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.
21Report Relative to the Issuance of a Proclamation Providing Exemption for Certain Stationary Sources From Compliance With the Final Rule Published by the Environmental Protection Agency Titled...
22Messages From the House
23Executive Report of Committee
24Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
25Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
26Senate Resolution 169: Expressing Support for the Staff of Public, School, Academic, and Special Libraries in the United States and the Essential Services Those Libraries Provide to Communities...
29Senate Resolution 172: Supporting the Designation of the Week of April 11 Through April 17, 2025, as the Eighth Annual "Black Maternal Health Week", Founded by Black Mamas Matter Alliance, Inc...
34Senate Resolution 177: Recognizing the 200th Anniversary of the Incorporation of the City of Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the Historical Significance of the City
Ninety-five bills and sixteen resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 1403-1497, S.J. Res. 48-49, and S. Res. 169- 182.
Pages S2560-63
Measures Reported
S. 527, to require the Federal Trade Commission to study the role of intermediaries in the pharmaceutical supply chain and provide Congress with appropriate policy recommendations. S. 1040, to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to prohibit product hopping, with an amendment. S. 1041, to amend title 35, United States Code, to address the infringement of patents that claim biological products, with amendments. S. 1095, to enable the Federal Trade Commission to deter filing of sham citizen petitions to cover an attempt to interfere with approval of a competing generic drug or biosimilar, to foster competition, and facilitate the efficient review of petitions filed in good faith to raise legitimate public health concerns. S. 1096, to prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market, and to prohibit biological product manufacturers from compensating biosimilar and interchangeable companies to delay the entry of biosimilar biological products and interchangeable biological products, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 1097, to amend title 35, United States Code, to establish an interagency task force between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Food and Drug Administration for purposes of sharing information and providing technical assistance with respect to patents, with amendments.
Pages S2559-60
Measures Passed
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters: By 53 yeas to 44 nays (Vote No. 207), Senate passed H.J. Res. 20, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters''.
Pages S2533-38
Authorize Representation by the Senate Legal Counsel
Senate agreed to S. Res. 170, to authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Desmond Bellard v. Ronald Wyden, U.S. Senator. 30th Anniversary of the Attack on the Alfred P.
Page S2542
Murrah Federal Building
Senate agreed to S. Res. 174, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
Page S2552
World Quantum Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 175, recognizing April 14, 2025, as ``World Quantum Day'', and commemorating and supporting the goals of World Quantum Day.
Pages S2572-73
Gold Star Wives Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 176, designating April 5, 2025, as ``Gold Star Wives Day''.
Page S2573
200th Anniversary of Vicksburg, Mississippi
Senate agreed to S. Res. 177, recognizing the 200th anniversary of the incorporation of the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the historical significance of the city.
Pages S2573-74
Honoring the Life of George Foreman
Senate agreed to S. Res. 178, honoring the life and legacy of the late George Foreman.
Pages S2574
National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 179, recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.
Pages S2574-75
National Park Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 180, designating the week of April 19 through April 27, 2025, as ``National Park Week''.
Page S2575
Authorizing the Use of Emancipation Hall
Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 22, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medals awarded under the `Six Triple Eight' Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2021.
Page S2577
Pro Forma Sessions: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the Senate convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times: Monday, April 14, 2025, at 8:45 a.m.; Thursday, April 17, 2025, at 9 a.m.; Monday, April 21, 2025, at 6:45 a.m.; Thursday, April 24, 2025, at 10 a.m.; and that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 24, 2025, it next convene at 3 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 2025.
Page S2580
Message from the President
Senate received the following messages from the President of the United States: Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency that was originally declared in Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (PM- 22)
Pages S2556-57
Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the issuance of a Proclamation providing exemption for certain stationary sources from compliance with the final rule published by the Environmental Protection Agency titled ``National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review,'' 89 FR 38508 (Rule), which amended the preexisting Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule to make it more stringent; which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (PM-23)
Page S2557
Perdue Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of David Perdue, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
Pages S2552-53
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, and pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Friday, April 11, 2025, a vote on cloture will occur at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 2025.
Page S2580
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S2552
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Pages S2552-53
Stephens Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Warren Stephens, of Arkansas, to be Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Page S2553
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 David Perdue, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
Page S2553
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S2553
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S2553
Barrack Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Thomas Barrack, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey.
Page S2553
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 Warren Stephens, of Arkansas, to be Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Page S2553
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S2553
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S2553
Fertitta Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Tilman Fertitta, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of San Marino.
Page S2553
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 Thomas Barrack, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey.
Page S2553
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S2553
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S2553
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motions to invoke cloture filed on April 10, 2025, ripen at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, April 28, 2025.
Page S2580
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 50 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. EX. 209), Mark Meador, of Virginia, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner for the term of seven years from September 26, 2024.
Pages S2538-42
S2543 During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. EX. 208), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S2538
By 59 yeas to 26 nays (Vote No. EX. 211), Lieutenant General John D. Caine (Retired) to be Major General in the Regular Air Force.
Page S2579
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 59 yeas to 25 nays (Vote No. 210), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Pages S2578-79
By 60 yeas to 25 nays (Vote No. EX. 213), Lieutenant General John D. Caine (Retired) to be General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Page S2580
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 60 yeas to 25 nays (Vote No. EX. 212), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S2579
Nomination Withdrawn
Senate received notification of withdrawal of the following nomination: Kathleen Sgamma, of Colorado, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, which was sent to the Senate on February 11, 2025.
Page S2580
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S2565-68
Record Votes
Seven record votes were taken today. (Total--213)
Pages S2538, S2543, S2578-80
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2025 and adjourned at 2:06 a.m., on Friday, April 11, 2025, until 8:45 a.m. on Monday, April 14, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S2580.)
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: 49 of 216 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 20, and the clerk will now report the joint resolution by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, Saturday will mark 100 days of the 119th Congress and the Republican majority here in the Senate. It has been a very productive 100 days. We have had 14 weeks of the new Congress, and the Senate has been in session and voting for 13 of those 14 weeks. We had the longest continuous in-session work period in 15 years--10 weeks--and yesterday, we took our 200th vote. That is more votes at this point in a new Congress since at least the Reagan era.
What do we have to show for it? Well, Mr. President, we have confirmed the President's Cabinet at the fastest pace in more than 20 years, and as of this week, we have more than 50 total confirmations. Confirming nominees is a big focus of any new Congress with a newly elected President, and we are building out the President's administration at a brisk pace.
But that is far from the only thing we have done. We passed Senator Britt's Laken Riley Act--the first bipartisan border bill since 2006-- which the President signed into law on January 29. This legislation, which incorporated amendments by Senators Cornyn, Ernst, and Budd, ensures that illegal immigrants who steal, assault a law enforcement officer, or kill or seriously injure another person are detained instead of being allowed back on the street.
We also passed Senator Grassley and Senator Cassidy's HALT Fentanyl Act by an even stronger bipartisan margin, to provide law enforcement with critical tools to combat this deadly disease.
We considered other important bills: Senator Tuberville's legislation to protect women's sports, Senator Banks and Senator Lankford's legislation to protect babies born alive after botched abortions, and Senator Cotton's ICC sanctions bill. All of those were, unfortunately, filibustered by our Democrat colleagues.
That is not all. We have also passed six Congressional Review Act resolutions--and plan to pass a seventh today--to repeal burdensome Biden administration regulations, thanks to the effort of, among others, Senators Hoeven, Cruz, Kennedy, Ricketts, and Tim Scott.
Finally, we considered not one but two budget resolutions to provide the framework for a permanent extension of the 2017 tax relief and a transformational investment in our border, energy, and national security. I am proud of the role the Senate's two resolutions have played in advancing negotiations as we head toward a final bill.
As I have said before, my philosophy of leadership comes from my dad. He was a basketball coach at our high school, and he had some very strong
When Republican Senators trusted me with the role of majority leader last November, I promised to empower my colleagues and to open up the Senate, and I am proud that we have been making progress toward that goal.
We have honored the commitment to return to regular order and have brought multiple bills to the floor via the committee process, where Members of both parties have a chance to amend and improve legislation. We have created additional opportunities for Members to draw attention to their priorities and manage their bills on the floor. We have done substantial work to cut down vote times to make the process more efficient and free Members up for the other work they have to do.
I have also been working to ensure that the lines of communication are open at all levels--at the Member level, at the staff level, between the House and the Senate, and between the Senate and the White House. I regularly chat with the President and with Speaker Johnson so we can ensure that the House, Senate, and White House are all on the same page and doing everything we can to advance our shared goals.
When we return from Easter, we will continue to have a packed agenda: more nominations to confirm, more burdensome Biden regulations to repeal, a tax bill and border, energy, and national security bill to continue drafting.
Committees are currently working on legislation that will come to the floor in the coming weeks and months.
Of course, appropriations season is almost upon us, and I remain committed to considering as many appropriations bills as possible under regular order. When the Appropriations Committee reports a bill, I intend to bring that bill to the floor for debate. That will require cooperation from Democrats. But I hope--I truly hope--that my Democrat colleagues will recognize that the right way to fund the government is to bring individual appropriations bills through the committee process and then consider them on the Senate floor.
It has been a busy 100 days in the U.S. Senate, and I am looking forward to many more.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, this morning, I will take a little more than the usual time because I want to review what happened, over the past 8 days, with Trump's tariff tax so that it can be preserved in the Record and so that we as a nation can try to process the reckless, unnecessary damage President Trump has created.
The past 8 days have been an absolute embarrassment for President Trump and for everyone who truly cares about this country. During these 8 days, the world saw the President of the United States reveal his total lack of understanding of international trade, macro- and microeconomics, and foreign relations. The world saw the American President issue a tariff ultimatum so ill-conceived and so flawed that it was mocked from here to the Heard and McDonald Islands.
This whole episode is so ridiculous that even the writers of ``Veep'' and ``House of Cards'' would have shredded their drafts. Yet it was real. It had real effects, lasting effects on real people.
Donald Trump's tariff fiasco caused real damage to the confidence other nations have in America. It had real effects on the uncertainty we feel every day that Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office. It had real effects on people's retirements.
Let's start with his announcement on April 2 that that would be ``Liberation Day,'' a day of massive worldwide tariffs. Rather than providing a coherent explanation for such a substantial policy change, the stated justification for this massive tariff application varied, depending on the moment or who the administration spokesperson was. Depending on the day, President Trump claimed that tariffs would either balance the budget, enable the elimination of the income tax, or bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.
While Peter Navarro gave full-throated support to all three of those goals, most of the rest of the administration ignored the first two goals and focused on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States--a worthy goal; one the Democrats, including myself, have been advocating for decades.
However, even administration officials couldn't get on the same page. While Navarro and Secretary Bessent were talking about the return of jobs, Secretary Lutnick was espousing that manufacturing would be coming back but that it would be automated, he said. So are we bringing manufacturing jobs back or displacing them with machines?
It is clear, Mr. President, as April 2 approached, no one--not even the most devoted Trump apologist, except maybe only Ron Vara--believed the President had an actual plan. Nevertheless, he persisted, and on April 2, President Trump, against all semblance of common sense, announced tariffs beyond what even the most isolationist Republican could have envisioned.
The President made some outlandish claims, and he held up a chart with a lot of numbers on it. And his claims and those numbers were a surprise to pretty much everyone--everyone--who understands the language, the theory, and the mathematics of trade.
Putting aside the idiotic tariffs applied to penguins who produce nothing but guano and baby penguins and consume little more than krill and fish and putting aside tariffs on countries that make products Americans crave but lack the purchasing power to buy our products in return, we all quickly realized that the numbers on Donald Trump's chart were so nonsensical that it took some of the world's greatest economic minds to reverse engineer it to determine the formula. And yet, in perfect Trumpian fashion, his administration released the ``actual'' formula and the assumptions behind the chart.
Again, it quickly became clear that he based his entire tariff scheme on a formula so flawed, so economically incoherent that he had to insert some random Greek letters and assign them phony values just to make it look like something out of ``A Beautiful Mind.'' But instead of a stroke of genius, what we got was gibberish--not genius but gibberish.
Remember back in 2019, when Hurricane Dorian was approaching Florida and President Trump used a Sharpie to alter a NOAA map to try and cover for his mistake? Well, this phony formula is the 2025 reincarnation of Sharpiegate, except the economic consequences of this fraud will affect millions and millions of Americans.
I won't stand up here and say I oppose all tariffs. I don't. I appreciate my supporters on Twitter reminding everyone that I have long championed tough trade policies on China, going back to my early days in the Senate.
But I and the American people oppose a whimsical, nonsensical approach to international trade, especially one that so clearly will increase costs on American families. It is one thing to target tariffs on bad actors like China; that makes sense.
But to raise tariffs on allies such as Canada and Israel? Everyone knows that makes no sense.
To raise tariffs on random islands as the Falklands, Heard and McDonald, and Svalbard? Everyone knows that makes no sense.
To raise tariffs on countries like Madagascar that import little from us but produce products wanted by millions of Americans? Everyone knows that makes no sense.
And yet he persisted. Trump persisted, and the world's financial markets melted down on Thursday and Friday.
Now, that meltdown may not have mattered to President Trump, but it certainly mattered to millions of
No, Mr. President, most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. If they are lucky, they put a little away each month for retirement or college savings. Some of them keep that money in interest-bearing accounts for the stability. Their savings are probably doing OK, but costs are going up, so that they may have to dip into those savings. The President let them down.
Some Americans put that money in mutual funds that depend on stability and predictability. The President let them down as well.
Of course, some Americans have no exposure to the stock market. Their only hope for retirement is Social Security, which congressional Republicans want to gut, and Elon Musk calls a Ponzi scheme. But the President also let them down because they may not be exposed, but their employer probably is, as are their neighborhood grocer and hardware store, and they will be affected if any prices rise.
When the financial markets closed on Friday with one of the biggest drops in history, President Trump was golfing and dining with his Saudi friends. On Saturday, while the Nation was stressing over their financial instability, the official White House Press Office gleefully announced that the President would, on Sunday, compete in his club's golf championship. This was the Trump version of ``Let them eat cake''--``Let them eat cake.''
Then on Sunday, after a week of uncertainty, a weekend of stress, while small business owners, retirees, and young families across the country were sitting at their kitchen tables trying to figure out how they were going to handle this dramatic increase in costs, what was the President doing? He was, of course, still golfing. And to the surprise of no one, except for maybe the actual tournament winner, President Trump tied for his own club championship, a remarkable achievement, to be sure. In fact, so great is that achievement that, if the President would make public his scorecard, I would gladly enter it into the Congressional Record and ask for its preservation at the National Archives, though I am sure his caddy would be reluctant to testify under oath. I know the President likes to talk about his handicap.
Over the weekend, his administration tried to cover up for his indifference by claiming that ``more than 50 countries'' had reached out to start negotiations. That claim may have temporarily calmed the futures market, but its unbelievability certainly harmed the White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett's credibility.
Adding to the uncertainty and lack of faith was the incoherence within the administration that was in full public effect over the weekend.
In between golf swings, the President found time to post:
Meanwhile, America's de facto President, Elon Musk, told a globalist conference in Italy he wanted a ``zero-tariff situation'' between the United States and Europe. That aspiration was quickly and directly rebutted by the tariff architect, Peter Navarro, which led to a public spat the likes of which the Presidency has rarely seen.
On Monday, the markets started low but quickly skyrocketed because some ``verified'' Trump Twitter account announced that an administration official said Trump would pause tariffs for 90 days. The world and the markets rejoiced, but the administration quickly refuted that assertion, and the markets fluctuated downward.
Tuesday started with great optimism and a quick market rise, but China's retaliation and the rumors of a European equivalent turned the rally bearish, which brings us to yesterday, Wednesday, April 9.
Mr. President, history will likely record this day as America's actual ``Liberation Day'' because it is the day that President Trump backed down--backed down. Of course, as with anything Trump does, his backing down created a few private winners and several public losers. We may never discern who the private winners are, but we do know that, at 9:37 a.m., President Trump posted, in all capital letters:
Donald J. Trump.
What exactly was the purpose of this post? Why did he feel the need to add his initials to this particular post? Was it a signal to his friends and family that he was going to pause the tariffs so they should buy low knowing the market would boom? Was this another ``stand back and stand by?'' We may never know. We may never know. But we need to find out, and it must be investigated.
Now, we certainly know who the losers are. The losers are the millions of Americans who tried to protect their positions and sold assets during the downturn. They were let down by President Trump. The losers are the administration officials who tried their level best to cover for President Trump's instability by spinning to the media only to have the President undercut their credibility.
We shouldn't be surprised by this. We all lived through the first Trump Presidency, after which he even admitted he hired bad people; but here, in his second term, the effort that President Trump puts into destroying the credibility of his staff is utterly incomprehensible.
To paraphrase a former Trump official: People think Trump is playing 3D chess, but most of the time, the staff is just trying to keep him from eating the pieces.
That is what happened this week. Trump's sycophants--FOX News and Republican Senators--are all used to this game. They know the President is dead wrong; that he is not remotely a very stable genius. Yet none of them want to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.
Secretary Lutnick's credibility is shot because of his full-on defense of this tariff scheme, followed by his admission that it wouldn't result in American jobs because automation would take over.
Secretary Bessent's credibility is shot because of his public attempts to defend the President's ever-changing whims. He spent the weekend and the week saying the administration doesn't want deals; that we are bringing manufacturing back; that we aren't pausing. As recently as yesterday, he made the Orwellian claim that Main Street would benefit from this tariff scheme. But then, today, his full humiliation was complete as he tweeted after the President backed down:
Give me a break.
The President even undercut his Trade Representative during a congressional hearing. Jamieson Greer spent hours defending the President's tariff policy only to learn of the President's backtracking while he was sitting at the witness stand.
