Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1582, which the clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, rural hospitals in America are under the gun. Some of them are closing. We have about 90 rural hospitals in the State of Iowa.
For a change, I have some good news for rural hospitals. For years, I have been pressing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--CMS, for short--to open applications for the 10 unfilled spots in a program that we call Rural Community Hospital Demonstration. This program allows Medicare to test innovative payment models to support rural hospitals. It boosts the financial viability for rural hospitals that are too large to be critical access hospitals and yet too small to benefit from Medicare's hospital inpatient prospective payment system. Currently, the program is helping four rural hospitals in Iowa--in Fort Dodge, Grinnell, Newton, and Spirit Lake.
For years, I have heard excuses from the executive branch for why they wouldn't fill the open spots with interested rural hospitals. So earlier this year, I asked CMS Administrator Dr. Oz to fill the open spots in this rural hospital program. Finally, on May 14, Dr. Oz announced that 10 new hospitals will be added to the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program. Also, hospitals that applied but were not selected will be put on a wait list if other spots open up.
Until this time, CMS has been underutilizing this program and ignoring interested rural hospitals. I appreciate the Trump administration taking action to help rural America this way through helping a few more rural hospitals.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, this week, we are going to be moving to take up Congressional Review Act resolutions to overturn Clean Air Act preemption waivers the Environmental Protection Agency granted to California that allow California to dictate emission standards for the whole country, effectively imposing a nationwide electric vehicle mandate.
Now, Clean Air Act waivers are nothing new. The Clean Air Act allowed for waivers to address specific pollution problems, and over the decades, a number of them have been granted.
But the waivers the Biden EPA handed to California on the Biden administration's way out the door go far beyond the scope Congress contemplated in the Clean Air Act. The waivers in question allow California to implement a stringent electric vehicle mandate, which, given California's size and the fact that a number of other States have signed on to California's mandate, would end up not just affecting the State of California but the whole country.
Under California's electric vehicle mandate, automakers around the country would be forced to close down a substantial part of their traditional vehicle production, with serious consequences: diminished economic output, job losses, declining tax revenues. And that is just the start.
Consumers around the country would face fewer choices, higher prices, and reduced automobile availability, and our already shaky electric grid would quickly face huge new burdens from the surge of new electric vehicles--if, of course, automakers were able to ramp up production as fast as California wants them to, and charging stations, which typically take several years to approve, could be built in time.
Our Nation is already facing serious problems on the energy supply front. We are, to quote a Washington Post headline from last March, ``running out of power,'' as the surge in demand and the premature retirement of fossil fuel-fired powerplants push us to the brink. Our electric grid is simply not in a position to absorb a huge surge in electric vehicles.
Unfortunately, that didn't seem to register with President Biden, who implemented a nationwide electric vehicle mandate that the Trump EPA is currently working to undo.
But while the Biden EPA's EV mandate was bad, California's is much worse. And if we don't act, the consequences to our economy, to consumers, and to our electricity supply could be devastating.
The House has already passed a CRA resolution to repeal California's mandate, and the situation is so grave that not just Republicans but 35 Democrats supported this repeal.
But here in the Senate, Democrats are attempting to derail a repeal by throwing a tantrum over a supposed procedural problem. The California waivers are not rules, Democrats claim, and thus the Congressional Review Act cannot be used to repeal them.
Let's be very clear. The EPA has submitted the waivers to Congress as rules, which is all that Congress has ever needed to decide to consider something under the Congressional Review Act.
The House, as I said, passed a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval--a resolution that garnered 35 Democrat votes in the House and was passed without objection from the House Parliamentarian. And there can be no question that these waivers are rules in substance, given their widespread effects.
But it is true that we are facing something of a novel situation because, for the first time ever, the Government Accountability Office has decided to insert itself into the process and affirmatively declare that an Agency rule submitted to Congress as a rule is not a rule.
It is an extraordinary deviation from precedent for an Agency that should be defending Congress's power instead of constraining it. And, frankly, I think we need to act to ensure that this intrusion into the Congressional Review Act process doesn't become a habit and that the Senate doesn't end up transferring its decision-making power on CRA resolutions to the Government Accountability Office. That is why this week I intend to bring the question of GAO's unprecedented interference to the floor.
But, in the meantime, I want to make one thing very clear: This debate is not about destroying Senate procedure--or any other hysterical claim the Democrats are making. And I have to say that my colleagues' newfound interest in defending Senate procedure is touching, if a touch surprising.
After all, it was only last year that the Democrats were planning to destroy one of the bedrocks of the Senate, the legislative filibuster. And, of course, the Democrats' concern about overruling the Parliamentarian is a bit unexpected, given the Democrats' documented history of attempting to do exactly that. But I am glad to see Democrats demonstrating an interest in safeguarding the Senate.
However, the fact of the matter is that their purported concerns here are entirely misplaced. We are not talking about doing anything to erode the institutional character of the Senate.
In fact, we are talking about preserving the Senate's prerogatives. And I would like to see Senators from both parties vote to uphold the Senate's rights under the Congressional Review Act, even if Democrats support the California Green New Deal rule in question.
The California waivers rules are an improper expansion of a limited Clean Air Act authority and would endanger consumers, our economy, and our Nation's energy supply, and I look forward to overturning these rules in the very near future.
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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, on SALT--that is, the State and local tax deduction--in the fall on the campaign trail on Long Island and in his Truth Social account, Donald Trump said this:
And on Long Island, Donald Trump went further. He promised to ``cut taxes for families, small businesses, and workers, including restoring the SALT deduction, saving thousands of dollars for residents of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other high-cost states,'' promising that once he restored SALT, ``jobs and factories will pour back into New York. I know how to do it better than anybody has ever known how to do it, and we can do it so easily.''
This was obviously met with raucous praise. After all, it was he, Donald Trump, who created this disaster when he put SALT caps in during his first term in his tax bill that year.
I was incredibly skeptical about Donald Trump's promise on Long Island; after all, this was the arsonist promising to put out the fire.
Since then, many New York House Republicans have made the same promise, parroting then-Candidate Trump almost every week since he has taken office. They even formed a little SALT Caucus in the House. So some may be shocked--shocked--to hear that just a few moments ago, right here in the Capitol, President Trump completely--completely-- reversed himself. Now, Donald Trump is against this proposal that he and many New York House Republicans campaigned on. He reportedly said this morning he will not raise the SALT cap because ``we don't want to benefit Democratic governors.''
President Trump came to the Capitol apparently to send a message to New York Republicans. He is reversing himself and breaking his promise on SALT, just as I long warned he would do. Donald Trump apparently says he now opposes SALT because it would only benefit Democratic Governors. What about New York taxpayers? What about the police and firemen and teachers who are paying higher taxes because of SALT on Long Island and the Hudson Valley, throughout New York State, or the millions of taxpayers across the country impacted by Trump's illogical move to do this in his first term?
Does Donald Trump give a damn about middle-class New Yorkers, particularly in the suburbs who are paying more taxes because of the SALT cap? Apparently not.
When Trump came to Long Island and talked a big game about restoring SALT relief, I called it a farce. It was actually a lie. And today, he has proved himself a liar and has seemingly played New York Republicans for fools.
If New York Republicans don't stand up to Donald Trump right now, they will look like fools. They have said over and over again that they are going to fight this horrible SALT cap, which hurts so many New Yorkers, so many in their own districts. They have said they will fight to the end. Will they stand up now to Donald Trump or cave while disappointing millions of New Yorkers?
Mr. President, on the Babbitt settlement, I am deeply disappointed that the Republican leader did not condemn the Trump administration's most recent attack on our beloved Capitol Police. I am appalled and disgusted at the disrespect the Trump administration is showing to the Capitol Police by awarding $5 million to the family of
Awarding the family of an insurrectionist $5 million is an insult to first responders, those who were in the Capitol, and those everywhere. It sends a sickening message to police and all other first responders throughout the country: When it matters most, Donald Trump will turn his back on you.
On fentanyl, Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail he would hold the Chinese Government accountable to stop the fentanyl crisis. Over 100 days into office, Donald Trump has failed on both accounts.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump has also handed over all leverage to China through his stupid trade war. Now he is trying to gut key State Department programs that curb the flow of fentanyl into America.
Today, I join three of my colleagues in demanding Secretaries Rubio and Bessent use all possible diplomatic tools to push the People's Republic of China to take immediate action to stop the flow of fentanyl into America. This administration should also scrap the misguided 91- percent cut--91 percent--to the State Department's international narcotics control and enforcement programs included in the President's budget proposal.
Instead of working to hold China accountable and stop this crisis in its tracks, the Trump administration had to wage a destructive trade war with China and blame allies like Canada for our fentanyl problem. And now Donald Trump's budget is trying to gut key programs that could actually do something about the problem.
Specifically, I urge the Trump administration to, first, push the Chinese Government to do three things: Do a better job policing illicit fentanyl and precursor chemical trafficking; increase precursor scheduling; and stop the illicit financing of precursor chemicals in China. We need commitments on all three points. Second, the Trump administration must use every diplomatic tool available to stop the flow of fentanyl into America. Finally, the Trump administration must immediately end cuts to programs that actually address the fentanyl crisis.
When I met with President Xi 2 years ago, I told him directly about the devastating impact of the opioid crisis on American families. I demanded to President Xi that the Chinese Government take immediate action to cut off the supply of precursor chemicals that are fueling this crisis.
Some steps were taken, some important steps, but much more is needed from the Chinese Government, and the President and his team should be working with the PRC to get these concessions and cooperation rather than the current strategy: destroying our influence and competition with the PRC abroad.
Mr. President, across the country, companies like Walmart and Mattel and Target and Ford are starting to do exactly what many economists feared in response to Donald Trump's stupid tariff policy: They are raising their prices. And the American people are paying more.
But does Donald Trump listen? Of course not. He almost never listens except to what he wants to hear. Instead of backing off his tariffs, Donald Trump tells companies to ``eat the tariffs.'' Those are his words. He tries to bully and berate companies simply when they want to be transparent with their customers.
Of course, businesses will raise prices because of the tariffs. What on Earth does Donald Trump expect? Donald Trump blaming businesses for raising prices due to tariffs is like setting fire to a building and then blaming the fire department.
For someone who fancies himself a shrewd businessman, Donald Trump doesn't seem to understand the pain his trade war has created for businesses. Perhaps it is hard for Donald Trump to hear their concerns from inside his luxury Qatari jet.
On reconciliation, Donald Trump can meet with House Republicans as many times as he likes, but he won't change the fundamental problem of their bill. It kills jobs--U.S. jobs, explodes the deficit, and overwhelmingly helps the rich.
First, on jobs. Donald Trump and Republicans want to reward billionaires by taking an ax to clean energy investments America needs to meet our energy demands of the future. Under Donald Trump, China is overtaking the United States. Republicans' attacks on clean energy investments mean the U.S. will cede our leadership on clean energy to Chinese companies. Clean energy is the future. We need it to meet our energy needs. And Republicans who squander the future will regret it. They are letting China become No. 1 on one of the most important industries in the world: energy.
Second, if Republicans make Trump's tax cuts permanent, they will add over $50 trillion to the debt in the next 30 years. Our children, our grandchildren will be condemned to a lifetime of higher interest rates, higher costs, diminished potential.
Meanwhile, Republicans keep saying their tax scam will lift Americans across the board. This is false, and we have the data to show it. According to a study by Wharton, under the Republican plan, the top 10 percent of Americans will get 65 percent of the benefit of the value of the tax breaks. Many Americans making less than $51,000 a year would see their incomes go down. Many working families in the first income quantile will take a $1,000 hit. The national debt will increase by $4.6 trillion over the next decade. That is in addition to, again, the potential $50 trillion over the next three decades if these tax giveaways are made permanent.
That is the formula for the Republican's ``big, beautiful bill'': billionaires win; working families lose.
