refused to allow us to 
come in earlier today to start processing some of the President's 
nominations.
  You may have heard on TV that Democrats on the Finance Committee have 
boycotted their hearing this morning. They refused to show up to do 
their job to confirm some of the President's nominees.
  I don't know how long they plan to do this. I don't know if they 
intend to abscond out of the district, if we are going to have to vote 
to have the Sergeant at Arms track them down and haul them into work to 
do their business. I see him standing right over there. He has a 
distinguished record in military and law enforcement. He could probably 
do that effectively.
  I wish, though, that they would simply show up and have a debate and 
do their work and confirm the President's nominees in an orderly 
process.
  The Senator from New York mentioned State Department officials who 
had left work last week. Well, there is a simple solution for getting 
political accountability at the State Department, and that is for this 
body to confirm Rex Tillerson to be the Secretary of State.
  Finally, I just want to make a few points about Ms. Yates's firing 
last night, since that is the only thing that has changed since the 
Senator from New York and I were on the floor yesterday.
  Ms. Yates, in her letter about the President's order, did not cite 
any provision of the Constitution, any Federal law that suggested the 
President's order was unlawful or unconstitutional, nor could she 
because her own Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal guidance 
for the executive branch, had already reviewed the order before it was 
issued for its form and its legality and had signed off on it. Her 
decision was a policy decision, which is not a decision of the Attorney 
General--certainly is not a decision of a holdover Acting Attorney 
General--to make.
  She was grandstanding. She should have been relieved. I am glad the 
President relieved her.
  The American people deserve to have a politically accountable 
Attorney General to make these decisions, which we would have, yet 
again I say, if the Democrats would simply do their job and process 
these nominees in an orderly fashion.
  So, as I said, on behalf of the Republican Conference, I object. I 
will object tomorrow. I will object for as long as we make these 
frivolous, dilatory requests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Objection is heard.

                          ____________________