We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
14Senate Resolution 298: Congratulating the Oklahoma State University Men's Golf Team for Winning the 2025 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men's Golf National Championship
17Senate Resolution 301: Condemning the Attacks on Minnesota Lawmakers in Brooklyn Park and Champlin, Minnesota and Calling for Unity and the Rejection of Political Violence in Minnesota and Across...
Thirteen bills and five resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 2146-2158, and S. Res. 297-301.
Pages S3515-16
Measures Reported
S. 414, to require covered digital advertising platforms to report their public service advertisements, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. (S. Rept. No. 119-32) Measures Passed: Congratulating the Oklahoma State University Men's Golf Team: Senate agreed to S. Res. 298, congratulating the Oklahoma State University men's golf team for winning the 2025 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men's Golf National Championship.
Page S3520
National Sarcoma Awareness Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 299, expressing support for the designation of July 2025 as ``National Sarcoma Awareness Month''.
Page S3520
Elder Abuse Awareness Month and Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 300, designating June 15, 2025, as ``World Elder Abuse Awareness Day'' and the month of June 2025 as ``Elder Abuse Awareness Month''.
Page S3520
Dabbar Nomination: Cloture
Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Paul Dabbar, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce.
Pages S3499-S3512
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 56 yeas to 42 nays (Vote No. EX. 324), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S3512
On page D648, Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the following language appears
Dabbar Nomination--Cloture: Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Paul Dabbar, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce.
Pages S3499-S3512
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 56 yeas to 42 nays (Vote No. EX. 323), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S3512
The online Record has been corrected to read
Dabbar Nomination-- Cloture: Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Paul Dabbar, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce.
Pages S3499-S3512
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 56 yeas to 42 nays (Vote No. EX. 324), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S3512
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for further consideration of the nomination, post-cloture, at approximately 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 4:15 p.m.; that following disposition of the nomination of Paul Dabbar, Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Kenneth Kies, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and if cloture is invoked on the nomination of Kenneth Kies, Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at time to be determined by the Majority Leader, in consultation with the Democratic Leader, on Thursday, June 26, 2025.
Page S3520
Nomination Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nomination: By 61 yeas to 35 nays (Vote No. EX. 323), Daniel Zimmerman, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Pages S3497-99, S3522
Messages from the House
30Measures Referred: 30Measures Placed on the Calendar: Communications: l Cosponsors: 30Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions: 30Additional Statements: 30Amendments Submitted: 30Authorities for Committees to Meet: s of the Floor: 30Record Votes: Two record vote was taken today. (Total--324)
Pages S3498-99, S3512
Recess
Senate convened at 2:15 p.m. and recessed at 7:08 p.m.rd Vo, until 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S3520.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 34 of 80 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Madam President, having a job gives individuals purpose and dignity. We should promote policies lifting people out of poverty.
In the 1990s, we passed welfare reform with a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. The results? Welfare rolls went down, poverty rates decreased, and employment and earnings increased.
Establishing work requirements in Medicaid for able-bodied adults with reasonable exemptions, then from the previous precedent of welfare reform--that all makes common sense yet today.
States like Iowa are already leading the way in establishing work requirements for able-bodied adults in Medicaid. Iowa's Governor Reynolds has said:
We are doing the same thing at the national level.
Work requirements under the One Big Beautiful Bill only apply to able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64. Individuals will have to complete a minimum of 80 hours of work a month, or about 20 hours a week, of qualifying community engagement activities like working, job training, going to school, volunteering, or a combination of all these.
We have reasonable exemptions for veterans with a disability rated as total, individuals who are medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs, individuals who are blind, have a substance use disorder, a disabling mental disorder, a physical or intellect disability that significantly impairs their ability to perform one or more activities of daily living, or serious or complex medical conditions.
We also have exemptions for parents, guardians, and caretaker relatives of children aged 14 or under or disabled individuals and foster care youth through the age of 26.
We give ``good cause'' exemptions for short-term hardships like hospitalizations or for an individual receiving psychiatric care. Individuals impacted by a natural disaster, living in a high- unemployment area, or having to travel outside their community for an extended period of time to receive medical service would also be exempted.
