We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
22Senate Resolution 123: Recognizing the Contributions of the Charles B. Rangel Graduate Fellowship Program, the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Graduate Fellowship Program, the William D. Clarke...
(Legislative Days of Monday, March 10, 2025, and Tuesday, March 11, 2025) Routine Proceedings, pages S1641-S1680 Measures Introduced
Forty-eight bills and four resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 925-972, S.J. Res. 36-37, S. Res. 123, and S. Con. Res. 10.
Pages S1662-64
Measures Passed
Justice for Murder Victims Act: Senate passed S. 960, to ensure that homicides can be prosecuted under Federal law without regard to the time elapsed between the act or omission that caused the death of the victim and the death itself.
Pages S1675-76
Measures Considered
Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act--Cloture: Senate continued consideration of S. 331, to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, and taking action on the following amendment proposed thereto:
Page S1659
Pending
Thune (for Grassley) Amendment No. 1237, of a perfecting nature.
Page S1659
A motion was entered to close further debate on the bill, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
Page S1659
Pulte Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of William Pulte, of Florida, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years.
Page S1659
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Keith Sonderling, of Florida, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor
Page S1659
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S1659
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S1659
Kessler Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
Page S1659
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of William Pulte, of Florida, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years.
Page S1659
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S1659
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S1659
Miran and Sonderling Nominations: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 11 a.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, Senate resume consideration of the nomination of Stephen Miran, of New York, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; that at 12 noon, Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture thereon; if cloture is invoked on the nomination of Stephen Miran, the post-cloture time expire at 2:15 p.m., and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; if cloture is invoked on the nomination of Keith Sonderling, of Florida, to be Deputy Secretary of Labor, the post-cloture time expire at 5:15 p.m., and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination.
Page S1677
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 51 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. EX. 113), Steven Bradbury, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
Pages S1641-49, S1680
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. EX. 112), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S1649
By 78 yeas to 19 nays (Vote No. EX. 115), Abigail Slater, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General.
Pages S1058-59, S1680
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 77 yeas to 19 nays (Vote No. EX. 114), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S1649
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S1666-68
Record Votes
Four record votes were taken today. (Total--115)
Pages S1648-49, S1658-59
Motion to Adjourn
Senate agreed to the motion to adjourn until 6:40 p.m., on Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
Page S1176
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:39 p.m., and reconvened at 6:40 p.m., on the same day, and adjourned at 7:07 p.m., until 11 a.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S1680.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 59 of 148 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, 35 years ago today, the freely elected Parliament of Lithuania declared that country was restoring its independence after about 50 years of Soviet occupation. This started the breakup of the Soviet Union. The end of that evil empire made the world safer and millions of people freer. So I say: Thank you, Lithuania--or I should say, in their language, ``aciu.''
Lithuania didn't become a country just in the 1990s, however. It is a very old country. In fact, it was a significant regional power in the Middle Ages. The modern Republic of Lithuania was born on February 16, 1918. The United States has maintained continuous diplomatic relations with Lithuania for now 103 years, going back to 1922.
As an American, I am proud that our country never recognized the Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, just as we don't recognize Russia's annexation of any part of Ukraine to this very day.
Today, Lithuania is free, and Lithuania is prosperous. Lithuania is a close U.S. ally and a beacon of Western values on the frontlines of freedom. I thank Lithuania for its friendship, for its important contribution to the NATO alliance, and for its vocal defense of our shared values.
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, Zach Didier was a good student, an athlete, and a musician. He was an Eagle Scout, star of the school play, and he was hoping to attend Stanford University. But 2 days after Christmas, in 2020, Zach's dad found him dead in his bedroom of fentanyl poisoning. He was 17.
Zach and his friends had gone to the mall to meet a drug dealer they had found through social media. He bought what he thought was Percocet, but it wasn't. The counterfeit pills he bought contained fentanyl, and what was a bad decision became deadly.
Zach was one of the more than 90,000 Americans who died of an overdose in 2020, many of those deaths from fentanyl poisoning. He was one of countless victims of fake pills being peddled on our streets, pills that too often find their way into the hands of young people and steal their futures.
Courage Minten's is another tragic story. Adopted from Ghana, Courage was pursuing his dream of becoming an airline pilot. He had attended flight school and interviewed for a job, just days before he died, at age 23. Courage's parents found him on their couch after a night out with friends, seemingly asleep, until he stopped breathing. As they later found out, Courage had taken a pill with two times the lethal dose of fentanyl in it.
Ashley Romero, a 32-year-old mother, took half of what she thought was a
One of those individuals was Jonathan Ellington. Jonathan had become addicted to OxyContin when it was prescribed to him for a high school soccer injury. He got clean and stayed clean for about a decade, until another injury and another prescription got him back on it. When his prescription ran out, he bought some pills from an acquaintance. It only took one pill with a lethal dose of fentanyl to take Jonathan's life.
Mr. President, these are just a few of the stories that families have shared with the Judiciary Committee in support of the HALT Fentanyl Act. Unfortunately, there are many more like them; lives lost, futures destroyed, families changed forever.
One in three Americans know someone who has died of a drug overdose. We are losing young people, teenagers, young parents, and people with bright lives ahead of them. When the Trump administration temporarily classified all fentanyl analogs as schedule I substances, law enforcement gained a critical tool to combat fentanyl and go after people who are bringing this poison into the United States.
Congress has extended this temporary classification several times because it works. Now we need to make it permanent by passing the HALT Fentanyl Act.
I was very pleased at the strong bipartisan vote this bill received last Thursday, and I hope the vote on final passage will be equally robust.
As I said, classifying all fentanyl analogs as schedule I substances gives law enforcement a critical tool to go after the criminals bringing this poison into our country and selling it on our streets, and it joins other efforts to end the fentanyl crisis in our country.
President Trump is taking significant steps to halt the supply of drugs flowing across our borders. Senator Blackburn has done great work bringing attention to the role of social media, which is often the link between teenagers and drug dealers. And the Senate will continue working to stop fentanyl from taking more American lives.
Fentanyl has caused too many tragedies. I am grateful to the families who have lost loved ones to this deadly drug for sharing their stories. The HALT Fentanyl Act is moving forward due in no small part to their support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, Elon Musk confirmed what many of us have been warning about for a long time: Republicans are getting ready to gut Social Security and Medicare.
Let me repeat that. Elon Musk confirmed what many of us have warned about: Republicans are getting ready to gut Social Security and gut Medicare.
Here is what he said during an interview with FOX Business. The richest man on Earth repeated again a bevy of lies that entitlement programs that tens of millions of people rely on are riddled with fraud and abuse. That is a pretext to slashing, but it is false.
He added that ``most of the Federal spending is entitlements''--that is true--``so that is the big one to eliminate,'' meaning Social Security.
Let me quote Elon Musk again: ``That is the big one''--Social Security--``to eliminate.'' It is rare to hear Republicans tell the truth about their plans so directly.
What Elon Musk is saying is that sooner or later, Republicans are going to target people's Social Security and Medicare benefits.
The outrage that the richest man in the world would tell millions of seniors who depend on those checks each month that it is fraud, that it is waste, is outrageous. He doesn't have any idea the harm it would do, and it isn't fraud. Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Republicans know that the math on their billionaire tax cuts will not work without going after these benefits, and all they care about is cutting their taxes further--outrageous.
As America begins to hear this, America is going to realize what a bad bargain Donald Trump was in the election. It is another awful reminder that under Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Republicans, billionaires win, American families lose.
There is something truly rotten about the Republican agenda when a multibillionaire--the richest man in the world--is allowed to lie so casually about one of America's most sacred programs in order to justify taking benefits away from hard-working Americans. Few programs have done more good, have helped more people, have been more popular than Social Security has for nearly a century. Few programs are as beloved by Americans as Social Security. Americans, of course, support eliminating waste, but they do not want to see their Social Security benefits get taken away.
How is Elon Musk trying to do this? He is using the oldest trick in the book: shamelessly lying about Social Security--just as Donald Trump did in his State of the Union Address, where he listed hundreds of people who were born 120 years ago and couldn't show a single one was getting Social Security.
Musk is shamelessly lying about Social Security, claiming it is riddled with fraud, in order to justify taking benefits away from seniors and retirees. He ignores the very bold, plain fact that the Federal Government already conducts an audit of Social Security every year. It is a legit audit, not a partisan audit. It has been done during Trump's Presidency and Biden's Presidency. What did it find? Less than 1 percent--1 percent--less than 1 percent of all payments from 2015 to 2022 were made in error.
That, Mr. Musk, is not what fraud looks like.
He cherry-picks data to suggest that tens of millions of dead people are getting checks. This is a lie.
To be sure, this isn't just about Elon Musk's rhetoric. The assault on Social Security is taking shape in practice. DOGE has already taken over the Social Security Administration Agency and has free access to the private data and benefits of tens of millions of Americans. The Trump administration has already begun to fire 7,000 staffers, which means local offices will shut down, customer service wait times will explode, and the risk of delayed benefits will skyrocket.
So I ask my Republican colleagues: Are you all fine with this?
Are they fine with Musk calling Social Security one giant scam? Let's find a single person here on the Republican side who starts rebutting Musk once and for all when they know he is doing what the American people hate and is not telling the truth.
Do our colleagues agree with Musk's lie that hundreds of billions of dollars in outright fraud has compromised Social Security?
Mark my words, if Elon Musk and DOGE continue their attacks against Social Security, if the President continues his attacks, which he made in the State of the Union, sooner or later, benefits are going to be delayed, mistakenly halted, and the political uproar from Americans from one end of the country to the other--red, purple, and blue--will be immense.
And more trouble for the Trump administration--the Trump economy. Donald Trump promised Americans a golden age on day one. Well, today is day 50, and Americans are wondering, scratching their heads, where is this golden age? You can't find this golden age in the inflation numbers because inflation has gone up under Donald Trump, from groceries, to retail, to cars. He campaigned prices will begin going down on day one. That is by the wayside, that is for sure.
You can't find this golden age in the stock market either. We know the stock market is Donald Trump's favorite measuring stick. But right now, because of him--his actions, his erraticness--his own actions have plunged markets and therefore people's retirement accounts into chaos. Yesterday, the Dow fell by almost 900 points, 2 percent. The S&P 500 plunged
Why is this happening? One of the reasons is the President's tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but the other is pure chaos--no stability, no certainty for businesses, total confusion in the economy. One thing businesses tell us: They want certainty, and they want stability. One thing they are getting from Donald Trump: uncertainty and chaos.
By starting this foolish and chaotic trade war--on again one day, off again the next day--Donald Trump has singlehandedly poured a bucket of ice water on the economy. Trump thinks he can just yak: Oh, I am for it, and then the next day, I will say I am not for it. But businesses can't plan that way. If they think there is a chance he will come back and do it, they don't plan, they don't buy, they don't go forward.
Businesses right now are in a state of total confusion. They have no idea what Trump is going to do next. Is he going to impose tariffs today? tomorrow? next month? How big will they be? What countries? What products? Every day, you hear a different answer on something that is so important to the American economy and the world economy.
American consumers are also anxious. If you don't know what tomorrow will bring, you are going to spend less today.
Donald Trump himself knows that tariffs will hurt working families. When asked on FOX Business about the possibility that his tariffs could trigger a recession, he refused to even downplay the possibility it could happen. This was a rare moment of truth from Donald Trump. He said: Yeah, my tariffs can cause a recession. And then he seemed to say with his body language: Who cares? Amazing. The guy who said he would lift the economy not only is beginning to cause the beginnings of an economic downturn, but he seems to be proud of it. Wow. Is that what America bargained for? I don't think so.
When Donald Trump says there is a ``period of transition,'' it is just gibberish. What Donald Trump means when he says ``period of transition'' is that ``I will hurt you slowly, not all at once.'' It means ``Yes, my tariffs will raise prices on the American people.'' Donald Trump knows his tariffs could wreck the economy, but he is doing it anyway, all so he can use the income from tariffs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires--his North Star.
Mr. President, I come to the floor having just listened to the minority leader of the Senate come to the floor, and I listened to what he had to say.
You know, it has been 10 weeks now that Republicans have been in the majority and the Democrats have been in the minority after the historic victory in November. The contrast is pretty significant. Senate Republicans made promises to the American people. We promised to get the country back on track. We are keeping that promise. We are hitting the ground running, and we are not turning back.
Most importantly for our successes, it has been because Republicans have remained united. As a result, we have a list of accomplishments as opposed to what we just heard the minority leader talk about.
First, the Senate has now confirmed all 21 members of President Trump's Cabinet, and we did it at a record pace--a faster pace than the Democrats were able to do for Obama in 2009 and faster than they were able to do it for President Biden in 2021. The pace with which Republicans have confirmed President Trump's nominees to the Cabinet-- as POLITICO pointed out today--all completed before the Senate has taken a break. That is where we are today. Historic speed.
With his team in place early, President Trump is able to execute effectively and efficiently the popular agenda for which he was elected. The Senate has prioritized confirming the President's national security team. We saw the horrific attack in New Orleans on New Year's. We continue to see chaos around the world. We need a national security team in place, we have prioritized that, and we have done it.
The Senate also passed the Laken Riley Act. It is now law, signed by the President. It is the first significant piece of immigration enforcement law signed in decades and just in the first number of weeks. It is actually the first bill that President Trump signed into law as the 47th President of the United States. It is going to save lives. It is going to prevent human tragedy like we saw happen in Georgia to that young nursing student.
I am very grateful to Senator Katie Britt of Alabama and Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina for their leadership in finding a bipartisan way to get this bill passed.
We have also focused on our shared agenda with the House and with the President to move quickly to pass a budget that is focused on border security, energy security for our Nation, as well as America's peace through strength. The Budget Committee--Lindsey Graham, who is chairman of the committee, and the members of the committee did groundbreaking work, all focused on making America stronger, better, more secure.
Senate Republicans are working with the House on a path forward now and working closely with Senator Mike Crapo of the Finance Committee, who is leading the charge to make sure we are not facing a $4 trillion tax increase, which is what the Democrats want. They want Americans to suffer the pain of $4 trillion in additional taxes. This is very important work to keep taxes low for hard-working families and continue to stimulate the economy.
I heard a lot from the minority leader about 5 minutes ago. He was talking about the future of Medicaid and of Medicare. I am a doctor and work closely with patients on all of those programs. But what I heard Senator Schumer do as he stood right there--it sounded to me like he is threatening to shut down the government. He sounds like somebody who is going to tell his Members: Vote against keeping the government open. We are so distraught about the fact that President Trump has been elected, so mad at the voters because they elected a Republican House and a Republican Senate, as well as sent President Trump back to the White House, that we just want to say: The heck with you; we are going to shut down the government.
It costs money to shut down the government. It costs money to reopen the government. It impacts services for the American people.
Democrats are so mad--you saw it last week when the President made his speech to Congress, to the joint session, his address to the Nation, the way they acted during that statement by the Commander in Chief--those are people that are just mad at the voters.
The American public liked what the President had to say that night. Overwhelmingly, those who saw the speech saw it as very positive, are happy with the direction of the country, happy with the leadership of the President. He is focused. He is forceful. He is effective, energetic, getting the job done.
That is not what I heard from the Senate minority leader just a few minutes ago. He sounded like somebody who is going to command the troops: Hey, shut down the government because we are mad, and we are going to take it out on the American people.