Then, after hours of administration officials claiming that this wasn't a backtrack and that it was the plan all along, President Trump goes to the mics and undercuts his team by saying he caved because he was watching the bond markets, and people were getting nervous. With Trump, obedience begets humiliation.
So now, Mr. President, you and 330 million of your fellow Americans and countries across the planet are asking: Where are we?
Sadly, no one knows, not even President Trump. Some proposed tariffs have been reduced. Some have not. Our neighbors in Canada and Mexico are asking how this applies to them, and they can't get straight answers. The President himself has leaned into the uncertainty, offering that he may give breaks to certain companies--we should assume those that are owned by his family and his friends. That is how this administration rolls.
Asked yesterday about potential tariff reprieves for companies, he replied--this is President Trump:
So, as we look back on this week of self-made chaos and even destruction,
Was it, as President Trump originally said, to force other countries to pay enough tariffs so the United States could eliminate the income tax? No. Trump backed off that.
Was it, as President Trump said later, to retaliate against countries that were unfair to us? No. That was never true, but even if it were, Trump backed off that.
Was it, as some sycophants and Cabinet Secretaries have claimed, some 4D chess move to call China's bluff? No. Everyone knows that isn't true. This was not a week of 3D chess, 4D chess, or even checkers.
Again, to paraphrase a former Trump official: People think Trump is playing 3D chess, but most of the time, the staff is just trying to keep him from eating the pieces.
President Trump is a guy who lights the house on fire, calls 9-1-1, and then his MAGA sycophants and Republican Senators hit the airwaves and take to social media to laud him for putting out the fire.
The President did real harm--real harm--to America and Americans over the last week, and Senate Republicans stood by and cheered. Senate Democrats will do everything we can to help minimize the damage.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I just heard my colleague--the previous majority and now minority leader, the senior Senator from New York-- talk about a number of things that just reflect on the fact of why he is now the minority leader instead of the majority leader. It is because of the elections in November, and it was an election that was won by Republicans because the previous administration had been the administration of high prices and open borders. So I would like to address those two things today and show why the American people made the right decision in November when they were focused on high prices and an open border.
All I need to do is to turn to a headline this morning that talks about how ``inflation cooled,'' how inflation is lower than expected for this past month.
The Washington Post headline, ``Inflation cooled significantly in March.''
The Axios headlines, ``Consumer prices fall in March.''
Then CNN, this morning, noted that consumer prices, month over month, dropped for the first time since COVID.
Republicans promised to get America back on track.
Then, when it comes to the border, remember the headline from the past, ``Migrant crossings soar to near-record [high] levels''? That was by CBS News, on September 21, 2024, about 6 weeks prior to the election.
Record-high border crossings were a reality in Joe Biden's final months in the White House. Biden then had about 7,000 illegal immigrants flooding across the southern border each and every day-- 7,000 a day from San Diego, CA, all the way to my home State, to Sheridan, WY. Every city in America was a border State. Communities were overrun and overwhelmed.
Let's fast-forward to today where we see the inflation numbers looking good--down, improved--since the first time since COVID.
Let's take a look at the border today. With President Trump in charge, things have changed dramatically. Last month--the entire month--illegal border crossings dropped to 7,000--7,000 for the month. That is the lowest monthly total in decades. So we went from 7,000 illegal immigrants a day under Joe Biden to 7,000 illegal immigrants for the entire month of March.
This turnaround isn't luck; it is leadership--and there is a big difference. Joe Biden recklessly dismantled our border security. In his first 100 days in office, he signed 94 Executive actions. That threw open our borders. President Trump has restored decisive enforcement in his first 100 days. Illegal border crossings have dropped by 94 percent. It is dramatic.
The New York Post hailed this as a ``stunning new low'' in border crossings.
ABC News said:
The Washington Post wondered:
Well, let me tell you what happened.
This is what happens when a President stops coddling the criminals. This is what happens when a President starts enforcing the law. The contrast is undeniable. The previous administration surrendered. The current administration delivered what the American people wanted. Cartel killers, drug dealers, murderers, and rapists are getting hauled in and thrown out by the thousands. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports that there have been over 100,000 deportations in 80 days. That is about progress. Those are promises kept. Yet the fight is just beginning. Last week, a college student was killed by an illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run. The student's name was Nate Baker. Nate attended the University of South Carolina. He had just turned 21 years old 2 weeks before.
This is a death that was preventable. His killer has been identified and was identified by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the last 5 years. His killer is one of more than 600,000 illegal immigrant criminals still in our country. These are the very illegal immigrants who President Trump and his team are deporting. Deaths like Nate's, the drug overdoses, the families who have lost loved ones--those are real human costs to American citizens as a result of open borders. Open borders aren't compassionate as Democrat after Democrat continues to claim and as Nancy Pelosi talks about. They are catastrophic. Grieving families like Nate's deserve justice, not half measures. Public safety demands we deport illegal criminals, not coddle them.
This is why Senate Republicans have taken action. On Saturday, we passed a budget roadmap for a safer, more prosperous nation. It includes $175 billion in border funding. It puts us on a path to finish the wall. It boosts the Border Patrol. It boosts Immigration and Customs Enforcement staffing. It provides for much greater detention capacity for the lawbreakers. Remember, those are the lawbreakers Joe Biden openly invited into our country.
President Trump, Secretary Kristi Noem, and Border Czar Tom Homan say this budget is the muscle that they need to be able to complete the job. I agree with them--they are right--and that is what we are ready to deliver.
When it came to the vote on the Senate floor--on this very floor-- Senate Democrats voted unanimously against border security. One after another after another, as their names were called, voted no. They weren't going to secure the border. They weren't interested. Leave it wide open. Continue to invite in the criminal cartels and the drug dealers. For 4 years, Senate Democrats welcomed open border policies that left our communities vulnerable, and Democrats in this body, last week, still supported those reckless, irresponsible policies of open borders.
Republicans offered solutions, not the Democrats, who offered resistance to what we were doing to secure the border. Americans saw the difference last November, and they voted that way. They chose strength and security over crime and chaos. That is what the American people want--strength and security. They want safe communities. The numbers speak for themselves--7,000 illegal immigrants per day under Joe Biden last year to 7,000 a month now. It is a consequential difference. It is a difference that will save American lives.
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, on July 16, 2007--a while back--I hired a legislative assistant to handle our healthcare and education policy.
I didn't know it then, but this new member of my team, this native of Hawaii who came to work for a Senator from New York--she did live in New York for a while and went to high school there. I always tease her about the high school she went to, Brearley--would, in time, become my legislative director.
She would stay with my team not just for years but for almost two decades--two decades. She would become one of the most talented, most effective, and most trusted advisers I ever, ever had--and I have had a lot of good ones--this person, of course, who is sitting next to me right here, Meghan Taira, the best legislative guru I could have ever asked for, the best legislative director in the business. That says a lot because there have been a lot of good ones there too.
Tomorrow, after 18 wonderful years, Meghan will move on from her time in the Senate. She sat in this chair many times directing me, helping the Senate move forward. This will be her last time sitting in that chair, and we are the lesser for it because she is so great.
We won't dwell on the goodbyes--that is too bittersweet--and instead we will all say thank you to Meghan Taira.
Thank you for 18 wonderful years--18, wow, amazing.
Now, Meghan, one thing I will say, and you will shake your head in agreement, thank you for putting up with me--not so easy--every day, all day, on the phone. I will call Meghan at 6 in the morning. I will call her at 11 at night, after she had put her beautiful boy to bed, again and again and again.
Thank you, Meghan, for being the field general of our team, the field general we needed all those years.
Meghan likes astrology. She is a Leo. Like all great Leos, she is a natural leader, fiercely loyal, not just to me but to everyone in her office. She exuded confidence every single day, no matter what problem lay before us. I would see these problems, and I would say: Oh, my God, how are we ever going to solve that? She would walk in, have her solution, and poof, it was solved.
She was by my side in some of the most pivotal moments of my time in this Chamber. Meghan counseled me and my whole team as we worked to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009. It wouldn't have been as good of a law as it was without Meghan Taira.
Seven years later, she was at my side again defending the ACA from repeal, leading our caucus to hold the line. No one thought we would, but we did. It wouldn't have happened without Meghan Taira.
Meghan, if the rest of the world could see you in action like I have, from the way you set the tone each morning to the way you walked all of us through the bills, taking this complicated legislative language and putting it into normal language that we can understand, the way you talk about each vote, each floor fight, the way you are able to predict--how do I shut this off? This is something Meghan is used to, being interrupted by my cell phone at every moment. Somehow I can't shut the thing off.
Anyway, everyone would think what I think if they could watch you, and that is, thank God there is a Meghan Taira around.
I know there are lots of ``Schumerland'' alumni watching right now, our great staff team, running along the whole top place there, many more are watching on TV--hello, Schumerland. You are a big, wide group, but almost every one of you have been trained and been made a better staffer by Meghan Taira, and all of Schumerland thinks the same. Maybe they think I am not being superlative enough because on a good day, getting things done in the Senate, they know--our staff knows--it is hard. On hard days, getting things done seems nearly impossible. And then you have the strange days, like we just went through with vote- aramas.
How many vote-aramas have you been through, Meghan? Have you counted?
Thirteen, a lucky number, in this case, for us.
It takes a special talent, a bit of a mad genius to keep nearly 50 U.S. Senators facing in the right direction at 3 a.m. during an amendment vote. But that is typical. We had every Democrat unified on all--what was it, 27 amendments? Maybe more, but at least 27 amendments.
But that is what Meghan has been doing all these years, a compass pointing us in the right direction, the animating spirit of my leadership and legislative team.
Most importantly, it takes a really special person to dedicate so many years of their life--nights, weekends, holidays, life events--to work in the Senate. She and her husband Gerry--they met on my staff; they were a Schumer marriage--are so dedicated to their boy George. It is such a beautiful thing watching him grow up. She was always both busy with George and paying attention to legislation at the same time. I would hear George in the background on many of our calls. One day, maybe he will be a great legislative leader as well. But it takes a special person to dedicate so many nights, so many weekends, so many holidays, and so many life events to work in the Senate.
So, Meghan, you have made your mark on the Senate, on the State of New York, on the United States of America, and even the world. There are, undoubtedly, people living happier and healthier lives on all the continents because Meghan Taira sat in this chair and the chair at her desk in her office for so many years.
Without Meghan, none of our greatest accomplishments of the last 18 years would have been possible: no infrastructure bill, no Chips and Science, no IRA, no gun safety, no marriage equality, and so much more.
Without her, pandemic relief would have been half as strong, half as generous, half as sweeping as it was when America needed the whole thing; it needed boldness. There would be no paid family leave for Federal workers. New York hospitals wouldn't have gotten their lifeline to stay afloat during COVID. Hundreds of thousands of people owe their jobs to Meghan because they would have closed down if we hadn't done that during COVID.
Under Meghan's tenure, we negotiated the first bipartisan budget deal, in 2017, where we finally raised domestic spending to parity with defense. She was 8 months pregnant when she negotiated that bill-- superlady, superwoman, superperson, super everything.
Meghan helped orchestrate 13 vote-aramas. I had asked her that before. She saw 2,000 bills--2,000 bills--become law and helped me write and introduce no less than 260 pieces of legislation.
She has done it all. She has seen it all. And I am just so lucky that she did it all as a member of my team.
So, Meghan, you have checked out perhaps more books than anybody from the Library of Congress or more than any staffer I know, but now you will get to check out books that you want to read, not that your job requires you to read, because I know you love to read. And I am happy that George and Gerry will get to see mom around the house more.
Though you are going to move on to greener pastures, Meghan, a piece of you will always dwell in these Chambers, in these halls, in this great institution, and in my heart. We love you, Meghan.
Am I allowed to stand up and hug you on the floor of the Senate? Well, I will.
The great Meghan Taira, America. She served you well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill 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 Mark Meador, of Virginia, to be a Federal Trade Commissioner for the term of seven years from September 26, 2024, shall be brought to a close?
Mr. President, there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the mainstream media about President Trump's commonsense immigration enforcement agenda. That is one of the reasons he got elected on November 5. It is because the American people were fed up with open borders and with the 70,000 Americans who died of fentanyl poisoning, not to mention all of the criminals who came across the border along with everybody else. But to listen to some of my Democratic colleagues talk, one would think that Kristi Noem is deporting grandmothers. Well, this couldn't be further from the truth. So I want to take just a minute to correct the record to talk about exactly what is happening.
The Trump administration is rightly carrying on one of the most basic functions of the government, and that is to keep our people safe. This isn't rocket science. This isn't partisan warfare. In order to keep the American people safe, we need to keep criminals and gangs off our streets, and that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing.
The Department of Homeland Security recently announced they made more than 32,000 enforcement arrests in just 50 days--32,000. This is nearly as many arrests as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE, made in the entirety of fiscal year 2024 when border crossings and ``got-aways'' were at an alltime high. Obviously, this was not a priority for the Biden administration, and we are all living with the consequences.
Of these arrests that have been made under Secretary Noem, nearly half of them have been convicted criminals and others with final orders of deportation. These are people who were either criminals and did not want to appear in front of law enforcement, who were apprehended, or people who claimed asylum or some other legal benefit and lost their cases and are under final orders of deportation but were allowed to remain in the country under the Biden administration. Of these arrests that have been made under Secretary Noem, as I said, nearly half are convicted criminals. One-third of them have pending criminal charges. Nearly 1,200 of them are criminal gang members, and 39 are known as suspected terrorists.
The Department of Homeland Security isn't carrying out this critical mission alone. This is a whole-of-government approach, as it should be. The Department of Justice is partnering with the Department of Homeland Security on a new interagency initiative to crack down on international organized crime, known as Operation Take Back America. International gangs, like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua, have been wreaking havoc, death, and destruction in communities across America.
MS-13, for those who are not familiar with that particular gang, is reputed to be the most dangerous gang on the planet. It is composed primarily of Salvadoran criminal aliens and has 30,000 members around the world, including 10,000 here in the United States. Their
However, some on that side of the aisle or in the mainstream media have actually gone so far as to describe MS-13 as Boy Scouts in comparison with the destruction and devastation that has happened at the hands of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang known for human trafficking, kidnapping, and drug trafficking. This particular Venezuelan gang has been particularly aggressive in my home State of Texas, where the Department of Public Safety arrested more than 40 of the gang's suspected members just last week. In New York, Tren de Aragua has been recruiting gang members from New York migrant shelters, increasing cell phone robbery activities, and trafficking stolen phones back to their headquarters in South America.
But the reason this gang became the topic at dinner tables across America was that they were responsible for the murders of both Laken Riley and a fellow Texan, Jocelyn Nungaray. I can't imagine anyone would be anything except relieved that the Trump administration has prioritized the removal of these gang members from our country.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have shown an ability and a commitment to lock up these dangerous international terrorists at breakneck speed. As part of this initiative, a recently created task force in Virginia--just across the river--arrested 247 individuals in 2 weeks. So this is not just a phenomenon in border States like mine. These people are embedded around the country--literally, in every State.
Among these arrests in Virginia was Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos, one of MS-13's top gang leaders, who was charged, in this instance, with illegal gun possession.
Another MS-13 leader, Joel Vargas-Escobar, was arrested in New York just last week. This particularly dangerous criminal was most recently arrested for his alleged involvement with 11--11--murders, but this was not his first run-in with the law. He was previously arrested and deported back in 2018, but due to the Biden administration's open border policies, he was able to illegally enter the country again.
The Department of Homeland Security recently announced that, in less than a week, ICE has arrested 68 gang members of the Venezuelan gang that I mentioned a moment ago.
With Secretary Noem and Attorney General Bondi at the helm, I think we can all sleep more easily knowing that law enforcement is finally able to do their job, which is to enforce the law--something the Biden administration seemed positively allergic to. As a result, our homeland will be safer and more secure.
The Trump administration is committed to dismantling these international criminal organizations that have created so much havoc and heartache throughout our country. It should be obvious and universal that keeping our citizens safe is not a partisan exercise. It is nothing more than common sense, and it is actually the responsibility of government to enforce the laws that Congress passes. Refusing to arrest and lock up criminals who never should have been in the country in the first place will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes the Biden administration and Democrats have ever made. The Trump administration is rightly correcting the terrible mistakes of the Biden administration.
The American people deserve to live in a country where they don't have to be fearful for their safety, and that is what they voted for last November 5. Parents should not have to worry about their children never being seen or heard from again simply because they go for a jog like Laken Riley did. Far too many innocent people have lost their lives because of the Biden administration's open border policies and failure to keep criminals and gangs out. It is incomprehensible to me that the President of the United States refused to enforce the laws, and it has resulted in so much pain and misery and heartache among so many people in this country.
The Trump administration's, by contrast, arrests and deportations of criminal migrants here is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I am confident the American people know nonsense when they hear it, even when it is broadcast over mainstream media, and the fearmongering that we hear on the left about the Trump administration's efforts to keep all Americans safe are nothing more than that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, when it comes to new tax breaks for billionaires, Republicans are going to work around the clock and stay through the night. But when it comes to stopping Trump's trade war for good, when it comes to stopping a tax increase aimed squarely at working families, when it comes to stopping the complete uncertainty that is chipping away at confidence in our economy, most Republicans can't be bothered, never mind that Trump is now pushing us into a recession and sending the markets whipsawing back and forth every time he tweets.
Trump may be retreating now from some of his most outlandish tariffs, but make no mistake, his trade war is far from over. First of all, he is still taxing goods from every country, across the board, at 10 percent, at least. That means higher prices and serious pain for families and small businesses across our country; not to mention, he is only escalating his boneheaded trade war with China with 145 percent tariffs.
There is no question we are in fierce competition with China. I chaired a committee hearing focused on this. We need to be competing to win. But that is not what Trump is doing.
Do my Republican colleagues understand it is not setting America up for success to launch an all-out trade war with the second largest economy in the world on a whim?