Finally, on Equinor, yesterday, after weeks of fierce backlash, the Trump administration backed off its unjustified work stop order for Equinor's Empire Wind off the coast of Long Island.
I am really glad the administration backed off. For weeks, I worked with Governor Hochul and Equinor and pushed Secretary Lutnick to release their report explaining the work stop order. They told Equinor they must stop. They said, you didn't meet environmental assessments and they wouldn't tell them why. They couldn't even answer. They were so frustrated, they were ready to leave, even though we invested billions and billions already in the ground to build these turbines which could provide up to 800,000 families with cheaper electricity.
Well, the reversal is good. It will save more than 1,000 good-paying New York jobs on Long Island and on Staten Island, and it will preserve billions in private investment.
What kind of country encourages companies to invest in America and then, all of a sudden, makes them lose $4, $5 billion they have already sunk into the ground without giving a reason for it?
A few days later and this project could have been scrapped entirely-- a disaster for New York's economy and for the entire wind and energy industry.
The work stop announced was rotten the moment it was issued. The administration never gave a real explanation for its many claims that Equinor permits were rushed. This order seemed more like a broadside against the wind industry than anything else.
This episode should serve as a warning to other industries: Donald Trump may try to push you, but if you push back, he will back off. I say that to all the wind and solar folks who are producing and about to produce good, clean, low-cost energy. Donald Trump and the Republicans in the House, and maybe in the Senate, are threatening them by cutting off tax breaks we were able to get done in the IRA.
Now that this order is lifted, billions of dollars in private investment will once again flow into New York. Thousands of New Yorkers and offshore wind supply chain workers across the country can get back to work. Construction can continue on a project that will power half a million homes and proceed on one of the biggest, most significant offshore wind projects in the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. President, first, I would like to associate my remarks
Well, Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to end this Democratic electric vehicle fantasy. The California EV rules that we are going to be voting on are expensive and economically destructive to our Nation. EVs currently make up 7 percent of the market of vehicles in this country and sales are plummeting.
What the Democrats want to do--want to happen to this country--is impossible to meet. They want 35 percent of all lightweight vehicles sold in America next year to be electric vehicles--35 percent. And by year 2035, they want it to be 100 percent of all vehicles.
Well, the House of Representatives, including 35 Democrats, including some from California, have voted to say no, they wanted to end this mandate. They were right to do so. That is what the Senate is going to be taking up.
Democrats in the Senate continue to cling onto the pillar of their Green New Deal. That is a deal that the American people rejected in November and rejected by electing a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate; and we are here to do the will of the American people.
Mr. President, on another matter, I come today to call for an end of Russia's war in Ukraine. President Trump is committed to peace. He has repeatedly said his mission is to stop the killing. Yesterday's phone call with Vladimir Putin, I believe, was a decisive step to do just that.
After 3 years of bloodshed, Russia and Ukraine have now begun necessary talks for a cease-fire that will end the war. This breakthrough wouldn't be possible without President Trump's strength and leadership. President Trump is a master dealmaker. We know that. He has united our allies in Europe and Ukraine behind his vision for lasting peace. Real leadership ends wars. Real leadership saves lives, and that is what we are seeing today from President Trump.
Yet as President Trump forges peace, Putin continues to sow chaos. Putin is a brutal dictator. That is who he is. He lies, he cheats, he disregards the lives of his own country's citizens, and the attacks of war continue.
Russian soldiers continue to attack Ukrainian citizens. This weekend's massive drone attack--one of the largest of the war--was a deliberate attack on innocent people--not combatants, but innocent people. We cannot forget Vladimir Putin's brutality.
Russia faces a stark choice: peace or crippling sanctions. President Trump has spoken forcefully of swift and severe consequences if Russia fails to honor a cease-fire. There is a bipartisan group in this Senate. We agree--over 70 have already signed onto a bill to expand sanctions and tariffs on Russia, crippling sanctions, crushing sanctions.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut are leading the charge. It includes 500-percent tariffs on anyone who buys oil, gas, or uranium from Russia. Energy is the cash cow of Putin's war machine. Cut it off, the Russians cannot continue to fight.
Russia's biggest customer is communist China. The next is India. They will be hit very hard. Europe, too, must act. Last year, Europe spent $23 billion on Russian oil and gas. It is more than Europe sent in aid to Ukraine. Europe has somewhat reduced their dependency on Russian energy projects, partially buying American. They must do better; they must do more. Europe must go further faster to take back its security and its future.
So America stands ready. Energy security is national security. Affordable, reliable American energy is a source of our strength as a nation. We in America are an energy superpower; and under President Trump's leadership, we are actually acting like it. Vladimir Putin doesn't respond to statements. He only responds to strength.
If Russia stalls, the Senate will act decisively to move to bring lasting peace. It is time to end the killing. It is time to end the war in Ukraine.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted to begin consideration of the modestly named GENIUS Act, a bill that would regulate stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency.
Crypto is known as a volatile investment and more unpredictable than traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. Last month, the value of Bitcoin, a type of crypto, dropped to $76,000, but it shot up to more than $100,000 last week.
Supporters of the GENIUS Act say that is where stablecoins come in. They argue that stablecoins are tied to the value of the dollar, for example, so they never lose their value.
The name ``stablecoin'' makes it sound secure, doesn't it? But the name is misleading. In 2023 alone, stablecoins deviated from their underlying asset more than 600 times. That does not sound like stability to me.
While I agree with supporters of the GENIUS Act that crypto and stablecoins need to be regulated, I have genuine concerns about the bill.
One is the amount of illicit finance that stablecoins could support. A recent report found that crypto facilitated $51 billion in illicit transactions, and stablecoins accounted for 63 percent of all illicit crypto transactions.
Many illegal crypto transactions involve crypto ATMs. You might have seen one at your grocery store or gas station, although you may not realize it. They allow you to trade in cash for cryptocurrency. But they also are a frequent tool of scammers and fraudsters who prey on Americans, especially senior citizens. We receive phone calls in our offices back in Illinois on a regular basis from senior citizens who have been scammed out of thousands of dollars.
Here is how it works: A scammer will call an unassuming victim, pretending to be from the government or the victim's bank.
Let me stop right there and say what I tell people over and over again. The government is not going to call you on the phone. If anyone calls you on the phone and represents that they are part of Social Security or some other Federal Agency, it is most likely a scam. That is the starting point.
A scammer calls this unassuming victim and creates a scenario--an emergency scenario--in their mind. The scammer tells the victim that they owe money for skipping jury duty or unpaid taxes or that their bank account is frozen. The scammer warns the victim they have to pay urgently or else the fines will escalate or the victim may face jail time if they don't move quickly.
The scammer tells the victim not to worry; they can simply drive to the nearest crypto ATM, make their payment, and everything will be just fine. The scammer walks them through the steps of inserting cash in the machine, purchasing cryptocurrency, and sending it to the scammer's digital wallet. Once that happens, the money is gone, with no way to get it back and little hope of tracing the transaction to the scammer.
All throughout the scam, the fraudster will stay in constant contact with the victim to keep them from ever getting a moment to take a breath, calm down, consult a trusted friend, or maybe realize what is really going on.
In 2023, scammers used crypto ATMs to cheat victims out of $114 million, mainly senior citizens.
I first found out about these scams after reading an article in the Illinois Times, a newspaper publication in Springfield, IL. The article told the story of a vape shop owner in Springfield who was being paid $300 a month to have a crypto ATM machine on his premises. One day, the owner noticed a panicked elderly woman enter the shop and hurriedly feed thousands of dollars into the crypto ATM while talking on the phone the whole time. The vape shop owner learned that the woman was scammed out of $5,000 before he stepped in to stop her from putting more money into the machine.
Later, the owner removed the crypto ATM from the store, but there was no
This same story has repeated itself countless times across the country. An 80-year-old man in Texas lost thousands of dollars to a scammer who claimed he needed to pay bail to get his son out of jail. The man claimed:
In South Carolina, a retired couple lost $320,000 over several months to a scam involving crypto ATMs.
Last month, a retired woman in Wisconsin lost $24,000--her entire life savings--when scammers convinced her to use a crypto ATM, claiming it was the only way to protect her bank account from fraudulent activity. Since the scam, the woman has said:
Just this month, the sheriff's office in Walton County, FL, reported that a resident was cheated out of $129,000 by a scammer claiming to be from their bank.
Crypto ATM operators will claim that their kiosks give banking and crypto access to the ``unbanked''--often those in minority and low- income communities who have historically been locked out of the banking system--but in reality, the elderly and the unbanked are the most vulnerable to scams involving crypto ATM fraud.
The crypto ATMs charge high fees, ranging from 7 percent to 20 percent, and have fewer consumer protections, if any, for the users.
States such as Nebraska, Arizona, and Connecticut have passed legislation to crack down on these scams. It is time for Congress to do the same.
It has been predicted that the result of the so-called GENIUS Act will be a dramatic increase in crypto activity. That means a dramatic exposure to fraud.
Let's make sure this amendment which I am going to offer to the GENIUS Act is adopted to protect innocent victims. I can tell you for sure, you are going to hear from senior citizens and others who have lost their life savings. That is why I am pushing for a vote on my amendment to the GENIUS Act. It creates commonsense guardrails to prevent crypto ATM fraud and empower law enforcement to combat these scams. My amendment, based on the Crypto ATM Fraud Prevention Act, would require crypto ATM operators to warn consumers about scams, provide live customer support, and develop comprehensive anti-fraud policies. With my amendment, fewer Americans will be cheated out of their entire retirement savings in just a few days, and ATM operators will no longer be able to simply turn a blind eye to the fraud at their kiosks.
These scams have already harmed thousands of Americans and cheated them out of their life savings. Enough is enough.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Listen to the people you represent, particularly the senior citizens, who are losing their life savings to these scams, and realize that with 30,000 crypto ATMs across the country, more and more of this will occur. We need to support this amendment that provides commonsense guardrails to stop scammers in their tracks and protect hard-working Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. President, the worth of a nation can be measured by what it honors and what it neglects. In a quiet spot among the rolling hills of Monroe County, IN, the statue of a young soldier keeps watch over a lonely cemetery. The Doughboy stands at parade rest, campaign hat atop his head, canteen and trench digger on his cartridge belt, Springfield rifle by his side. Nearby, a wreath, ringed with red white and blue flowers, rests on a grave.
It was Americans like Private Thomas Forest Riddle who helped win the Great War but not without terrible, terrible sacrifice.
As we prepare to observe Memorial Day this year, we honor all Americans who have risked their lives and, in many cases, given their lives for our liberty. In April 1917, America formally entered what we now call World War I, after votes in this building--in this building. And 2 months later, Private Riddle, a 21-year-old farm boy from Unionville, IN, reported for duty. He visited a recruiting station right down the road in Martinsville, next door to where I live today.
The first doughboys deployed in the summer of 1917, but it wasn't until the following year that the hastily mobilized and inexperienced American Expeditionary Force, known as AEF, arrived in numbers, and Private Riddle was assigned to Company D--Delta Company--of the 12th Machine Gun Battalion, Fourth Division.
In June 1918, the battalion packed into the Aquitania, and it sailed for France. That spring, the Germans determined to split the allied lines and make one final push toward Paris. Private Riddle helped halt the enemy's march and proved the AEF's mettle.
When the American Army launched its largest offensive on the front, running from the Argonne Forest to the Meuse River, it was Private Riddle among the 1.2 million soldiers who broke the German Army's spirit and forced its government to surrender.
The Americans initial arrival at the front was greeted with joy from civilians and soldiers alike. A British nurse recalled the dignity of their march, the self-assurance on their faces. They were, she said, ``so God-like, so magnificent, so splendidly unimpaired in comparison to the tired, nerve-wracked men of the British Army.''