Let me set the record straight, because Republicans support Medicaid, and Republicans support Medicare. Just the other night, we passed Senator Dan Sullivan's amendment to protect and preserve Medicaid and Medicare. Not a single Democrat joined us.
These programs are in trouble today. Why? Because of the previous administration. Joe Biden weakened them by making them available for scammers, and that is what has happened. People are sucking money out of these programs who don't deserve to be doing it and are taking the care needed from hard-working American families.
Republicans want to protect and preserve and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. We want to do it for the people these vital programs were originally intended for--not for the scammers. Stopping scamming is a big part of this.
Additionally, when I take a look at some of the things we have done over the last several weeks, one is that we have reaffirmed our friendship with Israel. Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
It is an illegitimate kangaroo court that targets Israel and does the bidding of Iran. Sanctioning the ICC would have sent a very strong message to the world--the message, of course, being ``America stands with Israel.'' Senate Democrats filibustered it; 45 Democrat Senators chose to abandon our closest ally.
Senate Republicans also successfully blocked destructive Democrat legislation attacking American energy production. Democrats actually tried to reverse President Trump's national energy emergency. America clearly faces an energy emergency. Energy prices went up 31 percent during the last 4 years under the Democrats' administration of punishing American energy. Well, led by Chairman Mike Lee of Utah, Republicans are taking the handcuffs off American energy. Look, we know unleashing American energy will help kick-start our economy.
Senate Republicans also voted to protect girls and women in sports. Senator Coach Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has been a champion of women's sports in the Senate. His legislation was common sense to over 80 percent of Americans. It said: Biological men should not be allowed to compete in women's sports against our daughters, our sisters--simple as that. Democrats filibustered it. They are completely out of touch with the American people, the Democrats are. And they are putting our female athletes in harm's way.
Senate Republicans also have erased some burdensome Biden regulations. We are cutting through the redtape, cutting redtape most significantly on American energy production. At the same time, we are also protecting America's financial freedom.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana led efforts to end a Biden regulation on energy production on the Gulf of America. Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota led efforts to cut $7 billion in natural gas taxes on our energy producers. Senator Pete Ricketts of Nebraska led the efforts to rein in unaccountable bureaucrats from snooping in your digital wallet. Democrats wanted to spy on everything you buy or do on Apple Pay, on Venmo, Zelle, with other apps. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas led efforts to push back against IRS attacks on crypto currency.
Each of these resolutions passed the Senate, in spite of Democrat opposition. By reversing these heavyhanded rules, Republicans are making life more affordable for American families.
And this week, the Senate is moving to pass lifesaving legislation that is called the HALT Fentanyl Act. Approximately 70,000 Americans are poisoned or killed by elicit fentanyl each year in the United States. It is the No. 1 killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45.
The HALT Fentanyl Act will aid efforts to crack down on drug dealers and criminal cartels that smuggle the poison into our country and into our communities. I am grateful that Leader Thune is putting this bipartisan legislation up for a vote.
You can sum up these early weeks in the Republican-led Senate in three words: fast, forceful, and effective. We aren't wasting time. We are not wasting time. We are just getting started.
Working together, Republicans are going to deliver for the American people.
Mr. President, today stands out as a critical moment for the country, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution.
In recent weeks, Trump administration officials and allies have made statements and engaged in troubling conduct that threatened judicial independence and our very system of government.
Elon Musk, a senior adviser to President Trump, has repeatedly called for the impeachment of Federal judges whose decisions he disagrees with, and he has questioned the lifetime appointment of Federal judges that is enshrined in article III of our Constitution.
In a social media post, Vice President JD Vance falsely asserted that:
This is merely the latest in a long line of claims by the Vice President that a President of the United States can defy the orders of the court. In 2021, Mr. Vance went so far as to say he would suggest to President Trump that ``when the court stops you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, `The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.''' This was an obvious reference to the apocryphal story about President Andrew Jackson suggesting he would defy the Supreme Court ruling.
And President Donald Trump himself recently posted:
Let me repeat that post, personal post, by the President:
Those 10 words are a rationale for tyranny and are an assault on our Constitution.
This disregard for judicial review has not been limited to words alone. In multiple cases, administration officials have dragged their feet or failed to comply with Federal court orders.
The administration has also nominated individuals to senior positions at the Department of Justice who seem to have little regard for separation of powers.
One Trump nominee recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said:
Fortunately, my colleague, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, admonished this nominee, and he said:
And it isn't only the executive branch that is threatening the independence of the judiciary. In the past month, three members of the House of Representatives have introduced articles of impeachment against Federal judges for no reason other than they ruled against this administration.
These actions and comments constitute a clear and present danger to the separation of powers and our Constitution. Instead of favorably quoting the apocryphal words of Andrew Jackson, our political leaders and their allies should reference the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 decision. As we all learned in law school, Judge Marshall said:
There has been a broad, bipartisan consensus on that point for more than two centuries. When it comes to interpreting and applying the law, the judiciary has the final word.
Last week, on this floor, I tried to pass an S. Res. simply affirming the rule of law and finality of judicial review. I thought and hoped every Senator would support it. Regrettably, a Republican Senator objected, and the Senate missed an opportunity to say with one voice that we support the Constitution and judicial branch.
Thankfully, the judicial branch has demonstrated its independence, even without the support of the other branches of government. Judges have carefully considered the cases before them and, in some cases, provided a check on the administration when it overstepped. For that, I commend the judiciary.
Alexander Hamilton called the article III judiciary, the courts, ``the least dangerous branch'' because it has neither soldiers nor money to enforce its decrees. That is why the courts' legitimacy in the eyes of the American people is so critical to its continued vitality, and that is why I continue to support an enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court.
Recent efforts by the Trump administration and its allies to intimidate and impeach Federal judges have been based on those judges' decisions and the President who appointed them. In contrast, an enforceable code of conduct would apply to all Justices equally, no matter who appointed them and no matter how they rule on a particular matter.
I first proposed that the Court adopt an enforceable code of conduct 13 years
The fact that many sitting Justices have publicly endorsed an enforceable code of conduct underscores that it does not pose a threat to the independence of the judicial branch. An enforceable code of conduct would bolster public confidence in the judicial branch.
And by ensuring the judiciary is held to high regard, we can assure that so-called least dangerous branch of government maintains a position of strength now and in the future.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, soon, we will vote on the nomination of Gail Slater to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. I support her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Antitrust is as important to me as it is to most Senators. I have long been concerned about market concentration and anticompetitive practices in industries that impact Iowans whether it is agriculture or healthcare or technology. These issues don't get the most attention around the U.S. Senate, but they still impact millions of Americans. Family farmers and independent producers deserve fair prices for their products. Seniors deserve affordable prescription drugs. Children deserve to be safe from predatory behavior on dominant tech platforms. All of these are antitrust issues.
Attorney General Bondi told me during her confirmation process that she shares my interest in these issues and that she would work with me and the Antitrust Division to address these issues. There is no better person to help her in this project than Gail Slater. Ms. Slater has the right qualifications for this job.
She spent several years practicing antitrust law in private practice before spending a decade at the Federal Trade Commission, handling antitrust investigations and litigation. In these roles, she learned the nuts and bolts of antitrust enforcement.
Ms. Slater also understands antitrust and economics from a policy perspective. She served in President Trump's first administration on the National Economic Council, and she served now-Vice President Vance as his economic policy adviser and as a member of his Senate staff. So Ms. Slater has numerous accomplishments in the antitrust space.
I am not the only one who thinks Ms. Slater is the right person for the job. She has received letters of support from nine previous heads of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. These men and women were appointed by Presidents of both political parties.
They wrote:
Another bipartisan coalition letter commands her ``unique ability to collaborate on a bipartisan basis with stakeholders across the political spectrum, building coalitions toward common goals.''
And it might surprise you that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters announced that they support her nomination.
In a rare sign of unity on the Judiciary Committee I share, where we don't get a lot of unity, Ms. Slater was advanced out of committee by 20 yes votes to 2 negative votes. I hope for a similarly strong bipartisan vote here on the floor.
The Antitrust Division will flourish under Ms. Slater's strong leadership, and I am proud to support her. She is ready to serve our country, and we need to get her confirmed quickly.
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, Donald Trump and ``Copresident'' Elon Musk are shutting down the Federal Government one piece at a time: shutting down the Agency that stops banks and payday lenders from cheating working people; shutting down children's cancer research; shutting down key parts of the Department of Transportation, the Agency responsible for keeping people safe when they are flying airplanes; even shutting down parts of the Social Security Administration.
Now Republicans in Congress are laying out their blueprint to shut down the entire Federal Government. A budget is a reflection of our values, and this proposal makes clear where the Republicans' values lie. After months of bipartisan talks, they are walking away from the negotiating table and offering a nonstarter House bill that forces us to the brink of a full government shutdown. Who would be hurt the most? Working people. Billionaires win; families lose. Republicans' values are clear.
Their shutdown bill does two terrible things. First, it wipes out the guardrails that Congress wrote for how to spend taxpayer money. That means that ``Copresidents'' Trump and Musk can hold everyone under their magic spell. They can spend taxpayer money or they can shut off taxpayer money exactly how they want. Perhaps Trump and Musk want to shovel $75 million of ALS treatment funding to anti-vaccine research instead. That would be OK under the Republican deal--or maybe they want to shift $300 million or more from the FAA's telecommunications funding bucket toward contracts to Elon Musk's Starlink. The budget the Republicans have sent over would permit that as well. And if Trump and Musk decide to fire another 25,000 Americans or kick a million old people out of nursing homes, this package from House Republicans would say: Sure.
In addition to giving ``Copresidents'' Trump and Musk the power to spend taxpayer money wherever they want, House Republicans also propose general cuts--cuts from programs that help families put food on the table, afford childcare, and keep our communities safe; cuts from local communities for projects like improving hospitals, teaching facilities, and childcare centers--dollars that the House and the Senate had already agreed to.
But the House Republican package isn't just about cutting out veterans and old people. No. It is also about spending more money. Republican House Members want to pour an extra $6 billion over the next 6 months--yes, that is $1 billion a month--directly to the Pentagon, with no explanation and no justification of why this money is needed. Nope. There are cuts everywhere else in government, but there is a funding increase for the one government Agency that has never, never passed an audit. That Agency, the Department of Defense, gets $1 billion a month.
House Republicans want to give 6 billion more dollars to make sure that defense contractors continue to get their fat paychecks.
Look, Republicans in Congress don't care whether the government shuts down because they don't care about hurting working families. All they care about is getting back to jamming through their true agenda--$4.6 trillion worth of tax handouts for millionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations, paid for by gutting healthcare for millions of people.
Donald Trump looked Americans in the eye and said he would ``lower costs on day one.'' Those were his words. And now we are 7 weeks in, and he has done the exact opposite. He is raising costs for families. More people are losing their jobs--sky-high childcare, housing, and food costs. And it is open season right now for banks and credit card companies and shady student loan outfits to scam the American people.
The Republican shutdown playbook is dangerous, and it will hurt working families. Democrats are right to oppose the House bill, and people all across this country are right to expect us to stand up and fight back.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to speak in opposition to the nomination of Steven Bradbury. He is nominated to be the Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
When it comes to transportation safety, we don't measure success in dollars saved. We measure success in lives protected and tragedies prevented.
Last week, I met with the parents of Sam Lilley, the first officer of the American Airlines plane that fatally collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter at DCA Airport. Sam's father happens to be a commercial pilot now, and before that, he flew Black Hawk helicopters in the military. He expressed his concern about reports that the Black Hawks are regularly being operated in this busy airspace without the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, commonly known as ADS-B, turned on.
We know that the Black Hawk in the January 29 collision wasn't transmitting. We hope that we will find out later today in the NTSB report what we need to do to fix this problem.
We know that during Mr. Bradbury's first tenure at DOT, he let the FAA create exemptions to permit military aircraft to operate without this key safety technology transmitting. And guess what? The military knew that they had been granted a loophole, but they said it would not be used all the time--only to find out later that the military said they were using the exemption 100 percent of the time.
My heart goes out to the Lilley family and to all the families of the victims of this tragic accident. It didn't need to happen. That is why, last week, I wrote Secretary Hegseth to ask about the Army's letter from 2023 stating that 100 percent of its helicopters fly in the DC area with this ADS-B technology not activated.
We can't afford another light-touch approach at the Department of Transportation when it comes to safety. We cannot. It simply does not matter if you are saving dollars if you are not saving lives. Unfortunately, I believe the President's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Steven Bradbury, has shown more interest in a light-touch approach that benefits industry, than being a champion for safety.
During his nomination hearing, I questioned Mr. Bradbury about his record as previous general counsel for the Department of Transportation during the first Trump administration. In this capacity, Mr. Bradbury played a key role in orchestrating the rollback of multiple, multiple safety requirements under the guise of advancing a reform agenda.
For example, under his watch, he prevented requirements for truck drivers. There was a fatigue prevention requirement for truck drivers, which he loosened. Vehicle safety recall investigations reached an alltime low, and meanwhile, road fatalities increased.
Under his watch, there were a number of rail safety requirements that were also waived. The Department of Transportation withdrew its two- person crew rule. This was a rule that people had recommended after derailments in the United States and in Canada, including a runaway oil train in Quebec in 2013 that derailed and killed 47 people. And during this same time period, the main line derailment rate increased, all during Mr. Bradbury's tenure.
Perhaps, though, the most troubling of all, is Mr. Bradbury's watch during the rulemaking on what is called a safety management system for aviation manufacturers like Boeing. Just 9 days after the first 737 MAX crash in 2018, which resulted in 189 deaths, there was a rule that said--being proposed--that the safety management system should be a mandatory requirement--not voluntary. Don't tell an industry that has to manufacture planes, ``It's okay, you can voluntarily comply with some of these rules.'' No, no, we need requirements that manufacturers must meet.
As my colleagues on the Commerce Committee know, a safety management system rule for aviation manufacturers would have instituted a comprehensive process for analyzing, predicting, and ultimately mitigating risk. The safety management system is considered the gold standard now around the world. If you want to have safety, you have a safety management system. It is a more robust process.
And I question how Mr. Bradbury, at DOT, after the Indonesian 737 MAX crash, didn't see or understand the need for critical information and analysis that a safety management system would have put in place, particularly because the FAA continued to let the MAX plane fly, and part of the process in question is whether they considered the critical analysis that Boeing had done to allow the plane to fly and what the FAA's role was.
So following the tragedies of both 737 MAX crashes, the Commerce Committee, led by then-Chairman Wicker, launched an investigation into the crashes to find solutions and prevent the disaster from happening again. But what did Mr. Bradbury do? Did he work with the committee to improve safety for the flying public? No. No, he did not.
He basically thwarted Senator Wicker and the committee's efforts to get the information about what the FAA had done. Make this clear here today: Our colleagues need to hold the FAA accountable. If you don't hold the FAA accountable as the oversight body, fat chance the FAA is going to continue to do its job as aggressively as it needs to.
So Senator Wicker's office said, ``Mr. Bradbury intentionally withheld relevant information requested by the committee.'' He made our investigation very hard. In fact, Senator Wicker later said, ``He deliberately attempted to keep us in the dark. And by that I mean our investigations, our staff, our committee, and me.''