While people might be temporarily relieved by this so-called pause on the even higher tariffs, the fact of the matter is that Trump is only delaying them. The threat of even larger taxes, which American families simply cannot afford, is still like a timebomb, set to blow up our economy in 90 days. If Congress does not defuse that economic bomb, there is a real threat that it will blow up balance sheets for small businesses and farms, college savings accounts for our students, and your retirement savings, along with a lot more.
I have to emphasize the uncertainty and the constant, by-the-hour reversal of Federal policy. That alone is already causing massive harm.
How on Earth are you supposed to build your business if your costs skyrocket on a tweet?
How are you supposed to plan for retirement when the President is sending your 401(k) on a roller-coaster ride every time he is in a bad mood?
How are we ever going to rebuild trust--trust--with our trading partners across the world when the message the United States is sending right now is that our trade relationships are built on sand, and there is no logic to the tariffs the United States will impose?
How are they supposed to feel good about negotiating with a country where one man can totally burn down the economy and Congress will not lift a finger to stop him?
Instead of building stronger trade agreements, Trump is pushing our partners away and pushing them toward striking deals with China and our other adversaries.
Mark my words, this chaotic chapter is not over, as much as Republicans want to pretend otherwise. I have been hearing from small businesses that are in an absolute panic because of Trump's tariff threats.
Car dealerships are seeing sales plummet because Trump is sending prices higher. Restaurants are trying to stock up on any goods they can because their ingredients are about to get more expensive. Our growers are bracing for rising operating costs and retaliatory tariffs, and that will drive up prices at our grocery stores.
Ten percent, across-the-board tariffs are still bad enough to ruin families' finances.
While Republicans are showing with their own actions that they couldn't
I am not kidding. He actually said that about automobile tariffs.
This is what happens when you only have billionaires in charge because, of course, Trump doesn't care if the car prices go up by a couple thousand dollars. Of course, Elon Musk doesn't care if your groceries are getting more expensive--at the same time Republicans are cutting nutrition programs, by the way. Of course, the richest people in the world don't care if your nest egg is crushed or your small business shutters or your house gets foreclosed on or your kid can't go to college. Billionaires are going to be fine. After all, they are still getting a tax cut.
But I wasn't sent here to fight for billionaires. Actually, none of us were. We are here to fight for families back home, and they are already starting to get crushed by Trump's tariffs. And they are bracing for impact if Trump doubles down in 90 days. Or who knows, maybe Trump changes his mind again tomorrow. It is anyone's guess at this point, which is, by the way, the problem here.
Another thing, if this is about American manufacturing, tell us: Why are plants and new investments being canceled? Why has Trump been freezing and outright canceling grants that we passed to support chips manufacturing or clean energy, and more, killing American jobs?
Let's keep in mind, these tariffs affect building and construction too. Trump is actually making it more expensive to build those factories in America.
And don't forget, President Trump is still promising more tariffs. He said this week--this week--he wants to put tariffs on medicine.
I have got to tell you, one thing I have never heard--not in a single meeting, not once in my entire career as a Senator--is someone saying: Gee, I really wish my prescriptions were more expensive.
Drug costs are out of control. Families are already skipping meals or rationing doses. There are real stakes here, there is real damage already happening in this country because of Trump's new taxes and this ongoing chaos. We here cannot ignore this harm, especially when the threat is still there.
When you are putting out a fire, you don't say: Oh, great, it is smaller; I am done. You keep going until the fire is put out.
This fire--this fire--is still raging, and if we don't act here, folks back home are the ones who are going to get burned. And before too long, in 90 days, we could see even more price increases come roaring back, because, let's be real, Trump has no exit strategy. That much is already painfully clear.
It was clear when he announced tariffs that were calculated using ridiculous math. It was clear when he repeatedly doubled down on these threats against our allies. And it was clearer than ever when he backtracked on the most absurd tax hikes.
This does not have the hallmarks of a grand strategy, and it is all the more reason why Congress--us--needs to step in and put this mess to an end.
Trump's trade war is all pain and no plan. We could be passing legislation right here to reject this chaos.
Here is what everyone--my colleagues, my constituents, the markets around the world--all need to understand: This chaos will not be over for good unless we here in Congress vote to end it, because whatever Trump tweets today, he can reverse tomorrow. Whatever deal he may strike one minute, he may rip up the next. We know this about him. He proves it at every opportunity.
We here in Congress, we are the off-ramp if Republicans decide to be. We are the check on Presidential power. We are the kill switch for Trump's trade war.
And, by the way, we are about to be out of town for 2 weeks. I cannot understand why any Republican would want to leave this business unfinished, want to leave this economic timebomb ticking, want to hand over our constitutionally granted power to impose tariffs.
But I can tell you, for the next 2 weeks, I am going to be going across my home State of Washington raising this alarm. I am going to be meeting with families, small businesses--people who are paying the cost of Trump's new tax increase and who are going to see their world turned upside down if we do not take action to stop this from getting worse.
And when we get back here in 2 weeks, you can bet your bottom dollar, I will lift those stories up as high as I can. I will call for action as loud as I can. I am going to keep a bright and burning spotlight on all of the chaos Trump has caused, and I will keep the pressure on all of our colleagues. I will not let Republicans off the hook on this.
We can put an end to this. The costs are just going to be adding up. The carnage is going to continue to pile higher.
How long do you want to wait? My vote--not one more second.
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, yesterday was a day that really captured the attention of the world. We have all been talking about tariffs for a little bit, but yesterday was the day that really brought the focus to what was going on here in the United States.
At 12:01 in the morning on Wednesday, President Trump's tariffs on the countries with which the United States has had the largest trade deficits went into effect, on top of the 10-percent tariff rates that had previously applied to all countries, which had been initiated on Saturday, April 5.
And then just hours later yesterday afternoon, the President announced a 90-day pause on lowering reciprocal tariffs to then 10 percent--at the same time announced that he was raising tariffs on China to 125 percent. Now today, it looks like that number is closer to 145 percent. To say this has been a dizzying week in Washington, DC, is probably an understatement.
Those of us who are following the markets, it has been somewhat headspinning. I am not going to comment here on the floor today about the negotiating tactics of President Trump. I think he is legendary and really world-renowned for his skills at that--his skills in bringing nations to the table.
We are seeing some of this play out literally as we speak; other countries that have approached the administration to have discussions about tariffs.
This is a unique kind of leverage, most certainly keeping those across the table off-balance. But bringing the world, potentially, to a--to the brink of a ruinous trade war certainly qualifies as a very unique point of leverage.
The effort to try to reshore manufacturing here in this country is important, it is admirable, and it is something that we all should be working toward. But I think there has been general agreement that the message from the administration has been decidedly mixed, which leads to further confusion among our trading partners and our allies. If nobody understands where the finish line is, it is hard to reach it.
I don't want to focus my comments here this afternoon about these possible strategies and end results of these policies so much. But I want to focus more on the process of how these tariffs were imposed because I believe--I believe--it is yet another example of Congress is choosing to cede its powers to the executive branch.
If the global implications of these tariffs have shown us nothing else, it is that measures that are as important as the issue be considered by the 535 elected individuals that are in tune with the American people rather than vesting that with just one individual acting unilaterally. It is under article I section 8 of our U.S. States Constitution that clearly enumerates that Congress ``shall have Power To Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.'' In other words, the power to levy tariffs rests with us here in Congress.
So why--why--have we seen the Executive take control over tariff rates?
Following the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, which plunged our Nation deeper into the Great Depression, Congress passed the following legislation: First, it was the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which authorized the President to make limited tariff rates without congressional review on top of negotiating bilateral reciprocal trade agreements.
Then it was the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which broadened the President's trade powers to include multilateral trade agreements while also allowing the President to unilaterally impose tariffs if imports could threaten national security.
Then the Trade Act of 1974, which allowed the President to protect U.S. workers by adjusting tariffs if foreign countries engaged in unfair trade practices.
And then just a few years later, it was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which gives the President authorities to address declared emergencies if ``unusual and extraordinary'' threats exist to national security, foreign policy, or to the economy. So powers include--you probably guessed it--the authority to ``regulate'' or ``prohibit'' imports.
So in his April 2 Executive order, President Trump declared a national emergency because of ``a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships'' and our ``trading partners' economic policies that suppress domestic wages.''
He is authorized--he is authorized to do so under the National Emergencies Act of 1976. So I want to be clear about all of this. I know some people might not like it, but all of what he has done is clearly above board.
The President is clearly within his powers to impose tariffs on our allies like Mexico and Canada and the EU just as much as he is with our adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran.
President Trump, and President Biden before him, took this route because Congress has largely relegated tariff authority to the President through the laws that effectively cede to the Executive.
And, my friends, it is just one more example--just one more example-- of Congress abdicating instead of legislating.
In my time here, I have seen a troubling pattern in both bodies where the party that controls the White House seems all too comfortable relinquishing authority to the President and then rubberstamping whatever policies the Executive wants enshrined into law. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have deferred to the Executive to call the shots, in my view, for far too long.
Now, we use the phrase around here a lot, ``coequal branches of government.'' I use it all the time. But the reality is, Congress was created in article I--article I of the Constitution. We are given far more authority than the Executive.
All you need to do is look in your handy-dandy pocket Constitution. Ours is a lot longer, but look at the authorities that we have: Congress may impeach and remove a President and members of the judiciary; Congress can override a Presidential veto of legislation; Congress appropriates the money that funds the operation of all branches of government; and it is Congress that, again, needs to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.
We also say a lot around here that ``business loves certainty.'' I would suggest the country's entire tariff regime being subject to the whims of one individual lends anything but certainty, and that is why-- that is why--I have signed onto Senator Grassley and Senator Cantwell's legislation. They call it the Trade Review Act of 2025, and it would reclaim this branch's authority and duty to help manage tariffs as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
The bill requires notice to the Congress of the imposition of--or increase in--any tariffs, requires notice to the Congress in 48 hours; and with that congressional notification, it has to include an explanation of the President's reasoning for imposing or raising the tariffs as well as providing an analysis of potential impact on American businesses and consumers.
I can tell you, the Alaskans that I am talking to back home would really like the last part of this, an analysis of: How is this going to impact us?
Another provision within the Grassley-Cantwell act is, within 60 days, Congress would pass a joint resolution for approval on the new tariff. Otherwise, all new tariffs on imports could expire on that deadline.
So what this act effectively would do would be to reaffirm Congress's role with regards to tariffs. It allows for a greater engagement, if you will, between the executive and the congressional branch; allows for the debate; allows for that engagement; allows for that understanding.
Again, I am hearing from folks all over back home because they are worried. We already pay high costs for just about everything in Alaska, but they are worried what it is going to mean for groceries, for cars, for furniture, electronics, coffee.
We had a visit with a group of high school students on the steps yesterday and they were from all over the State. You had some from Ketchikan all the way up to King Cove and out in the Y-K Delta. And the first question from one of the 16-year-olds in that group was: Can you tell me what is going on with tariffs? How is this going to impact us?
You know, I really appreciated that question from that 16-year-old, who is paying attention to what is going on. He has got questions. He is here in Washington, DC, and he is figuring he is going to get some answers from his Senator.
Alaskans are facing consequences. They want to know that they have a voice in it. And their voice is us. It is their Senator. It is their Representative. That is our role here.
Now, it has been suggested--the President himself has issued a statement about this legislation. He has indicated that he does not support it and that he would veto it. That is absolutely within his power, but we also have powers. We also have powers here in Congress, and we need to assert them.
So I would hope that this bill is maybe just the start--maybe just the toe in the water here where we are starting to see Congress reassert its authority. Because if we don't stand up for the institution, if we don't stand up for the legislative branch of our government by debating this issue and others, but holding votes, debating--let's debate this. Let's have a vote on the Trade Review Act. Because if we just sit back, if we don't assert our authority, we have only got ourselves to blame when we don't like the direction that may be taken.
The Executive has slowly arrogated more and more power since the end of World War II, and it has dramatically accelerated post 9/11, but we here in Congress have stood by, and we have accepted it. We have said it is OK.
I think it is time for Congress to reassert itself, whether it is on tariffs, whether it is on the power of appropriation, whether it is overseeing the bodies and the Agencies that we as a body have authorized. So let's legislate. Let's remember our role is to legislate. We owe that to those that we represent as well as to this institution for the long-term good of the Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a dear friend and public servant, Egbert Lawrence Davis III, who went home to be with his Heavenly Father on March 17, surrounded by his loving family.
Everyone who knew Lawrence knew that he loved God; he loved North Carolina; and he loved his country so much that he chose to dedicate his life's work to serving the great State that he called home.
Lawrence served two terms in the North Carolina General Assembly as a State representative and two terms as a State senator. Throughout his career in public service, he served as the chair of the North Carolina Family Business Forum, the president of the Rotary Club of Raleigh, and a board member of the North Carolina Bar Association--just to name a few.
But when asked what he would consider to be the highlight of his career, he said his marriage to his beloved wife Sandra Holderness. Their enduring love
And most of all, Lawrence was known as a man of faith who led his life walking hand in hand with Jesus Christ. He was known by his church community as a beloved deacon, elder, Sunday school teacher, choir member, and Stephen Minister.
He lived a life of quiet strength and unwavering faith, continually leaning on the Lord for guidance. Though he is no longer with us, his legacy lives on through his four devoted children, six cherished grandchildren, and beloved great-granddaughter.
I would like to close by reciting a verse that was included in Lawrence's obituary that I believe reflects the man he was to all who knew him, and it was from Micah 6:8.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 170, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. President, this resolution concerns a lawsuit filed in the Oregon Supreme Court against Senator Wyden. That suit was brought by an individual, Desmond Bellard, who is representing himself without the assistance of an attorney and is attempting to use a civil action known as quo warranto to remove Senator Wyden from office for alleged State campaign finance violations in the 2022 election. This suit challenges the Senator's right to be seated in the Senate, an issue which the U.S. Constitution commits exclusively to the Senate.
This resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent Senator Wyden named as a respondent in this suit in order to remove the case to Federal court and seek its dismissal on the basis of the constitutional commitment to the Senate of the power to seat and remove its Members, the Speech or Debate Clause, and the lack of jurisdiction under Oregon's quo warranto statute.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 170) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, it wasn't that long ago that Sudan was on a path to recovery after decades of violence and civil war.
Back in 2018, Sudanese citizens took to the streets to protest the conditions in their country. This movement pushed Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the ICC for a campaign of mass killing and rape, out of power, and this set the country on a course for a better future. Sadly, that future was disrupted when the military overthrew the civilian-led Government of Sudan.
Then, 2 years ago, the Sudanese Armed Forces, led by General al- Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces, led by General Hemedti, plunged Sudan into war. In the 2 years since, over 150,000 people have died and 12 million more have been displaced.
You can see this poster reflects the results of what is happening in Sudan. In just 2 years, 12 million more people have been displaced and are in camps. This is actually one of the nicer camps.
With acute famine levels at historic highs, 30 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. You can see some of the Sudanese people with their dishes lined up to get some assistance.
As so often happens during war, the impact has been especially devastating to women and girls. During raids by the armed factions, women and girls have been abducted and forced into sexual and domestic slavery. One U.N. report found that gender-based violence skyrocketed by 288 percent last year. Again, you can see the impact. According to UNICEF, 221 children have been raped, including a case involving a 1- year-old baby.
If this is true, we just can't ignore it as another horrific detail of a distant conflict. The world is watching, and we must hold the people who are perpetrating these acts accountable for their crimes.
The U.S. Government has determined that both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during fighting in Sudan. And the Rapid Support Forces have led a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
In January of 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department took a positive step. It sanctioned the leader of the Rapid Support Forces and the leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces for their armies' lethal attack on civilians in Sudan. But more needs to be done.
Cease-fire after cease-fire has failed. Peace negotiations have stalled, and outside countries--the UAE, Turkey, Iran, as well as Russia and China--continue to send weapons to the factions. Why? Well, because Russia doesn't want to give up its port access to the Red Sea, China doesn't want to abandon the nearly $6 billion of investments it has made in Sudan since 2005, and the UAE doesn't want to abandon Sudan's wartime gold trade. According to mining industry sources and research by Swissaid, nearly all of Sudan's gold trade flows through the UAE.
The United States needs to stand up and say enough is enough.
For people who say ``Well, what difference does it make? That is Africa. That is a long way away from the United States. Why does it matter?'' well, because, sadly, what happens in Africa, what happens in Sudan doesn't stay in Sudan. If you can't be outraged because of the moral horror of what is happening there, you should be outraged because the terrorism and the potential disease that can cross the borders of Sudan can come to the United States, and we have seen that too often in the past.
As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in Congress as well as folks in the Trump administration because we must hold these groups accountable for their war crimes. We must support them in ending the violence.
Right now, both sides in the war continue to bomb, to raid, to siege schools, markets, and hospitals. The Sudanese Armed Forces are intentionally denying humanitarian aid. They are blocking medicine and other relief items. The Rapid Support Forces continue to lead an ethnically charged campaign of violence in Darfur.
Sadly, so many of the foreign assistance programs that we had in place have been ended or are under review.
The United States, the Trump administration, and Congress must create a clear policy to address this conflict. We must resume foreign assistance to the region and Sudan to limit further humanitarian suffering. We must set aside our differences, bring an end to the violence, and renew our commitment to setting Sudan back on the path to a civilian-led democracy.
Mr. President, this month of April is National Donate Life Month. This month is the time to raise awareness about the lifesaving importance of organ donation.
There are over 103,000 Americans on the national organ transplant waiting
Speaking of waiting lists, I have been concerned about the reports of those on the waitlist being skipped over. This furthers the distrust in the organ donation system.