But make no mistake, they were not gods. They were hurriedly trained, untested boys, asked to accomplish the seemingly impossible. And they did so at enormous cost.
During that offensive, over 26,000 of them laid down their lives--the single deadliest campaign in our Nation's history. The survivors suffered terribly too. You see, the sheer devastation of World War I and the trauma faced by those who fought it was unprecedented. We forget today: miserable trenches and never-ceasing artillery assaults, the terror of tanks and aerial bombardments, battle through barbed wire, at the point of a bayonet, and the mental and physical trauma that accompanied it all--the exhaustion, the confusion, the tremors, the nightmares.
Private Riddle survived Chateau Thierry and Meuse-Argonne, but he was a casualty still. Gassed, shellshocked, he returned to Unionville, IN, in February 1919, weakened, in the midst of an influenza epidemic, and he was immediately stricken by the virus.
Sick, he laid in bed delirious, reliving the horrific battles in broken sentences, recounting the shock of exploding shells. He passed on February 21, 1919. In an incredible tragedy, Thomas's younger brother Raymond had died the day before, also taken by influenza. They were preceded in death by a sister Amanda a month before.
It was their grandmother who paid $500 for a sculptor to create the likeness of Private Riddle in limestone to stand near his and Raymond's graves in the cemetery behind Pleasant View Baptist Church in Unionville. She did this, no doubt, so her grandson's sacrifice for our Nation, which landed his name in the Indiana Gold Star Honor Roll, would never be forgotten.
So today, we resolve to never forget. Whether they be in country churchyards or on the National Mall, we build tributes to our soldiers for the same reason we celebrate Memorial Day. Monuments and a day of national reflection are reminders of our enduring debt. But they are more than that. They are warnings, too. If we should ever forget our fallen, we will, in time, cease to be free.
Sadly, that warning is not always heeded. In the summer of 2004, vandals snuck into Pleasant View Cemetery and smashed the statue of Private Riddle to pieces, breaking it at the knees, severing its head. It wasn't simply the destruction of a piece of art; knowingly or not, it was the desecration of a promise.
We don't glory in war, but we do honor the glorious deeds of the men and women who, at the last resort, are called to defend our liberties. The memory of those who do so is as sacred as our flag.
We stake our Republic on our promise to honor them always and, of course, to care for those they leave behind and to do everything in our power to prevent future Americans from joining their ranks.
It has been alleged throughout history that republics are ungrateful, self-obsessed, self-absorbed, selfish, self-regarding. America has subsequently proven otherwise. If you ever doubt this, visit Pleasant View Cemetery in Monroe County, IN. You see, the people of Unionville were heartbroken when the monument of Private Riddle was knocked down. So Edith Clark, the cemetery's caretaker, paid $600 to have the sculpture restored and resurrected. Then the community held a bake and yard sale to help her recover the cost.
Patriotism--never forget.
Today, he shows wear. The brim of his hat is broken; the bayonet from his rifle is lost; part of his ear is missing; so are a few fingers. But Private Thomas Forest Riddle stands once more, and his memory remains. His watch continues, and America's gratitude goes on.
So today, we remember Private Riddle and all who have given their lives for our freedom on this grand Memorial Day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. President, the first stanza of the national anthem ends with:
We sing this part as a declaration, but if you read the lyrics of the Star-Spangled Banner, the sentence actually ends with a question mark. Francis Scott Key intended the line to be sung as a question rather than a statement. That is fitting because while our freedom may seem concrete, it is never a guarantee. Our freedom depends on brave men and women who are willing to answer the call to defend our great country.
Over the years, our national anthem took on a feeling of confidence and assurance rather than uncertainty. That is thanks to the millions of men and women who have answered the call to serve, some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice.
Next week, we recognize Memorial Day. It is not just another long weekend, but it is time to honor our fallen soldiers and reflect on their sacrifices. Today, I would like to recognize two such heroes from my State of Alabama: Michael Hosey and Jason Barfield and their families.
For U.S. Army SSG Michael Wesley Hosey, there was never a question in anyone's mind as to what he wanted to do when he grew up. Every career day, he would always dress up as a soldier. Michael loved reading about history, and he loved our country, so much so that his friends and family gave him the nickname ``Merican,'' with an ``m.'' That is ``American'' without an ``a.''
Because Michael was only 17 when he graduated from Clay-Chalkville High School, his dad, also named Michael, had to sign his permission for him to enlist in the Army. As a Vietnam veteran, the elder Michael knew all too well what his son was signing up for. Yet the Hosey family supported Michael's decision to serve his country. There is no question that this courageous young man also came from a courageous family.
Michael graduated from boot camp 3 days after 9/11. He had a gift for learning languages quickly and planned to use this talent to become a communications intelligence specialist. This ability to quickly pick up on a new language, combined with his outgoing personality, made Michael a favorite with the local Afghans.
Members in Michael's unit recall him quickly receiving a dinner invitation from one of the local families shortly after moving into the area. Michael had a giving heart and continued to earn the trust of the locals, especially all the kids.
His sister Laurie recalls him always asking his family to send candy when they sent him a package. At first, she found this odd because Michael wasn't a big candy eater. But they would always send Skittles or gum. She later realized Michael wasn't asking for candy himself but to share with all the kids in the country.
Sadly, Michael lost his life on September 17, 2011, during Operation Enduring Freedom, 1 week before his 28th birthday.
When sharing the story, Laurie wants us to remember that freedom is not free. It is a reality that her and Michael's parents--Condi and the older Michael--still carry with them every single day.
For Marine LCpl Jason Barfield of Ashford, AL, he also was born with a strong desire to serve his country.
His father Ray is a disabled Army veteran and Jason's great- grandfather, also named Jason, was killed in World War II.
Jason lived his life with the goal of making a difference. His mom Kelli says that Jason believed that there was good in everyone. Even if you couldn't find it at first, that just meant to dig a little bit deeper.
Jason lived by the motto that ``Every day is a good day.''
He also had a gift for music and was in the band at Ashford High School. He enjoyed singing in church, playing the saxophone, and was teaching himself to play the piano. Jason's hard work and talents earned him a 4-year band scholarship to Huntington College. He chose to forgo the scholarship to enlist in the Marines because he wanted to be part of the best.
Kelli remembers asking Jason's recruiter about the dangers that he was signing up for and the sinking feeling when the recruiter replied:
Jason surprised his family for Christmas in 2010 and spoke about his new goal to reenlist in the military and become a chaplain. The Barfields didn't know this would be their last holiday that they would spend together. Jason was killed in action on October 24, 2011, at the young age of 22.
Sensing the danger that was ahead of Jason, he pushed eight of his fellow marines, a native translator, and a K-9 out of the way from the booby trap explosion that would claim his own life.
Jason's platoon Sergeant Gunney Thrash said:
Jason was a hero. He makes all Alabamans proud.
Michael Wesley Hosey and Jason Barfield are two young men who never got to start a family or fully pursue their dreams. We are forever grateful and indebted to them for their sacrifice that gives us the assurance to sing the national anthem, not with a question mark, but with a declaration that we are the ``land of the free and the home of the brave.''
I am reminded of the words in John 15:13: Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
We may never have met Michael or Jason, yet they courageously were willing to give their lives for their fellow Americans. We will continue to share their stories to ensure their sacrifices are never, ever forgotten.
As Memorial Day approaches, I hope we take time to honor Americans that have fallen, along with the great families who have been left behind. May we never forget that freedom is not free.
I yield the floor.
Recess
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:30 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Britt).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Madam President, I want to begin by saying happy anniversary. Happy anniversary.
Thirty-two years ago today, President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act into law. The so-called Motor Voter Act--that is what it became known as--made commonsense and unprecedented strides to registering more eligible Americans to vote. Imagine that--taking advantage of the fact that motor vehicle agencies and other State and local government offices that interact with Americans every single day can easily, efficiently, securely assist U.S. citizens with one of the most fundamental rights: registering to vote and participating in our elections.
A little over 3 years after it was signed into law--on May 24, 1996, more precisely--I proudly completed my own training as a deputy registrar in Los
Throughout my time in public service, I have seen personally that one of the single greatest ways to increase not just civic engagement more broadly but voter registration and voter participation more specifically is to meet Americans where they already are. Motor Voter tried to do exactly that--registering voters at State departments of motor vehicles and other public agencies, including State colleges and universities, military recruitment offices, and others.
That is a good thing for our democracy because we should all believe in that most basic of lessons that I believe we all learned in high school civics class--that our democracy works best when its many eligible people participate.
One other place that the National Voter Registration Act can and should extend to is naturalization ceremonies, giving new, eligible U.S. citizens the information they need to register to vote should they want to.
If you have never had the opportunity to attend one before, I can tell you personally that there are few experiences that give you more of that patriotic feeling than inside the four walls of a naturalization ceremony. If you ever had doubts or questions about what it means to be an American, I encourage you to ask a newly naturalized citizen.
When I served as California's secretary of state, it was such an honor to speak at a number of these ceremonies. Part of the sacredness of the experience that I felt was standing up on the stage, looking out at the audience, and being told by the USCIS personnel how many countries were being represented there. Maybe it was dozens of people, maybe it was hundreds of people representing literally dozens or hundreds of countries. So walking into the auditorium, walking into the convention center hall, there were immigrants from countries all over the world, but upon taking that oath and leaving that ceremony, they were all U.S. citizens.
While some people get to that point of naturalization, having been in the country for a couple of years, some after several decades, some coming from working-class families and others from very wealthy families, some families who have been here just a few years and others who have been here maybe multiple generations--maybe some of these new citizens never had a chance to go to college or even high school. Others were there with not just bachelor's and master's degrees but Ph.D.s, maybe multiple degrees. The one thing that was constant for everybody was that as a U.S. citizen, you now had the right to vote. And in our elections, not only does every vote count, but every vote counts equally. Think about that. How beautiful is that?
As I think about the people who go through the process, I can't help but also think about my parents because they went through the naturalization process. When I see the dozens or hundreds of immigrants becoming citizens, I envision what their preparation was like because it was very similar, no doubt, to what my parents did--taking classes, studying, showing up at every important appointment, filling out all those forms. On the day they finally take the oath of allegiance, they earn the full benefits of U.S. citizenship.
So it was an honor and a privilege to be able to address those audiences as secretary of state and encourage them not just to get involved in the community but to register to vote and exercise their new right to vote. And, of course, I would do it on a nonpartisan basis.
But the statistics tell us that registration amongst naturalized citizens still lags behind other voters. During the 2022 election, only 61 percent of naturalized citizens were registered to vote compared to 70 percent of native-born Americans.
So the data tells us that we have a responsibility to do more here. That is why today I am asking my colleagues to pass the Including New Voters in the Electorate Act, also known as the INVITE Act.
My bill would use the powers of the National Voter Registration Act to designate USCIS field offices as voter registration Agencies, effectively giving our field staff not just the opportunity but the duty to help new, eligible U.S. citizens register to vote. Rather than just hand out a form, it would empower USCIS personnel to actually assist new citizens in completing and returning their voter registration forms.
I can predict what some of the counterargument might be, so let me just say to everyone who regularly expresses concern about ``noncitizens voting,'' I would suggest, what better place to make sure citizens are registered than at a naturalization ceremony?
With the flexibility to work with State and local agencies however they see fit, my bill would take those spaces that are so crucial to our democracy and turn them into catalysts for democratic participation because the responsibilities that come with citizenship don't end upon taking the oath of citizenship; that is just the beginning.
I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join me in supporting this commonsense bill to invest in and strengthen our democracy.
Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to thank my friend and colleague the senior Senator from the State of California for his passion in pursuing what is itself a laudable goal, which is helping newly sworn-in, newly naturalized U.S. citizens to register to vote. But I have no choice but to object to this unanimous consent request, this effort to pass it without further debate--without any debate today.