States will obviously be required to establish streamlined processes and use reliable data, like payroll data, to avoid individuals submitting their own documentation. There will also be significant outreach and education to those who will be required to work.
Labor force participation data for prime-age men--25 to 54--indicates that between 1950 to 1970, less than 1 in 30 was out of the labor force. Now--maybe it shouldn't be surprising--since then, participation declined steadily, so that 1 in 30 figure is now 1 in 10. This represents nearly 7 million prime-age men absent from the workforce.
On top of this, recent research found that nonworking Medicaid recipients spend 6 hours a day on socializing, relaxing, TV, and video games. They spend 125 hours during a 30-day month watching TV and video games alone. That is more than 50 percent higher than the 80 hours they would be required to work in a month.
Commonsense Medicaid work requirements for able-bodied adults take the same approach as welfare reform did in the 1990s--move people from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. The
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.
Madam President, today marks the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the question of abortion to the people and their elected representatives.
Three years on, there is much to celebrate. New protections for unborn Americans now exist in many States, and there are babies alive today who would not be here without Dobbs.
But today is also a reminder of how much work there is still to be done. Other States have enacted aggressively pro-abortion laws, and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute reports that there were over a million abortions in the United States in 2024. So we still have a lot of work to do to reach a day when every--every--American, born and unborn, enjoys the full protection of the law.
I am sure my Democrat colleagues have plans to commemorate the Dobbs anniversary, not as a day that opened the door to protections for human rights but as a day that opened the door to restrictions on Democrats' most cherished ``freedom,'' and that is the freedom to kill unborn human beings.
I have to say, it is a pretty grim indictment of the moral health of a party when one of its signature issues is promoting the right to kill the youngest and most vulnerable Americans.
As I said, there is still a lot of work to be done, but I am confident that we can get there. I look forward to the day when the life of every American, born and unborn, is protected and when being small and vulnerable does not mean that your human rights are any less respected.
I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 35, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table; the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Mr. President, good afternoon. My name is Jon Husted, and I have the distinct honor of serving the great State of Ohio as one of its U.S. Senators.
Over the past 25 years, I have been blessed to serve the people of Ohio as a State representative, speaker of the house, secretary of state, and most recently as Lieutenant Governor.
I am constantly reminded of the sacrifices generations of Americans and Ohioans have made in the hope that they will leave their country in a better place than they found it. And it is this pattern of sacrifice that I have also witnessed throughout my life growing up in the Midwest.
So I would like to take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices others have made that have led to this moment in time and our responsibility as Americans to our children and to our country.
So let me start at the beginning, at least for me. I was born in 1967, which was part of one of the most turbulent decades in American history.
My start in life reflected those turbulent times. My birth mother lost her husband in the Vietnam war, and she found herself with multiple children to care for without anyone to share that responsibility.
Then she learned that there was another baby on the way--and that baby was me. While I can never truly know how the circumstances affected her and why she made the choice that she did, I would like to believe that out of a loving heart and full of courage and selflessness that she gave me a chance to be adopted. My birth certificate reports that I was born in Michigan, but let me reassure you: I was made in Ohio.
You see, during the fall of 1967, after 2 months in a foster home, I was blessed to become the first child of two humble, hard-working people from northwest Ohio Jim and Judy Husted. Even then, among the protests and the upheaval happening across the Nation, my parents were full of hope and optimism as they welcomed a new son into their home.
They have always embodied the American tradition: that each generation works and sacrifices today so that the next generation can climb higher mountains tomorrow.
That is the example my parents set as I grew up on County Road J near Montpelier, OH. Life was not easy for them. Like many families in the small towns in the industrial Midwest, we weathered factory closures. Several of my own family members lost their jobs when the machine tool factory they worked at shut down. But they faced hard times before, tough times make you tough and resilient, resilient enough to uproot your family, start over, and keep sacrificing for your family's well- being. And that is what they all did.
My parents worked hard and never wasted a penny. They routinely made choices that made their lives harder so that they could make my life and my brother and sister's life a little easier.
What I saw growing up in rural Ohio was simple but powerful, and it characterized communities across this country too. People worked long hours, forfeiting comfort and leisure so that their families, and especially their children, could enjoy more security and prosperity than they had.