Now, I have great respect for my colleague Senator Wicker, but the Bradbury findings, in stymieing us as a committee to do our oversight job, gives me serious questions about his level of transparency.
The families of the 737 MAX crashes wrote to Chairman Cruz last month to express their concerns about Mr. Bradbury's role in obstructing the committee's investigation into the crashes that took their loved ones' lives. They also voiced concern about Mr. Bradbury's role that led to the delays in holding Boeing accountable to implementing a true mandatory safety management system.
Now, during his hearing, Mr. Bradbury suggested that the rule ready to be proposed by the previous Trump administration that made it mandatory for manufacturers to have a safety management system was held up because some small businesses didn't want to meet that requirement.
Do we not believe that businesses are going to object to some rules? They do. They do all the time. But that doesn't mean scrapping the rule altogether, which is exactly what happened as far as the mandatory requirement.
Well, lucky for the consumer, our committee, in the aftermath of these two crashes, got legislation passed that said, ``Yes, you have to have a mandatory safety management system, and you have to, FAA, put that rule out.''
Now, Mr. Bradbury was still serving as general counsel and acting Deputy Secretary of the Department. You would have thought now that he has gotten a directive by Congress to put out this rule, he would have said, ``Hey, we have one. We have been debating it for a while, but now we have had two crashes. It is really clear that the safety culture needs to be upgraded. Everybody agrees, all experts, this is the great system. Let's implement it.''
But he didn't. He didn't move forward, even after Congress mandated it. And after Mr. Bradbury's confirmation hearing in front of the Commerce Committee last month, the families of the 737 MAX crashes released a statement saying his testimony purporting to prioritize aviation safety, ``Shows a complete disregard for the 84 people who died in plane crashes in the United States in the last month.''
Mr. Bradbury's troubling record doesn't stop just with transportation. During his time at the Department of Justice during the Bush administration, Mr. Bradbury authored what we know now as the widely known torture memos, justifying the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques.
The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed these memos and raised doubts about ``the objectivity and reasonableness'' of
Mr. Bradbury, then, at the Department of Justice, was writing rules that fit the outcome that he wanted, instead of looking objectively at what the American people needed. These legal opinions were contrary to what this Nation stands for.
Later, the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Bradbury as Assistant Attorney General during the Bush administration, and Congress passed the McCain-Feinstein amendment to the 2016 NDAA, codifying the illegality of those torture methods--those very torture methods that Mr. Bradbury said were okay.
We passed a law to basically change what this guy's legal opinion was because it was so bad. And so now, when the Senate is asked to provide advice and consent on Mr. Bradbury's nomination to be Deputy Secretary of the Transportation Department, I think you should look back at what happened then. Two of our Republican colleagues voted against his nomination because of the torture memos. They rightly concluded that he was not right to fit in the Department of Justice role.
I am saying today, what do you need to know? He didn't fight for strong safety rules at the Department of Transportation before; he is not going to fight for them now. It is really clear that our aviation safety system needs strong leadership at the FAA, not someone who is going to write the rule to fit business, but write the rule to fit safety.
As if these issues weren't concerning enough, there is another issue. During his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Bradbury, ``What about the conflicts of interest that appear to be mounting between Elon Musk and the FAA?''
I thought, a smart lawyer could really give guidance to the Secretary of Transportation, give guidance to the FAA Administrator, the acting one, and could say, ``These are the ways in which Elon Musk should not pass go, would be a conflict of interest, would be a problem at the FAA, given that there are already issues that are really clearly in front of us.''
So I said, ``Tell us. Tell us. Where do you think those conflicts of interest exist?'' Of course, at the hearing, he kind of demurred, and I said, ``You know what, Mr. Bradbury, you can give me for the record where exactly do you think there's a conflict of interest.''
But he didn't just evade my questions; he basically said that he thought that it was an excellent idea to have Elon Musk and SpaceX making changes to the FAA air traffic control system. In fact, he said that he didn't ``see the potential for a conflict'' with the SpaceX employees having access to the FAA.
Of course, we know now that three SpaceX engineers were recently hired as special government employees at the FAA and were immediately granted conflict of interest waivers by the Trump administration so they could work on matters at the FAA. Why? Because they had ``direct and predictable effects upon the financial interests of SpaceX.''
So in other words, the Trump administration conceded that conflicts of interest do exist, and they are going to let them happen anyway, and they went to get a waiver. The conflicts of interest for Mr. Musk and SpaceX at the FAA is obvious.
Let me just say, though, first, you can have all sorts of broadband solutions, including satellite solutions. But when you are talking about the air traffic controller system, that kind of system is inferior to fiber. Why? Because of speed, capacity, cost, weather, all sorts of issues. And when there is chaos, we need certainty and predictability.
So we are seeing a conflict play out right before our eyes. According to a Bloomberg report, one of SpaceX's engineers who was granted a conflict of interest waiver recently told the FAA that SpaceX planned to send 4,000 Starlink terminals to the Agency. For what? We are still trying to find out.
The FAA already entered into a $2 billion contract with Verizon in 2023 to upgrade its telecommunications network. But Mr. Musk's own tweet suggests he wants to cancel the FAA's contract with Verizon. He is saying that they are failing. He wants them to use his product instead.
And yet, Mr. Bradbury apparently doesn't even see the potential--he doesn't even see the potential for the conflict of interest.
It doesn't stop with Starlink as a broadband supplier. Just last week, SpaceX's Starship heavy lift rocket malfunctioned and broke apart over the Caribbean before it reached orbit. Dangerous debris fell from the sky. The FAA smartly halted flights in the area to ensure safety, and thankfully, no one was injured. The FAA initiated an immediate investigation into SpaceX to determine what happened. The investigation presents another clear conflict of interest.
As we know, Mr. Musk doesn't think FAA safety rules should apply to him. Last September, the FAA fined Mr. Musk and SpaceX for failing to comply with specific requirements in its launch license. Afterwards, after getting fined, Mr. Musk made a spectacle, calling for the firing of the FAA Administrator.
That is right, the FAA fined him, and then he called for the FAA Administrator--oh, wait, wait 1 second, the FAA Administrator that passed this body 98-0, because everybody here thought he was going to do a great job.
But Mr. Bradbury doesn't think Elon Musk has a conflict of interest, but Elon Musk can basically say to the President of the United States, ``Fire the FAA Administrator that we all said we thought would do a good job.''
Now, we all know Mr. Whitaker wasn't going to stick around without being backed up for the safety work that he was doing. And now, we don't have a Senate-confirmed head of the FAA. Why? Because Mr. Whitaker didn't want to stay around if everybody was going to let Donald Trump do whatever the heck he wanted when it came to the FAA. All this because Musk got fined for violating safety rules.
So I really don't understand what Mr. Bradbury doesn't understand that he can't write down on a piece of paper where real conflict of interest exists.
We need new leadership in the Department of Transportation so that we can continue to stand up to safety issues. I do not believe Mr. Bradbury is that person.
Mr. Bradbury sees bureaucratic hurdles when other people see safety safeguards. He sees redtape where we see lifesaving protections. He sees the objective of having a light-touch FAA, and we see the objective of having safety be the primary purpose--because you can't win at aviation if you don't win at aviation safety first.
Ask the people of the Pacific Northwest. The catastrophes of the MAX crashes not only lost lives; they cost billions of dollars. So not adhering to safety is hardly a winning economic solution.
So Mr. Bradbury hasn't shown us the leadership on safety. He has not shown the fidelity of upholding the law, of even respecting Congress. He has not shown us the courage that it takes to stand up and make sure that safety is implemented. And the consequences of putting the wrong person in place are measured in human lives, not dollars--human lives.
The Boeing 737 MAX families know this--yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the Ethiopian Airlines crash that claimed 157 lives-- family members like Javier de Luis and Nadia Milleron, who have now oriented their lives around making aviation safer. I so appreciate their advocacy, but the people at the FAA should be doing the same.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Steven Bradbury.
Mr. President, it is another week in Washington and I think maybe the 52nd day since President Trump was inaugurated, and we are seeing the compliant mainstream media continue to spread falsehoods about the work of the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk.
As I have said before, the Federal Government has a spending problem, and, like with any addiction, getting
This has long been a bipartisan issue--I can think of everything dating back to the Grace Commission, where waste, fraud, and abuse was a bipartisan target--but apparently not with President Trump in the office and not with Elon Musk in charge of the effort to identify the spending.
If you take a look at most things that the Federal Government is cutting at the recommendation of DOGE, it becomes harder and harder to become a DOGE skeptic unless you are just blind to what they are doing.
Last week, I mentioned the waste that DOGE had identified with subscriptions and software licenses. People may think, well, that is no big deal, but there is no reason taxpayers should be footing the bill for expensive subscriptions that go unused.
DOGE uncovered the potential for massive fraud with an audit they conducted of government credit cards. At the beginning of the audit, there were 4.6 million active government credit cards--4.6 million. After 2 weeks, DOGE identified nearly 150,000 credit cards that were thankfully unused or unneeded and closed both down. I am sure there is more to be done with 4.6 million active credit cards.
There is no reason for so many government employees to have direct access to spending taxpayer money at the click of a button or the swipe of a credit card. This is basic and would never happen in the private sector or in our individual lives, but in the Federal Government, before this administration and before DOGE, this was commonplace and has been overlooked for way too long.
There are some instances of fraud that we have known about for some time, but it has taken the Trump administration and DOGE to identify and fix them. For example, the Government Accountability Office submitted a report to Congress last April estimating that the Federal Government loses between $223 billion and $521 billion every year as a result of improper payments. The Federal Government is making improper payments and spending potentially up to half a trillion dollars. Naturally, this was an opportunity for DOGE to identify this waste of taxpayer dollars.
DOGE found payments to illegal immigrants using multiple Social Security numbers to submit Medicare claims, something for which they are not legally entitled.
They found $57,000 in Medicare payments in 2020 for a patient who actually was recorded to have died 14 years earlier. It is amazing you can continue to charge for Medicare payments 14 years after your death.
In one particularly egregious instance, an illegal immigrant with a warrant out for her arrest was receiving more than $100,000 in loans from the Small Business Administration, but the waste and abuse of tax dollars goes beyond mere inefficiencies.
Some of the other line items on the DOGE cutting floor are so patently absurd it would make your blood boil. For example, last week, the National Institutes of Health canceled more than a half billion dollars in grants for transgender experiments on mice. You can't make this stuff up. It is stranger than fiction.
In a similar vein, NIH also canceled millions in woke grants ranging from promoting healthy relationships among transgender youth to delivering transgender services via telehealth. I think if you ask most taxpayers how they would like their money to be spent, these programs would not make the cut, but that is not all.
NIH is also canceling research grants that were going to universities in China. They canceled a grant for $1.7 million going to the Peking University in Beijing for the ``China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.''
Once again, I think American taxpayers would prefer to focus on the things here at home, including their own retirement savings rather than sending millions of dollars to China to study health and retirement security in a country which is our chief geopolitical rival, but that is not all.
The list goes on. A group called the Inter-American Foundation has been significantly reduced after DOGE found egregious misuse of tax dollars, including over $900,000 going toward alpaca farming in Peru. That is on top of $800,000 for vegetable gardens in El Salvador and more than $700,000 to improve the marketability of mushrooms and peas in Guatemala.
I know that children frequently squirm at the dinner table when they are told they have to eat their vegetables, but I don't think this is an area where most people think our tax dollars should be spent. Unfortunately, this waste doesn't stop at the vegetable aisle.
This foundation also spent more than $600,000 to expand the sales of fruit and jam in Honduras as well as nearly half a million dollars on improving the production of artisanal salt in Ecuador--artisanal salt in Ecuador.
Well, thank goodness the Department of Government Efficiency and Mr. Musk were key to identifying these egregious abuses of the taxpayer, but they have been going on for a long time until the Trump administration came along. So I am grateful that now some of these outrageous expenditures of tax dollars are being exposed and dealt with.
As I said earlier, Washington, DC, has a spending problem. And like any addiction, it is hard to kick the habit, especially after you become adjusted to it, but it is time for a little cold turkey when it comes to this addiction. Many people who benefit from this gravy train don't want it to end.
So, naturally, many of our colleagues on the other side are concerned about DOGE, and they want to suggest that everything the Federal Government does is absolutely perfect. They wouldn't change a thing. But they don't really have any real substantive response to these outrageous examples that I am mentioning here. They wouldn't change a thing.
They see these stats, and they tell you don't believe your lying eyes. But those of us who have looked into it, who have taken the time to study what has been exposed, know otherwise: The government is not infallible.
We have an unsustainable level of Federal debt that threatens our economy and our national security, and the truth is, the Trump administration and Republicans are hard at work trying to address it to make the government more efficient and more affordable for American families.
So, once again, I would like to do something that you don't hear very often here in DC these days and thank Elon Musk for his service to our country in performing this essential and long overdue role.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Steven Bradbury, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Abigail Slater, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General, shall be brought to a close?
Mr. President, if House Republicans don't think they need us when writing a bill, why should they expect us to support that bill, especially when it comes to taking funding away from our families who depend on it and hurting our communities and giving away Congress's power over key funding decisions?
Instead of working with Democrats to invest in working people all across our country and make sure our constituents have their voices heard in
Make no mistake, the entire bill the House is voting on today is House Republicans' own doing, and it is a dumpster fire, so I am here to sound the alarm about that fire before it spreads. But, first, I need everyone to understand: The choice is absolutely not dumpster fire or shutdown. I should know. I introduced another option yesterday. It is a short-term CR that would give us the time to finish doing our job and negotiate bipartisan, full-year bills. There is no reason we cannot do that, and there is every reason that every single one of us should prefer actual bills that we write to help people over the bill that just empowers two billionaires who are running our government into the ground and our economy into a recession.
I really want to make sure all of my colleagues understand how bad this bill is. So if anyone thinks this bill from House Republicans is going to avoid chaos or avoid pain for our country, listen up because it is only going to add to the chaos.
This is not a ``clean CR,'' as some Republicans claim. It cuts programs our communities rely on, and that includes a major 44-percent cut to Army Corps projects that help mitigate against floods and hurricanes and much else.
It cuts medical research into diseases and conditions affecting servicemembers and their families by more than $1 billion. That is over 40 percent.
It leaves a massive $280 million shortfall in NIH's budget, and that is a big cut to research that saves lives.
It leaves a shortfall for housing programs. We are talking about 32,000 fewer vouchers. And that is just scratching the surface.
It also completely lacks the basic guardrails we include in all of our funding bills, on a bipartisan basis, each and every year, to make sure that our States and our communities are taken care of and not just subject to the whims of the Trump administration or any administration to pick winners and losers.
House Republicans are not trying to responsibly fund the government; they are trying to turn it into a slush fund for Trump and Musk to wield as they see fit so that they can shift their focus entirely to tax cuts for billionaires.
Right now, we--Congress--have the power of the purse. We have that power to fight for our States, to fight for our families, to bring Federal dollars back home and build bridges and feed families and care for veterans and fight fentanyl--whatever our communities tell us they need.
We should not cede that power with this bill. That is really worth sitting with for a minute.
We all chose to be here, to be here in Congress. We chose to take on this role so we can advocate for causes and communities that we care about and work in a bipartisan manner to reach compromise, to make sure that our causes and our communities get the support they need.
