Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the following joint resolution, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, in January, investor concerns about China's advances in AI innovation wiped out nearly $1 trillion in U.S. tech stock value, and that happened in a single day.
Chinese companies like DeepSeek are often able to keep pace with Silicon Valley because they steal our tech secrets, and they do it from right under our own noses. This not only puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage but also threatens our national security.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman has warned that Chinese nationals in our university systems are engaged in widespread technological espionage both on campus and in the workplace. Foreign STEM students often take tech jobs that give them access to sensitive technologies. This shouldn't be possible. Why? Because the law clearly states that student visas are solely for study, not for work.
Outrageously, the Department of Homeland Security has granted work authorizations to hundreds of thousands of foreign students every year, in violation of the law. The Department of Homeland Security has even allowed foreign students to stay in this country under their student visas for years after they graduate in order to work. If we want to protect our national security and our competitive economic competition with China, this must end.
So I am hopeful that with new leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, these unlawful work authorizations will no longer be approved. That leads me to calling on Secretary Noem to protect American jobs, innovation, and national security by terminating the CPT and the OPT student work programs--in other words, stop the steal that benefits the Communist Party of China.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on its 21st Cabinet nominee, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, nominated for Secretary of Labor.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer is a former Congresswoman from Oregon. She has been a mayor, a city councilor, and she and her husband spent 30 years building a small business. From her first job packing peaches at a California farm, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer has known the value of a hard day's work, and in her public service, she has put in the work to seek differing perspectives and to find common ground.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer's mother would always tell her ``When you know better, you do better,'' and we need the Labor Department to do better than what we saw from the Biden administration.
Over the last 4 years, the Labor Department pushed out many mandates that were the very opposite of pro-worker. Americans lost their jobs because of the Biden COVID vaccine mandate. Many workers found the independent contractor status they valued threatened by a Biden administration rule. Then there was the Labor Department's attempt to allow 150 million Americans' retirement savings to be invested based on climate factors rather than just an investment's rate of return.
President Trump has shown his commitment to the working people of this country. Making life better for working Americans was a priority in his first administration, and it will be a priority in his second. It is a welcome change in direction from the last 4 years.
Mr. President, speaking of a welcome change in direction, last night, the President came to Capitol Hill to address Congress and lay out his vision for the next 4 years--his vision and his record of accomplishment, because in just 6 weeks, President Trump has already accomplished an incredible amount.
Chief among his achievements is the job he and his administration have done in securing our southern border and restoring respect for the rule of law. There were approximately 8,450 encounters at our southern border during the month of February--8,450. That is at least--at least--a 25-year low. To put that number in perspective, during the Biden border crisis, Customs and Border Protection was sometimes dealing with 8,000 or more attempted illegal crossings per day. In just 6 weeks in office, President Trump is overseeing an incredible turnaround. It just shows what happens when you have a President and an administration committed to securing the border and enforcing the law.
Senate Republicans are committed to answering the President's call for additional funding to protect our borders, enforce our immigration laws, and get dangerous criminal aliens off of our streets.
Another crisis the President has lost no time in addressing is the national energy emergency that we are facing. As the Washington Post reported last March, ``Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power.''
The Biden administration, of course, pursued policies guaranteed to make things worse, from restricting conventional energy development to forcing Americans into electric vehicles. Fortunately, we are in a new era. President Trump has already taken steps to roll back burdensome Biden energy regulations like the electric vehicle mandate and unleash American energy development, and the Republican Congress will support his efforts. For the sake of our security, our economy, and Americans' pocketbooks, we need to have a reliable, affordable, and abundant energy supply, and I am thankful to have a President who recognizes this.
One of the signature accomplishments of the first Trump administration was the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, legislation that put more money in hard-working Americans' pockets, and one of the top priorities of the second Trump administration is making that tax relief permanent. It is a priority for the President, and it is a priority for Republicans here in the Senate. We are hard at work laying the groundwork for permanently extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act this year.
There were so many things to hear last night that were a welcome change from the last 4 years: President Trump's commitment to reversing burdensome Biden administration regulations and eliminating 10 regulations for every new one his administration proposes; the President's commitment to eliminating wasteful and unnecessary spending; his commitment to protecting children from radical gender ideology and ensuring that women and girls' athletic opportunities are protected and more.
As always, Mr. President, I am grateful for President Trump's faith in America. It reminds us just how blessed we are to live in this great country and that in the United States of America, everything is possible.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, last night, Donald Trump subjected the American people to a deluge of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright lies. What Americans heard last night was easily the nastiest, most divisive, most partisan, and most dishonest Presidential address in American history.
In a speech that lasted almost 2 hours, Donald Trump spent over 10 minutes falsely ridiculing and delegitimizing Social Security, following DOGE's lead alleging this program, which serves tens of millions of Americans, is a scam. They seemed to be preparing to go full steam ahead to take benefits away from you, the American people.
It is amazing. Tens of millions of Americans depend on that check, that Social Security check, to buy food, which is becoming more expensive under Donald Trump; to pay for prescription drugs, and they want to repeal the laws we did that made them cheaper for the average American; and so much else. Calling it a scam, ridiculing it with false information, and cutting 7,000 out of Social Security offices shows you where they are headed: to hurt Social Security, one of the most sacred programs in America.
Why are they doing this? Why would they do this? So unpopular. Only for one reason: The motivation of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Republican Party is tax cuts for the billionaires. That is their No. 1 goal, and they will twist America in knots, hurting people--many people, millions of people--to get it done.
Trump also lied about his plans to eviscerate Medicaid and lied about his plans to cut taxes for billionaires while making working Americans pay the costs.
Mr. President, there was more truth in 10 minutes of Senator Elissa Slotkin's rebuttal than in 2 hours of Donald Trump's long-winded, self- serving diatribe. Senator Slotkin did an outstanding job last night dismantling Donald Trump's nonsense with clarity, with facts, and with some desperately needed common sense. I am so glad I asked her to deliver the Democratic response because she knocked it out of the park.
Now, when Donald Trump wasn't lying, he was distracting. He talked again about renaming the Gulf of Mexico. He talked about renaming mountains. He said that he was a better President than George Washington. What a bubble this guy is in. What planet is he on? For a moment, I wondered if Donald Trump was utterly clueless of the disaster his administration has been under his watch.
The one thing Donald Trump did not mention last night was a real, serious plan to bring down costs--the No. 1 thing Americans wanted to hear most. Instead, Donald Trump doubled down on his plans to send costs skyrocketing by starting a trade war with Canada and Mexico.
Let's be very clear about this. Donald Trump's tariffs are a tax on working- and middle-class families. The average American household could see an extra $2,000 a year in expenses. Tariffs mean the cost of pretty much everything would go up, not just cars, although he could destroy the car industry--remember, about 40 percent of the parts that are in American cars come from Canada--but also housing and groceries and food--beef, dairy, eggs--and the cost of furniture and smartphones and laptops and fertilizer for farmers. Even going out to dinner with friends will be more expensive because of Donald Trump's tariffs.
Tariffs will slow growth. They will erode profits. They worsen unemployment and inequality and wreak havoc on supply chains that tens of millions of people and businesses depend on.
Let's be clear. The administration has obviously not thought through these tariffs. They seem to be changing their plans by the hour. Even this uncertainty is extremely harmful to the economy. It makes it impossible for businesses to plan ahead. It depresses spending, slows growth, and eats away at consumer confidence.
Yes, there are certain tariffs--particularly against China, which is competing with us economically in unfair ways--that might make some sense, but these have been unthought through. They are creating chaos for the economy. That is the one thing that the tariffs are accomplishing--chaos for the economy, stock market plummets.
Why are they doing this? Well, it is not different here than Social Security or Medicaid. Why is Donald Trump hell-bent on starting a trade war when virtually every expert knows the casualties of a trade war will be families and consumers? The reason is very simple--one reason he and DOGE say that Social Security is a scam: They want to take away people's benefits to pay for billionaire tax cuts. That is the whole ball game.
I can't think of a time where any President ridiculed Social Security the way Donald Trump did, and I can't think of a time where someone was more chaotic and deleterious on tariffs than Donald Trump was.
What they are seeking in return is the greatest transfer of wealth from working families to billionaires in the history of America. They want to take Social Security benefits away from you, the American people. They want to take healthcare away from you, the American people. They want to take away education and medical research and infrastructure and basic public services. Why? Well, it is pretty expensive to give tax cuts to the wealthy and elite, but that is what they are doing. That is what a transfer of wealth looks like to the average American--taking so much away from you, the things you need and depend on.
But Donald Trump and Republicans forget one thing: The American people aren't just going to roll over and let Republicans ruin this country. Democrats and, frankly, all Americans of good will, regardless of party, are organizing and mobilizing to defend healthcare and Social Security and the livelihood of American families. Americans are organizing in public, and Republicans have seen these frustrations at townhalls. That should be the first clue that they should drop their terrible agenda. When a lead Republican in the House tells Republicans ``You better cancel your townhalls,'' they are running away from their policies and priorities.
We are organizing online. I set up a call with some of the leading activists, people who have been out there on the frontlines protesting in New York last week. I thought about 500 people would get on the Zoom; it was 3,000. I met with 3,000 on Zoom--a turnout exceeding all expectations--to talk about how to defend healthcare, defend public services, stop tax cuts for the very wealthy, and make people's voices heard in the halls of power.
We are organizing in the courts. New lawsuits are happening every single day. Since just March 1--that is 4 or 5 days ago--at least 35 court rulings have come down halting or pausing some of the administration's worst abuses. The courts are one of the best tools available for protecting the rule of law and preventing the worst abuses of the administration.
Organizing is not easy. It takes persistence. But it works. It makes change happen. It is the cornerstone on which democracy is founded.
Donald Trump's exhausting speech is now in the rearview mirror, so Democrats will keep fighting every day to protect this precious democracy and hold the line against Donald Trump's attempts to rob American families of their livelihoods, taking so much away from the average American family and giving it to the very, very wealthy.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Republican whip.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today having just heard the minority leader come to the floor and have his reflections on last night's address to the Nation by President Donald Trump. Well, a man is entitled to his opinion.
This morning, however, CBS News reported on what the viewers at home thought about what they saw. The headline is ``Poll of Trump's 2025 joint address to Congress finds large majority of viewers approve.''
A large majority--76 percent of the viewers--approved of what they heard last night.
They asked those viewers: Did the President spend time on talking about the issues that you care about?
Two out of three said: Yes, indeed.
His speech--how did it make people feel? What did they say?
Almost 70 percent said: Hopeful. Hopeful for the future.
Over half said: Proud. Proud of America.
Speech viewers described the President as ``presidential,'' ``inspiring,'' and ``unifying.''
The question they asked is: Does President Trump have a clear plan for inflation?
More than two out of three said: Yes.
That is what the American people saw.
So apparently the minority leader did not see the same speech or did not reflect the same way as the great majority of the American viewers at home, because last night, I believe people saw President Trump's bold agenda and rapid action in motion. That was focused on securing the border.
Joint addresses to Congress are typically about making promises, but last night, it was different. President Trump spoke about the promises he is keeping, the action that he has already taken to make our country safer.
The numbers tell the story. Under President Trump, in February, there were less than 9,000 illegal crossings at our southern border. That is the lowest in recorded history.
Under Joe Biden, the border was a very different story. The border was wide open for members of criminal cartels, the drug dealers, people on the Terrorist Watch List.
Last month was February. We are now into March. So we look at February 2022, 2023, 2024, and now with President Trump back in office. In February 2022, under Joe Biden, 160,000 illegal crossings; 2023, 157,000 illegal crossings; 2024, 190,000 illegal crossings; President Trump, less than 9,000. Joe Biden was having these numbers in a single day when he was in the White House.
President Trump is securing the border. He is doing it boldly. He is doing it strongly. He is doing it with intention.
One illegal immigrant said: It is too hard; you can't cross right now. That is the message we wanted. The American people wanted illegal immigrants to be hearing that it is too hard, don't even try it.
Under President Trump, we actually have reverse migration. It is the reality. Cartel criminals once profited from the border invasion--not anymore. One smuggler told NBC News that his profits had fallen 80 percent. That is a good message for them all to hear.
Illegal immigrants are turning around, and at the same time, illegal criminals in this country are being taken down. In my home State of Wyoming, ICE recently arrested two Mexican nationals, drug dealers. One man was found with a pound of methamphetamine. President Trump is taking coldblooded criminals like this off of our streets and getting them out of the country.
President Trump is also fighting to stop the drug cartels, and these are the people who are flooding our Nation with deadly drugs. Fentanyl poisoning kills more than 70,000 American citizens each and every year. This is a crisis.
On day one, President Trump listed these killer cartel members as terrorist organizations. No other President has taken such a bold step ever. And it is working. The cartels are now shutting down drug labs. The leaders are going into hiding. For the first time in years, the cartels are running scared.
That is the way it should be. President Trump said he is going to do
President Trump began his first day in office by signing dozens of Executive orders. He cracked down on illegal immigrant criminals in each and every one of our communities.
He empowered the Border Patrol agents. They are securing the border once again. He launched the largest deportation operation in history. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have started to deport the worst illegal immigrant criminals.