Through my bipartisan oversight and also the 2023 U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network law, the Federal Government is making long-overdue changes so that we take care and clean this mess up. The law improved the management and the oversight of our organ transplant system and encouraged participation from competent and transparent contractors.
To build onto those reforms, in March, the President signed a continuing resolution that provided authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to collect registration fees from organ transplant member institutions. This ensures the 2023 law can be implemented properly.
I encourage all Americans to consider being an organ donor and understand the impact that it can have on saving lives.
Of course, in addition to oversight of the new legislation, I am keeping my very close eye on how the Federal Government is implementing these new laws to give more people the chance of lifesaving transplants.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table, and the President will immediately be notified of the Senate's actions.
Mr. President, actually, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we go ahead and confirm General Caine as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I must say that I do so with mixed feelings.
On the one hand, we need a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately, and there is overwhelming support on the Democratic side and Republican side for this nomination.
On the other hand, passage of this confirmation would pretty much end our week, and that would prevent us from getting a lot of work done later on this afternoon and into tonight and tomorrow if we have to stay until tomorrow to confirm this very important officer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So, in a way, we can have it either way, but, frankly, to stay here and get some Congressional Review Act resolutions done so that we can end a number of the pernicious regulations foisted off on the American people and on our economy by the Biden administration--that has a lot of appeal also.
So with that in mind and in an effort to accommodate Members on both sides of the aisle who really believe we can finish our business today, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions filed yesterday on Executive Calendar Nos. 75 and 74, making Gen. John Caine Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, ripen at 3 p.m. today.
Mr. President, I may have other unanimous consent requests, but if I could be heard on this matter for another moment, I would seek recognition for that purpose.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from Alaska, who has now vacated the floor. I thought we had this more synchronized.
But let me say this: There was a vote earlier this week in the Armed Services Committee. It passed the Armed Services Committee with overwhelming Democrat and Republican support--23 yeses and only 4 noes. So there is really no reason to delay this any longer.
Frankly, there is so much going on around the world with the four powers that constitute an axis of aggression to the United States that we really should give the President the choice that has been endorsed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority of the Armed Services Committee.
With that, having communicated better now with my dear colleague from Alaska, I would yield to the junior Senator from the State of Alaska.
Mr. President, I certainly hope my Democratic colleagues can let us move forward on this, or we are going to stay all night until we get the President's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs confirmed.
Now, look, I know there was some concern about removing General Brown, CQ Brown. I actually really like General CQ Brown. I thought he did a good job. I publicly stated a number of times that he served his country very well.
But here is the deal: The President of the United States is entitled to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he wants. You look at history, senior military commanders on the Democrat's side, on the Republican's side--if the President doesn't feel comfortable with them, he has the right to remove them and move on. That is just our history. That has happened with Democrats.
George W. Bush wasn't comfortable with Gen. Peter Pace. He is a marine.
President Obama fired two very senior, four-star generals inside of 2 years. One was General McChrystal, one of the most seasoned warriors, you know, in a generation of warfighters, and he removed him.
So President Trump clearly had the authority to remove General Brown. He has now put forward General Caine, who, by the way--everybody on the Armed Services Committee thought he did a great job. He is going to get a really big vote here. So why are we delaying it? I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me.
The President deserves his senior military adviser. That is what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is--his senior military adviser. The President needs to feel comfortable with that person. That person is actually out of the chain of command. We have seen throughout history that when the President doesn't feel comfortable, he can remove one general and bring in another one. That is what has happened here.
We should confirm General Caine immediately. I think he is going to do a really, really good job. As a matter of fact, I have interviewed, sat down with, served under hundreds of flag officers. General Caine is one of the most impressive I have ever met. So we need to get on with it.
You know, there are these press stories about why President Trump removed General Brown. I think it is just because he wanted to have a general whom he trusts and feels comfortable with, and that is exactly his right as the Commander in Chief.
So we should move on. General Caine is going to get a very, I think, significant bipartisan vote. He should. And if the minority leader wants to object, we will just grind it out all night and get it done.
I would then ask my distinguished friend from Alaska: Isn't it a fact that General Caine time and again has demonstrated his aptitude and leadership abilities while actually deployed in combat zones, leading servicemembers in Iraq and Syria, and while serving in various Special Operations forces units and also in the intelligence community and that he ran some of our most secretive programs for the security of Americans?
My good friend from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, by the way--a Senator who knows probably more about the military than anyone else here--has it exactly right.
General Caine has this breadth of experience, not just as a fighter pilot with thousands of hours, combat hours, in flight but has worked very closely with our intel services and has very significant combat experience in Iraq and Syria.
Very interestingly--and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows this--he has private sector experience. You would say: Why does that matter? It actually matters a lot because of our military and the need to integrate our very powerful private sector.
So he brings a wealth of experience that, to be honest--in my 10 years in this position as a U.S. Senator on the Armed Services Committee and my 30 years in the Marine Corps, I have never seen a general that brings it all together. So I think he is going to be outstanding and exceptional.
I just wondered if the gentleman would yield to the distinguished minority leader to ascertain how this matter is going to be resolved differently if we wait until tomorrow. The gentleman has the floor. Perhaps he would do so.
Mr. President, I would yield to the distinguished minority leader. Maybe having him watch this distinguished debate between me and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has convinced him to bow to the inevitable, and that is the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor. The Senator from New York has not sought recognition.
Mr. President, maybe the minority leader will explain why he is objecting given that we just laid out very cogent, strong reasons that we need to move forward on confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff right now. It is a very dangerous world. Why would we wait? I am curious on what the minority leader says.
Mr. President, I just want the American people who are watching this that care about our national security--the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just had a colloquy here on the floor talking about why we needed to move the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get confirmed in the Senate here. And I and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, respectfully, asked the question of the minority leader, Democratic minority leader, why are you blocking this? And you may have seen he just walked off the floor.
He didn't answer. I don't know if he has an answer. If he has an answer, it sure would be good to hear what the answer is because we need President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed. And I bet he gets strong bipartisan support, in terms of his confirmation, because he is very qualified. And yet, without any explanation, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate just said, ``I object,'' and he walked off the floor.
I hope the press reports on that. Holy cow. That is kind of big news. And if we have to be here all night, jamming down on them to get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed because our country needs it during a very dangerous time, a general who is immensely qualified, then that is what we are going to do.
But it sure would be easier to just agree with us, start moving on the vote, and get this highly qualified general confirmed as President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
But what you just witnessed, for anyone watching, the American people watching, was a nondebate. My good friend from Mississippi and I were describing why we need to move this forward. The minority leader of the U.S. Senate, who has the power to do it, just said: ``I object.''
Normally, on the Senate floor when someone objects, they explain why. But he didn't want to do it. He just walked off the floor. So that is what we just witnessed. It is a little bit unusual, particularly when it comes to a confirmation that is so important. There are very few confirmations that the U.S. Senate does that are more important than confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I guess the Democrats are going to block it for now, and we will go all night to make sure President Trump has his principal senior military adviser, which he needs during these dangerous times.
Mr. President, just for the information of Senators, as the unanimous consent request has been objected to, and we are not allowed to vote at this point to give the President of the United States a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I just wanted to inform the Senate, based on conversations with the majority leader and his staff, that there are two matters that we can and will proceed to later on this afternoon and perhaps into the night.
The first would be the House version of Senator Scott of South Carolina's Congressional Review Act resolution, H.J. Res. 61, providing for congressional disapproval under section 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing.''
That is one matter that the objection has given us an opportunity to proceed to.
The other would be Senator Curtis's Congressional Review Act, S.J. Res. 31, a joint resolution providing for the Congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Review of the Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources As Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.''
As I said, during my unanimous consent request, proceeding to the vote on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would give the President the advice and counsel that our Commander in Chief needs during a very dangerous time.
That said, I made the unanimous consent request with mixed feelings because, frankly, there are two regulations--pernicious, onerous, needless regulations--by the Environmental Protection Agency that need to be wiped off the books.
So this will give us an opportunity to do that. It is 10 after 3 at this point, and I am not sure when the distinguished majority leader will schedule that, but Members should be advised that unless we are able to get a unanimous consent request and give the President his choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, those are items that can still be the order of the day, and perhaps there are other votes tomorrow.
Mr. President, I join my colleague in expressing some frustration that we can't vote on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is the kind of stuff that drives people crazy back home for an individual that is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Most people back in my State of Oklahoma think this has already been done. But to not be able to move on this, to literally have my Democratic colleagues block it and say we are not going to allow the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for our military to be able to be there, it is just another one of those moments of Washington, DC, gridlock and frustration, especially when this person moved out of committee with a vote of 24 to 4.
That is overwhelming bipartisan support. There is just not controversy about this nominee. But now suddenly to be able to have a game, to be able to say we want to be able to stall this out and maybe block this person until after Easter, so we don't have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is frustrating for people to say: Come on, just have the vote.
So I join my colleagues on the Republican side to say: What is the problem? Everyone knows this person is going to be voted on and is going to be approved because there is such wide bipartisan support, but for my Democratic colleagues to say: Nope, we want to drag this out for weeks, I just don't think it is the right thing to do. Clearly, they disagree, but I don't think it is the right thing to do.
Mr. President, next week, Oklahoma and the Nation will pause for a moment, and we will remember, nationally, for a moment, on April 19 at 9:02 in the morning.
And some people will look around and go, ``Has it been 30 years?'' and other people will say: ``What happened 30 years ago?'' because it depends on your generation of when you were born and how old you were or if you were even alive in 1995, but if you were alive in 1995, you remember where you were when the news came out that there was an explosion at a Federal building in Oklahoma City.
It was the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. A man who was mad at the government and determined he was going to cause an uprising of people to take down the Federal Government pulled a Ryder truck in front of a Federal building, loaded it with diesel fuel and with ammonia nitrate, lit fuses, walked away, got in his car and drove away.
As he drove away, behind him, the explosion went off that killed 168 people, including 19 children who were in the daycare center on the ground floor. And our Nation was forever changed.
We pause every year still in Oklahoma. We have never forgotten. Every year, we think about those who were killed and those who survived and those who were changed forever. We remember every single year, as we will again this year on the 30th anniversary, and we will pause to remember.
The people that are around us in Oklahoma are our neighbors, they are our friends, but many of them are also survivors or family members of survivors or family members of those who are lost. There are still police officers and firefighters that have literally never been back to that location because it is too painful to be able to return to a spot where they carried out the bodies of their friends and neighbors.
There are individuals that their family was truly forever changed. And now, 30 years later, they still get together and talk and visit, catch up with each other. There are survivor networks that still engage and still keep in contact with each other, remembering what happens when out-of-control anger took the lives of 168 people.
On that sacred ground, there is still a quiet reflection pool. There are 168 chairs there to remind people of the 168 lives. There is a phenomenal museum that is next to it that people come to literally from all over the world to study terrorism, domestic terrorism in particular, and to be able to walk through what happened in the crime scene and how it was so quickly resolved. We have law enforcement, first responders, families and communities that come from everywhere just to be able to learn and to reflect.
There are children that survived the daycare center that are now adults. Let me give you two: Brandon and Rebecca Denny. Brandon was 3 years old, and he literally barely survived his injuries; in fact, doctors gave him a 10 percent chance of survival, but he did. As an adult, he works to still help and serve others.
Rebecca, she was rescued from the rubble at 2 years old. She now has a family of her own. She speaks powerfully, still, about forgiveness over bitterness.
They were some of those miracle babies that survived. Many of the children around them did not.
This past week, it was really a remarkable moment that a lot of people in this town probably missed, and I understand. There is a lot of things going on right now. But on the south side of the Capitol, there was a spot of dirt that was dug up there and a group of Oklahomans, along with the Architect of the Capitol, buried a seedling tree.
Now, that may not seem like a big deal on the Capitol grounds, but there aren't many trees that are planted on the Capitol grounds. Many of the trees that are on the grounds are 100 years old or some, 200. This is a great historic place and a spot of reflection.
But in one spot there, we just planted a tree. And you may say: What is the big deal about that tree? Well, if you are in Oklahoma, you already know the rest of this story, but I would like to be able to tell this body the rest of that story.
On April 19, 1995, when that truck bomb explosion took place, it took 168 lives. It destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Across the street was
In the year of the cleanup and all of the recovery and what was happening during that time period, no one paid attention to it, until the next spring, that scrubby little tree in the asphalt started sprouting. And people were shocked. It is alive. And suddenly it went from being a scrubby tree in the parking lot that was just going to be cleared out to being a sign of hope.
So we cleared the asphalt and everything else away from it. An arborist came and began to fertilize it and to take care of it. That scrubby little tree is now nicknamed ``The Survivor Tree'' now, and it is the picture of Oklahoma after that bombing. We survived.
That scrubby little American elm tree is now enormous 30 years later. Its branches and its leaves spread out over that site. It is the shaded spot. And on the morning of April 19, there will be survivors and families that will sit under its branches. And as we pause for 168 seconds and as we read the names of those who we lost, they will be underneath that Survivor Tree thinking again of: We survived. We are still here.
The term ``the Oklahoma standard'' was born during that time period as neighbor helped neighbor and as we cared for each other and the people who came to our home from all over the world, literally.
If you walk into my office, you will see a picture of the Survivor Tree that is there. How does that seedling that we just planted and that Survivor Tree connect? Well, that seedling is a daughter of that Survivor Tree. A seed was literally picked up off the ground under that Survivor Tree, was planted and grown, and now it is about 3 feet tall. That seedling, that daughter, we just planted 30 years later at the U.S. Capitol so that this Nation will never forget the out-of-control anger that turned to violence and hatred.
It is our prayer from Oklahoma that, as people walk down the path outside, that they would stop and read the plaque beside that little seedling tree. That in the decades ahead, it will grow to be a giant American elm, just like its parent, the Survivor Tree, and that people would remember the lives that were lost, those who survived, and those who were changed forever.
That is our hope. That is why that tree was planted on the Capitol lawn this week.
My simple request for my colleagues: April 19, it is a Saturday--when it comes, at 9:02 central time, would you just pause with us for just a moment and remember? Join us because we will absolutely never forget.
Mr. President, it is Thursday here in the U.S. Senate, and it is time for a great tradition--I think one of the greatest traditions in the history of the U.S. Senate. It is called ``The Alaskan of the Week'' speech, which I try to give most Thursdays. It has been a while. For the pages, this is the highlight of the week. Even our friends in the media like this speech because it usually signals the end of the work week, but not right now. You saw the minority leader's objection without any explanation on why on confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, so we might be here for a lot longer.
So I wanted to highlight what is going on in Alaska, as I usually do during my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech and just give a snapshot of what is happening back home.
It is still pretty cold, still have a fair amount of snow. Anchorage just got a bunch of snow that lasted a couple of days. The 53rd Iditarod just concluded in Nome with a stunning first-time win by Alaskan Jessie Holmes and his 10-dog sled team.
The Iron Dog Race, that is a snow machine race, longest, toughest snow machine race in the world, was won by--that is done in kind of tandem--Robby Schachle and Bradley George, their second victory of the Iron Dog snow machine race.
Things are starting to thaw, as I mentioned. It is beginning of the summer tourism season, right around the corner. The first cruise ship will dock in Southeast Alaska in less than 2 weeks, and thousands of tourists from all over the world will come to our great State.
Anyone watching in the Gallery, we would love to have you. Come to Alaska.
For many of these tourists, this is going to be the trip of a lifetime. For Alaskans, this is where we live every day. And our Alaskan of the Week does something that is very unusual: He is beloved by Alaskans and tourists--not an easy task--and this person is my friend Jay Ramras.
Like many Alaskans, Jay is a jack-of-all-trades. He owns restaurants and beautiful hotels. He has had a successful political career. He is a prolific philanthropist. He loves history. And more importantly, he loves Alaska and especially his great hometown of Fairbanks--by the way, my wife's hometown.
Now, I love to talk about our Alaskan of the Week. There are so many. We have talked about hundreds over the course of many years here on the Senate floor.
Jay was born in Fairbanks in 1964. His father Dan moved to Fairbanks from Brooklyn, NY, in 1948. And as Jay says: There has been a Ramras in Interior Alaska going on 80 years.
And Jay's entrepreneurial resume, which is legendary in Alaska, began in 1986 at the tender age of 22 years old when he started a chicken wing restaurant, expanding his business footprint to other eateries across Fairbanks and, eventually, purchasing the iconic Fairbanks landmark called Pike's Landing.
For anyone going to Fairbanks, you have got to stay at Pike's Landing.
It was this purchase that led Jay to uncovering some really incredible chapters of Alaskan history--as I said, Jay is a real history buff--and he credits this to his bachelor of arts degree in American history, but it all started with Pike's.
So let's talk about Pike's. Pike's Landing was established after World War II when Lloyd Pike claimed land along the Chena River--the Chena River runs right through Fairbanks--under the Homestead Act.
In 1959--by the way, the same year Alaska became the 49th State--Pike opened the original Pike's Landing. Throughout the years, Pike's Landing cemented itself as a landmark in the Fairbanks community.
When Jay purchased Pike's Landing in 2000, he found himself wondering about the history of the property and the man who established the landmark location of Pike's. The original owner had sort of disappeared from history. So Jay asked around, collecting oral histories from Fairbanks old-timers who had seen the growth of Pike's Landing over the decades.
Jay found that Pike's Landing had long faced congestion at the boat launch due to its prime location right there, as I said, on the Chena River. That was a problem Lloyd Pike solved by building a public launch to clear up some of the demand in terms of getting boats on the river.
The original boat launch was washed away when the Chena River flooded--huge flood by the way--in 1968. But decades later, Jay found himself building another boat launch, unknowingly, right at the same spot. As he said: If I hadn't already been born, I would have believed in reincarnation. I would have thought I had been reincarnated as Lloyd Pike because he put his boat launch right where Lloyd Pike lived. Since then, Jay has been working with Fairbanks North Star Borough Historic Preservation Commission to put Pike's Landing on the National Register of Historic Places. I have no doubt that is going to happen. ``It was so important to me that we rescue Lloyd Pike from obscurity,'' Jay said.