House Republicans' full-year CR would instead pass the buck to Elon Musk and unelected political appointees to decide who gets funded and who doesn't. Is that not why each and every one of us was actually elected, to fight for our States and to fight for our communities as the people who know them best?
I certainly know that is true for me. I have worked for years with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that people back home who trusted us when we said we would fight for them always know Congress has their back.
So really think about that before you vote to make your voice mean less for the rest of this fiscal year because it is terrifying to think of what unelected political appointees would do.
We have already gotten an alarming preview of how Trump will threaten to cut off States and cities that might disagree with him, and Elon will totally work the government to benefit his companies and hurt his competitors.
I have to say, our bipartisan appropriations process is not always easy, but it is a heck of a lot better than handing over our decision making to this or to any administration. Voting against this bill is about standing for communities and families who actually rely on the funding and for our ability--every one of us--to be a voice for our constituents in Congress because what is going to happen when, perhaps, medical research funding gets sucked away from cancer and Alzheimer's all because a scientist worked somewhere previously and said that vaccines are safe and all of a sudden the funding is gone?
What happens when you can't get a bridge replaced because the political appointees at DOT don't like the policies your mayors advocated for?
What happens when they reduce staffing at national parks in your backyard because your Governor won't deny climate change?
The bipartisan directives we provide--we, Congress, provides--each year with our funding bills help guard against that kind of thing for any administration. And all of that is missing from this disastrous slush fund CR.
Through bipartisan compromise, we make sure our communities have a voice at the table, and our taxpayer dollars have a return on their taxes. We should reject this bill. We should pass a short-term CR to avoid a shutdown, and then we should do our job and work on full-year spending bills like we were sent here to do.
Mr. President, I am scheduled to be part of a colloquy here in just a couple minutes, but I wanted to make a comment about what the Senator from Washington has shared.
I am going to use a term that maybe some people are not familiar with. We are in a ``Morton's fork''--a Morton's fork. We have heard about a fork in the road. Some people know what a Hobson's choice is. But a Morton's fork is a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives. And if this isn't where we are right now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what is.
As Senator Murray has outlined, a long-term CR--a long-term CR--when we have already done our appropriations work and we are not able to get to that work and instead we basically give the administration the ability to direct within the funding levels but direct as they will see fit through the end of September is something that I think many of us-- certainly this appropriator--do not really feel comfortable with.
I spent a lot of time within my Appropriations subcommittee, working very hard with the Department of the Interior, to make sure that we knew, whether it was funding for wildland firefighters or what we were doing within the VA or within any of the other Agencies--that we did what people asked and expected us to do. We did those bills, and I think we did a pretty good job.
Mine moved out of full committee unanimously, and then they didn't advance. So here we are sitting at a place where we have to take either the choice of a long-term CR and basically give up the work that we have done as a Congress or we move to a government shutdown, an equally untenable and equally unpleasant alternative and one that, quite honestly, we should not be in this position. We should not be in this place where we have two bad choices for our government and for the people of this country.
We can do better. I wish--I agree, Senator Murray--I wish that what we were able to advance was a short-term CR that would allow us to move to finish up our appropriations bills, do our work, and then start moving on to fiscal year 2026. I don't know whether it is possible between now and the end of day on March 14, but I, for one, am at a place where I am just beside myself that we are in a place where we feel that we have no good alternatives. We are in a Morton's fork.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to come to the floor today to support Ukraine. I am especially pleased that we have colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are here to support the Ukrainians in this unjust war against Russia.
Now, I understand and appreciate the desire for peace in Ukraine, and I understand why we should end the senseless killing of innocent people. I think if you ask Ukrainians, they want this war to end too. They are watching how this war is destroying their country, but the best way to make a deal here is to give Ukraine as much leverage as possible.
I am pleased to hear today that there is the potential for a cease- fire; that as part of that, U.S. intelligence sharing would be turned back on. I think we should also keep sanctions on Russia. I think NATO membership should be on the table for Ukraine because Vladimir Putin only understands strength.
When he invaded Crimea in 2014, a lot of people, including myself, didn't think our response was strong enough. We were concerned that Vladimir Putin couldn't be trusted to abide by negotiated agreements, and 3 years ago, of course, Putin proved us right when he directed his forces to attack Ukraine again in a full-scale invasion.
His missiles struck kindergartens and maternity wards, and they continue to strike innocent civilians. His soldiers carried out massacres in places like Bucha, where just a few weeks ago, I saw firsthand, along with Senators Bennet and Tillis, the lingering effects of trauma of what Vladimir Putin and the Russians did in Bucha.
We heard about the indiscriminate murdering of civilians, the rape and the torture of innocent bystanders. Well, Russian soldiers rushed into Ukraine from the north, from the south, and from the east. Many predicted that the country would fall within weeks, if not days. But as we stand on the floor today, Ukraine is still standing. That is thanks, in no small part, to the strong bipartisan support that Ukraine has enjoyed here in Congress.
I think that support--that strong bipartisan support--has been there because we understand that this is a fight for democracy. This is the fight to stop the overturning of the international rules-based order, to stop a dictator like Vladimir Putin from going into a country and thinking just because he wants to take it over, he can.
We know that not only are our allies watching what happens here, but so are our adversaries. North Korea is already fighting on Russia's side against the Ukrainians. Iran is providing missiles. China is providing support. They are watching what America does here.
We understand, as Republican and Democratic Senators, that to have a lasting peace in Ukraine, we need to make sure that Russia is accountable, and that we have security guarantees.
Now, there are a number of ways to do that, and they don't necessarily mean U.S. troops on the ground or even NATO troops on the ground. Europe is working through different options.
As I said, Senator Tillis and I were recently in Ukraine, along with Senator Bennet, and we saw firsthand that despite Russia's advantages in size and manpower, that Ukrainians are not giving up. Ukraine now has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, the most advanced in Europe.
I came away impressed by their ingenuity, their ability to innovate in the face of Russian aggression. Ukrainians are sharing those lessons from the battlefield with our U.S. military. They are helping us prepare for the wars of the future, and it is not just something that we understand in Congress is important, but my constituents in New Hampshire understand how important it is that we support the Ukrainians.
I brought with me today a poster from a community effort in New Hampshire that has raised $4 million to support the people and children, particularly, in Ukraine. They provided 3 million-plus pounds of food, 10,000 sleeping bags, hundreds of generators, and 900 children are in trauma counseling because of their effort. They raised over $4 million from New Hampshire to support the Ukrainians.
Americans across this country understand why this fight is important to us. It is why we are here on the floor today to reiterate that we stand with Ukraine, and I urge all of my colleagues who support Ukraine, Republicans and Democrats alike, to join us--join us in speaking up for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity; join us in pushing to strengthen Ukraine's place at the negotiating table; join us in calling on Moscow to withdraw from the Ukrainian territory that it has seized.
Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives in this fight. They have been on the frontlines for all of us. As a group of women in the Ukrainian military said to me in the first year of the war: Give us the equipment; give us the arms so that we can fight the Russians so that you in America don't have to.
Well, they have been on the frontlines for all of us defending the international order that has served American interests since the end of World War II. I hope we will continue to support them in that effort.
Mr. President, I yield to my colleague Senator Murkowski.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today with the Senator from New Hampshire as well as other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Ukraine. We are now more than 3 years into Russia's unprovoked brutal war against Ukraine.
I think we are encouraged by the news that we are seeing advance this afternoon with the talks in Saudi Arabia between the United States and Ukrainian officials as they talk about the potential for a cease-fire and potential for the United States to restore military support and intelligence sharing. These are promising developments.
I think we all want to--we all want to--arrive at a place where we see peace. But when we talk about how the peace is gained, I think, again, the discussions that are had on this floor--those of us who have had an opportunity to go to Ukraine and see the situation on the ground ourselves, to speak with so many engaged in this effort--the stakes are not only about Ukraine's sovereignty. The stakes also include our values, our security, and our credibility as the leader of the free world.
This is not just a regional conflict on the edge of Europe. It is a global test. It is a test of whether the international community will allow borders to be redrawn by force, a test of whether democracies will continue to stand together when authoritarian regimes literally try to rewrite the rules, and, yes, it is a test; it is a test of American leadership in the 21st century.
As was stated, the Ukrainian people are not asking us to fight their war. They are doing the fighting. It is their sons, it is their daughters that are dying. What they are asking of us as the world's leading democracy is to help us with the tools, help us with the arms, the ammunition, the logistical support; help them protect them; help them with the intelligence that can be provided through satellite imaging; help them so that they can protect themselves.
I think we should be proud. We should be proud as Americans that we have helped to make a difference. We have helped Ukraine push back the Russian advance. It has prevented Kyiv from falling to Russia. It continues to help Ukrainian defenders hold the line there.
So every weapons system, every round of ammunition and radar and drone that we have helped to provide--these aren't just supplies; these are literally lifelines to the people.
When you think about the people, I think it is important to also recognize another way that we have helped in this country. Senator Shaheen showed a picture of the Ukrainian families and the people in her State. In Alaska, we have welcomed, we have embraced, we have helped situate Ukrainian families who have sought refuge, who are here in a place like Alaska, in a place like New Hampshire, because where they call home is not safe to be.
So how we can support them is important because when we support Ukraine, we are not just helping a nation in need, we are protecting and we are preserving the rules-based international order that has helped keep the peace for generations.
If we falter, others are watching. Others are watching the situation in Moscow, in Beijing, in Tehran, Pyongyang. So if it is seen that we are walking away from Ukraine, if we embrace appeasement, we embolden every aggressor around the globe.
More than that, it is our allies, it is our friends, our partners-- they are watching this, and they are asking the question: Is the United States a country that can be depended on? Are we
I understand absolutely the cause for restraint in our support--that war costs too much, that we need to be focusing on issues here at home--but, again, the fight is bigger than that. It is significant, yes, for Ukraine, but it is about democratic values and standing up for democratic values; it is about stopping the expansionist ambitions of authoritarian regimes.
I think we have to be honest here. Look at history. Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. In 2005, in a state of the nation address, Putin said:
He has never hidden his ambitions from that statement. When Putin says that the ``ongoing collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible,'' he means us. He means our allies and the broader narrative about the decline of Western influence. He wants NATO to be divided, and he wants the United States isolated. This works to his advantage. He just probably didn't expect that America was going to do it for him.
Now, as an Alaskan, I get geography. I am acutely aware of the threat a more aggressive Russia poses just across the Bering Sea. Two miles separate the United States--Alaska's Little Diomede and Russia's Big Diomede. We see Russia's military buildup when we see the Russian bombers that are flying in our area, when we see the Russian and the Chinese naval forces out in our waters. But we also know and have long known that a destabilized Europe means a more dangerous world for the United States. This conflict may seem like a continent away, a long way away, but the consequences are anything but distant.
We all want this war to end, but it cannot end on Russia's terms. If it does, we should expect nothing more than a temporary respite before the resumption of hostilities. Why are we going to start trusting and believing Putin's word now given his track record? We have seen this before. History doesn't lie, and the appeasement of tyrants does not bring peace.
Russia started this conflict, and it is critical for us to stand with Ukraine to end it--not just because it is right but because it is necessary.
Mr. President, thank you, and I thank my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, for coming to the floor today in support of our continued support for Ukraine.
I was heartened to hear today that President Zelenskyy is on board with the U.S. ceasefire proposal. That is good news. It does highlight that President Zelenskyy has shown time and again that he is always willing to negotiate for peace. Putin has always been the aggressor. And that is why I believe we must stand with Ukraine.
You know, the question before us today--whether we will continue to stand with Ukraine--has immense implications for the security of the United States, of our European allies, and of world peace.
These are critical questions to get right: Should the United States stand by our 80-year-old security commitments in Europe? Should the United States stand behind the rules-based order established in the aftermath of the catastrophic World War II or should we abandon those rules despite the fact that they have served our national security interests for so long? Those are the questions.
You know, in the aftermath of the horrors of World War II, in which more than 80 million people died, the United States did establish alliances and security commitments in Europe and determined that this was the way to avoid a World War III--investments in NATO, Armed Forces in Europe, and European democracy and economic prosperity. We did not want to repeat what happened after World War I, where none of this was done, and it created the conditions for a Second World War.
Perhaps most importantly, America asserted that it would defend a Europe so borders are not changed by force, where nations cannot invade weaker neighbors with impunity.
Was that effort worth it in these past 80 years? Yes. Since some are now suggesting otherwise, I would like to mention a few of the reasons why the post-World War II order in Europe, led by the United States and enacted by a treaty in this U.S. Senate, was a success in keeping the peace.
No conflict. Europe has avoided a major war for 80 years.
The end of the U.S.S.R. Europe weathered the storm of the breakup of the Soviet Union, ushering in new countries committed to democratic values of freedom and democracy.
Yugoslavia. Europe and NATO weathered the conflict and breakup of the former Yugoslavia, demonstrating unprecedented EU-NATO cooperation and commitments in the Balkans to Western democratic values.
Our European allies have always been there for us, including in the aftermath of 9/11.
Economic values. Our commitments also ushered in the fall of communism and a vibrant European Union that is peaceful and democratic--a club that the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and now Ukraine want into.
It is a testament to the success of the painstaking efforts that Republican and Democratic administrations and Republican majority and Democratic majority of the U.S. Senate adhere to.
But these commitments to European security, to NATO, and to protecting territorial integrity weren't only good in the past. To say that these alliances and commitments are tired or worn out says that we are tired, that we are worn out of peace and tired of maintaining peace for our citizens here in the United States. That is a fatigue we can never succumb to--ever. Those values are needed today to protect Ukraine in Europe and the United States from a rampant, unlawful, invasive Russia.
You know, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, along with the rest of Eastern Europe and the Balkan States, has moved rapidly to reorient its politics and policies towards the European Union, toward democracy, toward freedom. It was, in fact, Ukraine's pursuit of a closer relationship with the EU that Putin the autocrat used as an excuse to interfere in Ukraine's internal affairs.
The invasion of Ukraine also demonstrated the resilience of America's security relationships with Europe and NATO. Never has the European Command of the U.S. Armed Forces--designed and built to defend Western Europe against a Soviet invasion--been called upon to coordinate the actual defense of European sovereign borders from an invasion from the east. Today, that is a reality. Europe also--very much our partner--saw the threat and rose to the occasion.
In part--and I want to acknowledge President Trump's insistence on this--European countries have begun to increase their defense spending, as they should and as they must. They have done so, and they have stepped up by providing materiel, as we have--advanced missiles, drones, and other military technology--for Ukraine. In fact, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, Europe has given more to Ukraine in support and weapons than the United States. We are doing it together.
We cannot take for granted that we have had this peace in Europe for 80 years. We cannot take for granted that we did that. It was the result of that sustained commitment of Members of this body on both sides of the aisle and of Presidents of both parties. Our duty is to keep that alliance united at this stressful time.
If Ukraine fails, we should not assume that European security and our alliances there will survive. World War II ended 80 years ago. We have to keep it 80 more.
The Senators that ratified the establishment of NATO and our American-European commitments to peace and security on the European continent--they understood that our European alliances are critical to our own security. They would be rightly proud of their success story-- of 80 years of peace, of democracy, of freedom in Europe--but they would be horrified at the threat that Putin now poses to Europe, threatening everything that we and those who came before us have worked for.