President Trump also made sure American taxpayers stopped paying billions of their dollars on free hotels, on free phones, on free healthcare for illegal immigrants, which, of course, acted as a magnet to bring more illegal immigrants into the country. Not the message they are hearing today.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are for American citizens, not for illegal immigrants. President Trump's actions are going to protect and preserve these vital programs for the very people that the programs were intended from the beginning.
The American public overwhelmingly supports what President Trump is doing. CBS News, the same people that did the poll this morning on how successful and how much the people of this country welcomed the President's address last night--well, last week, CBS News reported that 59 percent of Americans approved of President Trump's deportation program. And 64 percent say the President's actions are reducing illegal migration and crossings at the southern border.
It is what the American people want. It is what they voted for in November--a secure border. People around this country oppose what the Democrats are doing in sanctuary cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, Denver, and Boston. They oppose funneling their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for benefits for illegal immigrants. People want safety, they want security, and they want some sanity coming out of Washington that they didn't have in the last 4 years. That is what President Trump and that is what Republicans are delivering.
This is only the beginning. Last night, President Trump laid out a clear path forward. He said the Department of Homeland Security needs backup, needs manpower, we need to finish the wall.
Manpower, technology, the wall, they are essential for full border security. That is why 2 weeks ago, the Presiding Officer and I and other Members of our colleagues here on the Republican side of the aisle passed a budget that increases for border security. Senate Republicans voted for more border agents, more detention beds, more deportation flights. Every Democrat, when having an opportunity to vote for those things, voted no.
Securing the border is why I introduced a bill called the Build the Wall Act. My legislation finishes building the wall along the southern border, and it was paid for with unspent COVID money. The money is still there. Stopping the killer cartels is why the Senate needs to now pass the HALT Fentanyl Act. Lives are on the line. Fentanyl is the No. 1 killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.
Permanently listing deadly illicit fentanyl as a schedule I drug, I believe, will save lives. The HALT Fentanyl Act is bipartisan. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, 16 to 5. It passed the House of Representatives with the support of 98 Democrats, and I am grateful that Leader Thune is preparing to bring it to the floor.
The Senate is going to deliver a secure border and safer communities. That is what the American people demand, and it is what the American people deserve.
I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Blanche nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I yield the floor.
Department of Government Efficiency (Executive Session)
Mr. President, there is a lot going on here in Washington, DC. That is an understatement. But I want to highlight the meeting that I had--that I attended, along with many of my Senate colleagues--last week, with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency team. That is a topic that has gotten a fair amount of information and visibility in the press, but much of it has been misinformation. I would like to address some of that and the importance of this effort, here, in the next few minutes. We had a very informative meeting with Mr. Musk and his team about the work they are doing on behalf of the American people.
I first met Elon Musk maybe 15 years ago, when he came to my office and said he had a new company called SpaceX, and he wanted to be able to compete with other companies that had all of the NASA contracts for space. I guess, looking back on it, that was quite a long time ago, but we see how far SpaceX has come, which now
Interestingly, and to the point of the Department of Government Efficiency, Mr. Musk had to sue the Federal Government in order to compete, which tells you a lot about the problems that the Federal Government has; that it is not open to competition and, thus, creates a lot of the problems now that I think the Department of Government Efficiency is now looking at.
But in addition to all of that, Mr. Musk has now moved personally his family and his businesses to Texas. So I am happy to have him as a constituent. He has created a lot of jobs in my State, anywhere from Boca Chica in South Texas, in Cameron County--which is now, I think, officially renamed Starbase--and the Tesla gigafactory, which is right outside of Austin, which I visited a few months ago with Mr. Musk; Starlink, obviously, providing internet access to people in remote parts of the planet that would never hope to have that access--all sorts of interesting things that he is involved in.
Certainly, I think we can all acknowledge, whether you like Mr. Musk and what he is doing or you don't like him, he is obviously a brilliant individual and, certainly, among the most brilliant people I know.
So you have to ask yourself: Why would a guy, maybe one of the richest--maybe the richest--human beings on the planet, do what he is doing for the U.S. Government? I think that is an important question to ask.
Certainly, he is not doing it for the money. He is certainly not doing it for the glory, because anytime you start messing with the status quo here in Washington, DC, you can be assured you will become a target. You will be criticized. You will be demagogued against. You will be lied about. It just goes with the territory, and it is something, I am sure, he has not necessarily experienced before. Frankly, I am glad he is willing to put up with all of that in order to do some important things.
But, of course, what the Department of Government Efficiency is focused on is efficiency--something that we purport and claim to be focused on here in Washington, DC: waste, abuse, and fraud. We talk about it a lot, but that is basically what we end up doing--talking about it and not doing much, if anything, about it.
Right now, the U.S. national debt--that is like our credit card--sits at over $36.4 trillion. I am sure that the American people--certainly, it is true in my case--can't really get your heads around how much money that really is. To me, one of the most telling indications of how big a number that is, is that we are now spending more money on interest on our national debt than we are on our defense, which is the most fundamental and important role that the Federal Government plays.
I know, sometimes, when you have such a big number or a big challenge or a big problem, it is easy to say: Well, it is just too hard. We can't do anything about it.
In the case of politicians, some may say--and I bet there are more than a few: Well, it is too politically risky to try to deal with the status quo because I am sure there are going to be some sacred cows or some pet projects that individual Members of Congress or maybe constituent groups or special interest groups want to preserve. So they don't want you looking at that. They don't want you disrupting the status quo.
But the reality is--and as we heard from President Trump last night, as well as news reports--there are many examples of outrageous expenditures of taxpayer dollars that need to be exposed, and they need to be addressed. We have to start somewhere, and I would submit that there is no time like the present.
If you spoke to someone struggling with a substance abuse problem, an addiction, you would never say to that person: Well, the situation with your addiction is just so bad that it is hopeless. It is simply too hard to change. There is nothing you can do.
The truth is, Washington, DC, is addicted to spending and has been for a long, long time. And we have no responsible choice but to address it.
So I am glad that Mr. Musk and his team have stepped up. And while DOGE may not erase that national debt overnight, they are certainly highlighting the problems that those taxpayer expenditures present. And I think this effort will be part of the answer to how we get back on track and correct our fiscal challenges here in our country.
Now, of course, there are many in Washington who want nothing to change. I think we saw some of them last night sitting on their hands during the President's State of the Union speech. They like the way things are. They like the status quo. As a result, there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and, frankly, dissemination of a lot of erroneous information, again, which is just simply not reality.
Now, some in the media have created, for their own reasons, misperceptions that Mr. Musk and his team are going in and making personnel and financial decisions on their own or forcing these decisions on the respective Agencies that they are researching, but that is simply false. Let me say that again. Some may have the perception that Mr. Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency team are themselves making personnel or financial decisions on their own. That is false. The reality is that those working for the Department of Government Efficiency are doing so in compliance with the law.
Each Agency's DOGE employees have gone through the Presidential personnel office onboarding process. They have appropriate security clearances and are direct contract employees of these Agencies, and they must abide by the same guidelines and rules as other employees to ensure the protection of sensitive information.
The reality on the ground is that DOGE employees are reviewing systems, processes, data, personnel, and making recommendations-- recommendations--to the Agency heads. Then the Agency head--in most cases, a Cabinet member appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate--is the one with the authority to make those discretionary calls.
Now, of course, it is a tremendous project, as I indicated earlier, to reform our government's giant bureaucracy, and with any undertaking of this size, it is a given that there will be some trial and error, some mistakes that are made. But, hopefully, those can be readily addressed once pointed out. And the administration has made those course corrections, and they should continue to do so and, I believe, will do so. But there is much to be hopeful about.
One example that DOGE identified--and it is just, to me, a symptom of the problem--is reforming software licenses and subscriptions. We were told at the meeting at the White House with Mr. Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency that some Agencies are finding out that they are paying for as many as 37,000 software licenses but only about 10,000 employees are responsible for functions that require those licenses--37,000 licenses but only 10,000, arguably, would be required. Now, think about what this means for a minute. And, again, this is just a symptom, I think, of a larger problem. This means taxpayers are paying for a lot of software licenses that are sitting around and are not being used.
Imagine if a private company let something like this go unaddressed. Of course, they wouldn't, because if they did, they eventually would go out of business. They would go bankrupt and cease to exist. But the Federal Government doesn't work that way. Some of these things that Mr. Musk and his team are finding should be an embarrassment.
I can tell you that my constituents back in Texas are paying close attention and mainly like what they see. But the perennial problem is that the Federal Government just is very slow to change, and part of that has to do with the incentives that exist in the private sector that don't exist in the public sector. As I indicated, a private business couldn't do what the Federal Government does, or they would go belly up.
This is part of the reason that our national debt has been growing by leaps and bounds without any credible effort by the Congress or the Federal Government to change. And change we must. It is unsustainable.
Now, here in Congress, we have a certain amount of accountability because we run for election. We have to stand
But when you look at the bureaucracy--a word that literally means ruled by the desk--there are no such incentives; there is no accountability--until now. So to have someone like Elon Musk and DOGE come in and shake things up is just exactly what Washington needs. And, again, it should be no surprise to any of us that there are some folks here in town who don't like what they see. There are many people who want nothing to change.
And we are definitely hearing a lot of speculation, in addition to the misinformation, about what this means and where it will ultimately lead, but many of these stories have turned out to be nothing more than that: stories.
We know there has always been waste, fraud, and abuse within the government, but it does not have to be that way. The problem is big, but it is our job as elected Members of Congress--working as part of the Federal Government, working for the American people--not to ignore it, not to give pretty speeches talking about how bad the problem is; but, actually, our job is to do something about it.
That is why I appreciate what the Department of Government Efficiency and the Trump administration are doing. I truly believe this is a once- in-a-generation opportunity to actually get our fiscal house in order. This is not easy. If it were easy, we would have done it before. This is hard. It is politically risky. But it is absolutely critical that we do so.
If we look at what the voters told us on November 5 of last year, we saw an overwhelming desire of the American people to change the direction of the country. They gave President Trump and us a mandate for change, and I think what DOGE is doing, along with the Trump administration, is very much in line with the mandate that we got from the voters on November 5.
So I support the efforts that the Department of Government Efficiency are undertaking, and I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Musk and President Trump, as a member of the Senate Caucus for DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, so that we can get our Nation's fiscal trajectory back on track. It is absolutely essential that we do so.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Executive Session)
Mr. President, today's vote on this Congressional Review Act resolution could not be more straightforward: Vote yes if you want more Americans to get scammed. Vote no if you don't.
Vote yes if you want Elon Musk to have a get-out-of-jail-free card when he scams people on xMoney. Vote no if you don't.
Three-quarters of Americans use digital payment platforms like Venmo and Cash App, and reports of scams on those sites have skyrocketed.
So CFPB investigated and then stepped in with a new rule to help prevent this fraud. The CFPB's rule also helps protect consumer privacy, and it combats deep banking on these platforms.
Now, ask any American how much they like getting scammed and whether they think there should be stronger protections against it. Listen to how angry people get over these scams.
Look, nobody wants to be scammed, and no one wants fewer protections against getting scammed. In fact, the only people who want weaker rules against scamming are the guys who run the scams, and that may explain why Elon Musk is hoping that the Senate kills this new rule today because Elon's new xMoney digital payment platform would be subject to CFPB review.
Elon wants to take the cop off the beat. He wants what amounts to a ``get out of jail free for Elon'' card, and that is what the vote today would actually give him.
Look, I think it is pretty clear what Elon's play is here. He wasn't very subtle when he tweeted ``CFPB RIP.'' The next thing you know, his DOGE team then locks the CFPB staff out of their own building. That was act one.
Now is act two: He wants Congress to block this CFPB rule.
Now, what will Elon get out of it if the rule is blocked? Well, he will get a clear runway for his payment app without having to worry about whether there is a cop on the financial beat who would catch him if he rips off customers who use his new app.
But this is really a three-part play, not just a two part play. Act one was closing down the CFPB so that the financial cops were shut out, at least for a while. Act two is the part we see now, with Elon rolling back a rule that, when cops are back on the beat, a financial cop could use that rule to go after Elon if he breaks the law.
Act three comes next week, when Republicans try to move forward with legislation that will clear the decks for Elon to issue xMoney as his own stablecoin, without any guardrails to protect consumers, to protect national security, or to protect the financial stability of our economy.
Put simply, Republicans are setting the stage for the richest man in the world to issue his own currency that competes with the U.S. dollar.
Act one protected all the scammers. Act two protects the cash app scammers, in particular. And act three, as currently drafted, will roll out the red carpet for Elon and Jeff and Mark and maybe a few other Big Tech billionaires to seize control of our money and payments, which underpins the entire economy.
So the question is, Will Congress go along? Will Congress protect Americans from getting cheated out of their money? Or will Congress give Elon Musk a get-out-of-jail-free card so he can scam whoever he wants to scam and know that the CFPB can't touch him?