But this wasn't the only historical figure that Jay has connected himself
The Presiding Officer is a pilot. Maybe he knows who Noel Wien is. For those who don't, Noel Wien is considered the father of Alaska aviation--the first pilot to successfully fly from Anchorage to Fairbanks in 1924. Wien went on to found Wien Airlines, a commercial airline that operated in Alaska for nearly 60 years.
As the Presiding Officer knows, these were some intrepid pilots. That was 100 years ago he did that first flight--open-air cockpit, really cold.
Jay's interest in history, once again, piqued, and he dug into that period and discovered some great photographs of Noel Wien, Wien Airlines, and had a great celebration last year in July of 2024, celebrating the 100th anniversary of that historic flight in Alaska. Really, that was a historic flight for America. My wife Julie and I were there. Senator Murkowski was there. Our Governor was there. By the way, the Wien family was there, including Leslie Wien Hajdukovich, my former regional director. It was a great classic Jay Ramras event. Hundreds of people came out to celebrate a huge moment in Alaska history, Alaska aviation history--I would say, American aviation history.
In addition to preserving this incredible chapter in Fairbanks' history, Jay has invested in Fairbanks' future. Let me tell you about a few of his other endeavors. Each summer, Jay hosts the Yukon 800 boat race, the longest, toughest, roughest speedboat race in the world. It starts at Pike's, up to the Chena, gets out on the mighty Yukon--huge race.
Just as I mentioned, he just recently hosted the fourth Iditarod start at Pike's. Normally, the Iditarod starts down in Anchorage. That is the toughest, longest, greatest race in the world, the Iditarod. It occasionally starts in Fairbanks, but it did this year at Pike's. And as I mentioned, he regularly sponsors the Iron Dog snow machine race that, yes, is the toughest, longest, roughest snow machine race in the world.
Jay also had a successful political career, serving three terms in the Alaska House of Representatives. And he is a great philanthropist in Fairbanks--a key player in Fairbanks Food Bank and doing so many other things in terms of philanthropy.
On top of all this, Jay says his greatest legacy, he believes, will be something he recently did--which I think is just fantastic--the creation of a new synagogue in Fairbanks, the northernmost Chabad in the United States.
It began with a call from Rabbi Greenberg in Anchorage. He is a great friend of mine, one of the leaders of our Jewish community throughout the State. He asked Jay if he could host a young orthodox rabbi and his wife for a short visit. Of course, Jay, a very generous man, agreed. ``I think it would be around a two-week summer stay.'' Then they came again for a second visit, this time in January when it is 45 below zero in Fairbanks. It gets really cold in Fairbanks. And they still returned.
The young couple, Rabbi Heshy Wolf and his wife Chani have now chosen to make Fairbanks their permanent home.
Jay, generous as ever, purchased a small church with his own money. The previous congregation at the church had outgrown the place. They refurbished it, transforming it into the Fairbanks Jewish Center. The original congregation stayed on rent-free until they found a new home, a new church. Just a few weeks ago, five rabbis gathered in Fairbanks for the first time in over 120 years and hosted this new synagogue, the northernmost synagogue, I believe, in America, in Fairbanks.
Jay, thank you. What a life of accomplishment. What a legacy, not just for Fairbanks, but for all of Alaska. For every different community--sports community, Jewish community, historical community-- you have done it all. And now, Jay, you have been awarded one of the most prestigious awards anyone can achieve in their life, Alaskan of the Week.
Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to discuss a recent op- ed in the New York Times just a few days ago. It kind of made a stir. A lot of people thought it was a really good op-ed. I didn't.
I wanted to come to the floor and talk about this op-ed because it is making the rounds. It is by the columnist Thomas Freidman, and it is on national security, economic security, and trade issues relating to China.
Now, I normally enjoy, respect--don't always agree with--the seriousness of Mr. Freidman's writings. He has written a lot of books, a lot of columns, especially on the Middle East, where he has a lot of insights, no doubt about it.
But when I read this latest column called ``I Just Saw the Future. It Was Not in America,'' I couldn't believe how shockingly naive Mr. Freidman was in writing this. So I just wrote a response. I just started writing after reading this thing. My goodness, this is very naive. Then I submitted that to the New York Times. They said: Hey, sorry, it is too long.
Maybe they didn't like it. Maybe they didn't think it was that good. I said: I can just read it on the Senate floor because I think this is a big debate, our relationship with China, how we view it, how he views it, how others view it, how President Trump views it, and it needs to be debated.
That is what I want to do the next couple of minutes, talk about the Freidman piece and, in my view, why it is so naive and misses so many things and, particularly, gives Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party a giant pass in terms of their history and what they have done to the international trading system.
First, the Freidman article kind of condescendingly mocks, to be honest, a lot of us. He quotes some Senators, U.S. Senators, and says, you know, these Senators ``need to get out more'' when it comes to China. That is a quote in the article.
Well, in my career, I have actually gotten out to China a lot, I mean in terms of working on the Chinese issues. I served on the National Supreme Court Council Staff under Condoleezza Rice and served as her Assistant Secretary of State in charge of economics, trade, energy, and finance. Again, under Secretary Rice, I was the Commissioner in charge of natural resources and energy in Alaska. I went to China then.
In all these positions, I met with Chinese leaders, traveled to China a fair amount. And, of course, China national security issues really bookended my entire 30-year Marine Corps career. My first deployment in the Marines was to the Taiwan Strait during what is now referred to as the ``Third Taiwan Strait Crisis,'' in 1995 and 1996. My last billet in the Marine Corps was chief of staff to the Marine Forces Pacific Commander at Indo-Pacific PACOM. It was all about China and Taiwan. As a Senator, I continued to focus on these issues, traveling to Asia frequently.
The lessons I learned when it comes to China are very different from those in the Thomas Freidman piece. As someone who has actually gotten out a fair amount to China, as Mr. Friedman tells us Senators we need to do, let's go into some of these lessons. For a smart guy, they sure were kind of naive to me.
First, Thomas Freidman talks about the need for an agreement between the United States and China. But the big worry is that President Trump would not ``stick by'' any agreement with China. That is what he says.
Now, he says this without even hinting at one of the Chinese Communist leadership's most consistent, salient, and frustrating traits, and this is it. They, the Chinese Communist leadership, almost never abides by their agreements with the United States--and I mean never. Big agreements, small agreements, it doesn't matter. They never abide by their agreements. I have seen this throughout my career.
In 2003, I was actually in this meeting right there. That is President George W. Bush and the Vice Premier of China, Madame Wu Yi in the Oval Office. I was a young staffer right there next to the President. And President Bush pressed her, Madame Wu Yi, on this theft of intellectual property that China does. He pressed her hard.
Well, we all know what happened. For decades, they lied about that. The last report USTR did on China's theft of intellectual property rights from the United States was $600 billion a year. Madam Wu Yi lied to President Bush in the Oval Office, no doubt about that.
I was also part of Secretary Rice's senior leadership at the State Department, taking part in the twice-yearly Cabinet-level meetings launched by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao, called the Strategic Economic Dialogue. SED, it was called. That is more Bush- China. They never kept any of their SED commitments ever. I saw this.
This is what I refer to as ``promise fatigue''--promise fatigue. The United States makes an agreement with China, and they never keep it-- never keep it. You know who has made an art form out of promise fatigue and not keeping their promise? This guy, Xi Jinping. You remember this in the Rose Garden with President Obama--in the Rose Garden 2015. President Xi Jinping looked at Barack Obama, looked at the American people and said: We are not going to do any more cyber theft, and we are not going to militarize the islands of the South China Sea. That is what Xi Jinping told President Obama.
Guess what. That was a huge lie. They were already doing it.
Remember these? President Trump and then President Biden--Xi Jinping made commitments to both President Trump and President Biden: We are going to stop the importation of fentanyl into Mexico and the United States. Xi Jinping said that to President Trump and to President Biden. Guess what. He never kept that agreement--ever.
Of course, during the Trump administration--in the first term--the phase one China deal was signed with all this fanfare in the East Room of the White House--I was actually there when that happened--and they never kept any of those commitments.
So no matter what, when it comes to China, they just don't keep their word. They don't keep their word. And yet Tom Friedman's article focuses on President Trump's reliability?
As Joe Biden would say, ``Come on, man.''
These are the guys who cheat and aren't reliable at all, and we all know it.
Second, Friedman highlights what he sees as a great opportunity with China as it relates to our economic relations. Yet he never mentions the overriding goal of this guy, Xi Jinping. What is that overriding goal? He never mentions it once. That is to make sure the Chinese Communist Party stays in power and expands its power base at home and abroad through any means necessary, including coercion and violence. This is the goal that we all know drives his decision making.
Like many in the Senate, I frequently attend classified briefings on China. We just had the INDOPACOM Commander testify today, Admiral Paparo, who, by the way, is doing a great job. Make no mistake--it is in all the Intel briefings--this guy, Xi Jinping, is preparing for war in the Taiwan Strait. Look at him there; he is in his fatigues. His aggressive efforts might extend beyond that.
What am I talking about?
The Chinese military just completed another massive military exercise to not only blockade Taiwan but to stop any reinforcements from coming into Taiwan. Then they conducted offensive military exercises off the shores of our allies the Philippines and Australia. Their navy went all the way around Australia just a couple of weeks ago.
Friedman naively references Chinese Communist Party talking points: ``healthy interdependencies'' and ``win-win.'' These guys always use that ``win-win'' and ``We will rise together.'' Yet he ignores the military menace of the CCP abroad and its genocidal tendencies at home.
But, hey, that is OK.
Mr. Friedman says: Hey, there are a lot of smart people in China who can help us with AI.
Sorry. I am a little more worried about that.
Then he notes:
No, in fact, they are actually preparing for a real war, and that is a fact for anyone who knows about China.
Finally, the entire thrust of Friedman's piece builds on and reinforces one of the biggest strategic blunders that the United States has made with regard to China and our China strategy, over the past four decades, and that is outsourcing much of our national security to corporate America.
Friedman argues that we should concentrate on letting both of our private sectors, in China and the United States, work together, and if we do that, ``Americans, working in partnership with benevolent Chinese capital and technology, will prosper just like the Chinese benefited from American capital and technology in the last four decades.''
And Tom Friedman has the nerve to call President Trump's thinking ``magical.''
Well, this is really magical from Tom Friedman. First off, the Chinese communist system doesn't really have a private sector. Again, anyone who gets out to China knows this. Everybody in China, ultimately, works for the CCP, for Xi Jinping, for the Chinese Communist Party.
Just as importantly, as we have so painfully learned over the past four decades, the U.S. private sector, especially Wall Street and some of the big corporate CEOs, are very poor guardians of America's national security and economic interests when it comes to China. The U.S. Government finally, during President Trump's first term, started to say: Whoa. Wait. Stop. We can't outsource our national security to corporate America. We, the U.S. Government, need to safeguard our own interests, and that is what we are trying to do.
I will say--and we just saw it a couple of years ago--the annual American CEO confab in Beijing with Xi Jinping, in the People's Hall, which, in my view, has become a national embarrassment, with Xi triumphantly leading the sycophantic-looking American CEOs behind him, does nothing to dispel the concern that this remains a strategic weakness in our national security relative to China.
As we speak, CCP--the Chinese Communist Party--propaganda is flooding the world to fan the flames of a narrative that Friedman seems to embrace, and it is this: Their narrative is that President Trump has broken the World War II liberal international trading system.
This charge is ridiculous, and it gives a pass to the real culprit. The Chinese Communist Party broke the system a long time ago, and that has been their intention all along.
In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State and future World Bank president Bob Zoellick delivered his well-received speech, called the ``Responsible Stakeholder'' speech. It noted that, more than any other country, China has benefited from the international economic order set up by the United States after World War II, and it was now time for China to safeguard and embrace and become a responsible stakeholder in this system to help it endure.
I was in meetings with senior Chinese officials, not long after this speech, and they deceivingly used the term ``responsible stakeholder'' much to the American policymakers' delight. But the CCP leaders clearly had other plans: to unleash policies that continued their rampant intellectual property theft of American businesses; to never keep their promises and commitments that they make to Americans; forcing U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology in order to gain access to China's market; aggressively subsidizing important industries, like steel, where they flooded global markets and destroyed the American heartland; blocking U.S. exports from having fair and reciprocal access to China's market; and unleashing economic coercion on our allies, like Australia, Korea, and Japan, when they dared to question CCP orthodoxy.
The Trump administration's policies are a course correction to all of this. But make no mistake, it was the Chinese Communist Party and its policies that took a wrecking ball to the international trading system. Yet, like so many other aspects of Friedman's piece, he gives the CCP and Xi a pass on this most consequential point.
U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle, including those who don't even get out much, according to Mr. Friedman, have recognized this truth. It would be good progress if an insightful observer of the international system, like Thomas Friedman is, would do so as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I was sitting with the CEO of one of America's biggest and most influential companies last month, and I asked him a simple question: What could President Trump do that would be a bridge too far for you? What attack on democracy or the rule of law could Trump make that would cause you to speak up?
His answer was pretty simple, and it was pretty confident. He said: If Trump were to ignore a Supreme Court ruling, that would cross the line.
He was reflecting a familiar theme: that until President Trump thumbs his nose definitively at a Court ruling, then his attacks on democracy are troubling but not lethal. It is normal politics up until that dramatic confrontation between the executive branch and the judicial branch, for which the Constitution, as we know, really has no prescribed remedy.
For many Americans, they may breathe a sigh of relief that America's most influential private sector leaders would rise up to defend democracy; that if this confrontation that we worry about would come to pass, combined with a massive public mobilization, we could be saved.
But I didn't breathe a sigh of relief. It was the opposite.
I am deeply worried that we have really spent little time studying the paths that democracies take when they collapse. Most of the time, there is not a singular moment when the Executive dramatically seizes power. There is not normally a brazen attempt to burn down the Parliament building. No, instead, democracies die when gradually, often quietly and methodically, over time, the structures that hold the Executive accountable for corruption, for thievery, for wrongdoing are dismantled--dismantled so that citizens can no longer hold the Executive accountable; dismantled so that the political opposition never has enough room to maneuver meaningfully.
There are still elections. The Executive doesn't try to stuff the ballot box. Occasionally, at lower levels, the opposition still wins. But what happens is that those structures of accountability are either so degraded or so completely co-opted by the regime that the truth is just buried, and the political opposition loses the basic tools that it needs to win.
In every democracy that stops being a democracy, then, there is a familiar story. There are four institutions that the regime attacks and that it attacks relentlessly until those structures of accountability are so disintegrated that, even though elections continue to happen, the same party or the same person wins power election after election. Those four institutions are the press, the legal profession, universities, and the business community. If you degrade or co-opt these four institutions, you never need to have a high-stakes fight with the top court in your country. You don't need to burn the Reichstag down. You can still have elections, but only one party will win.
So that is why this CEO's assurance, frankly, sent a chill down my spine--because our democracy isn't at risk of dying; it is dying. As we speak, we are watching it die. It is not too late to save it.
Let me say that again. It is not too late to save our democracy. But we can't continue to close our eyes and think that our democracy can survive a coordinated assault on those four key institutions of accountability. Democrats and Republicans need to see what is happening before our eyes, rise up, and defend the independence of journalists, of lawyers, of universities, and of the private sector.
So I want to spend a minute or two to walk you through what President Trump is doing and how it, frankly, chillingly, mirrors the tactics that other leaders have used to transition real democracy into pretend, fake democracy.
It always starts with journalists, from Hungary to Belarus, to Venezuela--countries that have elections but elections where one party just keeps on winning. These are places where journalists are subject to a nonstop harassment campaign from the regime, such that people just stop doing journalism or journalists stop telling the full truth.
Last month, for instance, Turkish President Erdogan locked up 11 journalists simply because they were covering protests against Erdogan's jailing of the top opposition leaders.
Now, Trump has not started jailing journalists, but the pace of harassment in the first 60 days of his second term is alarming.
He has denied access to government buildings, including the White House, to journalists who don't use preapproved language from the White House. He is preferencing credentials to partisan journalists who simply parrot his party line. His FCC has begun to deliberately harass media companies that are owned by political opponents of the President.
But Trump's campaign to destroy independent journalism has a darker and more menacing side because Trump isn't just trying to intimidate journalists so that they will be afraid to tell the truth; he is also trying to destroy the concept of truth itself. Again, this is a key facet of leaders who are elected who are trying to transition democracies away and into something very different.
How do you destroy truth? Well, that is why the Secretary of Defense looks into the camera and tells the American public that the text messages that everybody read, filled with classified information and war plans, did not include classified information and war plans.
The White House wants you to believe that one plus one does not equal two any longer; that you should doubt even the clear things that you see with your eyes; that nothing is real; that nothing is true; that if you are a supporter of the regime and I tell you once plus one equals three, then one plus one equals three. Those weren't war plans. Those weren't classified items.
That is also why the official position of the White House on key issues like tariffs changes every hour, because if the ground truth just changes constantly, then there is no truth at all.
Journalists are made to look foolish by reporting a true thing at 9 a.m. that becomes untrue at 10 a.m. Journalism loses its credibility when the facts being distributed by the White House change all the time.
Trump says the tariffs are permanent.
Journalists report that the President says the tariffs are permanent.
An hour later, Trump says: I never said they are permanent. They are not permanent. I am cutting deals.
They write that he is cutting deals.
An hour later, they are suspended--no more tariffs.
When the truth changes constantly, it is hard to believe that there is anything true any longer.