I want to point out that this is a bill that hasn't gone through any of the regular processes. It is therefore inappropriate for us to consider it at this point.
Look, the bill itself was just barely introduced. It hasn't had a hearing, hasn't had a markup before the Senate Judiciary Committee on which we both serve or otherwise, nor has there been any debate on this topic.
No doubt it is important to make sure that our newly naturalized citizens have the opportunity to register to vote, but that puts the cart before the horse in many regards. If we haven't done our homework, we could cause problems.
No one disputes the fact--at least no one disputes the fact now that there are, in fact, noncitizens voting in Federal elections. No one disputes that there are already laws on the books making it a crime for noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections. U.S. Federal elections are for U.S. citizens and no one else, and it is a crime to do otherwise.
We have had some of these discussions over the last year, and in the months leading up to the 2024 general election, there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims made to the effect that noncitizens don't vote. We know now that that is not true. There have been a number of documented instances from this last general election alone in which that happened. This reflects the fact that we often do a poor job of making sure noncitizens don't vote.
On the current voter registration form, the Federal voter registration form, there is just a box, a little box that one checks for the applicant to indicate whether he or she is a U.S. citizen. Provided that he or she checks that box and later signs the form for a driver's license, that person can then obtain voter registration in the same State in which he or she has applied for a driver's license. All we have to go on is that person's word as to citizenship.
One might ask: Why? Why has no one asked for this, especially if it is a known problem?
Well, this dates back to an interpretation of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, the NVRA, which is also sometimes referred to as the Motor Voter law. It was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that interpreted provisions of the NVRA as prohibiting the State officials administering that form, receiving that form, from asking for any kind of proof of citizenship.
Now, that interpretation was, in my view, wrong. I agree with Justice Alito's dissent in that case saying that the statute contains no such requirement; there is nothing in there prohibiting States from doing that. Nonetheless, that ruling stands, remains on the books today, prohibiting State officials, when receiving those forms, from doing any verification, requesting any proof as to citizenship.
That is why I, last year, introduced a bill called the SAFE Act that would amend the National Voter Registration Act to make clear what I believe was already clear but that the Supreme Court got wrong, allowing State officials to request proof of citizenship at the time these documents are submitted and setting requirements for that to happen.
The SAFE Act identifies, establishes, and outlines acceptable documentation for proving citizenship, and it requires the States to set up alternative verification processes for citizens who don't have the normal, necessary, contemplated documentation, including for those instances--very, very common instances--in which a woman marries and thereafter changes her name to a married name not evident on any birth certificate she may have.
When you contemplate the many dozens of women who support the SAVE Act in this Chamber and in the other and who voted for it in the other Chamber, who were part of the process of drafting this bill--they and I and the others who were involved in its drafting, we all went out of our way to make sure that these documentation standards were not unduly onerous. In fact, if anything, they are less onerous than those requirements, those documentation standards that already exist in other areas of the law.
Take, for example, labor and employment. Anytime any American citizen starts a new job as an employee, he or she is required to fill out a form called the I-9. The I-9 form requires an American citizen to provide proof of citizenship. And if you are not an American citizen, then you have to provide proof of your work eligibility, providing proof of your visa and the documentation that goes along with that.
Now, just as it is true that married women who have changed their name to their married name, a married last name that is different than that found on their birth certificate--just as women every single day across this country are able to start a new job without that being an impediment, we have made sure that the SAVE Act would leave things the same way. If anything, we made it easier in the context of casting this sacred, important vote and registering to become eligible to cast such a vote.
The legislation, the SAVE Act, also compels States to purge noncitizens from voter rolls and establishes Federal penalties for intentionally registering noncitizens to vote in Federal elections.
Over the last 4 years, many, many millions upon millions of illegal aliens have entered our country's borders, and of those, a nonzero but ultimately unknown number of them were improperly registered to vote. No one disputes that this has happened. They don't now; they didn't last summer; they don't now because the proof is there, and it remains undisputed.
At a time when trust in voting is as important as it has ever been, if not more so, we must stop any avenue for foreign election interference, and we need to pass the SAVE Act.
Voting is both a sacred right and an important responsibility that accompanies American citizenship, and allowing people--people of other countries, people of other countries who are not citizens of our country--to violate the law and to access our elections and vote in our elections contrary to the law is a great blow to our security and to our self-governance.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the SAVE Act a few weeks ago, and now it is our turn to pass the SAVE Act and that we must do.
In light of the foregoing and in light of the fact that, if we were to take a step like that contemplated and proposed by my friend and colleague--and he is both, the senior Senator from California--without putting in place these additional safeguards that we need in the SAVE Act, safeguards that are no more intrusive--and, in fact, if anything, are less intrusive--than those already in existence in everyday events like starting a new job, I must object, and I hereby do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from California.
Madam President, I think I tried to make the point clear. While I respect where my colleague from the State of Utah is coming from, I just fundamentally disagree.
The National Voter Registration Act, which this body passed on a bipartisan basis back in 1993, was designed to expand voter registration opportunities by making it easier for eligible Americans to register when they interact with government Agencies, plain and simple, and that is all this bill seeks to do, by designating USCIS as a voter registration entity under the NVRA.
And the point is simple. When anybody goes to apply for a driver's license or a State ID, as you are filling out those forms, you do add name, date of birth, your address, you are signing all that same information for a driver's license or an ID that you are putting on the voter registration card or form when you are registering to vote.
And yes, you do sign as to the accuracy of the information under penalty of perjury. So it is not just the check the box nonchalantly; you are signing under penalty of perjury. And there have been occasions when people are charged with false registration or improper registration. So the laws are working. The instances of ineligible voters voting are very, very rare, but they happen. That means our laws are working.
So we will keep trying to work on the INVITE Act, but I encourage my colleague to think about not just the spirit of this proposal but the context of the success of the NVRA over the last several decades.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Madam President, we need to remember a couple of things. First, when someone has gone through the process of immigrating to the United States, they have completed a journey--perhaps a lengthy odyssey--of moving to the United States, applying for and ultimately obtaining U.S. citizenship. They have provided a lot of documentation. They have done a lot of things to make that happen.
And it would be an insult to those who are U.S. citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized citizens, to make it easy for people to cheapen that, to undermine it, to dilute that by coming in and saying: You know, I am filling out my driver's license application, and all I have to do here is check a box--check a box, sign my name saying, yes, I am a U.S. citizen.
Well, you know, that is not an option in other areas where citizenship is required. It is absolutely not an option, for example, in applying for a passport, which is one of the documents that can be provided and often is provided when someone completes the process of filling out an I-9 and thereby establishing their work eligibility as a U.S. citizen. One of the forms that they can provide to help establish that is a U.S. passport.
But regardless of what combination of identification they use, they do have to establish their citizenship. Why? Well, because that is the law. There are very good reasons why we have those laws in place to make sure that, when someone starts a job, they are either a U.S. citizen or they have a visa with some type of work authorization in it.
So it makes zero sense, for something as significant and important to the very foundations of our constitutional Republic as the right to vote, that we could just so lightly cast aside the need to verify citizenship when we go out of our way in other contexts, like starting a new job, to make sure that they prove it.
So, sure. My friend and colleague points out, when people fill out that driver's license application, they do have to check that box, and they do have to sign their name, but why make it so that someone could lie, especially when read against the backdrop of the Supreme Court ruling 12 years ago, concluding--wrongly, in my view but concluding nonetheless, and that decision is on the books--that not only do they not have to prove citizenship, but no State official, when receiving the driver license application form, may even inquire, even if they have reasons to doubt that the person has committed something or otherwise--they can't ask, even if there has been a wave in that State or in that area or across the country of noncitizens registering to vote and that State wants to make a decision--you know, we really ought to provide some degree of documentation--they are not allowed to do any of that.
So this is filling that gap, and it is important to do that.
To that end, Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Madam President, reserving the right to object, I reserve the right to object not for the first time on this proposed SAVE Act, not even for the second time on this proposed SAVE Act.
This is an item that my colleague has brought up repeatedly here before the Senate. So I won't repeat the arguments and explanations that I have made in prior objections to the SAVE Act but to suggest it is a solution in search of a problem. Audit after audit, review after review, investigation after investigation has demonstrated that the instances of ineligible immigrants voting in elections is exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, which, again, means that our current laws are working.
And to suggest that birth certificates be required for a certain task when it is already secure--we could have--I would be walking around with my birth certificate in my pocket.
A passport is another acceptable form of documentation for citizenship. Half the American public doesn't have a current, valid passport because not everybody travels abroad on a regular basis. So they are unnecessary. Our current laws are working, and, therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Madam President, with great respect to my friend and colleague the distinguished senior Senator from California, he has suggested that the SAVE Act, which merely requires some type of proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote in U.S. elections--that the SAVE Act itself is a solution in search of a problem.
My friend also suggests that no documentary proof of citizenship is or should be made necessary, even considering the Supreme Court's ruling that States are not even allowed to request such documentation where they may deem it necessary. He suggests that this is the case because, as he puts it, the occurrence of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections is not only rare, but it is exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it.
I don't know exactly what that means, but I do know that, taken to its logical conclusion, that same logical leap could and would lead us to all kinds of outcomes that we would never dream of. There are all sorts of things that may be rare by some standard or another. Sure, it is true that most of the people voting in U.S. elections are not noncitizens. In fact, I would say that they would be a small, small, small minority of those casting votes because most people here in the United States, most people voting in U.S. elections, are, in fact, U.S. citizens.
But taken to its logical conclusion, that would suggest that there is no need for TSA, which, actually, I would be fine with for all sorts of reasons. But taken to its logical conclusion, it would suggest there is no need for you to identify yourself when you go through TSA because instances of terrorism are exceedingly rare or instances of people boarding an airplane in somebody else's name are exceedingly rare. Sure, that happens.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it would also suggest that because instances of people starting a job, beginning employment in the United States as an American citizen or as a noncitizen pretending to be an American citizen, are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it, therefore we should require no documentary evidence of either U.S. citizenship on one hand or work eligibility with a visa on the other hand.
I could go on and on. But it is not an answer to the need for the SAVE Act, to the demand that 80-plus percent of the American people agree with, which is noncitizens shouldn't vote in U.S. elections. It is not an answer to that demand, to that widely held bipartisan supermajority view, not an answer to that to suggest that because noncitizen voting is rare, we need not require any proof of citizenship ever.
Why? Well, there are so many reasons why, but here is the simplest one. When we make that easy, more people would do it. Some elections are decided by large margins; others are decided by, to use his words, exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small margins.
We would be doing ourselves and the American people and the American Republic and the U.S. Constitution a grave, grave disservice if we didn't take that risk very seriously.
Foreign election interference and meddling in our system is a real threat. We need to take it seriously. It is tragic and unfortunate.
In fact, it is shameful that we haven't passed the SAVE Act. This is not the end of this issue. I will be back. We will get this passed. But between now and whenever we do get it passed, the American people are taking on a risk because of this body's unwillingness to act.
And it is not this body. Let's face it. It is Members of this body on one side of the aisle, and not on the other, who are willing to incur this risk.
That, tragically, is a sacrifice they are willing to make. We, tragically, are a sacrifice they are willing to make. Let's not let them continue to make it. Let's pass the SAVE Act.
(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, all of us are extremely concerned--and I mean all of us: Senator Risch and all the Republican colleagues and me and all of the Democratic colleagues--about the suffering and famine that are upon the folks in Gaza.
Today, I am here to offer a resolution for consideration on which 46 Senators on our side agree. Although we have not had signatories on the Republican side, I know that my colleagues on the Republican side are very concerned about the devastating absence of food, medicine, and baby formula for 2 million Palestinians who are living in Gaza.