Look, this may feel like just one more vote on a busy day, but rewarding Elon Musk and a handful of billionaires will mean real cons go forward in this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to talk about the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in defending typical Americans against scams and multinational banks. This Agency's entire purpose is standing up for regular people as a watchdog against the powerful and the corrupt.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to close the CFPB, and they are demonstrating their priorities. They have systematically kneecapped every part of the government that can stand in the way of their spree of looting the government to make themselves and their wealthy friends even wealthier. This unlawful freeze threatens Oregonians' economic opportunity and our country's economic stability.
Donald Trump pledged to the American people to level the playing field and lower prices. His actions and the actions of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do the opposite.
Just yesterday, my office heard from veterans who served our country and now go to college in Oregon. These are brave young people who are not wealthy. They shared details about how veterans routinely face predatory, for-profit, fake colleges that just want to target their post-9/11 GI benefits. If not for the work of the CFPB, many young veterans would have been robbed of tens of thousands of dollars each in earned benefits.
My constituents shared that they are really worried about what is going to happen in terms of our student veterans if Donald Trump and Elon Musk succeed in shuttering the CFPB. Either Donald Trump and Elon Musk didn't know that the CFPB has an entire office dedicated to protecting veterans and servicemembers from bad actors. Or possibly, they just didn't care.
Since the Bureau's start just 13 years ago, it has returned over $21 billion to
In a choice between fraudsters and scamsters and those who serve our Nation in uniform, Donald Trump and Elon Musk protected the fraudsters and the scamsters by illegally sending CFPB staff home and freezing the Agency's work.
Now my Republican colleagues are attempting to repeal the CFPB rule that protects consumers from frauds and scams on payment apps like Venmo. Under this rule, the CFPB would be allowed to look at the books of payment apps to ensure they are following the law.
This rule doesn't impose new requirements on these services like Venmo. This type of supervision is important to stop illegal activity before it is too late. In the case of payment apps, this supervision is crucial to combat frauds and scams.
Frauds and scams on payment apps are only getting more common, so why are my colleagues pushing to overturn the rule now? Republicans are trying to roll back the rule. I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Elon Musk wants to start a payments app. That is a lot harder to do when you have to follow any pesky laws or rules. And anybody who has used the site formerly known as Twitter recently knows that Elon Musk doesn't seem to care about the proliferation of fraud or scams.
Trump, Musk, and my colleagues across the aisle seem to be working to destroy the CFPB because it enforces consumer protection and data privacy laws, which I have been working to strengthen.
Elon Musk has already trampled into Americans' sensitive data at the IRS. It should be clear to all of us by now that Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and the rest of this billionaire crowd seem to have no regard for the law or for the Constitution.
Those who voted for Donald Trump because they wanted lower prices and a fairer economy really ought to be concerned about what I have just described this economic sabotage. And anybody who plays by the rules has a right as well to feel betrayed by Trump and Musk's contempt for the rule of law.
I am glad to be here with my colleagues to blow the whistle on Trump and the Republicans' dangerous and chaotic agenda and to work with Senator Warren, who has led the effort on this issue for so many years.
I will vote to oppose this resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this resolution disapproving of the CFPB's rule defining larger participants of a market for general-use digital consumer payment applications, which will make consumers more susceptible to fraud. In November, the CFPB published a rule to extend oversight over Big Tech companies that offer mobile payments and digital wallets. Companies like Cash App, Venmo, Google, and Apple now handle billions of dollars in consumer transactions per year. Everyone knows someone who has either been defrauded or scammed on one of these applications, and everyone also knows how difficult it can be to get your money back, even if your savings get wiped out.
The CFPB took a very sensible approach to update our financial regulations to address this problem. The CFPB's rule places big tech companies that handle your money under Federal oversight in order to make sure they are following the law. If these big tech companies want to act like banks, then they should be subject to similar consumer protection requirements as banks. Under the CFPB's rule, someone is making sure consumers actually get reimbursed when they are victims of fraud. It means that fraudsters are having a harder time stealing people's savings, and it means greater protection against sophisticated scammers that are hacking people's phone and email accounts.
If this resolution is adopted, there is no going back. It will preclude the CFPB from adopting substantially similar consumer protections in the future. Big Tech will operate under its own rules, and consumers will be vulnerable.
And it is no coincidence that this CRA vote comes only 1 month after Elon Musk announced that he would be starting his own digital payment company--what a coincidence. A vote in favor of this resolution is a vote to strip Federal oversight of Elon Musk's payment company. It is a vote to make it easier for Elon Musk to shirk his obligation to reimburse the American people when they are cheated out of their money on his platform. Elon Musk wins; the American people lose.
I hope my Republican colleagues will join us to protect this eminently sensible rule, and I urge my colleagues to oppose his resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is at its core a law enforcement agency. Congress established the CFPB 15 years ago to protect Americans from fraud, from getting ripped off by banks and credit card companies, financial institutions.
Today's Republican-led resolution weakens the CFPB's ability to protect consumers as part of a broader effort by the administration to shut down consumer protections entirely.
Now let's take a minute to go back in time to the time before the CFPB existed, right before the 2008 financial meltdown. Back then, abusive fees and misleading disclosures meant that Coloradans paid more for mortgages, more for credit cards, and more for student loans. Fly- by-night lenders made massive profits by targeting vulnerable families with excessively high-cost loans, turning credit from a tool for opportunity into a tool for scams.
Financial scammers could all too easily slip through the cracks in oversight. There just wasn't enough oversight. In some cases, there was no oversight. Our neighbors were getting hit with hidden fees and frauds when they took out a mortgage, when they used a credit card, if they were just paying for school. There was no cop on the beat.
The result? By 2008, years of this shady, abusive practice helped spark a devastating global financial crisis. Six million households lost their homes to foreclosure, and a quarter of our families lost 75 percent of their wealth. Americans lost faith in our financial system.
In 2010, Congress created the CFPB to help make sure this could never happen again. Congress gave it a simple job: to protect Americans from getting ripped off. The Bureau cleaned up mortgage markets, debt collection, student loans, and much, much more. It worked to protect veterans and servicemembers.
Fast-forward to today, and the CFPB's results really speak for themselves. The Bureau has delivered $20 billion--that is billion dollars with a ``b''--back to Americans through its enforcement actions. It has brought relief to 200 million Americans and small businesses facing scams or abusive practices.
In Colorado, nearly 67,000 people have sought help from CFPB, including more than 6,200 servicemembers. Thousands of those complaints led to relief for consumers.
It really is a remarkable track record--that is, until it was decided by Republicans to--well, they want to eliminate many of these protections, if not all of them.
This vote today would unwind protections designed for the modern financial system, for the everyday payment apps we all use like Venmo or PayPal. It would allow some of the largest financial firms in a consumer's life to stay in the shadows, to operate outside of any oversight. That is exactly the approach to consumer protection we had 20 years ago, before the CFPB, before the 2008 financial crisis.
This is but the latest attempt to leave consumers vulnerable to scams. In fact, the Trump administration is trying--I think many people believe illegally--to abolish the CFPB entirely. They fired dedicated staff who protect consumers, they canceled the lease on the CFPB's office, and they literally ordered a total shutdown of the Agency--an unprecedented effort to defy Congress.
The administration believes that the CFPB doesn't deserve to exist. Maybe they think that scammers and fraudsters have finally hung it up and have gone to find honest work, but I think the American people know better. The administration wants to take our economy back to the time before the financial crisis of 2009, with weaker protections and no one looking out for consumers. If the Trump administration gets its way, it is clear who the winners will be--loan sharks, shady mortgage companies, junk-fee merchants. The losers will be the rest of America-- any Coloradan who wants a fair deal on a credit card or a mortgage.
Bottom line: More money in the pocket of fraudsters, scammers, and the unscrupulous; less for the little guy to save.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers and vote no on this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Unanimous Consent Request: S. Res. 108 (Executive Session)
Mr. President, in recent weeks, several Federal judges have issued orders blocking unlawful actions taken by the Trump administration. In response, the administration's officials and allies have made worrisome statements criticizing Federal judges and the process of judicial review. Elon Musk, an unelected bureaucrat who is assisting this administration, has repeatedly called for the impeachment of Federal judges and questioned the lifetime appointment of Federal judges that is enshrined in article III of the Constitution.
President Trump's choice of Deputy Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, suggested on a podcast that the President set up a fake courtroom in the White House where ``he can just start making judicial decisions.'' Mr. Bongino added:
As a reminder, Mr. Bongino is second-in-command at the FBI, the most powerful investigative Agency in the world. If he sounds like a political animal out of his element, you would not be wrong.
But Mr. Bongino is not alone. Last week, a nominee to a senior position at the Department of Justice testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Let that sink in for a moment. This is a person who wants a senior position at the Department of Justice testifying under oath and saying:
In a social media post, Vice President Vance falsely asserted that ``judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.'' This is merely the latest in a long line of claims by the Vice President that a President can defy court orders.
President Trump himself recently posted:
That is a line that echoes others who believed they were above the law, a rationalization more common to leaders of a political coup in a banana republic.
Let me repeat that quote from President Trump:
These efforts to intimidate judges and undermine the rule of law do not stop with these statements. The Speaker of the House said he agrees with Vice President Vance and urged the courts to ``take a step back.'' Three Members of the House of Representatives have introduced Articles of Impeachment against Federal judges simply because they ruled against the Trump administration.
These remarks that I have quoted are not only wrong, they are constitutionally dangerous, and they pose a serious threat to our constitutional order and the separation of powers.
Since the Supreme Court's landmark Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803, there has been a broad bipartisan consensus throughout our history that, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, and I quote:
When it comes to interpreting and applying the law, the courts have the last word, and that responsibility takes on an outsized importance when the executive branch shows little regard for the limits of its constitutional power, as this administration already has.
Under article II of the Constitution, the executive branch is charged with ``taking care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' but President Trump and his administration have ignored that responsibility. Let me give you one clear-cut, unequivocal example. President Trump summarily fired 18 inspectors general weeks into his Presidency. He wanted these investigative officials out of the picture. He did this despite the law that requires him as President to inform the Congress of the decision to dismiss or transfer an inspector general and provide a detailed explanation for doing so--that is what the law requires--at least 30 days before taking any action against them.
When the executive branch blatantly violates the law, it is essential that the other branches of government fulfill their constitutional role and responsibilities.
Thankfully, in the first weeks of the new Trump administration, the judicial branch has lived up to its responsibility. Judges have carefully considered the cases before them and, where appropriate, provided a check on the administration when it oversteps.
Now, the fact that a court has made a decision does not mean you have to agree with it.
John Kennedy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana, recently admonished two Trump nominees who suggested the executive branch can ignore a court order. Here is what my colleague Senator Kennedy said:
Now, I have disagreed with judicial decisions, including decisions of the Supreme Court. When that happens, I explain why I disagree. But I have never advocated ignoring or defying a court order. I never will.
More than 60 years ago, President John Kennedy spoke about the importance of the rule of law in a speech at Vanderbilt University. As President Kennedy put it, ``for one man to defy a law or court order he does not like is to invite others to defy those which they do not like, leading to a breakdown of all justice and all order.''
We cannot allow any administration to defy a court order, period, and we cannot stand idly by as the President and his allies undermine the judiciary by attacking judges.
That is why I introduced the resolution we are considering today. I want to thank my colleagues who cosponsored it and are joining me on the floor in this block of time.
Our resolution simply affirms that the Constitution vests the judicial power in the Federal courts and affirms that both the Constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings.
These are not partisan talking points; they are basic principles of constitutional law, so fundamental and so essential to our constitutional order that they should go without saying. But in light of recent comments and actions by President Trump, Vice President Vance, and his administration and allies, some things must be said. So I ask my colleagues to say with one clear voice: The U.S. Senate supports the Constitution, the judicial branch, and the rule of law.
Every Member of this body has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues to fulfill their oaths today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I want to thank our chairman for bringing us together on the Senate floor today to reaffirm a proposition that really ought not to be in any doubt, and that is the proposition that when a court has ruled on a matter, the executive and legislative branches are bound to follow the law.
As the chairman said, you may choose to appeal or you may choose to obey or, if you have a hugely principled objection, you may choose to resign, but you don't get to simply disobey court orders that you don't like.
Now, thankfully, a number of our Republican colleagues are on record supporting that simple proposition. The majority leader, Senator Thune, said:
Chairman Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, added:
Senator Hawley said:
And Senator Kennedy said:
He, as the chairman said, advised the witnesses before: Don't ever, ever take the position that you are not going to follow a court order.
So from all of that, you would think that things were fine and that this was a wasted exercise of time here on the Senate floor. But, unfortunately, it is not because at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House is constantly attacking the rule of law from all angles. And this administration is teetering on full-blown defiance of court rulings.
Vice President Vance posted that ``Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.'' That is an invitation to violate court orders if the executive takes the position that its own view of what its legitimate power is, is what controls.
One Senate Republican went so far as to call court orders that the administration lost a ``coup.'' Well, if there is any coup going on, it is the executive branch coup taking place in our country right now, not a court-ordered coup.
The Department of Justice, which should know better--including the Solicitor General who should for sure know better--refused to say that they will always follow a court order, and many colleagues actually defended them.