Ukraine's integration with the rest of Europe, their own right to self-determination, Ukraine's battlefield courage, and Ukraine's political commitment to democracy and freedom validate the 80 years of America's commitment to creating structures that can enforce and protect peace. Turning away from Ukraine now when it needs us most could mean the end of that 80-year success story.
We must stand by Ukraine and against that unlawful invasion by Mr. Putin. We must stand by our European allies. And we must reaffirm our continued dedication to the work of those who served here before us to build the alliances and to sustain the alliances that have preserved the peace in Europe. Their future and ours depend on it.
Mr. President, before I begin my formal remarks, let me thank my neighbor from New Hampshire for organizing this bipartisan display of support for Ukraine.
On February 24, 2022, without justification, without provocation, Russia launched a full-scale, brutal invasion of its democratic neighbor Ukraine with missiles, air assaults, and army divisions.
As John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things,'' and the facts of what happened on that terrible day are undeniable. It was Russia that started the war.
Many thought that Ukraine had no chance against the perceived might of the Russian armed forces. However, the Ukrainians fought so bravely against that initial onslaught and, since then, the West has come together with speed and clarity of purpose to support Ukraine.
Senator McConnell stated it best last week by saying:
As a result of the invasion, two nations, Sweden and Finland, joined NATO; Eastern Europe is completing a pivot away from Russia's energy sources; and NATO allies are surging to the 2 percent GDP goal for defense spending.
As for the brave Ukrainians, they pushed back the initial Russian invaders and are now doing their best to hold the line in eastern Ukraine, despite Russian soldiers, ammunition, and UAVs far outnumbering their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine decimated the Russian Black Sea Fleet and has forced Russia to augment its forces with North Korean soldiers and Iranian weapon systems.
But despite the successes in the past 3 years, the war drags on with devastating consequences: 390,000 Ukrainians have been wounded, with more than 46,000 deaths so far. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian families have been displaced, and estimates are that approximately 29,000 civilian Ukrainians have lost their lives. In many cases, they were targeted by the Russians.
It is not American troops who are dying on the Ukrainian frontlines. It is the Ukrainians who are courageously defending their country, their democracy, their way of life. And their defenses directly connect to our efforts in NATO and the defense of Eastern Europe.
If Vladimir Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, as several of my colleagues have pointed out, he will not stop there. He will continue to pursue his dream, his goal, of recreating the former Soviet Union. He has made that crystal clear. In my judgment, he would most likely seize Moldova next; again, invade Georgia, as he did in 2008; threaten the Baltic States; and menace Poland and Finland.
The best way to ensure that the United States is not drawn into a larger regional war in Europe, which would directly threaten American troops, is by helping Ukraine defend itself against this unprovoked invasion.
The national security supplemental appropriations package that was signed into law last year included $15.4 billion to help Ukraine purchase American-made weapons. It is strengthening our military readiness, rebuilding our industrial base, and assisting our partners and allies at a volatile and dangerous time in world history.
For the past 3 years, we have heard repeatedly the myth that somehow the European countries were not doing their part in helping to equip Ukraine, but let's take a look at the facts. As a percentage of GDP, the United States ranks 17th--17th--in support for Ukraine. The top three countries include Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia. These NATO nations are all in on supporting Ukraine's defenses because they understand that the stakes are so high. Furthermore, NATO allies have committed $185 billion to buy weapons and defense systems produced right here in the United States, which helps us sustain good jobs and strengthens the industrial base.
Both the Biden administration's slow-walking of the delivery of weapons to Ukraine and the Trump administration's pausing military aid and intelligence sharing sent the wrong signal to an aggressive Russia. The decision this afternoon to restart U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing are welcome steps to strengthening Ukraine's position in negotiations. With the tentative cease-fire signed by Ukraine and now up for Russia's concurrence, resumed aid and intelligence sharing with our ally Ukraine allows that country to be in a much stronger position moving forward.
History is filled with examples of well-intentioned leaders who sought to avoid war but who actually made war more likely by refusing to recognize the evil with which they were confronted. Neville Chamberlain declared ``peace in our time,'' trying to appease Germany before World War II. We should not make the same mistake today by appeasing Russia.
We cannot avert our eyes. We cannot leave an ally to fend for itself, and we must show resolve to deter possible future aggression by China, Iran, and North Korea.
Our adversaries are watching closely our response in Ukraine.
Mr. President, Putin will only stop when we stop him. That piece of wisdom was shared with me on a trip to Europe by a former colleague, Senator McCain, and it seems to me to predict what has now unfolded over the last 3 years.
Three years ago, I was in Europe with colleagues, visiting American troops training with NATO allies and partners in Poland and Lithuania, on the day that the Russians began their illegal, unjustified, full- spectrum invasion of Ukraine. As more than 100,000 combat troops poured over the border, missiles flew in the air, and jets bombed, the world recoiled in horror and watched, expecting that the Ukrainians would be overrun in just 3 days.
Instead, President Zelenskyy, the elected President of a democracy, stood firm and stayed fast and defended his country. When offered a last-minute evacuation by America, he said: I don't need a ride. I need ammunition.
And I am thrilled to be on the floor today with a bipartisan group of my colleagues. Thank you to my colleague from New Hampshire for organizing this, and to my colleague from Maine for her words, which I will agree with from beginning to end. We must deter Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
If you look at who has joined the fight alongside Russia--Iran, North Korea--this is not a team America should be on. And if we look at who has come to the defense and aid of Ukraine, it is democracies from throughout Europe and the world--more than 50 countries--that, in combination, have done more than we have, significantly, to welcome Ukrainian refugees; to support the recovery of their economy; and to arm them in this ongoing, desperate, and critical fight for freedom in Ukraine.
Who is Vladimir Putin? He is a brutal and aggressive dictator. He is a war criminal. He is someone who has used every ounce of power and resource at his grasp to shatter the peace of Europe that has lasted decades since the Second World War and to attempt to drive a wedge between the United States and our European partners and allies.
The bravery, the determination, the skill, and the capacity of the Ukrainian people to stand and fight is breathtaking. And all of us who have had the honor of visiting Kyiv, of visiting Ukraine, of spending time with those who, behind the frontline, support
I had the opportunity, with our former colleague and friend Senator Portman, to go to Kyiv and to present the Liberty Medal from our National Constitution Center to President Zelenskyy. And to travel through a city shattered by war and to visit with people determined to continue their fight was as inspiring to me as I know it has been to many of my colleagues who have made that same trip.
We are here today to ask: Who are we and what will we do?
We are Americans. We have stood alongside and fought alongside those who have pursued democracy, those who have stood up for liberty, for decades, around the world, and we should not shrink from this fight. We can and should insist on a just and lasting peace.
We would all like to see this brutal war come to an end. We would all like to see the suffering stop. But to force on Ukraine a cease-fire that is really a surrender masked as a cease-fire would be to betray the sacrifice and service of so many. Asking Ukraine to willingly give up conquered territory and recognize Russian sovereignty, asking Ukraine to give up its desire for security and for integration into the West, to ask Ukraine to agree to limits on its military and its capacity to be prepared for what is a likely renewed Russian assault in the future--all of these would lead to not a neutral Ukraine but a neutered Ukraine.
We know what happens next. What happens next is that the world will look at whatever peace we can secure for Ukraine and ask: Are we reliable? Is the United States a reliable ally and partner?
Putin has already suffered a strategic defeat. NATO has already been expanded. The border between NATO and Russia has doubled. Our partners throughout the world have come to this fight, and they are committing even more, in recent weeks, as Europe has stepped up to pledge hundreds of billions of dollars more.
If we are to restore deterrence, if we are to sustain the peace, if we are to be the indispensable Nation that we have worked and fought so long to be, we must finish the job. We must deter Putin from future aggression by demanding that Ukraine be secured by a just and lasting peace.
The news today that intelligence and security cooperation has restarted is encouraging, but we have a resolution cosponsored by all the Members on the floor today that makes clear where we stand: We stand with Ukraine. We stand with democracy. We insist on a just and lasting peace in this instance, and we stand for Ukraine. ``Slava Ukraini.''
Mr. President, my views on America's interest in Ukraine are well known. I spent the better part of the last 3 years, here on this floor, pointing out the glaring connections between European security and the security of America's interest all across the globe--core national security interests that determine our prosperity.
Ukraine's victory and stability in Europe is squarely in the interest of the United States--our interests. Europe is our largest trading partner. Russia is a thuggish autocracy with an economy smaller than Italy's. The Russian economy is smaller than Italy's. There is simply no equivalence. There is no grand realignment opportunity that has gone unnoticed.
So let me start with this. The most harmful possible outcome of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, for U.S. interests, would be this headline: Russia wins; America loses.
Russia wins; America loses.
We can't let that be how this ends, but look at where we are right now:
On one side, fellow members of the most successful military alliance in world history, with a combined GDP of more than $17 trillion, are openly--openly--planning for a world in which America does not call the shots and where our word no longer carries any weight. These are the closest allies and partners who have worked hand in glove with America, bought American equipment, and taken America's lead. But, if America turns its back on them, they will look elsewhere for guidance, for coordination, for weapons, and even for trade.
On the other side is Putin's Russia and its $2 trillion GDP, where Kremlin officials now say that America's current ``foreign policy configurations'' now ``largely align with our vision'' and that hiccups in the U.S.-Ukraine relations are ``useful'' because they drive a wedge between America and our European allies. That is how the Russians look at this.
Well, it is not hard to imagine why they look at it that way. Freezing lethal assistance and intelligence support to Ukraine made Russia's job a lot easier. It was easier to hit Ukraine's defenders along with its schools, hospitals, and nurseries; and after 3 years of immense progress toward a stronger and more capable Transatlantic Alliance, with greater commitments to burden-sharing and European leadership, the West that had resolved to check Putin's neo-Soviet ambitions is now in danger of being consumed by internal recrimination.
What welcome news for an autocrat whose grip on power depends on the endurance of a wartime economy.
The will to force Putin to make serious concessions in the interests of lasting peace is fragmented, and too many on this side of the Atlantic seem to believe, foolishly, that his appetite will be satisfied in eastern Ukraine. His appetite will be satisfied in eastern Ukraine. This is the same mistake made by the architects of the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements. The circumstances are not crying out for a Minsk III.
Somehow, this doesn't sound like the makings of a successful deal for America. Somehow, these don't seem like the conditions for advancing America's interests in European peace and security, let alone pretending to mediate a dispute between equals.
Russia wins; America loses. It is not too late to avoid that outcome, but it will require that America and our allies operate from the same set of facts. So let's talk about actual facts.
First, the dollars and cents: America's total Ukraine-related spending comes in at $175 billion--not $350 billion but half that much. As a share of GDP, 11 European countries have allocated more Ukraine- related spending than the United States. In real terms, total European aid is twice--twice--U.S. spending, with more military aid than America, more budgetary assistance than America--period. Those are the actual facts.
Our allies' increasing investments have been good news for American security and the strength of our alliance. They have meant expanding arsenals and industrial capacity along with bigger defense budgets for buying American for now.
But what if--what if--even in having established the correct math, you think it is still too much to spend on helping to degrade a major American adversary without putting a single American servicemember in harm's way--not a single American servicemember in harm's way? What if you still think, somehow, we are getting a raw deal?
Consider where most of the Ukraine-related spending--$120 billion-- has actually gone: to investing in U.S. capabilities and expanding our own defense industrial capacity. We are already $120 billion closer to restoring the sort of forces and capacity we will need to deter conflict in the Indo-Pacific than we were 3 years ago; or consider-- consider--the value of the operational and tactical lessons the U.S. and our allies are drawing from Ukraine's battlefield experience. The conflict in Ukraine is a battle lab--a glimpse at the future of warfare--and our Ukrainian partners are innovating faster than American industry is often able to. Concerned about the next major conflict? We are learning how to prepare better for it. U.S.-made systems are literally feeding performance data back to us.
The American people are not getting fleeced. I am going to say it again. The American people are not getting fleeced--far from it--but if we mistake surrender for peace, we will be risking far worse.
China is watching what we do. So are America's allies and partners in Asia. To believe that we can torch our credibility in one region and not tarnish it in another is foolish. When we treat withholding assistance from Ukraine like a cudgel and insist that the victim of aggression is the side that has to
Now, I have heard that Ukraine needs to be prepared to ``do difficult things.'' I am curious which difficult thing our frontline partners haven't been doing for the past 3 years, like defending besieged towns and cities, like burying their sons and daughters. Will Russia be expected to do difficult things as well, like ending its onslaught? By what means are we prepared to compel them? War is hell, and the worst consequences are always borne by innocent civilians in flight and by brave soldiers holding the line.
Ending the war in Ukraine is a noble aim--preventing war, even more so. But peace is different than surrender, and being honest about who is to blame doesn't hinder lasting peace; it enables it. Why should we be less willing to call Russia out for its brutal aggression than we are to call Hamas or Hezbollah out for theirs? Would we be afraid to call Iran out if it had nuclear weapons? Is that the lesson we want the world to draw from this conflict?
Ronald Reagan epitomized peace through strength, not by just saying the words but by action. He called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire at the same time as he dealt productively with Gorbachev.
In July of 1983, he spoke to the people of the captive nations of the Soviet Union and communist regimes.
He said:
In the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine got its chance at freedom. Putin intends to extinguish it. Ukraine is serious about a just and stable peace. How do we know? We know because the Ukrainians preferred it overwhelmingly until their neighbor chose war instead again and again.
I will reserve my skepticism, my disdain, and my condescension of the authoritarian thug who treats the slaughter of innocent children like a sport, and anyone who cares about not getting played for a sucker should do the same. In the face of our hesitation, Putin has escalated. He has insulted the sincere pursuit of peace. It is a crystal-clear reminder that what he is after isn't an end to the bloodshed. America cannot afford to get played. So let's not.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 6 minutes, Senator Tillis for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Sanders for up to 20 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator McConnell for his constancy over the last 3 years. We have been out on the floor together many times to speak about the need to support Ukraine.
I also want to thank my colleague Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for organizing this bipartisan gathering.
Senator Tillis from North Carolina is here as well. It is nice to be here in a bipartisan way with people from both sides of the aisle to work on something of this critical importance to my State of Colorado, to the country, and to the world.
Senator McConnell, not surprisingly today, talked about that very, very famous lesson that Ronald Reagan taught all of us, and that was his pursuit of peace through strength. I was on the floor talking about that last week. Today we have a corollary to Ronald Reagan's rule of peace through strength from Senator McConnell, which is, don't mistake surrender for peace. Don't mistake surrender for peace.
The lesson Ronald Reagan was teaching when he said ``peace through strength'' was a lesson that history had taught him and history had taught the free world.
Dust off your reliable 10th-grade Western civics textbook and look up President Woodrow Wilson's attempts to achieve ``peace without victory'' for either side--that is how he described it--as an example of the failure that weakness invites, the kind of weakness that Leader McConnell was talking about.
Before the United States even had entered World War I, President Wilson tried to force both sides to accept a peace deal they didn't want by depriving them of weapons and depriving them of funds.
In 1916--again, before the United States was directly aiding the allies--financiers from the United States were financing the UK, which was at war, and also funding their allies in mainland Europe. So Wilson's government cautioned U.S. investors against issuing short-term bonds to the UK and to France.