It has been 74 days since aid trucks were allowed to transit into Gaza. That is a decision that the Israeli Government has made under Prime Minister Netanyahu. What does alarm me is that it is very clear under international law and it is very clear on prior actions that this U.S. Senate has taken that in a conflict, as a tactic of war, starving a civilian population is illegal, impermissible, and just wrong, absolutely wrong.
As an indication of the suffering, this is one young child who died in her parents' arms, Janan Al-Saqafi. That was due to no food, no baby formula to feed this young person.
The U.N. has released a report that indicates that if food is not brought into Gaza within the next 48 hours, 14,000 more infants will die, and they will die in the arms of their mother or father.
So this question of should aid get in--obviously it should. It is not right for aid to be withheld as an instrument of war. Regrettably, that appears to have been a decision that has been made by the Israeli Government. It is not right, it is not necessary, it is not helpful, and it is extraordinarily harmful to innocent children and to innocent mothers.
My hope is that this Senate would pass a resolution making very clear our concern about the well-being of innocent Palestinians in Gaza. The food those Palestinians in Gaza need is right on the other side of the border. It is there. All it needs is to be transported from where it is into Gaza and then distributed.
I want to just quote a Palestinian about how dire that situation is. In the words of a Palestinian:
This is, by the way, at a moment when bombs are still dropping, where people who have been relocated a dozen times are having to relocate again, where the two remaining hospitals in Khan Younis have been bombed, where there is no security whatsoever.
This is what a Palestinian said that sums it up:
Those are the words of a Palestinian in Gaza.
Mr. President, we have to feed those people. The food is there. We all want those innocent people to survive and avoid famine. Let us do every single thing we can to persuade the Israeli Netanyahu Government to get that food in to people who desperately need it.
At this point, I yield to my colleague Senator Van Hollen from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, first, I want to thank my friend and colleague the Senator from Vermont Mr. Welch for offering this resolution.
I just want to focus on the resolution itself for a moment because you would think this is something we could all agree on.
I am just reading the resolved clause here:
That is section 1 of the resolved clause.
Senator Welch has said and I think we all acknowledge the terrible humanitarian disaster that Palestinian civilians are suffering under right now. Trump just acknowledged it the other day. He said that a lot of people are starving.
Cindy McCain said:
Fifty-seven children have already died from malnutrition, and the reports are that 14,000 Palestinian children in Gaza are at imminent risk of death if they don't get more food.
Just yesterday, after 78 days of a total siege and blockade on any food coming into Gaza, a trickle of food began to get in, primarily because European countries began to say very loudly that what was happening was unacceptable, that it was a violation of international law.
We are also hearing from the hostage families the urgency of putting an end to this conflict and resolving this to make sure their loved ones can come home.
I was very glad to see Steve Witkoff be able to bring home Edan Alexander. Now we have to bring back the rest of the hostages.
The hostage families overwhelmingly have been calling on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government to end the conflict, end the suffering on all sides, and bring their loved ones home.
I want to just read the second part of this resolution because it does what I understand so many of the hostages' families have been saying we should do.
Those are part 1 and part 2 of the resolved clause that I just read.
I want to thank Senator Welch because he has written this in a way that you would think not a single Senator would object to the words in this resolution. So I do urge my colleagues to support it.
Let's put an end to the suffering and starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Let's get the hostages home. Let's work to end this conflict in a way that ensures no more October 7ths and ensures security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.
I yield back to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Thank you again, the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 224; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, look, first of all, we have no disagreement with the suffering that is going on in Gaza. The problem we have here is, as we heard from both of these speakers, not one word was said as to whose fault this is. This is the fault of a group of people, and that group of people is Hamas. I heard them mention Israel several times. This is not Israel's fault. I heard them mention us, the United States. This is not our fault.
I couldn't agree more with Senator Welch when he talks about the fact that we want an immediate cease-fire and for people to be fed there and things to get better there. It is so simple. It is so easy. It is totally in the hands of Hamas. If they release the hostages, they lay down their arms, and they surrender, not one more bullet will be fired, and there will be scads of trucks coming into Gaza. That is how this ends.
But can we end it? No. If we send trucks in--the Senator knows. The Senator has seen the intelligence on some of this. When we send food and trucks in there, who eats? The soldiers eat. The Hamas soldiers eat. They starve the women, and they starve the children.
Not only do they starve them; they use them as human shields. And they set up their facilities--their military facilities--in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in all kinds of places that they then wring their hands and say: Oh, my gosh, we have been attacked.
Look, this is despicable. This is horrible. This is criminal. It is beyond human understanding how human beings could treat other human beings the same way, especially when you are related to them, as they are in Palestine.
So I agree that this needs to stop, but the first thing that needs to be said is that this is the fault of Hamas, and it is not our fault. And it doesn't matter if we roll trucks in there tomorrow. That food would be taken. It would be stolen. It would be distributed by Hamas to their fighting soldiers, and the dying and the suffering of the women and children would continue.
This thing is badly aimed. It does not, in any way, lay the fault where it belongs, and that is at the feet of Hamas. So based on all that--I share your objective--this gets us nowhere. And worse than that, it doesn't point out where the problem is.
Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Vermont.
Madam President, I want the Senator from Idaho, the esteemed chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to know that when it comes to condemning Hamas for what it did on October 7, for what it has done to the Palestinians in Gaza on an ongoing basis, I join you in condemning Hamas.
And this resolution does not get into the question of fault. It gets into the question of suffering. It gets into the question of the suffering of innocent people who, at times, have been victimized by Hamas but whose families are hungry, who are starving. And the point of this resolution is to say: Let's help them avoid starvation by supporting the delivery of the food and the
This, in no way, is going to solve the conflict. That is a point the Senator made, and he has got a point to be made. But if we do all we can to facilitate the delivery of aid, it means that we are doing all we can to ease the suffering of innocent families who have been victimized.
My view is that we should do all we can to alleviate the suffering, especially for these infants, these children, these women, and peace- loving Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace in their neighborhood.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Madam President, I want to respond to that.
First of all, I commend the Senator for his appreciation for the suffering that is going on. It is horrible. It is despicable. You have seen the photos. You have seen the video. It is a horrible, horrible situation.
One of the difficulties I have with this is that he is correct; this resolution does not assign fault, nor does it talk about fault. And that is one of the biggest problems I have with this. If this is going to be resolved, fault must be identified. The conditions on the ground have to be identified. And how this is going to be resolved has to be identified, none of which is considered in here. It is simply a suggestion that simply taking food there is going to resolve this problem, and we have done that. We have food there. It is ready to go in.
As I said, three things need to happen, and it is in the hands solely of Hamas--not in Israel, not in Netanyahu, not in our President, not in the people of the United States' hands. It is in the hands of Hamas. And that is, if they simply release the hostages, lay down their arms and surrender, it is over. The food flows in. There is not another bullet fired. That is all that has to happen. But what has to be recognized in this is how this is going to end. There is only one way this can end, and that is with complete and total destruction of Hamas.
This is very similar to what the United States of America and its allies did in the late 1930s. We decided that the Nazis were so bad that they could not exist as a military force, as a political force, or as a cultural force, and we decided they needed to be eliminated.
That is what Israel decided it has to do to protect itself. That is what it is doing.
But Hamas can stop this. They can stop it in a minute, and they are not showing any signs of that. So what is going to happen is this fight is going to go on until the last Hamas falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
No Tax on Tips Act
Madam President, hard-working families in Nevada and all across this country are struggling to make ends meet because of rising costs on everything, from groceries to housing, all of which has been made worse by Donald Trump's tariffs that are driving prices even higher.
Nevadans, our families, we are being squeezed, and they need real relief. They need us to work together to lower costs for them. That is why I introduced the No Tax on Tips Act alongside Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, which would eliminate Federal income taxes on tipped wages.
For so many service and hospitality workers, tips aren't extra; it is part of their income that they use to make ends meet. Tips are how Nevadans pay their rent, cover their groceries, take care of their families, their kids.
And Nevada has more tipped workers per capita than any other State. So this bill would mean immediate financial relief for countless hard- working families.
No tax on tips was one of President Trump's key promises to the American people, which he unveiled in my State of Nevada. And I am not afraid to embrace a good idea wherever it comes from. So I agreed we need to get this done.
This is not a time for politics. It is a time for progress for hard- working Americans. This bipartisan bill is a good idea that has support from Democrats and Republicans. So we should pass it as soon as possible without any poison pills.
The problem is that the House Republicans have included a version of the No Tax on Tips Act in their bigger budget bill--a bill that cuts Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs families rely on, to give more tax breaks for billionaires and the ultrawealthy.
So we shouldn't be forcing working families to choose between keeping their healthcare or keeping their tips, which is why we want this bipartisan bill to pass on its own--on its own--not part of a harmful, extreme budget bill.
If we are serious about providing service employees with financial relief, let's do it now. Let's do it today because the American people, they get sick and tired of Washington games.
So let's pass this bill without playing politics, without taking away healthcare and food assistance from families who need it the most. Let's pass it by itself.
That is why I am calling on the Senate to pass the bipartisan No Tax on Tips Act right here, right now, as a stand-alone bill. We are going to cut taxes for real hard-working Americans, for Nevadans, for everyone, not just for billionaires. We are going to cut taxes on service workers' tips without cutting Medicaid or SNAP. And let's get this done with strong guardrails so CEOs and the ultrawealthy don't exploit loopholes meant to help working people. Let's pass it today.
Nevadans sent me here to fight for them, and so I am going to keep working to lower costs, to raise wages, and to make sure people who power our economy--our working families--can keep more of what they earn. And through this bipartisan bill, it shows that I am not going to allow Washington gridlock and partisanship to block a bill without a fight. That is why we are going to pass it today, taking matters into my own hands, with the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to pass our bipartisan No Tax on Tips Act by unanimous consent.
And so, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 129 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Madam President, I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 129) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Madam President, before I yield my time to the Senator from Texas, I just want to say this is great news for Nevada. Our bill just passed. Our hospitality and service staff are working harder than ever while being squeezed by rising costs. This bill is not the be-all and end-all, but it is going to offer immediate financial relief while the Senate continues to work to lower costs and find other avenues of relief for hard-working families.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Madam President, I remember, as a kid in Sunday school, thinking what it would have been like to live in Israel in the age of the apostles, in the time of miracles. And yet, perhaps we have been transformed to another time of miracles.
Yesterday, I was at the White House, where President Trump signed into law bipartisan legislation--my legislation--the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which I authored with Senator Amy Klobuchar to protect women, to protect teenage girls, to protect young people online from nonconsensual intimate images.
We saw both parties come together and pass landmark legislation, and just a moment ago, 24 hours later, we saw the same thing happen.
So I thank my colleague from Nevada for moving for this to pass by unanimous consent. And I want everyone to reflect on what you just saw happen because it is consequential.
Last year, in the midst of the Presidential campaign, President Trump, at a rally in Las Vegas, announced his policy proposal of no tax on tips. And the Presiding Officer will recall that, the week after he announced that, he came and had lunch with the Republican Senators, and he told us the backstory of where the idea came from.
He said he was sitting at a hotel in Las Vegas, getting ready to go to his rally, and he said he was having lunch there. And he said a waitress came by, and he said: She was beautiful; she was beautiful-- which I believe him. And he said she was complaining about the burden and the paperwork of paying taxes on tips and how challenging it was.
And he said he pulled out a pad of paper, and he just wrote on the pad of paper: No tax on tips.
He said: What do you think of this?
And she said: Great.
And he went to the rally, and he announced it. And as he told us, the entire crowd went nuts.
Now, I have to say, when he announced that policy, I thought that was policy genius. The next week, I drafted legislation to implement no taxes on tips, and I introduced it in the Senate the very next week. And within days, both Senators from Nevada joined my bill as cosponsors.
As the Senator from Nevada just described, she told me on the floor-- she said 25 percent of all workers in the State of Nevada are tipped workers. And this is commonsense, bipartisan tax reform.