And then outside of the immediate danger of refusing to obey a court order is the attack on the integrity and safety of the judiciary. We have seen this in Rhode Island. A judge in Rhode Island--very respected judge, very well-known throughout our State, very well-regarded, very experienced--made the determination that the freeze order of the Trump administration was unconstitutional, which, in my view, is not even a close call. That was an easy, easy answer. Rather than respond, they dropped--what I call--the flying monkeys on him. Elon Musk maintains on
It ought to be self-evident the judge's orders are to be followed. It ought to be self-evident if you don't like a judge's order, you don't threaten the judge or his daughter; instead, you appeal it.
And the third tactic that they are using is what I call the fog bank tactic. So the order is the freeze is unconstitutional. OMB, you have to let the money go. And then people who have money coming to them properly obligated, properly appropriated try to call up and say: OK. The order says you can't hold it back. When is it coming? What do they get? No clear answers--the fog bank. The executive officials retreat behind refusal to answer emails, refusal to answer phone calls, vague answers that give no response. Sometimes even happy indications that: Don't worry. Hang out there. I am sure that we can work this out. And even in some cases: Yes, you will have access to these funds. And no matter what the answer is from the fog bank, it doesn't change the fact that the money just doesn't go.
It reminds me of old bad movies of the Soviet Union where the KGB guy in the corner makes all the decisions and the nominal chief of the agency says: Oh, yes, of course we are going to do this. But unless the KGB guy signs off, the money doesn't go.
In this case, it isn't the KGB guy; it is the little muskrats who are in these Departments trying to foul up the lawful flow of properly appropriated and obligated funds. That is a slo-mo contempt of these court orders. And as courts and plaintiffs dig in, I think we are going to find more and more evidence of the deliberate contumacious nature of that fog bank strategy.
I yield the floor, thanking, again, our chairman for his leadership on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I, too, rise today to defend the principles at the core of our democratic Republic that we are a government of laws and institutions, not of individuals; that no billionaire has more rights than any worker, and that no President has more rights than any citizen of our country; that we are a government of three coequal branches, providing checks and balances on each other. And bottom line: That no one is above the law.
Yet as we stand here today, the Trump administration is clearly openly laying the groundwork to reject all of these principles. They are operating under their idea that the President, his Cabinet of loyalists, and an unelected billionaire adviser can simply ignore the law or courts in rulings that they disagree with.
Earlier this month, Vice President Vance claimed that ``if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use his or her discretion as a prosecutor, that's . . . illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.''
That is the Vice President. At the same time, President Trump's seeming co-President, Elon Musk, has repeatedly called for the impeaching of judges who rule against Donald Trump's attempts at power grabs. And now President Trump himself has said:
Historians may recognize this quote because it is widely attributed to Napoleon, a man who became a dictator and who abolished the French Republic at the time. Seems to me pretty clear that is precisely the example that Donald Trump is looking to. And it should alarm all of us.
When I think about just how much of Donald Trump's life has been spent staring at the four walls of a courtroom--yes, from the inside, folks, the four walls of a courtroom--maybe you can understand why he may want to do away with the courts.
But the Judiciary does not work for Donald Trump. It is a separate, coequal branch of government. The courts, colleagues, work for the American people. And so far, they have served the American people by pausing many of the President's blatantly illegal Executive orders and overreach. But that is why he is continuing to target the courts.
Colleagues, I am one of the few nonlawyers to serve on the Judiciary Committee. And at times, I get to bring a different perspective to our deliberations and our debates. I will defer to my colleagues to maybe cover some of the legal history or case law that applies here. But for Americans watching from home, here is how I can boil it down.
Let's ask ourselves: Do you believe the President can simply ignore the law? Do you believe that the President should be all-powerful? Do you believe that if you have to follow the law, then the President of our country should have to follow it, as well?
The answers should seem very, very obvious. For years, we have known that if a President did try to push the boundaries of what is legal and what is not, we could count on an independent Department of Justice to enforce court rulings. But over the past few weeks, what we have seen in the Judiciary Committee is nominee after nominee appear before us and refuse to simply commit to upholding the law. They claim, one after another, that they respect the Constitution and stand for the rule of law. But when given specific examples of what would you do, not if, we have seen a President in his first term and already in this term suggest those he appoints to not follow the law--they refused to commit.
That dynamic, colleagues, is unprecedented, and it is dangerous. And it is also the result of an administration that demands applicants pass a loyalty test to get their job in the first place. And it has brought us dangerously close to a constitutional crisis. A President feeling unconstrained by the courts, by the Constitution, and the rule of law is no President at all. It is a power-hungry, wannabe King.
Last night, President Trump, in his address, had an opportunity to unite or at least genuinely try to unite the country and affirm his commitment to the rule of law. Sadly, I am not surprised that he refused to do so. But this morning, we also saw the Supreme Court cite against the Trump administration and affirm a lower court's order that the administration stop their unlawful freeze on foreign aid--one of the many, many challenges working its way through the judiciary.
So the question now becomes: Will Donald Trump listen, and will Republicans in Congress demand that he uphold the law?
So what we are asking of our Republican colleagues today isn't anything radical. It is the fundamental principle that men and women dedicated to themselves nearly 250 years ago in the founding of our Nation, that we shall be ruled of, by, and for the people; not of, by, and for a King or dictator.
To our Republican colleagues, all we ask is this: Stand up. Stand up for the rule of law. Stand up for the Constitution. And stand up for our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, John Adams once said that we are a Nation of laws, not men. And this idea has been foundational to the understanding of the American Republic.
But what does it mean to be a Nation of laws, and is it still true in America in the era of Donald Trump? Are we a Nation of laws when characterized by a legal code that applies equally to all citizens, a justice system in which no one is above the law or beyond its reach, in which there is not one law for the rich and powerful and yet another for everyone else?
Or have we become a Nation of men in which the law must bend to the will of its most powerful citizens, a society in which wealth and privilege mean that the law need not apply to them with the same force as it applies to others or not at all?
Four years ago, after losing his reelection campaign, Donald Trump conspired to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power and incited a violent attack on the Capitol. He also withheld highly classified material and obstructed an investigation into that offense.
In what could be seen as a vindication of the rule of law, Donald Trump was indicted for these crimes, but the system of justice bound by the rule of law requires not only that charging decisions be made against people similarly situated without preference or
Most egregious was the conduct of the High Court itself. The Roberts Court first delayed any potential trial of the President and then crippled the prosecution altogether in a decision granting the President immunity from prosecution for the commission of crimes while in office. No wonder the President thanked the Court at last night's joint address and told Justice Roberts, in particular, that he would not forget.
For the first time in America, the Supreme Court held that if you reach the pinnacle of power, the Presidency, the criminal laws need not apply to you; that, indeed, you may use the power of that office itself to commit crimes and never be held to account.
As Justice Sotomayor wrote, that new immunity lies about like a loaded weapon and makes a mockery of the principle that no man is above the law.
Now we have entered a perilous new phase as a country, in which a person who escaped the application of law is now charged with administering the law in which Donald Trump has appointed his own criminal defense lawyers to top positions in the Justice Department and appointed an FBI Director with a long published enemies list.
It is a Justice Department in which Trump's lawyers have sought to dismiss a serious corruption case against the mayor of New York, as an alleged quid pro quo for his willingness to do the President's bidding on unrelated policy matters. They seek a dismissal without prejudice, meaning the President can lower that sword of Damocles on the head of the mayor should he ever demonstrate independence from the whims of the President.
Six senior Justice Department prosecutors resigned their office rather than pervert justice in this way.
As one wrote in his resignation letter, ``I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.''
Other prosecutors at the Justice Department have likewise refused illegal orders to initiate investigations where no probable cause exists, rather than violate their oaths of office.
If this continues, we will be left with a Justice Department leadership populated by only cowards and fools--a Justice Department used both as a sword to go after the President's enemies and a shield to hide its corruption. Then, what will remain of our Nation of laws but a sad memory of a time when we lived up to our Founders' dreams only to squander the gift of our inheritance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Durbin's simple but necessary resolution. It reaffirms three basic principles that should be self-evident to all Senators serving in this body: one, that there are courts established under the Constitution as a coequal branch of government; two, that in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, those courts' role is to say what the law is; and three, that the Constitution requires the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings.
As I reminded all of the Senators who were assembled for the President's inauguration, there is a reason that that inauguration is not held in a gilded Presidential palace, like it is in some countries. It is held in the U.S. Capitol, and the President is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court--and in this case, with all Supreme Court Justices there--to make the point that, in America, we have three coequal branches of government, and they all have a very defined role under the Constitution.
These are things we all learned in high school civics, and they are the bedrock of the rule of law. Yet, today, the President refuses to acknowledge these foundational principles. He claims, in channeling Napoleon, that ``he who saves his country does not violate the law.'' He has asserted that ``I have an article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.'' And he has even used the White House's social media account to post an image of himself wearing a crown, proclaiming: ``LONG LIVE THE KING!''
I call that kind of a smoking gun, when it comes to the evidence that Senator Durbin's very important resolution is necessary.
Judges appointed by Presidents of both parties have found many of the President's actions illegal. You have seen, in the past 30 days, judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, judges appointed by George Bush, judges appointed by Donald Trump himself, along with judges appointed by Democratic Presidents, who have looked at the facts, who have looked at the law, and, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, have said ``what the law is.'' They have found the President's actions illegal--from unilateral funding freezes, in direct defiance of statutes in the Constitution's crystal-clear mandate that the power of the purse resides squarely with Congress, to illegal firings of government officials, where they have been reinstated.
Yet the administration continues to question principles at the very heart of our Constitution.
Just last month, the Vice President said:
In 2021, JD Vance, before he was elected, suggested that the President should dismantle the Federal workforce, and ``when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, `The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.' ''
Elon Musk, who was here in the House of Representatives just last night, lauded by the President, has said: ``The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,'' citing the purge of judges by the government in El Salvador as an example--the world's greatest democracy, the United States of America, now pointing to the rules in El Salvador.
Aaron Reitz, the nominee to head the Office of Legal Policy, had previously called for defiance of a court order, tweeting himself:
When asked about this tweet at the hearing that Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley held over his nomination and when asked whether the President can defy a court order, Reitz said, ``There is no hard and fast rule in all instances in which a litigant must comply with all or some or various parts of a judicial decision.''
And when asked for his view on the matter, John Sauer, the President's nominee for Solicitor General, told the committee he did not want to speak to hypotheticals. This is a frightening nonanswer.
It is very clear we are to follow the law in the Senate. The President is to follow the law.
In fact, while the Framers gave the President the power to faithfully execute the law, our Constitution created an accountable President. The Framers, who detested the King's unchecked power, made sure to create an independent judiciary to prevent abuse of power wherever it occurred and ensure that no one is above the law, not even the President.
As James Madison noted, ``Independent tribunals of justice'' serve as ``an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.'' That includes, of course, the power to issue binding court orders that the Executive cannot set aside.
Like many of my colleagues, I have vigorously opposed some decisions by judges. But even when I disagree with a decision, I never thought it was an open question about whether that decision should be followed. If you do not like a court ruling, you appeal it. If we think a decision was wrong, we introduce legislation or a constitutional amendment, as we have done, to change it or a reasoned argument before the Supreme Court or we file an amicus brief. I attended hearings in which we filed an amicus brief.
I know many of my Republican colleagues and other prominent conservatives agree.
Speaking to the nominees at last week's hearing, Senator Kennedy of Louisiana said:
The majority leader Senator Thune has been very clear that people should follow the law.
Federalist Society cofounder Steven Calabresi wrote in the Minnesota Law Review that a system in which the President had the power to defy court judgments ``would not be so much a system of constitutional government as it would be a system of rule by an elected Napoleonic strongman.''
Calabresi noted that all past Presidents have understood this as well. Even Richard Nixon surrendered the Watergate tapes when ordered by a court.
Ours is a nation of laws, not a nation of Kings. Ours is a nation of laws in which no one is above the law. When taking the oath of office-- this just happened a month ago; we were all there--the President promises to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' That is a pledge to obey court orders. And if the President chooses not to and flouts a court order, he will provoke a constitutional crisis.
As Chief Justice John Roberts made clear at the end of last year, any suggestions that Federal court rulings will be rejected are, in his words, ``dangerous'' and, in his words, ``must be soundly rejected.''
Hagan Scotten, the lead prosecutor in the Mayor Eric Adams case, who resigned instead of carrying out politicized orders, maybe said it best. He wrote in his letter of resignation:
This comes from a lawyer with an incredible career, someone who was a decorated Iraq war veteran, someone who clerked for Judge Kavanaugh before he got to the Supreme Court and clerked for Justice Roberts himself. But he would not commit an illegal act.
``I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool,'' he said, ``or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.''
To my Republican colleagues, those words, they should be something you keep in your head, something that should haunt you in the middle of the night.
Nominees who won't answer unequivocally that the President must comply with a court order, remember the words, maybe ``you will . . . find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward. . . . But it [is] never going to be me.''
Our job--our job--is to look at these nominees and make decisions on the facts, to advise and consent, not to accept and acquiesce.