Second, universities are always--always--a target of would-be autocrats. Again, in Turkiye, the government has terminated thousands of professors just because they criticized the government. In Hungary, one of the nation's most prestigious universities was forced to move out of the country because President Orban attacked it so ceaselessly for fomenting protests against his government.
Universities, over the long history of democracy, have been the place where protests--especially youth protests--begin. They are a thorn in the side of leadership. The famous Tiananmen Square protests in China were, of course, started by university students.
So it is no surprise that if you want to crush democracy, you need to crush the independence of universities. That is why Trump's decision to target universities that permit criticism of President Trump is so bone-chilling. He pretends like he is standing up to anti-Semitism on campuses, but what he is really trying to do is make clear that protests against his policies on campuses will result in Federal funding being cut off.
Columbia University was forced to agree to a stunning list of free speech concessions in order to gain assurances from President Trump that their Federal funding would continue. They had to agree to allow campus police to arrest protesters. They had to essentially agree to receivership, Federal receivership, over an academic department
Now, having successfully forced Columbia to bend the knee and quell dissent on their campus, Trump is targeting other universities. Some of them will sign similar agreements giving President Trump power over those campuses. But, frankly, all Trump has to do is make an example of a handful of universities, and others will simply comply and obey in advance.
Why? As an academic president, when you have Federal dollars that employ people at your university, would you permit a major protest against a Trump policy if you know that is going to jeopardize Federal funds? Maybe you allow it because you don't want to brazenly stand in the way of free speech, but you just make sure that it is not too big a protest or it is not too critical. You police speech to be on the right side of the regime. That is what happens in all of these fake democracies, and that is what is happening here.
But controlling speech on campuses is not enough. Controlling and intimidating journalists is not enough. You have to go after the lawyers too.
Now, maybe there is not a lot of love for lawyers in this country, but lawyers are the ones who bring the lawsuits to stop the thievery and the illegality. Lawyers are compelled by their oath to stand up for the Constitution.
Putin arrested Navalny's lawyers right on the eve of Navalny's trial.
In Venezuela, Maduro routinely harasses and detains lawyers--human rights lawyers--because he knows those are the ones who will hold him accountable.
In Tunisia, the regime stormed the offices of the bar administration to intimidate the legal profession into silence.
Here in America, Trump is engaged in a shameless campaign of extortion against any major law firm that has taken a position against Trump or Trump's interests. What he is doing is extraordinary, and it is mind-blowing to me that it is just being ignored by my Republican colleagues. He is going firm by firm--and not to every firm, just to the firms that have represented Democrats or brought cases against him--and he is telling them that if they don't fall in line and stop doing work to oppose him, their clients will lose access to Federal work.
That is extortion. This body, Republicans and Democrats, should stand up against it. But it is working. Several law firms have signed deals with Trump that obligate them to support--guess what--causes aligned with Donald Trump.
Paul Weiss was targeted by an Executive order and struck a deal. But so did Skadden. They struck a deal with Trump before they had even been targeted. Already, collectively, these firms have pledged--think about this--about a quarter of a billion dollars of pro bono work to file cases in coordination with the President of the United States' political interests.
Just like what happened with the universities, there is a lot of extra compliance that is happening. I know for a fact that firms that have already signed these agreements with Trump have gone above and beyond the terms of the agreements to quiet their criticism of the government. No doubt, every single major law firm will think twice before bringing an action against an illegal or corrupt action of the President in fear of Trump retaliating against their business.
That is the point. The point is to try to crush dissent. The point is to try to stand in the way of anybody who is going to hold Trump accountable by using the power--the official power granted to him by the people of the United States--to try to signal retaliation against anyone who dares oppose him.
But collective action can be a powerful tool. Together, the collective might of our universities and our law firms is significant. So they could choose to band together and decide to sign no agreements with Trump, to refuse to let the President of the United States dictate the terms of their speech, their business, their defense of the rule of law.
I don't want to make the victim the perpetrator. This is all Trump's fault, what he is doing to extort political loyalty from universities and law firms. But instead of there being collective action on behalf of these industries, the opposite is happening.
In the legal profession, when Paul Weiss was being targeted, the other big firms didn't rise to their defense; they started making calls to Paul Weiss clients and lawyers, using Trump's assault as a means to poach business or partners. That is shameful, acting like ravenous vultures, putting your profits first instead of your country's interests or the interests of the legal profession, which pledges before a court to stand up for the rule of law. Instead, these big firms are aiding and abetting the destruction of the rule of law by doing Trump's work for him, making targeted firms even more vulnerable by working behind the scenes to strip them bare for parts.
There are good, patriotic lawyers at many of these high-priced firms who know that this is wrong and they should speak up. Some of them already have.
Now, finally, Trump is coming for the rest of the private sector. Listen, I have no idea what the Trump tariff policy is. The constantly shifting positions of the last week are an embarrassment. It is complete incompetent malpractice. It has jeopardized jobs and retirement savings and college funds all across this country.
But the tariffs are complicated and convoluted and hard to understand, likely because they aren't actually economic or trade policy; they are a political tool--this one designed to force every major company to come before Trump to plead for tariff relief in exchange for giving Trump the company's political loyalty--no different than what is happening in the legal profession or in America's universities.
A tariff can be written very easily to favor one industry over another or one company over another, and the confusing nature of the tariff regime is a means for Trump to require every major company in the country to come on bended knee to him to get the relief they need. And that loyalty pledge could be anything--the purchase of some Trump crypto coin, public support for Trump's economic policies, donations to his political campaign. But having watched what Trump has done one by one to universities and law firms, why would we assume the tariffs aren't just simply a tool to do the same thing to big companies?
What I am trying to say here is that you don't need a battle royal between the President and the Supreme Court for democracy to die. If journalists are constantly looking over their shoulders and unable to report on the truth; if protest is suppressed, even moderately, at universities; if lawyers start giving cover instead of uncovering corruption and illegality in the regime; if companies start being mouthpieces for the regime as a price of doing business--if all that happens, then we are not a real democracy anymore; we are a fake democracy. Elections still happen, like in Turkiye, like in Hungary, like in Venezuela, but the rules are going to be tilted, and dissent will be suppressed so much that the same side--Trump's side--wins over and over and over.
This should matter not just to Democrats, not just to members of the minority party; this should matter to Republicans as well. We swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and it is time for us to see the game that is being played.
The good news is that the rules have not been fully rigged yet. There is still time--not loads of it, but there is still time for this body to set a tone that causes the kind of massive public outrage necessary to stop this campaign of destruction in its tracks. But that requires those of us who believe that the threat to democracy is urgent to act like it. That means saying to our Republican colleagues that we are not going to act like business as usual, that we are not going to proceed to legislation unless we have agreement, Republicans and Democrats, to stop this assault on free speech and dissent. It requires the minority party to say that right now.
Only if we come together are we going to have a chance to save ourselves from the fate that has befallen so many other countries that have slowly, too quietly, seen their countries transition from real democracy to fake democracy.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, with respect to the cloture motions on Executive Calendar Nos. 74 and 75, the mandatory quorum calls be waived and they ripen at 1 a.m., Friday, April 11; further if cloture is invoked on Calendar No. 74, all post-cloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, if cloture is invoked on Calendar No. 75, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, what you see depends on where you sit. Last Friday, it was announced that the BRIC Program, or the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, run by FEMA would end, and money which had been allocated would be pulled back from the States which were receiving it.
Now, most families across the country have not heard of the BRIC Program, but if you were to explain what it does, they would say, oftentimes, that they need it. I can tell you folks in Louisiana do.
Louisiana has benefited the most per capita in the BRIC's latest round of funding, and I would argue that this actually saves tax dollars for the rest of the country because the BRIC Program helps prevent against flooding, flooding that may occur after a big rain event or after a hurricane. And in Louisiana and in many parts of our country, this is an inevitable part of life.
But the best way to recover from a flood is to never flood at all. The old saying:
Another:
The same principle applies to flood resilience and mitigation infrastructure. When we invest in levies and floodwalls, communities are protected when the storm hits, and the Federal Government saves billions in a recovery effort that never has to be done.
If you go down to South Louisiana, for example, you will see homes elevated by the BRIC Program that were not previously elevated. Now that they are elevated, that family is secure should the floodwaters come.
Now, you can say: Wait a second. That is just Louisiana. There is a parish in Louisiana in which the flood control structures prevented 10,000 homes from being flooded in the last hurricane--talk about an ounce of prevention because those programs, those families, they would have received Federal help. Turns out no Federal help was needed because we were able to build resilience. We were able to keep those homes from flooding in the first place. This is the type of work that we need to do. And if we do it, then never is a National Flood Insurance Program claim filed.
The family saves; the taxpayer saves. Investing now saves money down the line.
That is why back in 2018, during President Trump's first term, Congress established the BRIC Program to invest in those flood protections needed to prevent future flooding. And through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, another billion dollars was added to that program. This is because the BRIC Program is an effective tool, the type of tool that my communities in my State and communities elsewhere in the country depend upon.
Now, apparently, though, the BRIC Program is in danger. And it is being endangered, I gather, because of the effort to eliminate government waste. Now, there is a lot of government waste, and I am all for eliminating that waste. If there is fraud, we should eliminate it. If there is waste, we should eliminate it.
But preventing homes from flooding, that if they do flood will cost the Federal taxpayer billions of dollars, that is not waste; that is good planning. That is what we should all be doing in every aspect of our life: planning ahead, planning proactively. The waste is that, if we don't do this program and the inevitable flood occurs, then we have to go in and rescue communities. That is waste because we could have prevented that from happening in the first place by implementing programs such as the BRIC Program.
I would ask FEMA to reconsider the impact of cuts to the BRIC Program and to reconsider canceling the BRIC applications that are already placed.
They should. This is a congressionally authorized piece of legislation--authorized and congressionally appropriated. Congress has said that this program will exist. We passed BRIC into law. We provided funds for it. To do anything other than to use that money to protect families from flooding, to protect the Federal taxpayer from having to put out billions to rescue communities which have flooded, is to thwart the will of Congress. And that is why Congress passed it in the first Trump term, and that is why President Trump supported it. It improves efficiency, not decreases it.
I can tell you, people in South Louisiana--whether it is Terrebonne, Lafourche, Ascension Parishes, and places you wouldn't expect to flood like Livingston Parish--that overwhelmingly--that supported President Trump 95 percent of the time, they would overwhelmingly support this sort of flood mitigation.
Here are some examples of the money that is already going out: Roughly, $40 million to the city of Central; $36 million to Ascension Parish. In Central, they were trying to reduce flooding after the great floods of 2016 in Louisiana, trying to keep that from happening again.
The $36 million to Ascension Parish is to fortify electrical infrastructure. Hurricane comes along; electricity goes out. Of course, no electricity, the whole community is incapacitated.
Twenty million dollars to Lafourche Parish to strengthen 16 miles of power lines; $10 million to the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to provide evacuation routes during flooding. Evacuation routes during flooding, that is something that we should make sure we are building so that you don't have to helicopter people out or you don't have to get them out by boat.
So these are examples of BRIC Programs that are a stitch in time that will save nine.
Now, of course, it is important to my State. I will point out that Louisiana was the third largest recipient of BRIC Program funding recently and the largest on a per capita base. And without BRIC funding, none of these projects would happen--whether it is East Baton Rouge Parish, Ascension Parish, Lafourche, or the Coushatta Tribe.
Lafourche Parish President Archie Chaisson had a $25 million application for grid-hardening so that the people of Lafourche would be able to get back on their feet quicker after a hurricane. I can tell you, I went down to Lafourche Parish after the last hurricane, and all the power poles had just toppled over. It is almost as if you were playing dominoes. They weren't touching, but they all toppled just like that. And there were crews from around the country that had been-- electrical crews that had been mobilized to come and reinstall those.
If you hardened the grid, that doesn't happen. If you harden the grid, those tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to get those electricity poles back up does not have to be spent. This money is an investment in a more resilient future that doesn't require the investment of private and public capital to restart communities. This is not waste.
In fact, if you went to Archie Chaisson's parish, I can tell you, those folks would tell you they are against government waste. They would also tell you that this is not waste. This is something which will save their homes, save lives, and save communities.
Now, we can ask ourselves if FEMA were to move forward with the plan to cut BRIC, what would be the alternative? Flooding costs up to almost $500 billion in damage every year throughout the United States, not just Louisiana. Again, $500 billion in damage that we have to pay after the fact versus investing a few million now to prevent.
Now, the darker the color, the more the recent flooding. So you can say, although I have been speaking about Louisiana, you can see that, across our Nation, floods have been destroying homes and neighborhoods; downing power lines; harming businesses; in some cases, taking lives.
Just since the start of 2025, at least eight Americans in these four States in dark red have died as a result of storms hitting their communities. In the last 3 months, 37 States have experienced flooding.
These are the States that are in red. It goes all the way from Maine to Minnesota, to Michigan, to Montana--you don't think of Montana being a flood State--Idaho. All of these States in red have had flooding in the last 3 months.
And you see, it is not just the coastline in which there is a coastal surge like Louisiana or Florida. It is also what is called riverine. ``Riverine'' meaning you have a valley, a river down the middle, the river rises, and people on the lower part of that valley--I think that would be the situation in Kentucky--are going to flood.
These are all places that could benefit from a resiliency program, from a BRIC Program. We know it works. We know it saves money.
And just to bring this home to my State, this is Livingston Parish, LA, just after the great flood of 2016. Look at that. These are homes in areas that had never flooded before. And in some incredible, once- in-500-years flood event, they were all flooded. Livingston Parish, 2016--we call it the Great Flood. It affected not just this parish but all those in what we call the capital region--Tangipahoa Parish, going up to Monroe, LA--it was almost a statewide event.
Now, if we built resiliency, this doesn't happen. If you look at this, can you image the Federal response?
They were so honored then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump came down and spent time in Livingston Parish after this flood to call attention to it because he felt as if President Obama was not paying attention. President Trump came with Vice President nominee Pence, spent time there, brought hope to the people, and that is when, in 2018--I am sure part of his motivation was to sign into law what has ultimately become the BRIC Program.
These people testify with their flooding how lives are changed when you don't have resiliency.
I just want to say one more thing because I would talk to these people. I am privileged to represent them. Each of these homes has a story. There was a wedding dress that a mother had, saving for her daughter, that was ruined in a flood. There were wedding pictures from a grandparent, parents, and daughters--multigeneration--and an album to save for generations totally lost in a flood. There were, in this flood, neighbors who went out and died, not recognizing the place they were stepping wasn't the side of a road but rather a ditch, and they went down, got swept away in this flood. I can go through each house and imagine a story that could have been prevented if there had been resiliency built into this community before this flood.
The purpose of the BRIC grants is to build that resiliency so that we don't have stories to tell which are tragic or sad but rather stories where people continue on with their life as if--well, as if the flood never occurred.
Local leaders advocating implementing using these dollars are advocating for the people they represent. So am I. Right now, representing those people calls for me to ask that any effort to stop BRIC grant funding is halted, that the will of Congress, that the law that Congress passed, that the funding Congress put into the program, that be honored--by law, it should be honored--and that the money which is out there stays there and the applications which have been placed be accepted, processed, and fulfilled.
If rules need to be changed because the Biden administration did things which are silly to have done, then change those rules. But to end a program--to end a program--which has the ability to prevent this sort of disaster, not just in my State but across the Nation, we should not end that program. To do so is to inflict harm both upon the rule of law and upon these communities.
Let's keep BRIC in place.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 174) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, April 19 is coming very soon, and the country will pause. I am grateful that the Senate has passed now a resolution from this body that all 100 Members have stated together that we as a nation will pause and remember April 19, 1995, and as a nation this April 19, we will remind the Nation again, we have not forgotten the loss that was there in that Federal building in Oklahoma City.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 80.
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 legislative clerk read the nomination of David Perdue, of Georgia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the People's Republic of China.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 77.
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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Warren Stephens, of Arkansas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 78.
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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Thomas Barrack, of Colorado, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Turkey.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 79.
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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Tilman Fertitta, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of San Marino.
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, today I recognize the life and leadership of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, known as ``the Rebbe,'' the head of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.
For almost half a century, every U.S. President has proclaimed the Rebbe's birthday as Education and Sharing Day in recognition of his unwavering commitment to improving education for all people.
Throughout his decades of dedicated service and leadership, the Rebbe emphasized that education must go beyond the transfer of knowledge. It must instill the values essential for living a meaningful life, nurturing moral character, and contributing to the betterment of both individuals and society as a whole.
The Rebbe held a deep appreciation for America's unique role as the world's superpower, and he maintained meaningful relationships with many national leaders, who saw him as a
Under his visionary leadership, Chabad-Lubavitch became the largest Jewish educational organization and the fastest growing Jewish movement in the world. Today, there are more than 5,000 Chabad-Lubavitch centers offering educational, religious, and humanitarian services in 103 countries and in all 50 States, including in my home State of South Dakota.
The Rebbe envisioned a world at peace. He exemplified how humanity-- through moral education, acts of kindness, and charitable deeds--can bring about the prophetic era when ``swords are turned into plowshares'' and peace and prosperity flourish across the earth.
On the Rebbe's birthday, it is fitting that we recommit ourselves to his legacy and teachings, striving to live with greater compassion, deeper purpose, and a shared sense of responsibility for the good of all.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Child Development Center of Natrona County as it celebrates the 25th anniversary of its largest fundraiser, the Kids' Art a la Carte Gala.
On May 3, 2025, the Natrona County Child Development Center will host its annual fundraiser at the Ford Wyoming Center in Casper, WY. Proceeds from this special event go directly toward supporting the CDC's services and programming. It is a wonderful opportunity for the community to share its support for the CDC's important mission: providing premiere, family-focused, developmentally appropriate services for Wyoming's kids.