Look, I think we ought to be fighting for waiters and waitresses. We ought to be fighting for bartenders, taxicab drivers, Uber drivers. We ought to be fighting for beauticians and nail salon workers. We ought to be fighting for all the men and women who are working and working hard. We ought to be fighting for casino workers. Sorry to leave them out. As a longtime poker player, I certainly don't want to leave them out. But we ought to be fighting for blue-collar workers across this country.
And I will say, I have been urging--I have urged the House of Representatives and I have urged the White House that we should take up No Tax on Tips in the House and pass it. And I said: Look, if the House passes it, I think there is a very real chance the Senate will pass it. It is bipartisan legislation.
And what we just saw is the Senate passing No Tax on Tips 100 to 0. Every Democrat voted yes. Every Republican voted yes. And, by the way, the backstory--just kind of pulling the curtain back on how this process operates--the way the process operates is, when you are seeking to pass something by unanimous consent, you circulate what is called a hotline, and every Senator gets the chance to say: Are you going to object?
And on the Republican side, every Senator said: Nope, good by me.
And on the Democrat side, every Senator said: Nope, good by me.
And so this is now passed, and we are sending it to the House of Representatives.
Here is the good news. With what we just saw now, the certainty that we will see No Tax on Tips become the law of the land, I think, is very close to 100 percent. As the Senator from Nevada mentioned, it is included in the House's One Big Beautiful Bill, and whether it passes freestanding or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, No Tax on Tips is going to become law and give real relief to hard-working Americans.
So I am proud of what the Senate just did, and I commend Democrats and Republicans, even at a time of partisan division, coming together and agreeing on this commonsense policy. I think that is terrific for workers in all 50 States.
I yield the floor.
Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act: Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Madam President, Evyatar David has always loved music, singing, and playing instruments with his brother Ilay and his sister Yaela at Shabbat dinners. Evyatar dreams of becoming a music producer one day, and that love of music led Evyatar to the Negev Desert for the Nova Music Festival on October 7, 2023. For months, he had been looking forward to a weekend of music and friends. But instead, Evyatar, is now, as I speak these words on the Senate floor, living his 591st day of captivity in a Hamas dungeon under Gaza.
His brother Ilay told me recently that another hostage, recently freed, brought him a message from Evyatar that Evyatar misses most of all playing music with his family. Instead, Evyatar has been starved and kept in chains with a bag over his head. He and his best friend Guy Gilboa-Dalal have been held together and tortured together.
Evyatar and Guy both have younger sisters, older brothers, parents, friends whose lives are shattered by their absence.
This is Evyatar before, but recent photos show a man abused and malnourished. And he was recently taken to witness the release of other hostages and then returned to captivity simply to torment him.
I first met Evyatar's brother Ilay when he visited Atlanta and then hosted Ilay in my office here in the Senate, and I was inspired by the tenacity of his hope and his relentless effort to ensure his brother is not forgotten. And today I rise to demand Evyatar's freedom and to demand yet again the release of all hostages held in Gaza.
Many of us in Atlanta's Jewish community, including Ohr HaTorah, Beth Jacob, B'nai Torah, and now all of the synagogues of the Atlanta Rabbinical Assembly have decided to adopt Evyatar's case, to call relentlessly for his immediate release and to ensure he is not forgotten or left for dead.
This 24-year-old man has now spent two birthdays in brutal captivity, where he remains right now at this moment, but he belongs at home with his family.
Evyatar, you are not forgotten.
Free Evyatar David. Free him now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 217 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
I would like to make some remarks. If my colleague is going to make some remarks, I would yield to her first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
I am reserving the right to object. I will object, and we can make our remarks after.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, is presenting a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of the American people. He oversees 13 Agencies that are critical to U.S. health policy and the health of our Nation. One such Agency, the National Institutes of Health, is the world's leading Agency for public health research, and I am proud to represent many of the scientists who work there as the Senator from Maryland. This is the place that the Nation looks to for discoveries in public health. This is where the world looks to to fight global health crises. This is the beacon of American exceptionalism.
Over the last 40 years, NIH has helped reduce deaths from heart disease by 75 percent, deaths from stroke are down 75 percent, and NIH funding has led the fight to save countless lives with groundbreaking discoveries. NIH is the greatest credit to sustaining medical research in history.
But now, we are dealing with an administration that is a direct threat to our health. Since Donald Trump has taken office, NIH has fired 1,300 employees and has canceled more than $2 billion in Federal research grants. He wants to cut the NIH budget by 40 percent, and these cuts would be carried out by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., one of the most unqualified individuals that we have seen to hold that position.
Secretary Kennedy took an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which he was about to enter, and to this point, he has utterly failed and is making Americans sicker.
Look at what he has done in just 4 months. We are currently watching the largest single measles outbreak in our Nation in 25 years--25 years. There are 1,000 cases, and one-third of them are children younger than 5 years old. Three people have died, including two young children.
For years, Secretary Kennedy, without an ounce of medical training, has spread lies and conspiracy theories about safe and effective vaccines--vaccines that literally prevent measles. A qualified HHS Secretary would highlight the effectiveness of vaccines and urge people to continue getting vaccinated. A capable Secretary would have some sense of compassion for suffering children. The Secretary we have, instead, chose to downplay the deaths and encourage untested treatments. This is dangerous. Americans will get sicker, and, in fact, they already have.
Our Nation has made incredible gains in IVF and infertility treatment, raising the birth rate through IVF dramatically over the last 30 years, but just last month, Secretary Kennedy fired the entire team at CDC who works on IVF and infertility research. Secretary Kennedy fired most of the employees at the CDC's Division of Reproductive Health, which helps to promote healthy pregnancies. Secretary Kennedy fired staff at the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, which oversees important programs that support children and pregnant women.
Countless women across the country have become mothers thanks to the incredible advancements in IVF, and a good number of this President's women supporters supported him because he vowed to make the treatment more accessible. How dare this man take that away from them.
Our Nation has made great progress in the fight to eliminate HIV and AIDS, building on an understanding of how to treat the virus and getting closer to finding a cure--until now. Secretary Kennedy has now cut funding for dozens of HIV-related research grants.
Did you know that there is a National Firefighter Registry that was set up to study the link between the hazards of the job and firefighters developing cancers? Well, that registry has now been taken down at Secretary Kennedy's bidding.
This is part of a heartless trend. They are destroying what decades of research has built. The billions in funding cuts and thousands of staff cuts threaten the race to find cures for Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, and other devastating illnesses. The impact will be felt far beyond our borders, and it will be generational.
For decades, we have taken the lead on the global stage in research and development. We have taken the lead in fighting global health challenges. Many of the world's brightest researchers come here to join the fight. The top research agencies around the world partner with us. Public health is a responsibility that we must lead. R.F.K. is singlehandedly destroying that reputation, setting us back potentially decades.
The eyes of the world are on us. Most look to us to lead; some look for us to stumble. But they are watching to see what we do. Having Secretary Kennedy as the face of our Nation's health and research operation sends a terrible
To my colleagues, we took an oath as well. We have a duty--a duty--to do what is right, and we know that R.F.K., Jr., is not right for America.
I want to thank my colleague and partner here in Maryland, Senator Van Hollen, as well as Senators Wyden and Warren, for joining me in this effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Madam President, I want to explain the reason for my objection.
This is another of many attempts that have been made to stop the efforts of President Trump and his Cabinet and the rest of the administration in downsizing our bloated bureaucracy and trying to bring a little bit of control to the amazing growth of our Federal Government without causing the damage that is always alleged that is being done.
From groundbreaking biomedical advancements through the NIH to critical healthcare coverage for America's most vulnerable patients, the Department of Health and Human Services oversees many of the Federal Government's most essential functions. But far too often, these programs fall short of their well-intended purpose.
Bureaucratic overreach has resulted in the loss of trust from many Americans. Waste, fraud, and abuse have contributed to excessive spending without meaningful improvements in outcomes, and that is driving our national debt now to $37 or $38 trillion.
Secretary Kennedy has committed to addressing these failures. He has made himself and his staff available to Congress and the American people to restore faith in our institutions. When issues have arisen, Secretary Kennedy has worked quickly to remedy the problem. In fact, in recent days, Secretary Kennedy has appeared before two Senate committees to have an open, transparent conversation about the Department's efforts.
Last week, the Senate Finance Committee moved to advance more nominees who will assist in the Department's management and communication with Congress.
Secretary Kennedy and his team deserve time to deliver on the promise of putting patients first, promoting transparency, and following the science.
For these reasons, I objected to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each: myself, Senator Whitehouse, and Democratic Leader Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to make very, very clear--not just to our Republican colleagues but to history--exactly what is at stake. Let there be no doubt. Senate Republicans are threatening to go nuclear on Senate procedure to gut California's Clean Air Act waivers.
But this isn't just about California's climate policies, and this isn't just about the scope of the Congressional Review Act. This isn't even just about eliminating the legislative filibuster. No. What Republicans are proposing to do would go far beyond just eliminating the filibuster. If they insist on plowing forward, Federal Agencies will now have unilateral power to trigger privilege on the Senate floor with no institutional check from the legislative branch.
Just as EPA has submitted California's waivers with full knowledge that they are not actually rules, other Agencies will now be free to submit any type of action, going back to 1996. Think licenses, permits, leases, loan agreements, drug approvals. There would be no limit.
Now, we have been safe from this kind of abuse until now because the Senate has a process in place for the Government Accountability Office to help the Senate Parliamentarian determine privilege for the purposes of the CRA. But Republicans are now threatening to throw that process out. And the consequences of throwing the rule book out the window will be very, very serious, but it is not too late to turn back.
Republicans must understand exactly what they are doing. So, today, I think it is important to establish some facts about the process that protects the Senate from Agencies that try to game the system.
Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. President, is it correct that the then-Senate Parliamentarian, in 2008, in coordination with bipartisan Senate leadership and committee staff, developed a Senate procedure for determining what qualifies for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act when an Agency fails to submit an action to Congress and that a precedent under that procedure was first established in 2012?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct.
And is it correct that that procedure, which uses a GAO determination as to the nature of the Agency action, whether or not it is a rule, has been implemented numerous times by Senators on both sides of the aisle, including one occasion where a GAO letter gave rise to a joint resolution of disapproval which became law?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I join the ranking member of the Rules Committee with a parliamentary inquiry of my own.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. President, is it true that unless a piece of legislation is privileged under a rule or a statutory provision or is the subject of a unanimous consent agreement, motions to proceed to that legislation are generally fully debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
That is correct. And for those of you following this at home, ``fully debatable'' means 60 votes are required to end debate, which Republicans do not have.
Mr. President, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Is it commonplace for Senate offices and for whichever Senator is presiding over the Senate to consult with the Parliamentarian to determine whether and in what manner expedited procedures apply under a host of statutes, including the War Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, the Congressional Budget Act, and the Congressional Review Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
Again, for those of you following this at home, that means that this is the commonplace way in which the Senate operates and when it becomes the Parliamentarian's call on a matter and not anyone else's call.
So in the Congressional Review Act matter before us, here is what happened: Both sides drafted written memoranda to the Parliamentarian. Both sides presented oral arguments to the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian asked questions of both sides, and the Parliamentarian, our neutral referee, reached a decision.
That all took place here in the Senate--actually, over there in the L.B.J. Room. The GAO was not even in the room when the arguments were made. And that decision, the decision of the Parliamentarian, is what is now at hand in what is about to happen here in the Senate.
And with that, let me note the presence on the floor of the Democratic leader and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, is it true that the Parliamentarian advised leadership offices that the joint resolutions of disapproval regarding the California waivers at issue does not qualify
The PRESIDING OFFICER. While the chair has no personal knowledge of those circumstances, the Parliamentarian has advised me that such advice was given.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Before I yield, I want everyone to understand what the essence of my question was. This week, the Republicans want to use a legislative tool known as the CRA in an unprecedented way: to repeal emissions waivers that the fossil fuel industry has long detested.