And certainly we should, at the very least, support Senator Durbin's resolution--so simple and such a reinstatement of our actual law--that there are courts established under the Constitution as a coequal branch of government--super not controversial; that, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, those courts' role is to say what the law is; and, finally, that the Constitution requires the executive branch to comply with all Federal rulings. That is the law, and we ask our colleagues to support this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, like a number of my colleagues who are here today, I want to support the Senate resolution affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, and I thank Senator Durbin for bringing it to the floor.
I am here with a lot of regret and sadness in a way. We should have pride in our uniquely just and democratic system that puts the rule of law above everything else. But my regret, my sadness, is that there was a time in this country when the other side of the aisle would have been speaking for this resolution as well and would have been not just accepting but advocating robustly, not just in rhetoric but in action that we reaffirm our allegiance to the rule of law and the legitimacy of courts scrutinizing what we do to make sure that we stay within the Constitution and the rule of law.
We are here because, in effect, that basic consensus and acceptance seems to be dissipating, perhaps even shredding.
The Founders were far from perfect, and one of their great virtues was to recognize their imperfection. So they devised a system that precluded anybody from being fully in power of everything. They lived under an autocracy--the monarchy--that sent English soldiers into their homes, allowed them to take people and property without any kind of approval; in effect, subjected them to a loss of liberty that they regarded as their fundamental rights as Englishmen.
In fact, our system of constitutional rule owes a lot to the English system, the Magna Carta. We all know the history from our law school days.
From my law school days, I remember well my professor expounding with great reverence this idea that, in our country, courts can override the excesses of a legislature or an executive. It is not a simple proposition. I will grant you, in a democracy, the idea of a U.S. Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, appointed for life nine people--the number has varied--without any election, able to override the two popularly elected branches of government seems totally anomalous and undemocratic. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court, as a check, as an enforcer of that balance, has played a critical role throughout our history in enforcing our rights and preserving them. And at times, it has failed--Dred Scott, Korematsu. The U.S. Supreme Court is far from perfect too. But in our system, we are a government of people observing and enforcing the law.
In the days when I thought there would be no question that following court orders should be a basic tenet, certainly, for lawyers who are steeped in the culture of following the law--after all, what good is it to be debating in court before a judge if the losing party simply disregards the outcome?
So I come with sadness and regret because we face today a growing and more popularly accepted idea that those court orders need not be obeyed; that judicial review is not the acceptable tenet of our Constitution that it has been for centuries; and that, perhaps, maybe this President should not be bound by what the courts say.
That is so fundamentally dangerous to our democracy that we are here today simply to make a statement that this resolution affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review is necessary at this moment.
I am not going to go into all of the history that Senator Klobuchar recited so well and eloquently or colleagues have done as well. We don't blindly follow the edicts or orders of individuals in this country, elected or not, but all of us in this Chamber, all of us who have served in the military, all of us who served in any public office for the public raise our right hand, and we swear an oath not to the President, not to the majority leader, not to any potentate or officeholder, we swear to the Constitution. That is an oath that we take to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, so help me God. That is the oath that requires us to obey the courts insofar as they articulate the laws and the Constitution.
Like the Founders and the Supreme Court, lower courts may be far from perfect too. That is why we have not just judicial review of executive and legislative branches but also within our judiciary review and appeals, not just once but twice, and within State court systems as well, and then from State courts to our Federal courts.
I want to just close by saying I spent most of my career as a lawyer going to court, trying cases, arguing before judges. I can tell you, some of those decisions were just dead wrong, just so wrong as to make my blood boil.
And whether it was for a client or for the United States of America, when I was a U.S. attorney and the decision went against me, for the people of the United States, or the people of Connecticut, when I was attorney general and the decision went against me, I was angry. But it never crossed my mind that I should just disobey. And the reason is that the larger good, the longer range public interest is served when those court orders are obeyed; and that, sometimes, whether it is Dred Scott or Korematsu, the appeal is to history, the appeal is to the future, to a moral conscience or a legislative
And that is the kind of system that has survived, these centuries, as the American experiment. We believe in the possibility of change and reform but not by disobeying a judiciary that serves ultimately to prevent autocracy, dictatorship, and tyranny.
One of the lessons of tyranny in the 20th century that Professor Tim Snyder cites in his book ``On Tyranny''--one of the first lessons of 20 lessons on tyranny in the 20th century--is do not obey in advance. Do not obey in advance. That is not to say we don't obey court orders. It is to say we do not obey in advance what a dictator tells us to do.
And when a dictator or a would-be tyrant says, ``Don't follow court decisions,'' we have an obligation to speak up and stand up. And that is what we are doing through this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, it has been my great honor to represent the State of Illinois in this Chamber for many years, and I have been present for a lot of proceedings which are memorable, some historic. I can't think of one, in its simplicity, that is as important as what we have witnessed in the last hour of debate.
We are literally asking a fundamental question about our democracy that is seldom asked. It is rare that we have a circumstance where we have to ask it, but we certainly understand in this situation that it must be resolved.
What I tried to do in establishing this resolution was to make it as pointed, as direct, and as simple as possible. There are ``Whereas'' clauses, which are of little or no consequence, but the resolution clause is so simple and direct that I want to repeat it before I make my request for unanimous consent:
That is it. It acknowledges article III establishing the courts. It acknowledges Marbury v. Madison, one of the very first cases any student of law in the United States must understand. And, No. 3, it says clearly the Constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings.
I am sorry that we have reached a point in our history where we even have to ask the question, but shame on us if we don't.
This is not a political resolution. I have tried to make it as apolitical as possible because it gets to these basic principles.
I want to thank my colleagues who came forward on the floor to say a word in support of this resolution.
Now, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 108, Affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, which is at the desk; further, I ask 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have always advocated respect for the Federal courts, and, particularly, over the last 2 years, I have opposed a vicious smear campaign by Democrats designed to undermine faith in our Supreme Court and our judicial system.
Now that we have a Republican President, my Democratic colleagues appear to have a newfound respect for the courts. It wasn't very long ago that they were singing a different time and a different tune.
In the last few years, the Democrats have called the Supreme Court: controlled by a ``creepy right-wing billionaire,'' ``a radical Supreme Court,'' and ``a partisan and reactionary court.''
One of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee said the idea that you can trust the Supreme Court has been ``blown to smithereens.'' Another committee colleague declared: ``I oppose these Justices.'' And yet another committee colleague questioned: ``How can they call it an honorable court? The Justices are cherry-picking their way through constitutional text and history to impose their own ideological agenda on the American people.''
Over the last few years, Democrats have repeatedly threatened the Court for ruling in ways that they did not like. Famously, in 2020, the Senate Democratic leader threatened the Court to influence its rulings on abortion. He said:
And in the wake of the 2024 Presidential immunity decision, the Democratic House minority leader said:
Now, I am happy that Democrats have finally discovered the importance of respecting the judiciary. They certainly didn't hold this view when President Biden was in office. President Biden ignored the Court's position that the CDC's eviction moratorium was unconstitutional and his own lawyer's advice that he couldn't do it. He went ahead and extended the moratorium anyway, and the Court had to strike it down.
President Biden boasted once that the Court's decision on student loan forgiveness ``didn't stop him.''
The Biden administration undermined the Court's 2023 decision that racial discrimination in college admissions is unconstitutional and even issued a ``Dear colleague'' letter on how to circumvent that ruling.
More broadly, President Biden flouted law after law throughout his entire administration. He ignored the plain text of our immigration laws, the parole statute, and our civil rights laws in the name of advancing his agenda.
And you know what? I heard no complaint from my Democratic colleagues.
Although I fully agree that Congress stands for the rule of law, this resolution is nothing but a partisan messaging statement. President Trump has been clear on this. Just a few weeks ago, he said: I will always abide by the courts, and then I will have to appeal.
There have been numerous extreme orders from various district courts improperly encroaching on core article II powers. President Trump and his administration have worked diligently to abide by those orders, no matter how outrageous, by appealing them and challenging their scope and reach. He is completely within his right to do so, and his conduct is appropriate and legitimate.
Our constitutional system has a robust system of checks and balances. The executive branch must abide by the courts, and the courts must also ensure that their rulings are respectful of jurisdictional limits and, particularly, our famous separation of powers.
Some of the recent orders of individual district judges issued on an expedited basis with very broad nationwide impact have concerned me. I think Congress needs to examine this issue closely. Concerns about nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders have been raised on both sides of the aisle, across Presidential administrations. And if my colleagues want to work with me on it, we will head down that route of addressing those abuses.
For today's purposes, however, this resolution is incomplete. And coming from Democrats, I think it shows that they are totally inconsistent. It unfairly targets President Trump. In turn, then, it ignores the Democratic attacks on the legitimacy of the Court, and it ignores President Biden's flagrant violation of law.
So I am offering Senator Durbin an opportunity that he can't turn down, a resolution to highlight the inappropriate attacks by Democrats against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court
So the point is that I ask that the Senator would modify his request; that the Grassley amendment to the resolution at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the Grassley amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask a question of my friend the chairman when it comes to the modification which he is suggesting. Does this include, in one, request, both modifications?
So I want to make certain particularly that I understand the modification to the resolution clause. If I understand it correctly, you are adding a word. Perhaps you could clarify that as to whether or not there is a requirement of the executive branch to comply with all Federal court rulings. Do you modify that particular sentence?
And do you add the word ``lawful''?
Mr. President, I think I want to clarify for the record and for history so there is no dispute. There have been differences of opinion about court orders in the past. I would say without fear of contradiction that although President Biden's name has been mentioned repeatedly, particularly when it comes to the forgiveness of student loan debt, there was never any acknowledgement of defiance of any court order, period.
There was a court order against the Biden administration, and President Biden did not agree with it but went forward with a different approach to the law. He was never found in contempt, nor was any suggestion made that he violated a court order. His name has been mentioned many times, but that just doesn't square with the reality.
Here is the difficulty. Think about this for a second. Under Marbury v. Madison, we basically said it is the province and duty of the judicial department, judges and courts, to say what the law is. Then the modification being made by the Senator from Iowa says: You only have to abide by lawful court rulings.
Did I state that correctly?
I think you need to be--we need to clarify because I think your inference is that Trump has violated some court orders. He has not. In fact, this very day, the Supreme Court ruled against him on a 5-to-4 decision that goes back to the lower court to make a firm decision.
So you can't say that the court system isn't working against President Trump as it worked against President Biden.
That is a fair criticism. I want to make it clear I am not saying that President Trump has violated a court order. I don't know that he has. The question is, Whenever an order is issued either for him or against him, will he obey the order? Will he acknowledge that that is his lawful responsibility? That is what it comes down to.
I am not looking prospectively or in history--his brief time in the Presidency this round--but, rather, saying that whatever the court order in the future, whether for him or against him, he is bound by that court order. You have added the word ``lawful'' court order.
I am not sure--if the court is to decide the law, and they decide in his favor, then the law is acknowledged to be binding on him and his actions. Conversely, if the ruling is against him and the court order is against him, I hope you would acknowledge that that is lawful and that he has to follow it even though they ruled against him. That is simple constitutional law. I am not presuming how the court will rule. I am saying that however it rules, he is bound by that ruling. Do you agree with me, Senator?
I have made very clear that we have a separation of powers, and each branch has to respect the other's powers.
I acknowledge that as well. The question is, Does that mean that the executive branch is bound by the decision of the court and has to follow a court order, whether it is for or against the administration?
I think what I would like to do is--do you agree with my amendment or you don't so we can move on and get to other important stuff today. I want to help you get your resolution through, and I want to just say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
That is basic midwestern philosophy, which we share, and I don't disagree with you. But I think the addition of the word ``lawful'' in the final sentence equivocates on what the Constitution's clarity is. So I am going to object with the possibility that we can work on this together to see if there is a way to reach a conclusion.
I think this is so basic. You have served honorably in the U.S. Senate for your entire career, and the point that I am getting to is that we ought to make certain that, moving forward, there is clarity on this most basic checks-and-balances constitutional provision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
I object to the modification as written.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the original request?
Reserving the right to object, before I do object, I want Senator Durbin to know that there are things like this that we ought to work out, but we can't be complaining about the courts if we have a Democratic President and not complaining--just complaining when we have a Republican President.
I think there are enough abuses of these nationwide orders to stop certain activity that our committee ought to be looking at and reviewing and see if they are being abused.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Iowa.
I would like to speak on Mr. Blanche.
Senator Durbin, I see we have an agreement.
Mr. President, I see we have an agreement that Senator Durbin speaks--that I go again.
Thank you very much, Senator Durbin.
Soon, we will begin voting on the nomination of Todd Blanche.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be allowed to speak prior to the rollcall vote: Senator Durbin for 5 minutes, Senator Ricketts for 5 minutes, and this Senator for 10 minutes, but I am not going to take 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act: Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, I want to note that we just learned that the Trump administration is getting ready to cut nearly 80,000 employees from the VA. Slashing nearly 80,000 VA staff is a benefit cut by another name. No one should think this doesn't dramatically hurt our veterans who have served us so well.
This staffing cut is a betrayal of our promise to our servicemembers--a betrayal to the promise of our servicemembers. It is going to mean longer wait times, fewer appointments, and ultimately less healthcare for our veterans. It is outrageous.