The child development center opened its doors in 1967. Over the years, the CDC has helped to ensure that the social, developmental, and educational needs of the children in our communities are being met. Today, this organization, led by executive director Alisha Rone, serves close to 700 children each year. Its team of 120 individuals provide support, advice, and--when needed--intervention to parents and their children.
The CDC's early intervention services are key to ensuring the lifelong success of our children. Offering free screenings and educational materials, the CDC provides children in Natrona County with a solid foundation. The center's certified teachers and therapists help provide a plan tailored to every child and their needs. Its accredited preschool prepares kids ages three through five for kindergarten.
For children who need extra assistance, there is the CDC+ program. In addition to providing speech, occupational, and physical therapies, the program offers audiology services and reading coaching.
The teachers, therapists, support staff, and leadership continue demonstrating selflessness and compassion. This year, the CDC received the Daniels Fund Medal of Excellence and a $250,000 grant. The grant will fund its continued operations and expansion of its services at no cost to participating families.
Providing the excellent service the CDC is known for takes a team of talented people. This team includes the CDC's senior leadership, board of directors, foundation board, and dedicated employees. The Child Development Center's Senior Leadership team includes: Alisha Rone, executive director; Lori Kapeles, program director; Jan Hinz, special education director; Geoff Dean, finance director; Shannon Hillibush, human resources director; and Renate Pullen, compliance director.
Members of the CDC Board of Directors are: Bryce Row, president; Michelle Larsen, vice president; Patricia Cloud, treasurer; Anna Birch DeWitt; Tayla Trujillo; Ally Orr; Nikki Hawley; Scott Wells; Tony Hager; Bobby Pickle; Brad Diller; and Fleur Tremel.
Those serving on the CDC Foundation Board include: Mark Zaback, chairman; Jeff Bishop, treasurer; Robyn Landen; Shannon Orr; Peter Van Houten; Pete Fazio; Isaac Swanson; Dave Dundas; and Alisha Rone.
Mr. President, it is an honor celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Child Development Center of Natrona County's annual Kids Art A La Carte Gala. The positive impact the CDC has made on the families and children of our community is genuinely remarkable. I offer my appreciation for all those who support the CDC. Your efforts ensure children in Wyoming have a strong foundation to prepare them for a lifetime of success.
Mr. President, Mayor Royce Pollard, a dedicated public servant and champion for Vancouver, WA, passed away on February 24, 2025.
Before his time in local government, Mayor Pollard led a distinguished career in the U.S. Army that included two tours during the Vietnam war. During his nearly 27 years in the military, he attained the rank of lieutenant colonel and numerous awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star for Valor, Purple Heart, Expert Infantryman's Badge, and Combat Infantryman's Badge during his time in Vietnam. His final post was at the Vancouver Barracks, where he retired as commander in 1988. His dedication to public service was immediately on display as he joined the Vancouver City Council the following year, beginning a 21-year career serving the citizens of the city of Vancouver.
Mayor Pollard served on the city council for 7 years and then as mayor for 14 years. During his tenure, Mayor Pollard revitalized Vancouver's downtown core, transforming it into a vibrant center of community and commerce. The revived Esther Short Park and the beautiful waterfront development stand as enduring symbols of his bold leadership and love of community. He also oversaw the annexation of the Vancouver Mall, the creation of the Hilton Hotel and Convention Center project, and the historic Cascade Park annexation.
Mayor Pollard was a proud champion of ``America's Vancouver,'' a move to make the city distinct from Portland, OR, just across the river. He was so committed to the cause that when he smashed two Portland-themed mugs sold in Vancouver at a coffee shop, newspapers around the Pacific Northwest ran the story. In Washington, DC, he was known to talk to people unfamiliar with his city and tout its many attributes. Even after his tenure as mayor, he continued to help the community grow and thrive by serving on 22 different city boards.
He was a strong and vocal advocate for civic duty, serving one another, and honoring those who serve their communities. His contributions have left a lasting impact on the city, cementing its place as a vibrant and forward-thinking community.
My heart goes out to the mayor's family, friends, and all who had the honor of knowing and working alongside him. I was proud to work with him on behalf of his community, and he will be missed. His life's work will be felt by generations to come.
In honor of Royce's life and legacy, I respectfully submit this statement to the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commend the distinguished public service of King County executive Dow Constantine, who concludes 16 years of exemplary leadership at the helm of King County government.
Since first taking office in 2009, Executive Constantine has dedicated himself to the advancement of King County and the well-being of its more than 2 million residents. Over the course of four terms, he has consistently demonstrated a profound commitment to public service, principled leadership, and effective governance.
Under his tenure, King County emerged as a national leader in environmental sustainability, public health innovation, and equity- focused policymaking. Executive Constantine spearheaded ambitious initiatives to combat climate change, expand regional transit, preserve open space, and reform the
Executive Constantine also led efforts to strengthen behavioral health services, invest in affordable housing, and promote inclusive economic growth. His ability to bring together stakeholders across sectors and jurisdictions has left a lasting impact not only on King County, but on the broader Puget Sound region. Throughout his 16 years in office, Executive Constantine upheld the highest standards of public service, always placing the needs of his constituents at the center of his work. His forward-thinking approach and unwavering dedication have left King County stronger, more resilient, and better prepared for the future. As he concludes his service as county executive, I extend my deepest gratitude to Dow Constantine for his many years of outstanding leadership and his tireless efforts on behalf of the people of Washington State. I wish him continued success as the new CEO of Sound Transit.
Mr. President, the following Senators join me in this statement: Tim Scott, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, Thom Tillis, Ted Budd, and John Boozman. The day after Christmas, when both Houses of Congress were in recess, the Biden administration released a final rule setting new energy efficiency standards for tankless water heaters. Like any last-minute rule from the previous administration, this effort was ill-advised and ill-timed. It should not, and cannot, stand.
However, the enactment of H.J. Res. 20, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rule titled Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters, will create a structural imbalance. This imbalance results from the Biden administration's issuance of an efficiency rule for commercial tank and tankless water heaters in October of 2023, as well as residential tank-filled water heaters in April 2024, neither of which could be overturned by the Congressional Review Act because it was unlikely to achieve a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Through rulemaking, the Department of Energy should write new rules to address this regulatory imbalance, whereby traditional tank water heaters and commercial gas-fired instantaneous and tank water heaters continue to be subject to regulatory standards.
This structural imbalance, if not addressed, will result in an uneven competitive marketplace for water heater manufacturing and sales. While the enactment of the resolution may limit the Department of Energy from issuing a substantially similar rule, there remains a need to rectify the regulatory misalignment. Accordingly, we strongly encourage the Department of Energy, with input from congressional leaders and affected industry partners, to use its rulemaking authority to ensure that regulatory standards for consumer and commercial gas-fired water heating equipment are aligned, thereby removing any market imbalance.
Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Mark Meador as a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). I respect Mr. Meador's qualifications and his prior experiences. In fact, I voted to advance his nomination out of the Commerce Committee because he has expressed support for strong antitrust enforcement that benefits consumers and small business, lowers prices, and spurs innovation, including continuing many cases currently ongoing at the Commission to free markets from the stranglehold of entrenched monopolies and stop anticompetitive mergers.
But I cannot support the confirmation of any additional members to the FTC until Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner Bedoya are reinstated. President Trump's dismissal of Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya is not only illegal; it hurts consumers and small businesses by undermining the independence of the Agency that Congress established to protect consumers from fraud, scams, and monopoly power. An independent FTC is critical for protecting consumers and has done so in a bipartisan manner for over 110 years.
Just last year, the FTC returned more than $330 million to consumers who lost money from scams and deceptive business practices; it blocked a merger of two large grocery chains that would have raised food prices; it worked to cap the cost of inhalers to $35 by challenging anticompetitive patent practices; it took on hidden fees in the ticketing and lodging markets; it unveiled rules to make it as easy to stop a subscription as it was to start it; and it has worked to rein in the monopoly power of Big Tech companies to ensure small businesses and innovators can thrive online.
The President's attempt to remove independent Commissioners violates Congress's long-held power to establish bipartisan, multimember, expert commissions and to shield those commissions from political pressure with commonsense limits on the President's removal powers. The structure of the FTC has been upheld by the Supreme Court for 90 years, holding that Congress's power ``cannot well be doubted.'' While the Supreme Court recently struck down restrictions on the President's authority to remove Agencies led by a single individual, the Supreme Court declined to revisit precedent about independent Agencies run by bipartisan, multimember commissions, like the FTC. Now-Justice Kavanaugh, while serving on the DC Circuit, wrote that multimember independent Agencies like the FTC are part of a ``deeply rooted tradition'' that ``has been widely recognized by leading judges, congressional committees, and academics.''
This is because bipartisan commissions allow Presidents to shape the direction of a commission while protecting the independent Agency from political meddling. For example, each President can influence the makeup of the FTC by nominating new members--as President Trump has done by nominating Mr. Meador--and appointing the Chair--as President Trump did by selecting Mr. Ferguson--and even appointing a new Chair if the President is displeased with his initial selection.
Had the President not taken this illegal action, Republican Commissioners would have secured the majority on the Commission with the confirmation of Mr. Meador, with two Democratic Commissioners serving in the minority as required by law. While the minority Commissioners may not have had the power to stop the Republican majority from implementing its agenda, they would have served as a critical check on the Agency, as minority Republican Commissioners have in the past. They could have used their dissenting voices to hold the Agency accountable for any action that didn't serve to lower prices, protect consumers, or even the playing field for small, innovative businesses. If necessary, they could have pointed out corruption or backroom dealings. And they would have been able to change the Commission's course on specific actions by persuading a Republican Commissioner to join them. But if the President is allowed to unilaterally dismiss Commissioners, even Republican Commissioners would be powerless to stand up to the White House if ordered to take an illegal action at the expense of consumers because the President could fire them as well. Ultimately, removing the FTC's mandate to act independent of political pressure to protect consumers serves to harm those most in need. Only those who have political influence with the White House stand to gain.
We have already seen some of the ramifications of the chaos wrought by these illegal firings. In a case about insulin pricing, there were no remaining Commissioners to hear the case because the two Republicans were both recused. This led Chair Ferguson to ``unrecuse'' himself, making him the sole decisionmaker in a matter in which he has a known conflict of interest. And last week, it was reported that multiple members of DOGE are now embedded in the Chair's office, raising the specter that the FTC may face cuts just as it is gearing up to take Meta--one of the world's richest companies--to trial this upcoming Monday for buying up competitors to dominate social
Mr. President, I rise today to honor Tim Penny, a public servant, former colleague, and friend who is retiring after a lifetime of service to the State of Minnesota.
Tim grew up on a family farm in southeastern Minnesota, served in both the Minnesota State Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and has spent the past 18 years leading the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation as president and CEO.
Tim has been with me on many visits across southern Minnesota. Whether it was helping the community of Madelia recover from a devastating fire or to expand early childhood education, Tim's love for the people of Minnesota has always shined through.
To quote Tim, ``I am always in awe of the accomplishments of small- town residents when they are provided the resources to realize their ambitions.'' And his work helped turn those ambitions to revitalize communities into reality.
Tim began his public life as a State senator in 1976. Six years later, he was elected to represent Minnesota's First Congressional District in the U.S. House, where he served for 12 years. He gained a reputation for his principles and independence.
Tim's commitment to transparency and honesty in government were central themes in the three books he wrote about his Washington experience: ``Common Cents,'' ``Payment Due,'' and ``The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics.'' Talking about that book, he said, ``We elect people to achieve the common good and when you get bogged down and paralyzed by mindless sloganeering you don't end up with the sort of consensus that moves policy forward.''
He carried those values and commitment to the common good to the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation and in all his other work in the community.
He was a senior fellow at the Humphrey Institute and also worked for the public affairs firm Himle Horner. Tim is cochair of the Economic Club of Minnesota, cochair of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and serves on the Board of Parent Aware for School Readiness.
Tim, thank you for your work at the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation and through your many years representing our State in Washington. Minnesota is better because of you. I wish you all the best in your retirement.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act.
This crucial piece of legislation would simply increase the authorization of funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, SJRRP, which supports one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States while also creating a healthy, living river for Chinook salmon. Increasing the cap for the program will enable the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of California, and key partners to advance projects necessary to the continued success of the program. Our bill retains a provision in the original legislation from 2009 that authorized the SJRRP and set forth a one-for-one match from non-Federal sources for any Federal appropriated dollars. The bill would also increase the authorization of appropriations to help restore canal capacity for the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals to address subsidence.
A fully implemented SJRRP is crucial for managing the San Joaquin River system, restoring fish populations, and ensuring reliable water supplies for farmers. Without an increased funding cap, Federal support will likely fall short, threatening both water reliability and ecosystem restoration and undermining decades of collaboration and progress.
That is why our bill is supported by a broad range of agricultural water users, the State of California, and key local partner, because the SJRRP's success benefits both farmers and the environment. This type of collaboration demonstrates how we can manage our limited water resources to provide water supply reliability while also benefiting our ecosystems.
While we were able to pass this bill through the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of 2024, it did not pass the House of Representatives in time to be signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Chambers to advance this commonsense, straightforward legislation on the floor as soon as possible. And I thank Senator Hoeven for his support for my legislation.
S. 1415. A bill to amend section 3(b)(4) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exclude certain disability benefits from income for the purposes of determining eligibility for the supported housing program under section 8(o)(19), and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act, which I introduced today.
Let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for veterans and members of our Armed Forces who have answered the call of duty and sacrificed for our Nation. I firmly believe that those who serve our country with honor, courage, and distinction deserve our Nation's enduring gratitude. That
Currently, many disabled veterans are unable to access housing programs for veterans because of how income is defined. The more severe a disability is, the more disability benefits a veteran receives. Yet, because of the way total income has historically been determined, this means that veterans receiving the highest amount of disability benefits often cannot access the housing assistance they need.
Congress must ensure that every veteran has access to stable housing. While progress has been made in reducing veteran homelessness, there is still more that we must do. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort between Federal, State, and local agencies and strong partnerships with nonprofit veteran service organizations and community leaders. We must do our part to remove redtape and make it easier for veterans to be housed.
I remain committed to supporting policies that expand and increase access to VA homelessness programs for veterans in need. I want to thank Senators Gallego, McCormick, and Britt for introducing this bipartisan bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting solutions that ensure no veteran is left without a safe place to call home.
S. 1432. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit oil and gas exploration, development, and production on the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2025. This crucial piece of legislation would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1978 to permanently prohibit offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
It has been over 50 years since a major oilspill occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, which inspired the first Earth Day and the modern environmental movement that we see today. Despite this catastrophic incident, California has still a experienced subsequent oilspills, which is unacceptable since these environmental incidents are preventable. I hope my colleagues can join me in understanding that the tradeoff between oil production and environmental harm is simply not one we should be making any longer.
The oil spills in California have had drastic impacts, including oil seeping into environmentally sensitive wetlands, endangering birds and other wildlife, and forcing the closure of beaches that are the economic engines of entire communities.
We must end our reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels and work towards a clean energy future, because even when oil isn't leaking from pipelines, it is fueling the crisis of global warming, poisoning local communities, and causing billions of dollars of harm each year.
Fossil fuels are endangering Californian families and fueling raging wildfires and extreme drought--as well as toxic oilspills. I want to recognize the late Senator Feinstein for spearheading this bill year after year during her time in Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to improve our coastal safety and protect our communities.
S. 1443. A bill to limit the authority of States to tax certain income of employees for employment duties performed in other States; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1460. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend incentive payments for participation in eligible alternative payment models under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1467. A bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports under certain circumstances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty. This bipartisan legislation restricts the use of so-called mortgage ``trigger leads'' and gives prospective home buyers control over their personal credit information.
Trigger leads are essentially tips based on information the major credit reporting bureaus sell to mortgage brokers and lenders when the bureaus learn that a consumer has applied for a mortgage with another lender. Each trigger lead they sell generates dozens of calls and solicitations to the consumer from lenders, ostensibly to provide the consumer with better offers. In fact, one home buyer reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they received over 100 calls within 2 days of applying for a mortgage. Prospective home buyers who are bombarded by these kinds of solicitations typically have no idea their information was sold without their affirmative consent.
Buying a home is often the most consequential financial decision a family will make. Getting spammed with additional offers after a family has already shopped for a mortgage and chosen a lender makes this already stressful process even more stressful. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, for a family to sift through dozens of offers over a few days and actually receive better credit. Consumers who are subjected to a deluge of solicitations as the result of a trigger lead are justified in feeling that their privacy has been invaded.
Many reputable mortgage companies see it the same way. They support curtailing trigger leads since prospective home buyers often blame their lender for selling off their personal information even though it is the credit bureaus that are providing this information.
Unrelenting, aggressive solicitations are more than just a nuisance. Indeed, some companies that buy trigger leads may not use them responsibly and may have poor track records of compliance. In 2018. the Washington Post reported that some mortgage lenders had used trigger leads to misrepresent themselves in calls by suggesting that they are underwriters for the consumer's current lender or by implying that they are calling from a government agency. According to reporting in the Chicago Tribune, unsuspecting home buyers are at risk of inadvertently handing over sensitive personal information, exposing themselves to identity theft.
The current system leaves consumers without control of their personal information when they apply for a mortgage. Our bill will fix the current system by significantly restricting the circumstances in which the credit bureaus can sell home buyers' personal information to generate trigger leads. The credit bureaus would be permitted to sell this information only in the limited circumstances when the consumer already has a significant financial relationship with the lending institution seeking the information or when the prospective home buyer has provided affirmative consent to share this information broadly with other lenders.
The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act will go a long way towards securing consumers' personal information and will provide much needed relief from the seemingly never-ending solicitations prospective home buyers receive during an already stressful time.
Last Congress, the Senate acted unanimously to pass this legislation, and I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. However, this legislation was unfortunately not taken up in the House. I hope that this Congress, we can work together--on a bicameral, bipartisan basis--to address the abuse of trigger leads once and for all.