This Presidential expression of disapproval had the effect of cutting off U.S. private assistance to Europe altogether, and the record is painfully clear. President Wilson's decision created a financial crisis in the United Kingdom, but it did nothing to end the war. Instead, Germany, in 1917, only escalated their attacks on civilian shipping from the United States, prompting Congress finally to declare war and approve a $3 billion loan to France and to England.
By the way, just to amplify what the leader has already said this morning, that $3 billion loan was about $81 billion in today's dollars, when you think about the roughly $120 billion that we have invested in Ukraine.
In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain even more famously than Wilson tried to appease Hitler with the infamous Munich Agreement, through which the UK, France, and Italy allowed Nazi Germany to annex part of peaceful Czechoslovakia. As our history textbooks show, Hitler never stopped in Czechoslovakia but continued his war throughout Europe.
Just as Wilson and Chamberlain failed, friends of freedom in Ukraine and around the world should not pressure Ukraine into accepting an unjust peace that will never, ever last. Only with security guarantees from Europe and the United States can we have some assurance that Putin will not invade Ukraine again at a moment when he thinks the world is not watching. That is a guarantee. That is a guarantee.
I visited Ukraine last month with my friends Senator Shaheen and Senator Tillis, who are both here today. We saw the courage of the Ukrainian people up close. We saw the courage they have forged to save their country and the suffering they have endured--43,000 deaths and another almost 400,000 casualties--not just on behalf of Ukraine but on behalf of Europe, the West, democracy, freedom, our national security.
In cemeteries all across Ukraine, fresh graves are piled high with dirt and flowers, testifying to the Ukrainian people's sacrifice. To put it in American terms, Coloradoan terms, there is not a county in the entire country where somebody hasn't lost somebody to this war.
But the Ukrainian people have not had to fight this fight alone. The American people have steadfastly and generously backed this fight to the tune of, as I mentioned, $125 billion.
I won't go through all the reasons why that has been good for the United States, as Senator McConnell said--and that is a lot of money, but it is just about 0.53 percent of our GDP. That is about $365 an American.
Our European allies and far-flung ones, like Australia and Japan, have stepped up as well because they know that supporting Ukraine means standing with people willing to do anything to fight for their country. They know that with American weapons and those of our allies, the American people have literally kept Putin's army at the gates of Europe while forcing him to squander more than $200 billion and staggering casualties of 700,000 people.
We learned while we were in Ukraine that the Ukrainians are killing more Russians today than they were 6 months ago.
We all want this war to end, which is why I was glad to see the United States commit today to resuming intelligence sharing and security assistance to Ukraine as part of the potential U.S.-brokered, 30-day cease-fire with Russia. But for the sake of Ukraine and the rest of the free world, we must not pressure Ukraine to silence their guns
This requires that the United States, our allies, and Ukraine continue working together to establish terms of the peace and negotiate with Putin while the Ukrainians continue their brave fight. They are not asking to be relieved of this terrible burden.
I couldn't even imagine the other day when we were in Kyiv how cold it must have felt to people who were on the frontlines of that war. It was cold enough just in the streets of Kyiv. It was cold enough just getting on the train from Poland to go to Kyiv. But they are embracing their responsibility because they know that any cease-fire without credible security guarantees will allow Putin to rebuild his army and attack again, and they know that how this war ends will determine whether Putin sets his sites on our NATO allies like Poland and the Baltics.
To conclude that any other result is possible is to completely ignore history, is to completely ignore what Putin has said and whether dictators like China's Xi Jinping test our resolve by invading Taiwan, whether the post-World War II international order the United States and our allies created persists, and whether the United States continues to provide the leadership our parents and grandparents supplied since the end of that war. That is what Senator McConnell calls on us to remember.
Throughout history, it has been too easy for some to ignore the moral responsibility we have to people who are sacrificing their lives a continent away on behalf of our shared values and interests. It is harder in these moments but important and, I would say, necessary for the living to stand for freedom and democracy and those willing to give their last breaths to make those values eternal.
We in this Chamber have to demand moral and strategic clarity by continuing to support Ukraine's fight to secure a truly just peace through strength because, as the Ukrainian-born author Vasily Grossman wrote nearly 70 years ago, ``In the cruel and terrible time in which our generation has been condemned to live on this earth, we must never make peace with evil. We must never become indifferent to others or undemanding of ourselves.''
With that, I thank my bipartisan colleagues again. I look forward to the day when we are out here not with 8 Senators but 80 Senators in support of freedom and in support of the fight Ukraine is leading.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, last night, I had someone reach out to me and say they heard I was going to speak again on Ukraine on the floor, and they asked me what I was going to talk about. I said to reinforce that Ukraine needs our help, that Europe needs to step up, and that Vladimir Putin is the personification of evil. I am going to try to accomplish all of that in less than 10 minutes so we can get on with the vote.
Everybody needs to remember how this war started. Just to show you-- you can believe me when I tell you that you know when Putin is lying: when his lips are moving.
Let's go back to October, before the invasion in February. He said he was just putting troops together on a training mission--thousands of troops just coincidentally near the Ukrainian border but a training mission. Then it became a military exercise. Now it has become an illegal invasion of a sovereign, democratic nation that has experienced 80,000 dead servicemembers, more than 13,000 dead civilians, 400,000 wounded servicemembers, and 30,000 injured civilians.
Let me tell you a little bit about those civilians. They are 16-year- olds who had their legs blown off because Vladimir Putin ordered the launching of dumb bombs into residential areas. He allowed drones to hit children's hospitals that we visited.
This is the carnage that the Ukrainian people are experiencing every single day--24/7, 365--since the invasion 3 years ago.
Vladimir Putin is a murderer. He has not only allowed his servicemembers--some estimated 800,000--lose their lives on the battlefield, but he has gone so far as to engage mercenaries--the Wagner Group that he had down in Africa--in Ukraine, murdering indiscriminately anybody who moves.
If you want to see the best example of that, you need to go to Bucha and hear the story we heard when we were there. Bucha is a community of a couple of hundred thousand people just outside of Kyiv. Shortly after they invaded and it was clear they weren't to achieve their objectives, they decided that they were going to invoke terror in the minds of those who were fighting and the civilians in Ukraine, so they decided to go into a community that would be similar to going to Northern Virginia. So imagine Kyiv is Washington, DC, and they go out in Northern Virginia, and they just indiscriminately start murdering people. They killed over 500 people in 33 days, all of them civilians. This isn't like urban legend; this was caught on video--people riding a bicycle, walking a dog, being murdered. Vladimir Putin ordered that. Vladimir Putin allowed that.
Ladies and gentlemen, the surprise to Vladimir Putin was that he had no earthly idea of the strength democracy and freedom have in the hearts and minds of human beings. The Ukraine people, in spite of overwhelming odds--numbers and weapons--they defended it. They have been defending it for 3 years. So we have to help them.
There is good and evil here. There is no kind of ``Putin is just misunderstood.'' This man is a murderer. This man is a rapist. He is a rapist by virtue of allowing systematic rapes to happen in places that he invades. That is how he operates. He is evil.
Ukraine needs help. Before I talk more about that help, I want to talk about Europe having to step up.
I really appreciated what Senator Collins put together in terms of the contribution to the Ukraine effort. I know, Senator Shaheen and I-- and I thank Senator Shaheen for having this colloquy today--spend a lot of time tracking NATO countries. Let's make sure that, on one hand, we thank Europe for stepping up and doing its part in supporting this effort, but let's not forget that our NATO partners have come up short in satisfying their obligation in NATO to the tune of over $2 trillion over the last 20 years.
The mind races. What would have happened if all that money had been spent and that our NATO alliance was even stronger if everybody had just met the bare minimum for NATO support? Two more trillion dollars would have been spent over the last 20 years.
Would that have been enough to possibly dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine? We will never know. But what I do know is that I want Europe to not just get credit for supporting Ukraine, but Europe also has to shoulder some responsibility for NATO being more vulnerable by not living up to their commitment over the last 20 years.
Let's just get that right, folks, so that we don't have the distraction and the American people get confused between NATO members not stepping up and doing their fair share.
So why are you asking for more money for Ukraine?
The reason we are asking for more money for Ukraine is because Vladimir Putin has a plan, and we could play right into it. People need to understand: Ukraine is a doormat to Europe. It is how he gets from Russia into countries that are trying to democratize and come closer to the West. If he succeeds in Ukraine, he will move into Moldova. He is already actively causing problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As a matter of fact, Senator Shaheen, I don't know if you are aware, but tomorrow the Republika Srpska legislature is going to consider a resolution to separate from BiH. That is Bosnia and Herzegovina. That has got Vladimir Putin all over it. He is already getting his chess pieces around the board. If he feels like he can get some level of success in Ukraine, he is going to march right through there, folks. It is going to happen.
And then, finally, I had somebody ask me: Why are you so animated over Ukraine? Why are you so concerned with Russia?
I give them a one-word answer: China. China is supporting Putin, at
Does anybody really believe that North Korea would send people to the battlefield--they have lost a few thousand since they have been there-- unless China was OK with it?
And then we have Iran. Iran is sending drones to Russia to kill innocent civilians and military personnel in Ukraine.
They are the ``axis of evil,'' and now they have regenerated themselves. We can't let Putin have a win in Ukraine, ladies and gentlemen. We have to step up and make sure that the American people know that it is in our national interest to support Ukraine.
And we also have to let Vladimir Putin know that we do owe him thanks in one way: Thanks for waking up Europe in understanding the grave, existential threat that he represents. Thanks for actually getting Finland and Sweden into NATO and adding 800 miles of border on the Russian border. Thank you for that.
And now I want to thank him for receding back into the cave that he should live the rest of his life in and let democratic nations be free--and free from his threats. And until we are sure of that, we should not relent.
Mr. President, my office and I suspect all Senate offices are getting a whole lot of calls from senior citizens who are experiencing a great deal of fear and anxiety with all of the confusion and chaos that is currently going on here in Washington.
When we have the President and my Republican colleagues talking about cutting Medicaid by some $880 billion--let us be clear--they are not just talking about throwing millions of children and others off of the health insurance they have; they are also talking about cuts to community health centers, which receive about 43 percent of their funding from Medicaid and where millions of seniors go to get their primary care. So cutting Medicaid impacts primary care.
At a time when we have a major crisis in nursing home availability--I know that is true in Vermont; I expect it is true in almost every State in the country--let us understand that Medicaid provides approximately two out of three seniors with the funding they need to live in nursing homes. Make drastic cuts in Medicaid, and it is going to be harder for your mom, your dad to get into a nursing home or to stay in a nursing home. Cuts in Medicaid would be a disaster for seniors in nursing homes.
But it is not just Medicaid cuts that worry seniors. At a time when the Social Security Administration is already understaffed--and again, for years, I have been hearing in my office--I expect other Senators have been hearing in their offices--from seniors who tell us they are calling up Social Security, they have got a problem, and they are not getting a response. And the result of that is that some 30,000 people a year die--die--waiting for their Social Security disability benefits.
And in the midst of all of that, in the midst of a crisis where Social Security is understaffed, when our response should be to significantly increase staffing so that Social Security can better respond to the needs of our constituents, we have Elon Musk and his minions at DOGE cutting some 2,500 of Social Security staff. And, incredibly, they are now threatening to cut up to half of Social Security Administration staffing.
And then, on top of all that, you have Mr. Musk claiming that Social Security, which has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American for over 80 years, claiming that it is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American for over 80 years.
And then you have the President of the United States--State of the Union--lying about millions of people: Oh, millions of people, 200 years of age, 300 years of age, imagine that, getting Social Security benefits.
Seniors understand what all of that is about. They know that Musk and Trump want us to lose faith in Social Security and that, over a period of time, they want to give that indispensable program over to Wall Street.
So let us be clear: In America today, 22 percent of Americans living who are 65 years of age are trying to survive on an income of less than $15,000 a year. Think about that: 22 percent of seniors in America trying to survive on $15,000 a year or less. Half of seniors are trying to get by on $30,000 a year or less. Frankly, I don't know how any senior living on $15,000, $20,000 survives. I don't know. The high cost of prescription drugs, food, housing, keeping warm in the winter, I don't know how they can do that.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we now have the dubious distinction of having one of the highest rates of senior poverty compared to other wealthy nations. In America today, according to the latest OECD estimates, 23 percent of seniors are living in poverty compared to just 4 percent in Norway, 6 percent in France, and 11.5 percent in Canada.
Yes, we have more nuclear weapons than any other country; we have more billionaires than any other country, but we also have one of the highest rates of senior poverty of any country on Earth. We might want to get our priorities right.
Now, while my Republican colleagues would like to make massive cuts to Medicaid in order to provide more tax breaks to billionaires, some of us have a better idea. We think that it makes more sense to substantially improve the lives of our Nation's seniors by expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing benefits.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare, one of the most popular and successful government programs in our Nation's history, into law. Before the enactment--this is really quite interesting. Before the enactment of Medicare, about half of our seniors were uninsured. Today, everyone in America age 65 or older is guaranteed healthcare benefits through Medicare regardless of their income or medical condition. That is the good news.
The bad news is that, since its inception 60 years ago, Medicare has failed to cover such basic healthcare needs as hearing, dental care, and vision. The result: Millions of senior citizens have teeth that are rotting in their mouths. They are unable to hear what their children say or they are unable to read a newspaper because of failing eyesight.
This is the United States of America. We are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Senior citizens should not be walking around with no teeth in their mouth. They should not be unable to hear conversations. They should not be unable to afford glasses so that they can read a newspaper.
The need to expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and eyeglasses is absolutely critical. Nobody--nobody--denies that oral health, hearing, and vision are essential parts of healthcare. We cannot continue to deny seniors these basic healthcare benefits. We can no longer tolerate the fact that 26 million seniors and people with disabilities in America have no dental insurance and no idea how they will be able to pay for the very expensive dental procedures that they need.
The results have been tragic. Nearly one out of five seniors in America have lost all of their natural teeth. Twenty percent of seniors in America have no natural teeth in their mouths. Disgracefully, 60 percent of our Nation's seniors have untreated gum disease, which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis.
Further, it is not acceptable that while nearly two-thirds of seniors over the age of 70 experience hearing loss, less than 30 percent of seniors above this age have ever used a hearing aid, primarily because hearing aids are too expensive. In my view, no senior in America should face isolation from their families and friends simply because they cannot afford the extremely high price of a hearing aid.
In addition, we cannot continue to allow seniors with poor vision to go without routine eye exams or properly prescribed glasses. Poor vision can lead to injury, cognitive impairment, and depression.
Adding dental, vision, and hearing benefits to Medicare is not just good public policy; it will not only ease human suffering and improve the health of our Nation's seniors; it is precisely what the overwhelming majority
According to a poll conducted by Data for Progress last year, it found that 92 percent of the American people support expanding Medicare to provide dental, vision, and hearing benefits, and that is why I have introduced legislation today with Senators Warren, Booker, Welch, Markey, Duckworth, Merkley, and Blumenthal to do just that. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, in the House, has introduced similar legislation, which has more than 110 cosponsors.
Now, I am sure that some of my Republican colleagues may say: Well, you know, it is an interesting idea. It is a good idea, but how are you going to pay for it?