No one in America bargained for this, and Democrats are going to fight this tooth and nail, working with our veterans service organizations to fight these awful, unfair cuts that take out the desire to give tax cuts to billionaires on our veterans who served us so well. This is just one of the most outrageous things they have done, and there is a long list.
Now, another outrageous thing that is happening with the Trump administration is what is happening in Ukraine.
First, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing these five resolutions to the floor. I thank Senator Sanders for taking the lead on this issue, Senators Bennet, Van Hollen, Durbin, Blumenthal, and Welch. Let's start by speaking some much needed truth.
Three years ago, Vladimir Putin brought war and destruction to the people of Ukraine. He started the war, not any mythology that comes from Donald Trump or our Republican colleagues. Vladimir Putin started the war. Full stop.
His tanks and airstrikes have obliterated homes and schools. He is slaughtering civilians as a way to try and win territory in Ukraine. He has kidnapped children. The people of Ukraine did not ask for this war. President Zelenskyy did not start this war. Putin did. That is the truth of this lie after lie after lie that comes out of the Trump administration. This is one of the most egregious.
The people of Ukraine have struggled. President Zelenskyy has led them valiantly, risking his own life, and now the nerve of Donald Trump and others to say Zelenskyy started the war.
Donald Trump is trying to rewrite history and gain favor with Vladimir Putin. He blames Ukraine for starting the war, and now he is shutting off, halting, military aid that Ukraine desperately needs on the battlefield--desperately needs--and we need to restore it.
He has frozen critical intelligence sharing between our countries. He has allowed Putin to launch cyber operations against us, here in the United States. That jeopardizes the privacy of American citizens.
He has frozen intelligence sharing between our countries, and he has brought President Zelenskyy to the Oval Office, only to lecture and insult him in front of the whole world.
Guess who was laughing as he watched. Vladimir Putin.
To side with Putin is to put America at risk. My Democratic colleagues will make that clear over the next several hours. To side with Putin is to betray the values that define America, values our troops have died for in battlefields across the world, from Gettysburg to Normandy, to Iwo Jima.
The Senate must respond. Democrats and Republicans have done so before. I worked with then-Leader McConnell to get Ukraine desperately needed aid. And today's resolutions affirm very basic bipartisan ideas that, hopefully, still remain with our Republican colleagues--that the U.S. Senate stands with democracy, stands with the great people of Ukraine, and against the dictator--the brutal dictator--Vladimir Putin and his war crimes.
History is clear--perfectly clear. Appeasing autocrats is like putting out a fire with kerosene. In the long run, it will only make autocracy more powerful and the citizenry of America less safe. That is why today the Senate must speak in one voice, Democrats and Republicans together, and pass these resolutions.
I hope that is what happens, and I yield the floor to my colleague from Vermont, who has led the charge on this so important an issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for his comments.
I am here tonight with colleagues who have worked extremely hard to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine and to defend democracy in that country and, in fact, throughout the world. And I thank all of my colleagues for getting on the floor this evening and for the resolutions that they will be bringing forth.
I am not a historian, but I do know that, for the last 250 years, since the inception of our great country, despite our imperfections, the United States has stood in the world as a symbol of democracy. And all over the world--all over the world--people have looked to our country as an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. People have long looked to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution as blueprints for how to establish governments of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Tragically, all of that is now changing. As President Trump moves this country toward authoritarianism, he is aligning himself with dictators and despots who share his disdain for democracy and the rule of law.
Last week--just last week--in a radical departure from longstanding U.S. policy, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution which clearly stated that Russia began the horrific war in Ukraine. That U.N. resolution also called on Russia to withdraw its forces from occupied Ukraine, in line with international law.
The resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, countries that we have been aligned with for God knows how many years, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and dozens of other democratic nations. And 93 countries at the U.N. voted yes on that resolution.
Rather than side with our longstanding allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, President Trump voted with authoritarian nations like Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus to oppose the resolution. Many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by Russian military aid.
But it wasn't just the U.N. vote. Pathetically, President Trump also told an outrageous lie, claiming that it was Ukraine that started the war, not Russia. He also called Zelenskyy a dictator, rather than the leader of a democratic nation, as he is.
As we discuss Ukraine tonight, it is terribly important that we not forget who Vladimir Putin is and why he is no friend of the United States and why we should not be in an alliance with him against Ukraine.
Putin is a man who crushed Russia's movement toward democracy after the end of the Cold War. Putin is a man who steals elections, murders political dissidents, and crushes freedom of the press. He has maintained control in Russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal: If they grant him absolute power and share the spoils--and he, by the way, is one of the wealthiest people in the world--he would let them steal as much as they wanted from the Russian people.
The result: While the vast majority of the Russian population struggles economically, Putin and his fellow oligarchs stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens.
And so today, 26 years after he took power, Putin is the absolute ruler of Russia, and I think, as everyone knows, Russia's elections are blatantly fraudulent--a sham.
And Putin is the man who sparked the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II. More than 3 years ago, on February 24, 2022, Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Russian land, air, and naval forces have attacked and occupied territory across Ukraine.
Since that terrible day, more than a million people have been killed or injured because of Putin's war. Putin's forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them back to Russian reeducation camps.
These atrocities led the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 as a war criminal--a war criminal. That is who we are aligning ourselves with.
And still today, Russia continues its attacks, raining down hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian citizens. Russian forces illegally occupy about 20 percent of Ukraine's sovereign territory.
This war could end today, right now. If Putin gave up his outrageous effort to conquer a neighboring country, the war could end today. The killing could stop right now if Putin gave that order, and that simply is what my resolution says to Vladimir Putin: Stop the killing. Obey international law. Withdraw your forces and cease your attacks on Ukraine. And I, honestly, just don't know how anybody in the U.S. Senate could object to that simple demand.
Now, more than at any time in recent history, it is imperative that the Senate come together in a bipartisan manner to make it clear that we stand for democracy, not authoritarianism; that we stand for international law, not conquest by force; and that we stand with Ukraine and fellow democracies throughout the world, not with the murderous dictator of Russia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 109, which was submitted earlier today; further, that 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to object to this. Senator Sanders has brought us a resolution which very simply states that Russia must immediately and completely and unconditionally withdraw from the territory of Ukraine. This isn't even a law. It isn't even a bill. It is only a resolution.
Now, there isn't anybody that disagrees with this. I certainly agree with the substance of this, but this is going to have absolutely zero effect of any kind. If my good friend Senator Sanders believes that Vladimir Putin is watching this show on TV and says, ``Huh, they passed a resolution saying I should get out of Ukraine; so I guess I will pack up and go,'' you are delusional if you think it is going to have any effect of any kind on Vladimir Putin.
However, having said that, I don't think it is a secret to anyone that there are very delicate negotiations going on. There are four entities involved. Obviously, Ukraine is involved,
I think a lot of people were upset when they saw the exchange this weekend, understandably. But, look, what you are looking at is the tip of the iceberg. Everybody wants the same outcome and that is to have peace in Ukraine.
There is one man on this planet--one man--that can make that happen, and that is Donald J. Trump. He promised he would do that in the election. He is making very significant strides in that regard.
And to my good friend Senator Sanders, this is not helpful to the activities that are going on to try to get this resolved. You may think you know what is going on, but I can guarantee with absolute certainty, you do not know what is going on as far as the negotiations are concerned to get this over with. What you are looking at is the tip of the iceberg, and this is not going to be helpful to getting to the point that you want to get to, that I want to get to, that everyone wants to get to, and that is to get peace in Ukraine.
On that basis, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Vermont.
Let me respond to my friend from Idaho. I think he said, to paraphrase him a bit, there is one man who can stop the war. You are right. But that man doesn't live here in Washington, DC. That man happens to live in Moscow, and his name is Vladimir Putin. He is the one who started the war. And, in my view, when we ally ourselves with Putin, when we threaten and, in fact, cut back on military support or intelligence support for Ukraine, do you know what we are telling that one man? We are saying you have got a green light. The United States is withdrawing. You do what you want. You continue the war. You continue to pummel the people of Ukraine, who have already suffered so terribly.
So I think it is true that there are many approaches to how we can end this war, and I agree with my friend that we all have the common goal of wanting to end this war. But I think the fastest way forward is in a bipartisan way. You have 100 U.S. Senators and hopefully 435 Members of the House who stand up and say: Mr. Putin, you started this terrible war. You are acting illegally. You are acting barbarically. Stop that war.
That, in my mind, would be a major step forward to ending the atrocities we are currently seeing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I respect my friend, but I vehemently disagree that this resolution is going to cause Vladimir Putin to end this war.
My good friend says that Vladimir Putin could end this war. He does not have the ability to end this war. This war is going to end when there is an agreement by the four entities involved: Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and our European allies. When those four reach an agreement, there will be an end to this war. That can be done by Donald J. Trump.
I guarantee you, Vladimir Putin does not have the ability to bring those four entities together to end this war.
Again, this is not helpful. You don't know what the negotiations are that are going on, and this is going in the wrong direction, and that is the reason I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
One brief remark because I strongly disagree on this issue with my friend.
You think it takes Trump to end the war. You think that Putin alone can't end the war. Well, who do you think started the war? Who do you think runs Russia with an iron fist? If, tomorrow, Putin thought it was to his advantage to end this war, he would do it, and as a dictator, he can do it.
So, with that, Mr. President, I would--I don't want to yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Again, to my good friend Senator Sanders I would say that Putin does not have that ability. He simply does not have the ability. You talked about how he started this and how he could end it. He could have ended it shortly after he started it. He is in so deep in this, he cannot end it. It is going to take an agreement between the four entities to end it. That is how it is going to end.
Could I ask my friend--I mean this sincerely--Senator Risch, would you agree with me that he is a dictator who runs Russia?
I don't--the answer to that is yes, but I don't want to do a quiz here.
All right. The point is, he is a dictator, and he can end the war unilaterally, in my view.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent on a resolution concerning one aspect of this conflict in Ukraine that is particularly compelling, from my point of view. It is a little different than the Senator from Vermont's, but I think it is very important that it be raised and part of our consideration.
War brings out the worst in humans, there is no doubt about it. Russia, under the bloody leadership of Vladimir Putin, has been guilty of some of the worst wartime atrocities the mind can imagine--murders, mass murders, rapes, torture, deliberate targeting of hospitals and civilians. That has been the 3-year strategy of Vladimir Putin to bring Ukraine to its knees.
But one of the most horrific atrocities is Russia's kidnapping of Ukrainian children. I cannot even imagine the reality of this. Since Russia's full-scale war of aggression started in 2022, the Government of Russia has abducted, forcibly transferred, facilitated the illegal deportation of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children--20,000 children forcibly taken from their homes, families, and communities to a place they have never known.
The depravity of this Putin strategy is hard to imagine, but Putin and his government know no humanity, no morality. It is not surprising that Putin would stoop to such a repulsive strategy. That is why today I am asking unanimous consent to pass a resolution condemning Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children.
I am calling on Russia to work with the international community to return all of these children to their families. There is no tactful way to violate the sovereignty of a nation, but Putin takes depravity to a new extreme with his kidnapping of Ukrainian children. This barbaric act must be condemned.
It should be easy for Members on both sides of the aisle to just imagine for a moment if this had happened to American children. It should be clear to everyone that President Trump cannot side with this grotesque child-kidnapping by President Putin. I am sure he does not.
But it has to be a priority of any peace process to acknowledge Putin's responsibility for the invasion and the terrible policies in Ukraine.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 110, submitted earlier today; further, that 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, to my good friend from Illinois, I say I am going to object to this, and it is not because of the substance of the resolution. You correctly stated what the resolution states, but, again, I think you, along with myself and every Member of this body, want to see the fighting stop in Ukraine. That is a necessity. It has to happen.
The things that are happening are going on right now. There are discussions going on right now. As I said to my good friend Senator Sanders, you may think you know what is going on on this because you watched what happened this weekend. I can tell you with absolute certainty that you do not know the discussions and what is happening as the train moves forward to try to resolve this.
This isn't a resolution that is going to happen with a whole bunch of people getting involved and trying to lay out different things that they want to get to resolution. It is going to be complicated. It is going to be complex.
Again, I come back to the fact that there is one person who is in the center
Our passing resolutions here is not helpful to the efforts that are trying to be done to resolve this. So as a result of that, I am going to object to it, and as a result of that, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, I would just like to say briefly, I respect my friend from Idaho. We have a difference of opinion on this.
I cannot imagine any resolution of this conflict on Ukraine that does not take into consideration these 20,000 kids who have been kidnapped by the Russians. They are going through this terrible indoctrination where they are being punished if they won't sing the Russian national anthem, where they are demanding that they learn a new language and develop a new loyalty to Russia. This is outrageous.
The international courts have branded Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, and this is one of the reasons.
I cannot imagine there will be any resolution of this peaceably without bringing these children back home to their families, and for us to be on the record saying that does not seem to me to be intrusive or a radical point of view. It just reflects the reality of where America should be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I agree with my good friend from Illinois that this is amongst many, many facts that are going to be taken into consideration as the parties negotiate in what is going to be a very complex negotiation to get to the end point. There are going to be a lot of things that do need to be considered.