I thank the broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups and trade associations for their support, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low- income clients, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the Community Home Lenders of America, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, the Broker Action Coalition, the American Bankers Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hagerty and me in supporting this commonsense, bipartisan bill.
S. 1469. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to include food allergy information in existing training
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1477. A bill to address the homelessness and housing crises, to move toward the goal of providing for a home for all Americans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Housing for All Act of 2025, which I introduced today.
Our Nation's homelessness and affordable housing crises have reached a breaking point. As of January, 2024, over 771,480 individuals in the U.S.--disproportionately people of color--experienced homelessness. The rate of homelessness has increased by 18 percent since 2023.
The lack of adequate Federal investments in affordable housing and housing assistance programs are exacerbating these crises. There is currently a shortage of 7.1 million affordable and available rental homes in the U.S. According to a recent National Low Income Housing Coalition report, no State or county exists where a person working 40 hours a week and earning the State or local minimum wage can afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. Furthermore, over 21 million renters nationwide spend more than 30 percent of their income on just housing costs alone.
The affordable housing and homelessness crises are not just a blue State issue or an urban problem; every State is impacted. From our metropolitan areas to our rural heartlands, our constituents everywhere feel the real impact of housing unaffordability. It is time for the Federal Government to step up, partner with our State and local governments alongside service providers on the ground and other stakeholders, and invest in solving these problems at a rate commensurate with the need.
I am proud to re-introduce this bill, which represents a comprehensive approach to tackling housing and homelessness. If enacted, it would invest in and align Federal resources to support people experiencing housing instability. To address the affordable housing and homelessness crises, we must invest in proven policies that support strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and ensure quality, affordable homes for all.
Specifically, this bill would address the affordable housing shortage by investing in the housing trust fund, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program, Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, and the HOME Program. It establishes a commission to focus on racial equity in housing and homelessness.
The bill would address homelessness by investing in Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Rental Assistance, emergency solutions grants, and continuums of care. It also builds on locally developed and driven approaches by creating new grant programs to strengthen mobile crisis intervention teams; to support hotel and motel conversions to permanent supportive housing with services; to aid libraries in supporting persons experiencing homelessness; to provide people living in vehicles with a safe place to park overnight and facilitate a transition to stable housing; and to coordinate behavioral health care with homelessness services. And it commissions a report on the connection between evictions and emergency rental assistance during the pandemic, so we can make smarter policies moving forward.
When I have traveled around California--from Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire--to the Central Valley, San Diego, and San Francisco--to better understand the needs for housing in different communities, some key elements stood out. On the production side, there is a need for more dedicated funding for affordable housing from the Federal Government. There is also missing middle-income housing for families, especially people of color. And there is not enough housing near transit. That is why my bill focuses on supporting inclusive, transit-oriented development. When I talked to researchers about keeping families housed, one main point they made was that we don't have enough data on renters and evictions, and that is why the bill includes a section on data, so we can make evidence-based policies.
Right now, the cost to build low-income housing in California is very high in part because of land and material costs and the fragmented way funding is distributed in California. This is a common problem across the Nation--not just in California. That is why the bill includes a section to provide technical assistance for localities navigating Federal and State housing funding sources.
Affordable housing is essential infrastructure. Every person deserves dignity, security, and a space of their own. At a time when the current aministration is gutting and dismantling key Housing and Urban Development Department programs and reducing protections for the most vulnerable among us, this bill has never been more important. Congress must step up so that our Nation's housing and homelessness crises are dealt with in a comprehensive and holistic way to ensure that every person and family in America has a place to call home.
I want to thank Representatives Ted Lieu and Salud Carbajal for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this comprehensive solution to our nationwide affordable housing and homelessness crises.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act.
This crucial piece of legislation would simply increase the authorization of funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, SJRRP, which supports one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States while also creating a healthy, living river for Chinook salmon. Increasing the cap for the program will enable the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of California, and key partners to advance projects necessary to the continued success of the program. Our bill retains a provision in the original legislation from 2009 that authorized the SJRRP and set forth a one-for-one match from non-Federal sources for any Federal appropriated dollars. The bill would also increase the authorization of appropriations to help restore canal capacity for the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals to address subsidence.
A fully implemented SJRRP is crucial for managing the San Joaquin River system, restoring fish populations, and ensuring reliable water supplies for farmers. Without an increased funding cap, Federal support will likely fall short, threatening both water reliability and ecosystem restoration and undermining decades of collaboration and progress.
That is why our bill is supported by a broad range of agricultural water users, the State of California, and key local partner, because the SJRRP's success benefits both farmers and the environment. This type of collaboration demonstrates how we can manage our limited water resources to provide water supply reliability while also benefiting our ecosystems.
While we were able to pass this bill through the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of 2024, it did not pass the House of Representatives in time to be signed into law. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Chambers to advance this commonsense, straightforward legislation on the floor as soon as possible. And I thank Senator Hoeven for his support for my legislation.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act, which I introduced today.
Let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for veterans and members of our Armed Forces who have answered the call of duty and sacrificed for our Nation. I firmly believe that those who serve our country with honor, courage, and distinction deserve our Nation's enduring gratitude. That
Currently, many disabled veterans are unable to access housing programs for veterans because of how income is defined. The more severe a disability is, the more disability benefits a veteran receives. Yet, because of the way total income has historically been determined, this means that veterans receiving the highest amount of disability benefits often cannot access the housing assistance they need.
Congress must ensure that every veteran has access to stable housing. While progress has been made in reducing veteran homelessness, there is still more that we must do. Addressing these challenges requires a coordinated effort between Federal, State, and local agencies and strong partnerships with nonprofit veteran service organizations and community leaders. We must do our part to remove redtape and make it easier for veterans to be housed.
I remain committed to supporting policies that expand and increase access to VA homelessness programs for veterans in need. I want to thank Senators Gallego, McCormick, and Britt for introducing this bipartisan bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting solutions that ensure no veteran is left without a safe place to call home.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2025. This crucial piece of legislation would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1978 to permanently prohibit offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
It has been over 50 years since a major oilspill occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, which inspired the first Earth Day and the modern environmental movement that we see today. Despite this catastrophic incident, California has still a experienced subsequent oilspills, which is unacceptable since these environmental incidents are preventable. I hope my colleagues can join me in understanding that the tradeoff between oil production and environmental harm is simply not one we should be making any longer.
The oil spills in California have had drastic impacts, including oil seeping into environmentally sensitive wetlands, endangering birds and other wildlife, and forcing the closure of beaches that are the economic engines of entire communities.
We must end our reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels and work towards a clean energy future, because even when oil isn't leaking from pipelines, it is fueling the crisis of global warming, poisoning local communities, and causing billions of dollars of harm each year.
Fossil fuels are endangering Californian families and fueling raging wildfires and extreme drought--as well as toxic oilspills. I want to recognize the late Senator Feinstein for spearheading this bill year after year during her time in Congress, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to improve our coastal safety and protect our communities.
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty. This bipartisan legislation restricts the use of so-called mortgage ``trigger leads'' and gives prospective home buyers control over their personal credit information.
Trigger leads are essentially tips based on information the major credit reporting bureaus sell to mortgage brokers and lenders when the bureaus learn that a consumer has applied for a mortgage with another lender. Each trigger lead they sell generates dozens of calls and solicitations to the consumer from lenders, ostensibly to provide the consumer with better offers. In fact, one home buyer reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they received over 100 calls within 2 days of applying for a mortgage. Prospective home buyers who are bombarded by these kinds of solicitations typically have no idea their information was sold without their affirmative consent.
Buying a home is often the most consequential financial decision a family will make. Getting spammed with additional offers after a family has already shopped for a mortgage and chosen a lender makes this already stressful process even more stressful. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, for a family to sift through dozens of offers over a few days and actually receive better credit. Consumers who are subjected to a deluge of solicitations as the result of a trigger lead are justified in feeling that their privacy has been invaded.
Many reputable mortgage companies see it the same way. They support curtailing trigger leads since prospective home buyers often blame their lender for selling off their personal information even though it is the credit bureaus that are providing this information.
Unrelenting, aggressive solicitations are more than just a nuisance. Indeed, some companies that buy trigger leads may not use them responsibly and may have poor track records of compliance. In 2018. the Washington Post reported that some mortgage lenders had used trigger leads to misrepresent themselves in calls by suggesting that they are underwriters for the consumer's current lender or by implying that they are calling from a government agency. According to reporting in the Chicago Tribune, unsuspecting home buyers are at risk of inadvertently handing over sensitive personal information, exposing themselves to identity theft.
The current system leaves consumers without control of their personal information when they apply for a mortgage. Our bill will fix the current system by significantly restricting the circumstances in which the credit bureaus can sell home buyers' personal information to generate trigger leads. The credit bureaus would be permitted to sell this information only in the limited circumstances when the consumer already has a significant financial relationship with the lending institution seeking the information or when the prospective home buyer has provided affirmative consent to share this information broadly with other lenders.
The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act will go a long way towards securing consumers' personal information and will provide much needed relief from the seemingly never-ending solicitations prospective home buyers receive during an already stressful time.
Last Congress, the Senate acted unanimously to pass this legislation, and I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. However, this legislation was unfortunately not taken up in the House. I hope that this Congress, we can work together--on a bicameral, bipartisan basis--to address the abuse of trigger leads once and for all.
I thank the broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups and trade associations for their support, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low- income clients, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the Community Home Lenders of America, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, the Broker Action Coalition, the American Bankers Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hagerty and me in supporting this commonsense, bipartisan bill.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Housing for All Act of 2025, which I introduced today.
Our Nation's homelessness and affordable housing crises have reached a breaking point. As of January, 2024, over 771,480 individuals in the U.S.--disproportionately people of color--experienced homelessness. The rate of homelessness has increased by 18 percent since 2023.
The lack of adequate Federal investments in affordable housing and housing assistance programs are exacerbating these crises. There is currently a shortage of 7.1 million affordable and available rental homes in the U.S. According to a recent National Low Income Housing Coalition report, no State or county exists where a person working 40 hours a week and earning the State or local minimum wage can afford to rent a modest two-bedroom apartment. Furthermore, over 21 million renters nationwide spend more than 30 percent of their income on just housing costs alone.
The affordable housing and homelessness crises are not just a blue State issue or an urban problem; every State is impacted. From our metropolitan areas to our rural heartlands, our constituents everywhere feel the real impact of housing unaffordability. It is time for the Federal Government to step up, partner with our State and local governments alongside service providers on the ground and other stakeholders, and invest in solving these problems at a rate commensurate with the need.
I am proud to re-introduce this bill, which represents a comprehensive approach to tackling housing and homelessness. If enacted, it would invest in and align Federal resources to support people experiencing housing instability. To address the affordable housing and homelessness crises, we must invest in proven policies that support strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and ensure quality, affordable homes for all.
Specifically, this bill would address the affordable housing shortage by investing in the housing trust fund, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program, Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, and the HOME Program. It establishes a commission to focus on racial equity in housing and homelessness.
The bill would address homelessness by investing in Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Rental Assistance, emergency solutions grants, and continuums of care. It also builds on locally developed and driven approaches by creating new grant programs to strengthen mobile crisis intervention teams; to support hotel and motel conversions to permanent supportive housing with services; to aid libraries in supporting persons experiencing homelessness; to provide people living in vehicles with a safe place to park overnight and facilitate a transition to stable housing; and to coordinate behavioral health care with homelessness services. And it commissions a report on the connection between evictions and emergency rental assistance during the pandemic, so we can make smarter policies moving forward.
When I have traveled around California--from Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire--to the Central Valley, San Diego, and San Francisco--to better understand the needs for housing in different communities, some key elements stood out. On the production side, there is a need for more dedicated funding for affordable housing from the Federal Government. There is also missing middle-income housing for families, especially people of color. And there is not enough housing near transit. That is why my bill focuses on supporting inclusive, transit-oriented development. When I talked to researchers about keeping families housed, one main point they made was that we don't have enough data on renters and evictions, and that is why the bill includes a section on data, so we can make evidence-based policies.
Right now, the cost to build low-income housing in California is very high in part because of land and material costs and the fragmented way funding is distributed in California. This is a common problem across the Nation--not just in California. That is why the bill includes a section to provide technical assistance for localities navigating Federal and State housing funding sources.
Affordable housing is essential infrastructure. Every person deserves dignity, security, and a space of their own. At a time when the current aministration is gutting and dismantling key Housing and Urban Development Department programs and reducing protections for the most vulnerable among us, this bill has never been more important. Congress must step up so that our Nation's housing and homelessness crises are dealt with in a comprehensive and holistic way to ensure that every person and family in America has a place to call home.
I want to thank Representatives Ted Lieu and Salud Carbajal for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this comprehensive solution to our nationwide affordable housing and homelessness crises.
Mr. President, I have six 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 Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 8 a.m., to receive testimony in open and closed session.
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 10:10 a.m., to conduct an open session hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 10 a.m., to consider pending nominations.
The Committee on Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 175, S. Res. 176, S. Res. 177, S. Res. 178, S. Res. 179, and S. Res. 180.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to; the preambles be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Authorizing the Use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a Ceremony to Present the Congressional Gold Medals Awarded Under the `six Triple Eight' Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2021
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 22) was agreed to.
Mr. President, before I lock in and ask consent to recess the Senate until later this evening, I would also say, for the benefit of my colleagues, that we are scheduled to have four votes starting at 1 a.m. In order to expedite those votes, we are going to make them 15- minute votes, so Members should be prepared to get here for the 1 o'clock vote and then proceed quickly through the remaining votes in 15-minute increments.
Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Lt. Gen. Dan Caine to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am glad that we will soon be voting on this nominee.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is one of, if not the, most important positions in the U.S. military. The Chairman serves as the principal military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress. They are expected
General Caine testified before the Armed Services Committee last week and represented himself well. He has had a distinguished career in the Air Force and the Air National Guard as an F-16 pilot with thousands of flight hours and multiple combat deployments. He has also served in senior leadership roles at the Pentagon, the White House, and overseas, including in the special operations and intelligence communities. If confirmed, General Caine would be the first career National Guard officer to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I appreciate General Caine's record of service and thank him for stepping forward to lead once again. However, we must be clear about the unprecedented circumstances that led to General Caine's nomination. Two months ago, President Trump abruptly dismissed Gen. CQ Brown, who was not even halfway into his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of Defense Hegseth also dismissed several other senior officers, including ADM Lisa Franchetti, the Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. James Slife, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff; Gen. Jennifer Short, the senior military adviser to the Secretary; and all three Judge Advocates General for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Last week, President Trump dismissed Gen. Timothy Haugh, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, at the urging of Laura Loomer, a fringe conspiracy theorist. And on Monday, we learned that Secretary Hegseth had dismissed VADM Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. Military Representative to NATO.
To this day, no credible explanation has been given for the dismissal of a single one of these officers.
We cannot pretend that this is normal or acceptable behavior by the Commander in Chief and Defense Secretary. One by one, they are purging officers, threatening others, and undermining the fundamental principles of our military.
I will speak more about this later, but I am deeply concerned that these officers were dismissed for political reasons. I have long warned about the dangers of firing military servicemembers as a political loyalty test, and I will continue to sound the alarm about this behavior. I must say that that the silence from my Republican friends on this issue is very troubling. Even as Republicans vote to confirm General Caine, I hope they recognize the dangerous message that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are sending throughout the ranks: Don't speak your mind or give your best military advice, or you may face consequences. I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in demanding an explanation from the President and Defense Secretary.
I would take a moment to salute Gen. CQ Brown, who served this Nation honorably for more than four decades and led the Joint Chiefs with dedication and skill. He and each of the officers who were dismissed had outstanding careers in the military and represented our Nation with great courage, honor, and distinction. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice.
We are fortunate that General Caine understands the fraught situation within which he has been nominated to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During his hearing, General Caine repeatedly agreed that the military must remain apolitical. When he was asked how he would guard against politicization of the military, General Caine said, ``It starts with being a good example from the top and making sure that we are nonpartisan and apolitical and speaking the truth to power every day.''
I was also relieved by General Caine's response to my question about President Trump's claim that that he once said he ``loved'' President Trump and would ``kill'' for him while donning a ``Make America Great Again'' hat. During the hearing, General Caine categorically denied that this incident happened and stated, ``I've never worn any political merchandise or said anything to that effect.''
As the Nation's seniormost military officer, it will be his responsibility to understand the needs of America's servicemembers and to be their greatest advocate. If confirmed, he will be the most visible military officer in the Nation. It will be critical for him to represent the force with total professionalism and trustworthiness. In my conversations with General Caine and after speaking with those who know him best, I have found him to be an honest, smart, and principled military officer. He understands the momentous national security challenges we face and has pledged to represent our servicemembers with professionalism and discipline.
Ultimately, I am optimistic that General Caine will provide his best military advice to the President and the Secretary of Defense, even if that advice not what they would want to hear. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination by a wide, bipartisan margin, and I intend to vote in favor of General Caine now.
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 the following named officer for appointment to the permanent grade indicated in the Regular Air Force under the United States Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 2: to be Major General, Lt. Gen. John D. Caine (Retired), shall be brought to a close?
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Blackburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 59, nays 25, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 25.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 26, 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 the following named officer for appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., sections 152 and 601: to be General, Lt. Gen. John D. Caine (Retired), 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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennesssee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 25, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 60, the nays are 25. The motion is agreed to.
I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times: Monday, April 14 at 8:45; Thursday, April 17 at 9 a.m.; Monday, April 21 at 6:45 a.m.; and Thursday, April 24 at 10 a.m.; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 24, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, April 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on April 10 ripen at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 disposition of Executive Calendar No. 74 and the Senate resuming legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Caine nomination?
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Futher, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 25, 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.