So let me tell you how we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it by requiring Medicare to pay no more for prescription drugs than the VA. Right now, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and that means significantly increased expenses for Medicare. By making sure that Medicare pays no more than the VA, which has for years--for decades--negotiated prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we could not only cut the price of prescription drugs for our seniors in half, we will save over $800 billion over the next decade, which would more--more--than pay for this legislation. Lower the costs of prescription drugs, and get the revenue we need to cover dental, vision, and hearing for seniors.
Now, some of my Republican friends may also argue that this bill is not needed. Some Medicare Advantage plans already offer dental, vision, and hearing benefits, yes, but what my Republican friends may not tell you is, one, seniors still pay thousands of dollars out of pocket because these private Medicare Advantage benefits are totally inadequate. Further, the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has estimated that Medicare Advantage plans overcharge the Federal Government by $83 billion a year.
In other words, if we are serious about waste, fraud, and abuse--hear a lot about that--we may want to take a look at the massive waste and fraud that is taking place with private Medicare Advantage plans. Those savings would also more than fully pay for this legislation.
Therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 939, which was introduced earlier today, that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I share my colleague's frustration with the Medicare system that far too often fails our seniors. Medicare's coverage and reimbursement paradigms routinely prioritize treating the symptoms instead of the underlying causes of chronic stress and disease. Research shows that patients with diminished vision, hearing, or oral health are more likely to suffer chronic conditions like kidney, Alzheimer's, and heart disease.
We should modernize Medicare to focus on prevention and maintenance interventions. Patients should have access to a full spectrum of specialized providers working together as a team, from nutritionists, to dentists, to psychologists and surgeons. However, we must tackle these reforms without increasing the costs for patients or taxpayers. My colleague's proposal would increase the deficit by tens of billions of dollars and risk spiking seniors' premiums.
After years of record inflation, we cannot rush to enact a policy that has not been carefully considered and appropriately integrated into Medicare. This bill was just introduced today. It hasn't even been looked at by the Finance Committee. No hearing has been held, and no evaluation of how to effectively integrate these types of policies has been made.
I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague to enact meaningful improvements to Medicare that deliver better outcomes for Americans. However, simply introducing a bill and then moving to have it passed on the floor of the Senate before there has been any consideration is not the way to proceed. We must proceed within the committee and floor process, within the regular order that this Senate requires.
Therefore, for these reasons, Mr. President, I object to the request.
I ask my colleague, my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee a question. I hear what you are saying. Do I hear you correctly that you are prepared to discuss this legislation in committee?
I am prepared to discuss the issue. I am not telling you that I will limit the discussion to this piece of legislation. But, yes, we are prepared to discuss significant approaches to how we improve and expand proper healthcare treatment in America.
Look, I understand that this bill would bring forth serious debate and discussion, but I would appreciate if we could have a starting point. This bill is pretty simple. It says--and I hear you saying that you need--am I hearing you correctly to say that the idea of covering dental, vision, and hearing is something that you entertain, you think is a good idea, or am I not hearing that?
Right. OK. Fair enough. That is fair enough. But what I would like to do--and I appreciate--you know, I think you and I can agree that we don't use the committee structure here in the Senate as effectively as we might. That is the place to have serious debate and discussion, correct?
OK. I would hope in one way or another--I would appreciate if we could start off with my bill. You could come in and tell me what you don't like about it, and we can go from there. But this is a crisis situation--I think you and I agree--that too many of our seniors are suffering because of lack of dental, hearing, and vision. I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Let's debate it. But can we get this into the committee and have a serious discussion on it?
If this bill is referred to the Finance Committee, then it, like all other legislation in this area that is referred to the Finance Committee, will be reviewed by us. I can't tell you that it will have a specific hearing. I can't tell you exactly how that will work.
We will look at developing a very significant and I hope broad and successful approach to reducing the cost of our healthcare system and increasing the focus and successes in our healthcare system, and I look forward to working with you on that.
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William Pulte, of Florida, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 32.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
HALT ALL LETHAL TRAFFICKING OF FENTANYL ACT_Continued Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, what is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, for the 119th Congress, I ask that the Democratic cochair of the Senate NATO Observer Group be Senator Shaheen and, at her recommendation, the following Democratic Senators participate in the group: Senators Merkley, Coons, King, Booker, Van Hollen, and Rosen.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of procedure for the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library for the 119th Congress be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
rules of the joint committee on printing for the 119th congress
Mr. President, today, with my colleague Senator Cantwell, we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, or PNNL. As one of the Department of Energy's premier national laboratories over the past 60 years, PNNL has tackled some of our Nation's most complex and urgent challenges using its strengths in chemistry, Earth sciences, biology, and data science. As longtime supporters who are well versed in PNNL's valuable contributions to our Nation's scientific discovery, energy, and national security, we are proud to take the opportunity to recognize its 60th anniversary.
In January 1965, the Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor Agency of the Department of Energy, selected Battelle, a nonprofit research and development organization, to take over the Hanford Laboratories at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State. Then known as Pacific Northwest Laboratory, the laboratory provided critical support to plutonium production and nuclear waste cleanup at Hanford and over the years evolved into one of DOE's most diverse multidisciplinary laboratories with significant portfolios in science, energy, and national security.
Over the past 60 years, PNNL has leveraged its scientific capabilities to make significant contributions in important areas such as supporting the cleanup of legacy nuclear waste, understanding Earth systems, modernizing the grid, advancing energy storage, enabling energy resilience, supporting nuclear nonproliferation, and protecting against cyberattacks, as well as building and applying artificial intelligence tools to accelerate scientific discovery in key areas related to national security and energy. PNNL has grown from just over 2,200 employees in 1965 to more than 6,400 today. It is the single largest employer in central Washington, with staff at its main campus in Richland, at PNNL-Sequim, DOE's only marine research facility, as well as in satellite offices in Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and College Park, MD.
We also want to highlight PNNL's collaborations with both academia and industry. PNNL has over 200 joint appointments with over 60 academic institutions and is home to seven joint institutes, combining the expertise and capabilities of universities and a national laboratory to accelerate science impact. In Washington, the Washington State University-PNNL Advanced Grid Institute is working to modernize the electric grid and provide secure energy infrastructure for the Nation. The WSU-PNNL Bioproducts Institute explores ways to transform engineered plants and industrial, agricultural, and municipal wastes into valuable materials and chemicals, including sustainable aviation fuel. The University of Washington-PNNL Northwest Institute for Materials Physics, Chemistry, and Technology, also known as NW Impact, focuses on advancements in materials that have the potential to transform multiple fields including energy, telecommunications, medicine, and information technology. Beyond Washington, PNNL has joint institutes with universities in Oregon, Maryland, and Georgia covering biomedical innovation, Earth systems, and cybersecurity and resilient infrastructure.
PNNL also collaborates with businesses large and small throughout the United States. One of the primary missions at PNNL is to move innovations developed at the lab into the marketplace where they can be used to solve national problems, improve lives, and enhance security. Airport security checkpoints use PNNL-developed millimeter wave technology scanning to detect concealed objects and increase security. Technology identifying molecular differences in samples as small as
During its long history, PNNL has committed to developing the future workforce in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Last year alone, the lab reached more than 51,000 students and 900 educators and hosted 1,717 students as interns, a 35 percent increase since 2020. In addition, PNNL created a STEM Ambassador Program, training its scientists on how best to communicate and convey the impact and relevance of their work to various audiences. STEM Ambassadors volunteer at outreach events throughout the Richland, Seattle, and Sequim areas using interactive, hands-on displays to spark interest in STEM learning and careers. STEM Ambassadors have been invited to present at DOE's National Science Bowl, a nationwide academic competition. PNNL's STEM Ambassador Program is now a model for similar efforts at other national laboratories.
As longtime champions of PNNL, we know that we are lucky in Washington State to have such a phenomenal resource in our backyard. We want to congratulate all past and present employees of PNNL on an incredible 60 years. Thank you for everything you do for our State, our country, and our entire world. We look forward to many more years of innovation and discovery that will make our world a better, cleaner, and safer place to live.
Mr. President, I was absent on Thursday, March 6, 2025, for rollcall vote No. 110. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 18, S. 331, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking (HALT) of Fentanyl Act, rollcall vote No. 110.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act with Senator Lummis. Our bipartisan bill would help more families purchase an affordable home and maintain our housing supply by strengthening the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Title I Loan Program.
Like its better known title II sister program, FHA Title I expands access to housing and boosts affordability for families by insuring private market loans. However, title I is targeted towards two underserved portions of our housing market--manufactured homes and property improvement.
For decades, title I has enabled families to access stable, affordable housing, while also helping maintain our Nation's housing stock. Indeed, manufactured homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country, and property improvement loans help prevent more single-family homes and apartments from falling into disrepair and out of our housing supply.
These loans should be an important tool in helping to close our nationwide housing shortage, which the Brookings Institution estimates at nearly 5 million homes. However, outdated loan limits and statutory restrictions have turned title I from an effective program into a missed opportunity.
From the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, lenders offered 15,000 to 25,000 title I manufactured home loans each year. But in 2021, only three loans were issued. Similarly, lenders have gone from making more than 70,000 title I property improvement loans annually in the 1990s to making fewer than 1,000 in 2022. That is a 99-percent drop in loan volume or in other words, as many as 99,000 fewer homes being bought, preserved, and included in our housing stock each year.
The Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act would refurbish title I and return it to our housing toolbox. It would expand loan limits and terms for all title I loans--making the program fit market demand and needs. Perhaps more importantly, the bill would finally allow FHA to index property improvement loans for inflation and expand the data it uses to set manufactured home loan limits, ensuring title I will remain a crucial tool as home costs rise in future years.
Finally, our legislation makes accessible dwelling units, ADUs, which are small housing units added to a single-family property, eligible for title I financing. This small addition to title I will make the program an even more powerful home-creation program than it was during its prior peak years and will particularly help families who want to provide a safe, comfortable place for aging parents or young adult children to live.
Collectively, these improvements would help more families own a home, remain in homes they have spent decades in, and find an affordable place to live. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and support its passage.
S. 965. A bill to strengthen the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senators Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, Smith, and Klobuchar in introducing legislation that would permanently reauthorize the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Council or USICH.
The Council was established during the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Over the last three and a half decades, it has led and coordinated the Federal Government's response to homelessness. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act, which I authored along with Senator Collins, expanded the Council's role, allowing it to work with public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. Despite its minimal budget and small staff, the Council has helped guide Federal, State, and local stakeholders in deploying their resources in a smart, effective, and coordinated fashion. The results have been evident. In the decade after USICH published its first plan, overall homelessness declined 9 percent. Family and veteran homelessness declined significantly, as well, with the total numbers dropping nearly 30 percent and 50 percent respectively. In fact, the Council has been able to help 85 communities and 3 States effectively end veteran homelessness.
Despite these successes, homelessness has persisted, and skyrocketing housing prices since 2020 have brought a new surge in homelessness. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress found that, ``[o]n a single night in January 2024, 771,480 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States.'' This is a record number of Americans experiencing homelessness since the count began. The face of homelessness--which individuals lack a safe, stable home--is also changing. Families with children had the largest increase in homelessness from 2023 to 2024. Indeed, nearly 150,000 children were experiencing homelessness on a single night last year. This staggering increase in homelessness is happening across the country.
USICH helps us meet this challenge by guiding how its 19 Federal member Agencies deploy and leverage their resources with non-Federal partners to help communities effectively address homelessness. We know that smart, coordinated investments in programs that address homelessness and increase affordable housing pay additional dividends. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has found that taxpayers pay an average of $35,578 per year on each chronically homeless individual, while ``based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' In short, helping people avoid homelessness not only helps them, it also saves taxpayers money. USICH's coordinating work helps make our investments to address homelessness more informed and more effective.
Indeed, the Council continues to prove that the government can work and save money in the process. I thank HousingWorks RI for its support, and I urge my colleagues to join us in permanently authorizing USICH.
S. 970. A bill to establish a pilot program to improve the family self-sufficiency program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Helping More Families Save Act with Senator Britt. This bipartisan legislation would help more families in HUD-assisted housing build savings and improve their financial security by creating a pilot program for Family Self- Sufficiency, FSS, universal escrow accounts.
The FSS Program was established under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to help low-income families boost savings and improve their professional, educational, and financial
FSS provides two key tools for its participants. First, households work with FSS coordinators to develop long-term financial, professional, or educational goals. FSS coordinators also help connect participants with resources, training, and employment opportunities. Second, the program encourages FSS families to save by providing them with an interest-bearing escrow account. Participants who increase their incomes deposit a portion of their additional earnings into their escrow account instead of paying higher rent, as is typically required under federally subsidized housing programs. Upon graduation from the Program, families can use their escrowed savings to pay for job-related expenses, move to private market housing, buy a home, or save for the future.
After more than 30 years, FSS has become a proven financial independence program. For example, in 2022, 34 percent of FSS graduates no longer needed Federal rental assistance within 1 year of leaving FSS, and nearly 10 percent of graduates were ultimately able to purchase their own home. On average, FSS participants with escrow savings graduated from the program with approximately $10,000 in their accounts. This is no small sum, and it helps HUD-assisted families strengthen their financial stability and move towards greater economic independence.
Despite the program's success and broad eligibility, program participation was effectively capped at about 70,000 enrollees in 2022 simply due to a lack of Federal funding for the required FSS coordinators.
The Helping More Families Save Act would help more Americans access the program by creating a new universal escrow pilot. Under the bill, public housing agencies, PHAs, and PBRA property owners could offer 5,000 additional households escrow accounts identical to those under the current FSS Program without having to wait for an FSS coordinator to be funded by the Federal Government. PHA and PBRA property owners would not be required to offer coordinator services to these new participants, although we expect many will work to offer counseling and support on their own or with outside partners. Moreover, we expect that this pilot will show that those enrolled in the program will be successful and make financially sound decisions.
Our pilot program would help more low-income families improve their financial security, achieve economic independence, and possibly even purchase their own homes, all with minimal cost to the Federal Government.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would help more Americans pull themselves out of poverty. It is a win for families, the Federal budget, and our economy. I thank Senator Britt for coleading this legislation and Compass Working Capital and LISC for their support. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor the Helping More Families Save Act and support its passage.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act with Senator Lummis. Our bipartisan bill would help more families purchase an affordable home and maintain our housing supply by strengthening the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Title I Loan Program.
Like its better known title II sister program, FHA Title I expands access to housing and boosts affordability for families by insuring private market loans. However, title I is targeted towards two underserved portions of our housing market--manufactured homes and property improvement.
For decades, title I has enabled families to access stable, affordable housing, while also helping maintain our Nation's housing stock. Indeed, manufactured homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country, and property improvement loans help prevent more single-family homes and apartments from falling into disrepair and out of our housing supply.
These loans should be an important tool in helping to close our nationwide housing shortage, which the Brookings Institution estimates at nearly 5 million homes. However, outdated loan limits and statutory restrictions have turned title I from an effective program into a missed opportunity.
From the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, lenders offered 15,000 to 25,000 title I manufactured home loans each year. But in 2021, only three loans were issued. Similarly, lenders have gone from making more than 70,000 title I property improvement loans annually in the 1990s to making fewer than 1,000 in 2022. That is a 99-percent drop in loan volume or in other words, as many as 99,000 fewer homes being bought, preserved, and included in our housing stock each year.
The Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act would refurbish title I and return it to our housing toolbox. It would expand loan limits and terms for all title I loans--making the program fit market demand and needs. Perhaps more importantly, the bill would finally allow FHA to index property improvement loans for inflation and expand the data it uses to set manufactured home loan limits, ensuring title I will remain a crucial tool as home costs rise in future years.
Finally, our legislation makes accessible dwelling units, ADUs, which are small housing units added to a single-family property, eligible for title I financing. This small addition to title I will make the program an even more powerful home-creation program than it was during its prior peak years and will particularly help families who want to provide a safe, comfortable place for aging parents or young adult children to live.
Collectively, these improvements would help more families own a home, remain in homes they have spent decades in, and find an affordable place to live. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and support its passage.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senators Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, Smith, and Klobuchar in introducing legislation that would permanently reauthorize the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Council or USICH.
The Council was established during the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Over the last three and a half decades, it has led and coordinated the Federal Government's response to homelessness. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act, which I authored along with Senator Collins, expanded the Council's role, allowing it to work with public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. Despite its minimal budget and small staff, the Council has helped guide Federal, State, and local stakeholders in deploying their resources in a smart, effective, and coordinated fashion. The results have been evident. In the decade after USICH published its first plan, overall homelessness declined 9 percent. Family and veteran homelessness declined significantly, as well, with the total numbers dropping nearly 30 percent and 50 percent respectively. In fact, the Council has been able to help 85 communities and 3 States effectively end veteran homelessness.
Despite these successes, homelessness has persisted, and skyrocketing housing prices since 2020 have brought a new surge in homelessness. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress found that, ``[o]n a single night in January 2024, 771,480 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States.'' This is a record number of Americans experiencing homelessness since the count began. The face of homelessness--which individuals lack a safe, stable home--is also changing. Families with children had the largest increase in homelessness from 2023 to 2024. Indeed, nearly 150,000 children were experiencing homelessness on a single night last year. This staggering increase in homelessness is happening across the country.
USICH helps us meet this challenge by guiding how its 19 Federal member Agencies deploy and leverage their resources with non-Federal partners to help communities effectively address homelessness. We know that smart, coordinated investments in programs that address homelessness and increase affordable housing pay additional dividends. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has found that taxpayers pay an average of $35,578 per year on each chronically homeless individual, while ``based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' In short, helping people avoid homelessness not only helps them, it also saves taxpayers money. USICH's coordinating work helps make our investments to address homelessness more informed and more effective.
Indeed, the Council continues to prove that the government can work and save money in the process. I thank HousingWorks RI for its support, and I urge my colleagues to join us in permanently authorizing USICH.
Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Helping More Families Save Act with Senator Britt. This bipartisan legislation would help more families in HUD-assisted housing build savings and improve their financial security by creating a pilot program for Family Self- Sufficiency, FSS, universal escrow accounts.
The FSS Program was established under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to help low-income families boost savings and improve their professional, educational, and financial
FSS provides two key tools for its participants. First, households work with FSS coordinators to develop long-term financial, professional, or educational goals. FSS coordinators also help connect participants with resources, training, and employment opportunities. Second, the program encourages FSS families to save by providing them with an interest-bearing escrow account. Participants who increase their incomes deposit a portion of their additional earnings into their escrow account instead of paying higher rent, as is typically required under federally subsidized housing programs. Upon graduation from the Program, families can use their escrowed savings to pay for job-related expenses, move to private market housing, buy a home, or save for the future.
After more than 30 years, FSS has become a proven financial independence program. For example, in 2022, 34 percent of FSS graduates no longer needed Federal rental assistance within 1 year of leaving FSS, and nearly 10 percent of graduates were ultimately able to purchase their own home. On average, FSS participants with escrow savings graduated from the program with approximately $10,000 in their accounts. This is no small sum, and it helps HUD-assisted families strengthen their financial stability and move towards greater economic independence.
Despite the program's success and broad eligibility, program participation was effectively capped at about 70,000 enrollees in 2022 simply due to a lack of Federal funding for the required FSS coordinators.
The Helping More Families Save Act would help more Americans access the program by creating a new universal escrow pilot. Under the bill, public housing agencies, PHAs, and PBRA property owners could offer 5,000 additional households escrow accounts identical to those under the current FSS Program without having to wait for an FSS coordinator to be funded by the Federal Government. PHA and PBRA property owners would not be required to offer coordinator services to these new participants, although we expect many will work to offer counseling and support on their own or with outside partners. Moreover, we expect that this pilot will show that those enrolled in the program will be successful and make financially sound decisions.
Our pilot program would help more low-income families improve their financial security, achieve economic independence, and possibly even purchase their own homes, all with minimal cost to the Federal Government.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would help more Americans pull themselves out of poverty. It is a win for families, the Federal budget, and our economy. I thank Senator Britt for coleading this legislation and Compass Working Capital and LISC for their support. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor the Helping More Families Save Act and support its passage.
Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 960) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, March 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 31; further, at 12 noon, the Senate vote on cloture on the Miran nomination, and if cloture is invoked on the Miran nomination, the postcloture time expire at 2:15 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Miran nomination; further, if cloture is invoked on the Sonderling nomination, the postcloture time expire at 5:15 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Blumenthal.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, my thanks to Senator Thune for yielding and the Presiding Officer for presiding over the balance of the day.
I am here with sadness--not for the first time and, tragically, not for the last, I fear--because I am here to speak to the decimation and destruction of veterans services ongoing in real time, right before our eyes, affecting real people in their daily lives. And it is a tragedy and a travesty because the people affected are our Nation's heroes, whom we all say we respect, but in practice, right now, Elon Musk and Donald Trump have launched an assault to degrade and denigrate.
Donald Trump has called veterans suckers. Elon Musk shows the same kind of disrespect in the cuts, in hiring freezes, and in reductions in amounts of research--a panoply, a tsunami, of cuts in both resources and workers that are essential to the VA's functions in providing healthcare as well as PACT Act benefits that veterans have earned. They deserve them without delay. And this assault on veterans is unprecedented in our Nation's history.
We had a hearing this morning in the VA Committee on various pieces of legislation, some of them probably positive in the effects that they may have if we pass them. I have cosponsored some of them and will support others. But their meaning and effect will be absolutely eviscerated if these cuts--including 80,000 workers in addition to the 2,400 already fired--are, in fact, discharged in the future.
The plan that the Secretary of the VA has stated--it is his word, ``plan''--is to fire 80,000 workers. It is his goal. He said it in an interview, and I ask unanimous consent that that interview be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, but we did learn in this legislative hearing that, in fact, there is no plan. The 80,000-worker target for firing is in the absence of any plan. It is the target. It is the goal. It is the intention: Fire now, plan later. No plan, no metrics, no methodology, no strategy for right-sizing the VA.
Now, we know a right-sized VA needs every one of those 2,400 workers who have been discharged now. It needs every one of the 80,000 that are targeted in the next few months to be fired. And we learned this morning that there are, in fact, open positions--36,000 of them, including more than 3,000 positions for doctors, thousands others for nurses, thousands for the custodians who maintain the VA healthcare properties.
We are talking about real people who will be fired who are on the job doing essential work right now, and we are talking about discharging people when there are open positions, a need for more doctors, nurses, and others. How is that going to work for recruiting? Not so well when the VA is firing exactly the people whose positions it is trying to fill. That is absolutely a disgrace, and it will be seen as a disgrace by anybody wanting to serve in the VA.
We also learned today that the VA is focusing on legislative measures that will make it easier to fire people, that will more readily enable it to discharge people without stating a reason, without a performance- related reason for firing them.
So we are seeing the biggest attack and assault on veterans' access to care and benefits at least in a generation and maybe in our history, and Trump and Musk have already fired more veterans than any administration before now.
But the numbers fail to adequately tell the story because it is a story of heartbreaking loss as a result of heartless decisions--loss of healthcare on a timely basis, loss of benefits, fear from people who have earned the right to security when it comes to healthcare or the PACT Act.
Over the weekend, there was an article in the New York Times that described some of this real impact going on right now: a VA clinical trial for treating advanced cancers of the mouth put on hold; a VA supply technician whose role was described as critical, fired; a vet center office manager fired, leaving therapists, who should be treating patients, using their precious time sitting at the front desk to check in the patients.
Talk about waste. What we are seeing in real time is not just heartless, heartbreaking firing and deprivation of care; we are seeing waste of talents and time that cry out for action. And in fact, we are hearing that cry from thousands of constituents of my colleagues from all around the country.
This chart shows where we have received complaints and stories from people. Some of their words are here:
The blue represents the States that we have heard from--almost every State in the country, some with many different complaints but all of them expressing fear, apprehension, and anger at what they see as the looming additional cuts in care coming to their communities.
This administration, very simply, is failing to put veterans first.
Let me tell you about a veteran who knows that it is failing to put him first, a veteran on the west coast who shared his story.
And he continued:
He was homeless in 2012. He would go to the library every day to search for--he was not receiving any VA benefits. He didn't know he was eligible. Once he knew about it and he signed up and the healthcare and disability benefits began, he was ``propelled . . . into success.'' He was able to rent an apartment, purchase a car, get a job--``all thanks to the VA.'' ``All thanks to the VA.''
And his final comment was:
He knows this administration is not putting veterans first.
What I was hoping to hear in today's hearing was a call to action. Well, we didn't hear a call to action. In fact, we didn't even hear from the Secretary of the VA, who has dodged our questions, refused to answer them, who has failed to be transparent with our committee and with Members of Congress. I was hoping that he would be there or at least that he would be invited to a date certain, but none of it happened.
Instead, the agenda included legislation that attempts to make it even easier for the VA to fire employees. It ignores what is happening on the ground, ignoring the illegal mass terminations of those 2,400 VA employees, with tens of thousands of firings now in the works. That is no way to put veterans first. It is illegal; it is unlawful; it is reckless; and it is morally repugnant because it involves breaking promises.
A great nation keeps its promises, as we promised to veterans that we would provide for their healthcare, that we would give them the benefits of the PACT Act, that we would care for them after they were exposed to toxic chemicals, that we would give them skilled training and job assistance--all of it now potentially ended, at least for a lot of those veterans, because there is a funny thing about service: It is difficult to provide service in an empty office with an empty chair behind an empty desk. Service really does consist of people helping each other. Veterans know it better than anyone because peer-to-peer veterans programs work better than any other kind, and it is one of the reasons why it is important that 30 percent of the Veterans' Administration workforce are themselves veterans. They help each other.
It is no accident that many of those provisional employees who were fired--they are the ones who were fired first--are veterans as well because they are coming out of the service and they are looking for meaningful and productive ways to help other veterans.
I am introducing this week a measure called the Putting Veterans First Act. Essentially, it is a comprehensive effort to ``stop the bleeding.'' I am quoting the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars--``stop the bleeding.'' Put pressure on and ``stop the bleeding'' is what he told us in one of our hearings.
The best way to stop this administration from actively robbing and rolling back our recent bipartisan accomplishments, canceling contracts critical to the implementation of the Dole Act or the Deborah Sampson Act, firing thousands of workers critical to the basic functioning of the PACT Act, from the schedulers who connect veterans to care to the claims staff who process those PACT Act claims--the best way to stop the bleeding is to put veterans first.
No. 1, hire back all of the veterans who have been fired. No matter what the Agency, hire back those veterans along with all of the military spouses, the veteran caregivers, survivors, members of the Guard and Reserve. They, too, served. Hire back all the VA employees who have been fired, whether or not they are veterans or military spouses or veteran caregivers, survivors, members of the Guard and Reserve--everyone that has been fired from the VA.
Then, if the administration wants to eliminate waste and fraud, let's have some standards, performance-based standards, not just ``You are fired because we don't need you'' when, in fact, they are needed. But more to the point, any sort of firing ought to be based on individual performance.
Nobody is arguing here that there is no waste in the VA. Nobody is arguing that there is no waste in other Agencies of the Federal Government any more than we would argue there is no waste in any American corporation. Everybody knows there is waste. The trick is to eliminate the waste without throwing the baby out with the bathwater-- or to use a much more direct analogy that came from Al Lipphardt, the commander-in-chief of the VFW--when he was wounded in Vietnam, the surgeon took shrapnel out of his arm with a scalpel; he didn't amputate the arm.
Exactly the same choice faces us here--performance-based criteria and standards and a means of appeal for those employees who may be terminated, a means of readily bringing their claim about improper firing to some kind of appeal that is based on performance and merit. It ought to be a matter of merit, not just money, not just slashing and trashing--merit, and then hiring to replace that person. If that person has no merit, fill the position so the job can be done because the need is there. Of course, notice to Congress, to labor partners, and impacted employees before instituting any changes to telework or remote work policies, allowing time for employees to submit reasonable accommodation requests to their supervisors, which would help a veteran, spouse, and caregiver. I have been contacted by those kinds of spouses, like the spouse of a 100-percent disabled veteran with two kids:
When Trump or Musk talk about mandating return to office--I personally love being in the office. As a former prosecutor, I think being in the office makes managing a workforce
The Putting Veterans First Act would take other commonsense veterans- first action, such as prohibiting--and this one is really important-- prohibiting unauthorized, unlawful access to veterans' data and VA systems by unqualified, uninformed tech bros.
Well, we know what is happening in the VA. Elon Musk's tech bro elves are muscling and plundering their way through the VA's database.
Now, you may say: What is harmful about access to private, confidential, sensitive information potentially about healthcare?
Well, it is an invasion of privacy, but No. 2, it is also illegal. It is potentially a monetization of your information, used for Elon Musk's corporations to make more money or to be shared with his fellow billionaires so they can make more money.
That invasion of privacy, the monetization and possibly weaponization of that information, would be prohibited by the Putting Veterans First Act. It is comprehensive, it is specific, and it makes a priority of protecting veterans and putting them first.
Now, I don't want to exaggerate the chances of this measure passing in the next month. I am very clear-eyed. I recognize that the administration will put a full-court press against us, that Elon Musk will perhaps denounce it. But I think we have on our side an indomitable, undefeatable, and indefatigable force, and that is veterans, because I am listening to the veterans service organizations who came before our committee on prior days and this morning, representatives from the American Legion, Mr. Coyle from the VFW, and Mr. Murray. We have heard from other organizations that have expressed their concerns about what is happening at the VA. They can put a face and voice to this issue. Their support for putting veterans first can make an absolutely critical difference.
So I want to make a plea to our veterans: You may feel you don't need it, but there is no question you deserve it.
The ones who need it really deserve it as well. They deserve to be put first. They deserve to have no fear or uncertainty or insecurity about whether they live in a State that will not be receiving the kind of benefits and care under the PACT Act or their VA facility won't be renovated or their doctor will be gone or nurses will be missing, their positions unfilled. They deserve to know with the kind of certainty they have earned.
We all talk about our veterans as heroes, which they are, but let's put our money where our mouths are. Let's be measured by what we do, not what we say. And I am extending an arm and a hand to my colleagues across the aisle to join me in this comprehensive bill that guarantees veterans what they have earned and what they deserve against someone whom we didn't choose--nobody did except Donald Trump. Elon Musk is unelected, unappointed, and unconfirmed, and his DOGE boys are depriving our veterans of what they have earned.
We can't lose hope or energy. We can't abandon our veterans. We can't surrender in this battle. Our veterans have served, and they can continue to serve by helping their brothers and sisters make sure that the Veterans' Administration puts veterans first.