The difficulty is that when this institution, the U.S. Senate, puts something out like this, it does have an effect on the parties that are sitting at the table. And you don't really get to a resolution by prodding on these kinds of things. You talk about what it takes to stop the fighting, not what it took to get into it, not the actions that were taken during the fighting. But if you want to stop the fighting, you have to talk about where we are and where we need to get to.
This simply, I can assure you, Senator, is not helpful to those negotiations that are going on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I want to join this conversation and broaden it a little bit. In my view, we are witnessing the great betrayal during these last 44 days. We have the great betrayal here at home of the American people because the President promised certain things that he was going to deliver on, and we haven't seen those. We see the great betrayal of our Ukrainian friends and our allies around the world and freedom-loving people around the world.
Here at home, Candidate Trump, of course, promised that on day one, he was going to cut prices, that he was going to help working families. Last night, we witnessed the longest speech in American history to a joint session of Congress, and no plan was presented for lowering prices.
Grocery prices are going up, rent prices are going up, and home prices are going up.
We did see Elon Musk in the Gallery--the guy who said he wanted to take a chain saw to important services that benefit every American family. This is all part of a plan to cut taxes for very wealthy people like Elon Musk at the expense of everyone else.
So in these 44 days, we have seen that great betrayal, but we have also seen the other betrayal. We have seen President Trump throw the Ukrainian people under the bus. I don't think any of us could have imagined a day when the United States sided with Russia and North Korea on a U.N. General Assembly resolution that condemned Russian aggression, where we voted with them and against our allies--against Ukraine, against all of our European allies, against all of our friends in Asia. Heck, even North Korea abstained. Even China abstained.
So here we are throwing our allies under the bus. The folks that are openly cheering are the Russian leadership. I mean, this isn't just rhetoric; we have actually seen them expressing glee over the U.S. position. And of course they were very happy with the terrible spectacle in the Oval Office of the President and Vice President of the United States bullying President Zelenskyy.
We have all met with President Zelenskyy. Nobody wants peace more than President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people. They have lost thousands of people. They have sacrificed a lot. But they want a durable peace, and they want a peace that will recognize their sovereignty and their freedom and their independence. That is what they want.
We have all heard President Zelenskyy repeatedly thank the American people for our support. In fact, on one occasion, he brought an American flag signed by Ukrainian soldiers expressing gratitude for all our help. And what he has gotten in exchange for that great sacrifice-- a sacrifice that helps support freedom-loving people everywhere--is the back of a hand he received in the Oval Office.
So I think this is a moment where we need to speak with moral clarity, and we should do it together as a Senate. We are not directing the negotiations; we are expressing simple truths here on the Senate floor.
The simple truth that I want to express here through the resolution that I will ask to be considered is that the Russian armed forces committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Ukraine. It is pretty simple, and I would just draw my colleague's attention to a resolution that was considered by this Senate back in 2022. I have it right here in my hand, S. Res. 546, authored by Senator Graham, cosponsored by then-Senator Rubio, now-Secretary of State Rubio.
What this resolution that the Senate considered just 3 years ago says--and I am going to read it--is:
That was the resolution we considered just 3 years ago. This resolution passed unanimously. Not a single Senator objected. Now, of course, we have new Members of the Senate, but every single Senator who was here at that time supported this simple statement of moral clarity.
Two things have happened since then. In February of 2023, the Department of State determined that members of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and officials of the Government of the Russian Federation have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Ukraine. And in September of 2022, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
So the Senate adopted a resolution with the simple truths a number of years ago. Those truths were reaffirmed by the Department of State in 2023 and by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry in September 2022.
Regardless of the state of negotiations, I would think that we would be able to reaffirm today the same truth that we expressed unanimously just a few years ago.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 111, which was submitted earlier today; further, that 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, my friend in Maryland and I participated in a bipartisan delegation on Friday morning last where we met with the President of Ukraine before what we hoped was going to be a signing ceremony. There were a number of Democrats that met with President Zelenskyy.
As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I participated and chaired that meeting. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee was also
I was distressed--I was devastated, even--when I saw the conversation that took place later on that day. I wondered if the damage could ever be repaired. Thankfully, the damage is being repaired, and we have had very hopeful signs of progress being made.
I made the statement to the public and to members of the Armed Services Committee at a hearing just yesterday. It is time for those of us in the political realm who are not part of this negotiation to be silent; to take a deep breath and not do anything that could interfere with the excellent news that we saw coming yesterday with a very fine statement from President Zelenskyy, with the quoting of that statement with approval by the President of the United States last night.
This is not the time for elected Members of the House and Senate to be passing resolutions. Take a deep breath. Let the negotiators do their work. And for Heaven's sake, not do anything that might, in some way, be interpreted as being belligerent or counterproductive. For that reason, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his commitment to this issue to working to end the war in Ukraine but to do it in a way that preserves the freedom and sovereignty of the people of Ukraine and as a durable peace.
It escapes me how reaffirming truthful statements that the Senate has made in the past can possibly get in the way of a resolution of this crisis. I would argue that it is the President of the United States who has gotten in the way of a resolution of this crisis in the sense that, No. 1, he has clearly embraced Vladimir Putin in so many of his comments. And he went into this discussion by unilaterally giving away important leverage that is needed to result in a resolution that is a just resolution.
You don't go into a negotiation by giving up the issue of American participation and security guarantees, however that might look. You don't go into a negotiation by unilaterally giving up on territorial concessions.
This is why it is important, in my view, for the Senate simply to reconfirm the truths that we have already stated in the past. This seems to be a simple one--that war crimes have been committed by the Russian Army and that they have committed crimes against humanity. That is all this resolution says.
I hope that we can, at some point, come back and revisit this because it is going to be very important to achieve not just a peace but a just peace.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
I am simply responding and not attempting to prolong this. The negotiation process is underway.
It may be that the negotiators are in different cities and in different continents at this point. But the matter is very sensitive. We should be very careful not to interfere with something that may make us all proud and give relief to thousands of millions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I greatly respect the representation made by my colleague and friend from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Risch, our colleague, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee about timing.
I want to talk about timing because we have just passed the third year of this war. This moment is crucial.
Thank you to Senator Sanders, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Durbin-- soon we will hear from Senator Bennet. We have resolutions that support Ukraine at a critical moment in its history.
I have been there six times. I have come to know President Zelenskyy not only from meetings there, but in Paris, Munich, a number of times here in Washington, DC, and I will never forget my first meeting with him shortly after he was offered an escape. Do you remember what he said to President Biden when he offered a helicopter to exit the country: Don't send me a helicopter; send me ammunition--that courage and determination in the face of Russia coming within just a few miles of his bunker.
I visited him and I then went to Bucha where I saw the remnants of the Russian tanks that came within a 10-minute drive of killing him and taking Kyiv. I also saw the mass graves where women and children were buried after the Russians shot hundreds of them in the back of their head, committing those war crimes that became so despicable in the eyes of the world and resulted in criminal charges against Vladimir Putin. It is the reason why I have urged that we regard the Putin regime as a terrorist organization.
I recognize we are at a critical moment in these negotiations, as well as in Ukraine's 3-yearlong fight. Actually, it is well longer than 3 years because the invasion first occurred in 2014, not long after Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the assurance that the free world would come to its aid if its security was ever threatened.
It is that history that Volodymyr Zelenskyy tried to remind President Trump and Vice President Vance about last Friday--betrayal of agreements by Vladimir Putin. He is a thug. He understands force. He will assure the security of Ukraine only if force is guaranteed to meet another invasion if this one is stopped.
On these negotiations and the timing, Senator Van Hollen said it well. You don't have to be an expert on the art of the deal to know you go into negotiations from a position of strength. Strength never hurts; it only helps in a negotiation.
We are not dictating an outcome. We are not prescribing what the result of the negotiation should be. We are not telling the President or President Zelenskyy what their positions would be. We are saying to Ukraine: We have your back. We are going to be your backstop.
And at that meeting, which I attended along with the Senator from Mississippi and Senator Van Hollen on that bright, sunny Friday morning, President Zelenskyy was asking us to assure that he had a security backstop. Of course, his preference is to be in NATO--no secret there. But security, as I suggested to him, through some bilateral agreement might be an acceptable outcome.
We are not prescribing what that security should be, but only that Ukraine has support from the American people. That is the purpose of these resolutions. That support strengthens his position.
We are not saying a specific amount of military aid should be provided or a specific negotiating position should be dictated for anyone. But only that--and I read from my resolution--we reaffirm the support of the United States for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the face of the illegal invasion of its territory by the Russian Federation and the bonds of friendship and shared values between the people of the United States and allied fighting forces.
Now, by any measure of military success, Ukraine has done the impossible. I am not giving away classified information when I tell you that in the days right after the invasion, we were assured by our military that the Russians would be in Kyiv within weeks. They weren't. The only reason they weren't was because of the ingenuity and inventiveness and just plain guts and grit of the Ukrainian people.
Their success will go down as one of the most important feats of modern warfare in this century, and their accomplishments in the use of drones--an inventive use of drones--in their use of intelligence--our intelligence and their intelligence--in their success in the destruction of half or more of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. They have developed techniques of warfare and platforms with our help that are absolutely remarkable.
On every one of those six trips--in fact, in every meeting that I have had with President Zelenskyy--he has begun by declaring his gratitude for the aid from the United States. On
The people of Ukraine are beyond grateful. If you walk through the streets of Ukraine and you are identified as an American, people will come up to you and thank you. In the Ukrainian community here in the United States, supporters of Ukraine have been thanked again and again and again. I wear a pin--and have done so for some years--with the American and Ukrainian flags. I have a bracelet that has the Ukrainian colors. The people of Ukraine thank me for those insignias of my support.
We all know that Ukraine's fight is our fight and that our national security is at stake because Putin will keep going. If he swallows Ukraine, if he has dinner in Kyiv, he will want to have dinner in Finland and Sweden and Poland. They are NATO allies. We will be obligated to put troops on the ground. The soldiers of Ukraine are saving our soldiers from a fight where they will be in harm's way. They are bleeding and dying for our national security.
So, when we talk about timing, let's recognize that now is the moment to make clear that Ukraine must be as strong as possible for our security if it enters these negotiations.
Let me just finish with this thought: You know, I think it is difficult to describe what it is like to be in Ukraine in the midst of an air attack. On a couple of my visits, we were forced into bunkers when the sirens started. Obviously, we were never injured, and I want to avoid any misrepresentation. I never felt like I was going to be bombed right then and there. But if I had been there 365 days in a year and the apartment house next to me or my school or hospital were bombed and I came out of it and saw the bodies and realized how close I had come and how near death was--day after day after day, the Ukrainian people are living with this nightmare, not to mention the blackouts of electricity, the impacts of their quality of life, the loss of their loved ones, the injuries, and the maiming of young men, whom I have visited.
The Ukrainian people want peace. The Ukrainian people want peace more than any of us. They certainly want peace more than Vladimir Putin, who has no respect for the lives of his people or the Ukrainians. They have fought for 3 years to stay free, to stay independent, to stay sovereign, and they have fought for years before that. The history of their people is one of fighting for their independence. They will continue fighting as long as peace threatens their sovereign and free status. They believe in peace. They want Donald Trump to succeed in achieving peace. We should support them in their goals, in their quest for peace with freedom and sovereignty for their people.
I want to offer my resolution. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 112, which was submitted earlier today; further, that 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, the Book of Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament, has provided mankind with some of the greatest words of wisdom ever imparted.
In chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, the words say:
It goes on to say there is ``a time to speak and a time to be silent.''
Now, I have spoken, perhaps, not as eloquently but, perhaps, as often as my friend from Connecticut about this war--about who is to blame and about what should happen. I have been disappointed, over a 3-year period, at the previous administration for what I viewed as a slow- walking of aid which might have given us a different situation currently on the ground in this European country.
But we are at a point where there are delicate negotiations going on which might save lives, which might lead to peace--and lasting peace-- with a backstop by the United States and our allies in Europe. This is the Ecclesiastical time to be silent and let the negotiators do their work if they possibly can.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I want to make clear, first-- absolutely clear--that I deeply respect my colleague from Mississippi, my friend and fellow Member, the leader of the Armed Services Committee, for his commitment to Ukraine. There should be no question that Senator Wicker is committed to Ukraine's freedom and independence. I have traveled with him. I have worked with him. I sat with him just Friday. We have a difference of view. He has access to different facts that I don't. I am going on basic principles, and I must confess I can't cite Scripture for my position. But I think common sense tells me, although he has more knowledge about the negotiations, that supporting Ukraine at this moment--simply saying we have your back; we are your backstop; we are supporting you--can't help but aid their position.
But let me just say, what is most important about this conversation is that we will continue together on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, to support Ukraine. It isn't about their being less strong, at least in the case of Senator Wicker. I am absolutely sure, and I respect his views on this topic even though we differ, and I hope that this cause will continue to be bipartisan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, I am sorry. The Presiding Officer seems to have the misfortune of being out here every time I come to the floor to speak. I regret that, and I feel sorry for him.