The CRA has never been used to go after emission waivers like the ones in question today. The waiver is so important to the health of our country, and particularly to our children, to go nuclear on something as significant as this and to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry is outrageous.
And we just heard in response to my inquiry just now that the Parliamentarian affirmed this, that these California waivers are not-- not--eligible for the expedited procedures that the CRA affords.
That means that legislation to repeal these waivers should be subject to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. To use the CRA in the way that Republicans propose is going nuclear--no ands, ifs, or buts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I wonder if any other Member of this Chamber grew up like I did where on a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley, the city of Los Angeles.
How many of you grew up to more reports of unhealthy air quality in the air quality index or hazardous air quality forecast for that particular day than it was just clean air?
But that is the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it is the reason why decades ago Congress recognized both California's unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity and granted California special authority to do something about it.
And thanks to the bipartisan Clean Air Act of over 50 years ago, California has had that legal authority to set its own emission standards, to petition and be granted waivers to be able to show leadership--for over 50 years--because Congress recognized, rightfully so, that air quality in West Virginia or Wyoming is different than it is in Southern California, that there are fewer cars on the road in Salt Lake City than there are in Los Angeles, and because California was, and still is, the center of innovation in the United States.
Yet in 2025, it appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedence in order to undermine California's ability to protect the health of our residents.
By using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California's waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emissions standards, Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the Big Oil industry over the health of our constituents.
What happened? You know, nearly 60 years ago, it was Republican Governor Ronald Reagan who established the State Air Resources Board in California. And 3 years later, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who signed amendments to the Clean Air Act, fulfilling promises he made in that year's State of the Union, that clean air should ``be the birthright of every American.''
I wonder if Governor, future-President Reagan and President Nixon would recognize their own party today.
I also want to take a moment to speak to parents of young children, not just in California but across the country, because parents are rightfully concerned about the safety of what our children eat, what medications they take.
You know, as parents, we have some level of control over certain things like the food we give our kids or the medications that we provide, but some things that we can't control as parents include the quality of the air they breathe outside. We can't individually control the toxic nitrogen oxides, the carbon monoxide, the sulfur dioxide, the benzene, and particulate matter that flood into our air and into our children's lungs.
Now, unless industry were to somehow decide to suddenly just do the right thing, it is incumbent upon government to act. And that is what California has done. But, of course, this discussion debate is more than just about public health. California's emissions standards also represent ambitious but achievable steps to cut carbon emissions and fight the climate crisis.
We have taken a stand because we know transportation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and California has been proud to set the example for other States who may choose to follow suit.
Now, I use the word ``choose,'' and I will use it repeatedly, because over and over again in this debate, I have heard some arguments coming from Republicans that I think are misleading the American public. I hear arguments like, well, California ``isn't simply setting a stricter standard for itself; it's setting a new national standard.''
Or California's ``emission standards would become de facto national ones.''
So I want to be clear. California has not and cannot force our emission standards on any other State in the Nation. As much as I may love that authority, that does not exist.
But, yes, over a dozen other States have voluntarily followed in California's footsteps, not because they were forced to, but because they chose to in order to protect their constituents, their residents, and protect our planet.
And the truth is, they do have a tremendous blueprint to follow. California is now the fourth largest economy in the world and the largest contributor to the Federal Treasury. California didn't get there by sticking our head in the sand as the clean energy transition blossomed elsewhere. We leaned in, and we proved that what is good for the air is good for business. What is good for the planet and public health is good for the economy.
But, meanwhile, the cost of inaction continues to hit Americans where it hurts the most: in our wallets. In 2021, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that air pollution from fossil fuels cost Americans an average of $2,500 a year in medical bills--or over $820 billion in total.
So, no, this isn't just about Republicans defending against some California power grab or fighting on behalf of the little guy, which brings me to my final point--because it is not just why Republicans are trying to undermine California's climate leadership; it is how they are trying to do it.
Now, I have been very clear on where I stand on the filibuster that has been applied counterargument in several conversations here amongst colleagues. Yes, I do support lowering the threshold to move to pass a bill from a supermajority to a simple majority--but only after there has been an opportunity for amendments and debate--in an effort to stop the endless partisan gridlock that prevents so much more progress that the American people deserve.
I have voted to make that rule change and codify it in the Senate rules; but in 2022, when we did so, Republicans opposed it, and they defended the filibuster and the 60-vote threshold as sacred.
Today, as the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, I want to make sure everyone understands exactly what Republicans are trying to do here, now.
The Clean Air Act passed this body under regular order by a vote of 88-12 in 1967. The Landmark Clean Air Act amendments passed the Senate 89-11 in 1990 by overwhelming bipartisan support.
But now Republicans are trying to pass these bills that strike at the heart of the Clean Air Act's provision for California on a simple majority 50-vote threshold, bypassing the filibuster.
Republicans certainly must know that they don't have the votes to amend the Clean Air Act under regular order. If they did, they would choose that path. They also know that Congress doesn't have the authority to amend the Clean Air Act through the Congressional Review Act.
Don't just take my word for it; they heard it from the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office--not just once but twice. And
So what Republicans are now trying to do is truly unprecedented, and it is about far more than simply California's clean energy policies. Republicans are threatening to vote on whether or not to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian.
Republicans are effectively saying that whenever the Parliamentarian rules against them, they can simply disregard her to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation on a simple majority vote. So, no, this isn't some one-off change to the rules; this is throwing out the rule book entirely. Because if they can ignore the Parliamentarian here, then why not on an upcoming tax bill or on their efforts to gut healthcare for many Americans or whatever the latest overreach is called for by President Trump?
This goes way beyond the filibuster. The Trump administration could send an endless stream of nonrule actions to Congress, going back to 1996, including vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, merger approvals, and any number of government decisions that apply to President Trump's long list of enemies.
All it would take is a minority of 30 Senators to introduce related bills, and the Senate would be bogged down voting on Agency grocery lists all day long. Is that how we want to spend our days here at the Senate, voting on every vaccine approval because Secretary Kennedy decides to send them to Congress?
So to my Republican colleagues, I should also say this: The old adage says ``what goes around comes around,'' and it won't be long before Democrats are once again in the driver's seat here, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off because of the precedent you could be setting here at this moment.
Think mining permits. Think fossil fuel project approvals. Think LNG export licenses or offshore leases, IRS tax policies, foreign policy, every Project 2025 or DOGE disruption. Every Agency action that Democrats don't like--whether it is a rule or not and no matter how much time has passed--would be fair game if Republicans set this new precedent.
So I suggest that we all think long and hard and very carefully about this. And I would urge my colleagues--all my colleagues--to join me, not just in defending California's rights to protect the health of our residents, not just in combatting the existential threat of climate change, but in maintaining order in this Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, let me start with just a quick overview of the Congressional Review Act which brings us here to the floor today.
Under the American legal system, administrative Agencies can make rules, and there is a very robust process for doing so. The Agency often gives a notice of proposed rulemaking so the world will know what they are considering doing and then solicit comment from affected stakeholders, the public, a wide variety of people.
So you start with an Agency that seeks to make a rule. They have to follow the processes of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is a very careful statute, well-policed by the courts, with a very robust precedent around that. And at the end of the day, the Agency creates a rule, and they adopt the rule.
Now, you could always appeal that rule to a court, but what Congress decided many years ago was that in that situation where an Agency had gone through the APA process and had promulgated a rule, that there would also be a congressional review of that rule, not just a court.
And the filing of the rule here in Congress triggers a period of review in which Senators or Members of the House can call up the Congressional Review Act and seek to disapprove the rule.
So this whole thing was originally designed and--for all the decades since the Congressional Review Act was first passed--has always been to address Agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Well, the fossil fuel industry pretty much runs the Republican Party here in Washington. And for a long time, it has objected to California having clean air standards that many States, including my State, voluntarily follow because it is good for the health of our people to have clean air; it is good to have less smokestack emissions, less exhaust emissions.
But it means less gas sales for the fossil fuel industry. Efficient cars may mean lower costs for consumers, but those lower costs for consumers are lower sales for the fossil fuel industry.
So the majority here has decided to jump outside that tradition that it takes a rule developed by an Agency to kick off the Congressional Review Act.
In this case, again, for decades, pursuant to a statute, California has had the right to set emissions standards, and it was never done by rule; it was always done by an Executive action--in this case, called a waiver. And what is now being done is a real violence to that distinct and clear process.
This breaks the Congressional Review Act in at least three ways: First, it breaks the time limits of the Congressional Review Act. Again, in the ordinary course, a rulemaking goes through its ordinary process under the APA; and when it is done, it then comes here to the Senate, and we have got a short period of time in which to make a determination whether to try to disapprove it or not.
Under the proposal that is threatened here, you will be able to take any Executive decision in decades and simply by dropping it into the Federal Register, making that submission, and sending it to Congress, let the majority party say: OK, we are going to overrule that. Not a rulemaking, nothing done under the Administrative Procedures Act, just an Executive decision. So the window back in time outside of the ordinary 60 days is the first thing that they broke.
The second thing that they break is that it has to be a rule. Like I said, pretty much any Executive action could be plowed through the process that is being created here. And so however settled the reliance on a particular permit or a particular license or a particular Executive decision from years ago, it is all up for grabs under this.
And the third, of course--other than breaking open the time horizon of the Congressional Review Act and breaking open the subject matter horizon of the Congressional Review Act--is to clear out the police of the Congressional Review Act, and that is the Parliamentarian, who made what, in my view, was not a difficult decision, to say: This is not a rule, never was a rule. Year after year, administration after administration, Congress after Congress, California has used this waiver, and it was never a rule. And now, the Parliamentarian's plain, clear, obvious decision that this was not and is not and never was a rule is what they are planning to overturn.
So you are breaking open the time horizon; you are breaking open the subject matter boundary; and you are knocking out the neutral police officer who is supposed to keep us living by the rules. This does not end well.
By the way, I have heard it said that the argument from the other side is going to be they are not overruling the Parliamentarian; they are overruling the Government Accountability Office. Well, if that is what they wanted to do, there are ways to do that. If the Government Accountability Office says that the law says a certain thing and we disagree, we can go back and change that law. We can amend it so that it is clear what it is that we want the law to say and correct the GAO decision that way. We can pass a joint resolution that does the same thing. We could even pass a simple Senate resolution.
But guess what. All of those things are fully debatable. And as I said earlier, ``fully debatable'' means what? It means 60 votes to end debate, meaning that the minority party gets a vote, gets consideration.
They don't want that. They want to ram this thing through for their fossil fuel donors. Period. End of story. They don't care what they break. But, please, don't pretend that you are overruling GAO.
My team, along with Senator Padilla's team, was in the L.B.J. Room making those arguments to the Parliamentarian. There was robust debate. We filed briefs. Questions were asked. The whole thing was a very vigorous contest, and she ruled--and she ruled.
And GAO was not even in the room. That stage was long since passed.
The reason we are here is to overrule the Parliamentarian. The reason for overruling the Parliamentarian is to get a simple majority to get around this.
There are other ways this could have been done too. EPA didn't have to do it this way. EPA could have gone through the Administrative Procedures Act and done a proper rulemaking. We could have amended the Clean Air Act and had a proper debate about this on the Senate floor. EPA would have followed regular Administrative Procedures Act order. The debate about the Clean Air Act would have followed regular Senate order. But no.
Or the fossil fuel industry could have gone to California and said: Hey, things have changed a little bit. We would like to figure out a way to work with you. You change your rule. They are the real principal party here; Rhode Island follows the California standard. They could have gone and negotiated with the sovereign State of California instead of coming here to just roll the State using a sneaky parliamentary maneuver and choosing to go nuclear to do that.
So this is not a great day in the history of the Senate. We are opening up a Pandora's box of multiple abuses, and let me just point out that there actually are a lot of legitimate CRA, Congressional Review Act, targets out there--many dozens of decisions that have been made in this Congress that lend themselves to a proper use of the Congressional Review Act.
And, guess what, it takes 30 signatures to bring one of those up. The minority can do that.
So if the majority wants to start playing CRA games, well, even under existing CRAs, where we don't need a 51-vote majority, we can start bringing up CRAs of our own, expedite them to the floor, have vote after vote after vote after vote after vote.
There are ways in which we can respond. I intend to work with my leadership to make sure what the best way is but don't think that this nuclear option gets deployed here, gets deployed for the fossil fuel industry, gets deployed against a sovereign State, and gets deployed to make air dirtier and water dirtier, and we just walk away as if nothing happened. That is not what will follow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, here we are, the moment that we have been warning about, the moment the majority and its Members used to say, under their leadership, would never come. And yet here we are, the week our colleagues may push to go nuclear and override the Parliamentarian, killing the filibuster, and going against their word to unwind 60 years of precedent and policy.
And no matter what anyone says, that is what is happening. Our colleagues will be overturning the Parliamentarian to end California's right to cleaner air. The majority promised:
I am old enough to remember just when it was they said it because it was their majority leader just 19 weeks ago--19 weeks ago.
But not to worry, the majority says, this is not what this is about, they claim. Instead, we have heard the majority try to dress this up as an attack on the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, saying that their unprecedented action was preceded, almost warranted, by the GAO's actions.
Yes, my colleagues Senator Whitehouse, Senator Padilla, and myself went to the GAO to ask for their guidance on whether this expedited measure, called the CRA, could be used to target California's waiver, California's right to establish stronger clean air standards.
And, yes, the GAO responded, affirming that this expedited process, this CRA, does not apply, that these are not rules; that if they want to strike down California's clean air rules, they can do so but not in this summary fashion, not without 60 votes.
That is the ruling that the Parliamentarian has reaffirmed and which the majority now wants to strike down.
But let's be clear. Going to the GAO was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it was exactly what both parties have done when adjudicating this issue for decades. There are Senators serving in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, who have made use of the exact same process by going to the GAO. There have been more than 20 different opinions delivered by the GAO at the request of Republican Senators and Members of Congress in the last three decades, more than 20 times.
And in the cases where the GAO found that the CRA may not apply, this expedited process may not apply, that decision has stood. They did not move forward and respected the rulings of the GAO and the Parliamentarian until now.
So what does all of this mean? What it means is, California has established clean air standards. It was given a waiver under the Clean Air Act to do so. It has done so for decades. Those standards have been adopted voluntarily by other States and, as a result, in California and many other States, we have cleaner air to breathe--until now--until now when the majority has decided to abolish the filibuster so that they could eradicate California's clean air standards so that they could use a summary process that doesn't apply here to get over the hurdle that they require 60 votes in order to do this.
And I urge my colleagues and the American people not to be distracted by suggestions that nothing is going on here, nothing new is going on here, no precedent is being set here because it is; and that is to eliminate the filibuster in the service of the oil industry--in the service of the oil industry.
Whether it is an attack on the GAO or the Parliamentarian, the new ground we find ourselves in today is dangerous, both in the effects it will have on California and on this body--in California, in particular, because it means that this Congress is abolishing the filibuster so that Californians will have to breathe dirtier air. That is what this is about. They want to abolish the filibuster so that polluters can pollute more and Californians have to breathe dirtier air because they know they don't have the votes for it otherwise.
And taken together, my colleagues are embarking on a path that will forever change the Senate. It will not just mean dirtier air for California and dirtier air for all the other States that have adopted California's higher standard; it will also mean that the filibuster is gone for a whole range of things.
Now, I represent a State that makes up 1 out of every 10 Americans. It is the fourth largest economy in the world. So 1 out of every 10 Americans is going to be deeply impacted, and, of course, if you add all of the other States that have adopted this higher standard for their citizens, it may be more like 1 out of every 5.
But it is more than that as well because what we have at stake is also a State's ability, its right to make its own laws and to protect its own citizens without having this body overturn that right.
This week's vote is shortsighted because it is going to have devastating impacts for our Nation's health, but it is more than that. And it should send a chill down the spine of legislators in every State and communities across the country, regardless of their political affiliation, because the Senate is now setting a new standard and one that will haunt us in the future, and it will haunt those States whose Senators vote to go down this path.
Make no mistake, today it is California and our ability to set our own air quality standards, but tomorrow it can be your own State's priorities made into a target by this vote to open the Pandora's box of the Congressional Review Act.
That oil drilling lease that one of your States got approved? That can be on the chopping block with the simple majority now if the filibuster is eliminated. That license for a new energy hub? Gone with a simple vote of this body. That new community grant? Gone with a simple vote of this body. That is fair game now if the majority adopts this tact. This vote to expand the power of this expedited process called the Congressional Review Act will be used to target Democratic and Republican priorities alike.
I moved to Los Angeles in 1985. I remember what it was like to breathe the air in Los Angeles in the 1980s. I have seen images of what the air was like in Los Angeles in the 1970s and the 1960s and the 1950s. We are a basin. And with
There is a reason why California got this waiver decades ago because there were unique challenges facing places like Los Angeles, and so California acted to protect its own citizens.
But if your State acts to protect your citizens--whether it is from dirty air that can give you lung cancer or whether it is pollutants in the water that can give you all other kinds of cancer--do we really want this body, on a simple majority vote, to be able to eviscerate what the States are doing to protect their own citizens?
I urge my colleagues again not to abandon States' rights in the Senate this week because this may be a policy that you agree with today, but the thing is about a slippery slope, you can be the one who starts down the slope, but you don't get to be the one who decides where it stops.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Rhode Island's Senate President Dominick Ruggerio of North Providence, RI, who passed away on April 21, 2025, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. As the longest serving member of the Rhode Island State Senate, Donny was affectionately known as the ``Dean'' of the senate.
I first met Donny as a young man when we both attended La Salle Academy in Providence, RI. We played high school football together, and indeed he was a remarkable gentleman then, both on and off the field. One of the things we discovered is that--Donny was about 6 feet 2 inches. He was a wide receiver. He would be running down the field, looking at the goal line with nothing in front of him, catch the ball, and then he would trip over me. I was a defensive halfback. So we got to know each other pretty well.
He was one of the nicest gentlemen you could ever meet. He was especially kind and reached out to the younger players on the team, you know, encouraging us and also acting as sort of a custodian in making sure we got a chance and we weren't mistreated. Throughout his entire life, Donny carried that spirit to raise others up and provide opportunities for all.
Then I later had the privilege of serving with him in the Rhode Island State Senate from 1985 to 1990. Once again, he paved the way for me with his advice and assistance. Indeed, his quiet commitment to the people of Rhode Island had always been an inspiration to me and, frankly, to anyone who ever met him.
Donny was a strong advocate for organized labor and joined the Laborers' International Union of North America as a field representative and organizer, eventually becoming administrator of the New England Laborers' Labor-Management Cooperation Trust.
Donny started his public service long before we linked up again in the State senate. He began working for the late Lieutenant Governor Thomas DiLuglio and then the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. His career continued in public service in the 1980s, when he was elected as representative of House District 5 in Providence, RI. Four years later, he succeeded his father-in-law, Majority Leader Rocco Quattrocchi, to Rhode Island Senate District No. 4, beginning his 40-year tenure in the Rhode Island State Senate.
In that role in the senate, Donny served as vice chairman of the senate labor committee, senate majority whip, deputy majority leader, and majority leader. In 2017, he was honored by his colleagues with his election to the Office of Senate President. The hallmark of Donny's leadership style was to have an open-door policy which encouraged colleagues and constituents and elected officials to become engaged. He devoted his life to improving our community, to strengthening public health and public safety, and to creating new opportunities for all Rhode Islanders to thrive. He made significant strides toward improving the lives of working Rhode Islanders, and he is credited with spearheading efforts to preserve pensions and raise the minimum wage.
In the face of recent, incredible, and ultimately insurmountable health challenges, Donny valiantly sought reelection last November in his beloved community and was returned by his senate colleagues to his post of senate president after he won reelection. He led the senate with tenacity and unwavering dedication.
Throughout his decades of public service to his constituents in North Providence and Providence and to the entire State of Rhode Island, he was strongly committed to fulfilling his responsibilities, obligations, and tasks with a sense of accountability, decency, and honor. He led his life with purpose and served the people of Rhode Island extremely well.
Donny leaves behind a devoted family, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the Ruggerio family: his children Charles Ruggerio and his wife Jillian and Amanda Fallon and her husband William; his grandchildren Ava Ruggerio, Mia Ruggerio, Natalie Fallon, and Jameson Fallon; his sister Lisa Aceto and brother-in-law James Aceto; and his nieces and nephews.
I will miss Donny's friendship, his unwavering advocacy for our State and the people who make it a special place. Rhode Island is much better today because of senate President Ruggerio's leadership and dedication. He inspired us all and will continue to do so.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I join my senior Senator today to honor our friend Dominick Ruggerio, who was both president and the dean of the Rhode Island Senate.
President Ruggerio, who passed away last month, was affectionately known as ``Donny.'' He leaves behind his children Amanda and Charles and four beloved grandchildren.
Donny was a graduate of two great Rhode Island institutions--La Salle Academy and Providence College. At La Salle, Senator Reed was his schoolmate and teammate on the football team.
After finishing college, Donny served as a policy aide for former Lieutenant Governor Tom DiLuglio, who was a Rhode Island classic in his own right. Donny went on to spend many years with Laborers' Local Union 271, serving in multiple leadership roles.
Donny's career in public service continued when he was elected to the Rhode Island House of Representatives, in 1981, where he stayed for a few years until making the jump to the Rhode Island Senate, in 1984, where then-State Senator Jack Reed was again his teammate in the State senate.
The senate was Donny's home. For over four decades, he was the champion for the residents of District 4, which includes parts of North Providence and Providence. After holding several leadership positions in the senate, he was elected by his peers to serve as Rhode Island's senate president in 2017. His legacy at the statehouse will be defined by his decades of forceful advocacy for working people and his practical, highly effective style of legislating.
He never forgot his background as a laborer and never stopped working to create opportunities for working men and women. To that end, he fought for a higher minimum wage and for specific projects that would create union, family-supporting jobs. He also led the charge to eliminate lead pipes, making our tap water safer to drink for Rhode Islanders.
Among his many accomplishments was his work to address the State's opioid crisis. He created a fund to support statewide opioid treatment, recovery, prevention, and education programs and shaped a law to ensure that filling a prescription for lifesaving anti-overdose medication would not create a barrier for Rhode Islanders getting life insurance.
I am grateful, in particular, for Donny's leadership on climate. He sponsored legislation that put Rhode Island on a path to 100 percent renewable energy by 2033. When that legislation was signed into law, it was the most aggressive statewide energy standard anywhere in the country.
Donny was beloved by his lifelong North Providence community, and he was always a pleasure to work with. In a profession that is not always gentlemanly, he was always a gentleman. He
So I thank Senate President Ruggerio for his dedicated and successful service to our State. I offer my condolences to his family. We will miss him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, on a different topic, I note that the Senate this week has started debate on the GENIUS Act. This bill establishes a regulatory framework for so-called stablecoins, which are representations of dollars recorded on a blockchain.
The GENIUS Act could be the most significant banking bill that Congress has considered since the Wall Street reform legislation that passed after the 2008 financial crisis. There are a number of, I believe, fundamental problems with the GENIUS Act in terms of national security, consumer protection, and systemic risk.
I am so pleased that the majority leader has said that we will have an open amendment process, and I look forward to filing a series of amendments to address the problems in the bill. I hope that, together, we can come up with a much better version.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