I am glad to be out here with my colleagues, today, on both sides of the aisle. We have heard the Senator from Mississippi refer to what he described as the greatest words of wisdom that came from Ecclesiastes. Those were words of wisdom.
I think another set of great words of wisdom came from Ronald Reagan, who said, ``Peace through strength.'' Peace through strength is what Ronald Reagan represented.
I know the President, last night, had a less clear message to the American people. I know that he said that he was the greatest President in American history. George Washington, I think, was second on his list.
For most of us in this Chamber, I think we probably would say Ronald Reagan earned a place there, even those of us who disagreed with him. One of the reasons was that he did what he said when it came to the national security interests of the United States of America. Because we have been following that path of peace through strength in a bipartisan way, the American people have been extremely generous in their support of the Ukrainian people since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
The American people have earned a profound debt of gratitude from free people all over the world, including in the United States. Their courage and our weapons and the weapons of our allies have held Putin's army at the gates of Europe. Nothing else has. They have shown that democracies will stand up to defend themselves and will not roll over to dictators, whether they are in Moscow or Beijing.
But unlike us and unlike the rest of the world, the Ukrainians actually have paid a huge human toll. They have had almost 400,000 casualties. They have had over 40,000 deaths in this war. Their cemeteries are bulging with new graves that are piled high with flowers that testify to the sacrifice of the Ukrainian people in every community in Ukraine. Anybody who has been there has seen them. It is impossible to avoid the cemeteries that have piled up with soldiers who have been willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice on the frontlines of this war in Ukraine.
I delivered a speech just a few days ago, which the Presiding Officer may have had the misfortune of hearing, discussing President Trump's false accusation that Ukraine started this war with Russia.
To my colleagues who say it doesn't matter what the President says, that it is only the outcome that matters--be patient about this great negotiator who learned everything at the heels of Mr. Cohen while he was doing commercial real estate in New York--some of us are worried about it because words do matter, especially the words that the President utters.
Could you imagine anybody on this floor defending a President who said that Taiwan had invaded China when China had invaded Taiwan? That would be ridiculous. That would be absurd. But that is the situation that we face today. It is no different than that. It is identical to that.
He has called President Zelenskyy a dictator--the freedom fighter who is leading this battle and who has led this battle at Ukraine.
Ronald Reagan would turn over in his grave if he knew that the President has invited Russia to rejoin the G7, which is a group of the world's most powerful democracies--democracies--that suspended Russia after Putin invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014. By the way, are we supposed to believe that he didn't invade Ukraine then; that he was invited in somehow to Crimea? Is President Trump really fooled by the little green men that Vladimir Putin sent there after his administration held supposed peace talks in Saudi Arabia without even the decency to include Ukraine, which has had more than 400,000 casualties?
Every single one of these statements and decisions have emboldened Putin. You can see it in the newspapers in Russia. You can see it on TV. And they have weakened Ukraine's negotiating position, profoundly undermining our own national security.
How this war ends will determine whether Putin sets his sights on our NATO allies, like Poland and the Baltics; whether dictators like China's Xi Jinping test our resolve by invading their neighbor, Taiwan; whether the post-World War II international order that the United States built and is today frittering away under this President's leadership remains intact; whether the United States can continue to provide the leadership on behalf of free nations all over this world and democracies all over this world that our parents and grandparents had the decency to sacrifice and build for us; whether we are going to face another conflict in this world that is actually started by a tyrant but ended by democracies.
The last thing we should be doing is undermining Ukraine's negotiating position and ours when we have this much at stake.
I know the Presiding Officer has spent his life in negotiations in the private sector. I have spent time--not as much as the Presiding Officer. I certainly have spent time in these negotiations as well. Our discipline, when I was in the private sector negotiating these deals, was that we would let every deal die at least three times because our theory was no deal worth doing could be done the first time or the second time. I can see the Presiding Officer probably--he probably said it is five times before you can do it. But the point is, you wouldn't undermine your own negotiating leverage while you are going into a deal.
Today--today--the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency went on FOX News and told the world that we had shut down our intelligence- sharing with Ukraine. We met--I don't know if I can say. I am on the Intelligence Committee, let me be careful what I say. Today, the United States of America has said we have cut off Ukraine.
I don't know what anybody is doing in this Chamber if they are not coming here saying the United States of America should not be cutting off Ukraine's intelligence in midstream, in the ramp-up to a negotiation. If you come out here on this floor and say it is the right thing to do; that you, in the private sector, would make an equivocally idiotic, compromising, self-defeating move in a negotiation like this, come and defend it out here. Come and tell us how that is peace through strength.
We shut off our offensive cyber with respect to Russia and got nothing back from them. Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave at a national security strategy that, I guess, has been concocted in the realm of social media and cable television but has nothing to do with the national security interests of the United States. It can't be defended.
I want to also say, while I have the floor and for the record--and I hope people will look it up--I have never met President Zelenskyy where he hasn't started the meeting by thanking the American people and ended the meeting by thanking the American people. He has done it in every meeting that I have been in. But I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we also hold a profound debt of gratitude to him and to his soldiers and to the Ukrainian people.
The President doesn't seem to understand that. The President seems to think: Oh, my gosh, they are doing us a favor by using our weapons.
You are in tough shape; your country is in tough shape, he stated the obvious in that embarrassing interaction in the Oval Office the other day, where he couldn't even keep his temper for 5 minutes on the global stage.
The Ukrainians are not just fighting for Ukraine; they are fighting for democracy. They are fighting for Europe. They are fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the international order that we created, that we led after the Second World War.
Should NATO pay its share? Yes, it should. But we are not some charity case. We have benefited from the casualties that Ukraine has suffered. We have benefited from the exposure of the weakness of Putin's corrupt army. We have benefited from Xi Jinping's new knowledge that if a dictator tries to invade another country, the free world will stand together, until Donald Trump became President of the United States.
I want to say again, Mr. President, to you and to all of my colleagues here today, the United States has turned off our intelligence to the Ukrainian people. They are not in retreat. They are on the frontlines of this war today, in the middle of winter, on the steps of Europe, where 16 million people were killed by Hitler and Stalin, when my mother was born in Warsaw--a Polish Jew in 1938, the year before Hitler invaded Poland. And we turned off their intelligence.
They are killing more Russians there every month than they were 6 months ago. This is a catastrophe.
The other night when we had the budget reconciliation, I had a request for an amendment that simply would have said that it was the sense of the Senate that Russia invaded Ukraine; that Russia had started this war. I wanted to ask my colleagues just the basic question: Can we agree that Russia started the war in Ukraine? That seems like a shocking question to ask. I hope every schoolchild in America knows that that is true. Yet the President of the United States has said that Ukraine started this war. There are people around this city these days who are suggesting that Russia didn't start the war; that Ukraine started the war.
And I am not even talking about people like the new head of Intelligence for the Trump administration who has taken the view that Ukraine had what was coming to them, who tweeted out at 11:30 the night that Putin's tanks invaded Ukraine, a peaceful country--for the first time in Europe since World War II, a dictator invading a peaceful country--who took to social media to say that Ukraine had it coming to them. I am not even saying that; I am saying people who are unwilling to say that Russia invaded Ukraine when it launched an unprovoked, an unjustified, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, following their already illegal annexation of Crimea and their illegal occupation of parts of the Donbas. So that is all my resolution says, and that is it.
That may seem like a basic and remedial task. I am sorry it is necessary.
I want to remind every schoolchild in America who started this war and whose side we are on and what the legacy of Ronald Reagan's peace through strength is all about.
This is a measure that will not in any way disrupt the progress in negotiations. I think quite the opposite. I think quite the opposite. I want us to assure ourselves that we are all clear here about who started this war.
I want us to fulfill our responsibility to the American people. We are not
I want us to demand, on behalf of the American people, that the United States lead for the sake of the Ukrainian people and for our national security and for the security of the world.
That is why this is not just a matter of how worried people in NATO are; it is how worried people in Southeast Asia are because they know if we don't get our act together here and support Ukraine, support our allies in Europe, the same thing could happen there. And China could invade Taiwan, and we could have an American President who claims he is the best President in American history, with George Washington second, saying that Taiwan invaded China.
I want us to avow, as Ronald Reagan proclaimed 40 years ago, that ``freedom is America's core'' and ``[w]e must never deny it nor forsake it.'' That is what we risk today by withdrawing our support for Ukraine, allowing the President to promulgate falsehood after falsehood about who started this war and what is going on with this war.
If we abandon Ukraine, we are going to abandon the core of who we are.
This is a simple question. It is not a partisan one. And the answer couldn't be clearer.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 114, which was submitted earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Republican whip.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the American people want to see this war end. We want to see the killing and the bloodshed stopped.
President Trump shares those views. He wants peace. He wants to end the war. President Trump and the administration are negotiating right now, today, to achieve that peace. He addressed it last night in his address to Congress and to the Nation.
I think that President Trump is the very best hope to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine. He has my full support as the negotiations continue. The entire Senate should support those efforts, and therefore, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, let me say--I know my colleague from Vermont is here, so I am not going to go on, but I would just like to respond to my friend from Wyoming by saying that it is shocking to me that tonight, in the Nation's Capital of the wealthiest country in the world, the place that we think of as the freest country in the world, our intelligence sharing with Ukraine, which has been one of the most effective means of their ability to prosecute the war in Ukraine against Russia, has been shut off by the United States of America. And our arms have been shut off to some degree as well, in the middle of winter, while they are sacrificing on the frontlines for freedom and for democracy.
It is shocking that we are in the position that we are in, and I hope, for the sake of our kids and for our grandkids, for the sake of the allies that we have all over the world, for the sake of democracy and freedom in this world, that we pull together as a Senate and articulate the importance of pursuing this negotiation out of a position of strength and not of weakness.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, last week, the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution that acknowledged that Russia brutally invaded Ukraine. Among those voting in favor were all our friends and allies. Among those voting against it were most of our adversaries--Russia, Iran, North Korea, Nicaragua--and the United States.
Of course, no Americans that we represent want to see our country on a team with some of the world's most brutal dictators, but what made that vote remarkable was that the Trump administration voted against something so unquestionably true: It was Russia that was the invader; that Russia's invasion has been devastating; that too many have died, too many have suffered; that peace is long overdue; and that Ukrainian territory is Ukrainian territory.
The bottom line: This was a very simple resolution asserting that one country has no right to invade another country.
Americans know from experience that peace in the world depends on adhering to a core principle: Countries cannot change their borders by force. One country cannot steal the sovereign territory of another country. Over the years, many Americans have died to uphold this principle for our national security.
World War I, World War II, and the gulf war sent a clear message: America will support its friends and allies who are fighting to defend their own freedom and sovereignty.
Of course, the U.N. vote last week was followed by last week's meeting in the Oval Office between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and President Trump. Just hours before that very disastrous meeting, right across from the White House, I, along with many of our colleagues, joined in a bipartisan group of Senators who met with President Zelenskyy. He told us he was extremely grateful for America's help. He told us how thankful he was for the help President Trump gave in his first administration with the delivery of Javelin missiles and what he was doing in his second administration. There was not a hint of anything other than support and respect, and he told us how enthusiastic he was about meeting with the President and signing the minerals deal.
It blew up, and, of course, the press will debate whether President Zelenskyy derailed the meeting because he didn't wear a suit or he said a provocative thing or he was rude and not grateful enough, and others will say that it was a setup by the President to derail the meeting.
My view: I don't know the answer to that, and I don't really care because that is not the question. The one question that is profoundly important is the one that affects our national security: Whose side are we on? Do we continue to side with Ukraine against Russia and its invasion--with our NATO allies, with the principle we have fought for since the beginning of the last century--or do we flip sides and go with Putin?
There is every reason for many of us to be concerned about that being a question actively under consideration by the Trump administration, starting with his affection for Putin and with his assertion that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that started the war.
We are suddenly confronted with this unthinkable question of whether our President is realigning whose side we are on. That, in my view, is why all of us in the U.S. Senate--and there has been tremendous leadership on the Republican side of the aisle, and I would like to particularly acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Wicker and Chairman Risch--for us to stand with Ukraine and with our NATO allies.
This year, we are going to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. In the eight decades since that devastating war, America's global alliances and our leadership have been anchored on the principle--anchored on the principle--that no country should seize and occupy the territory of another country by force. That matters. It is anchored on the elementary principle that might does not make right-- something that in the Putin invasion, where he thought he would be in Kyiv in days, was desecrated.
So my hope is that we in the U.S. Senate will reaffirm those principles of territorial integrity and do that on behalf of the American people.
I have introduced a resolution that does just this. It commits to the principle that the United States remains totally in favor of upholding and defending the proposition that no state shall threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or the political integrity of any other state. I think all of us know that is among the most fundamental propositions holding together the world's very fragile peace. It is also a fundamentally American principle that we have advocated for and defended. It is a principle that we must
Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 113, which was submitted earlier today; further, that 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and for the reasons I have given previously, we want the killing to end. We want the bloodshed to stop. There are active negotiations going on right now, and I think the best hope to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine is the efforts of President Trump today. For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