These diligent men and women may not have called their daily responsibilities on the factory floors or in the fields the American dream, but that is what it was. That is what they were striving to achieve.
I believe this love for family and Nation, this aspirational hope that we have, has driven America's generations to risk their lives and livelihoods so that we could create the freest, most prosperous country in the world.
The early settlers didn't sail across the Atlantic's high seas for fun and adventure; they came to build a legacy of opportunity and liberty that their homeland had denied them, but nothing guaranteed their future. They earned it through courage, toil, and sacrifice.
I know this, the noise of the 24-hour news cycle makes it easy to lose perspective when you are here in Washington. I know it does. But if you step into the Capitol Rotunda and you look up at the storied paintings all around that dome, you will be reminded of an enduring pattern: Americans built this Nation through personal sacrifice, often at a steep human cost.
In 1620, the settlers at Plymouth faced hunger, disease, and death as they launched into a new world where they hoped to establish religious freedom.
In 1776, their descendants picked up that torch by risking everything to break free of the monarchy. When the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor--a wager not just for themselves, but on behalf of their children and future generations.
At Valley Forge, liberty nearly froze to death, but those who endured did so ``to form a more perfect Union.'' They fought not just for freedom but for justice, peace, and the blessings of liberty, for their posterity--that is us.
In 1861, Americans turned on one another so they could preserve the Nation and abolish slavery. They paid with blood. Then they returned to their fields and their towns and sought to rebuild a more cohesive nation, one capable of innovation, lasting growth, and a new hope.
By the early 1900s, Americans led a second revolution--this, the industrial revolution. In a free nation and economy, workers and entrepreneurs built new industries, fought for fair working conditions, and laid the foundations for the prosperity we enjoy today.
Immigrants came through Ellis and Angel Islands with hope in their hearts and the willingness to work hard, and America embraced them.
In World War II, young men crossed oceans to fight tyranny, and women stepped onto factory floors to build the arsenal of victory. When it was all over, they followed their forefathers' faithfulness by coming home and building schools, churches, and businesses--in other words, a future.
The ``greatest generation'' carried that burden for their children and for ours. The men and women who fought and endured daily hardships during the Second World War understood what I worry many Americans nearly have forgotten, which is that the heavier the load you choose to carry, the higher you can hold your head, and doing what is noble builds confidence. I believe that is true of people and of nations.
For nearly two centuries, Americans weren't focused on indulgence but on inheritance. To be clear, I am not talking about the kind of inheritance measured in dollars but, instead, the kind measured in duty, making tomorrow better than today.
Mr. President, you may be tempted to correct me here. Why would I only credit us with two centuries of discipline when, after all, we turn 250 years old next year? Let me take a moment to explain.
This American ethos endured for most of our history, but I believe something shifted in our culture around the
Even a few years before I was born, I believe President Kennedy had already begun to detect the shift. In his inaugural address, he implored Americans to do one thing:
A nation that once rallied around sacrifice--in war, in rebuilding, in laying foundations for the future--gave way to a new cultural mood. Over time, we stopped asking ``What can we build and leave for the ones we love?'' and we began to ask ``What can we claim for ourselves?'' We became obsessed with what we as individuals are entitled to, and we forgot how to plant the seeds and nurture them until the harvest. The sense of shared responsibility that had defined generations was eroded. Our growing reliance on promises we felt others owed to us meant that we earned less and expected more.
We initially built a safety net to protect people in need and our most vulnerable citizens, which is a noble idea and one that I support, but, over time, that safety net stretched wider and wider until nearly everybody was lying in it.
As the cost of our promises ballooned, we lacked the will to either pay for them or the courage to pare them back. So what did we do instead? We did what previous generations refused to do: We passed the buck by handing the bill off to our children. Instead of sacrificing for the next generation, we passed the burden on to them.
It was a convenient deception. Congress created more programs that it wouldn't pay for. Public officials made promises they couldn't keep. They convinced their constituents that Americans who come of age after us would take care of tomorrow all by themselves. We also fought wars and engaged in foreign interventions without paying for them. It all adds up.
All the while, our national debt kept rising. I am not just talking about dollars; America began experiencing a real character deficit. We weren't just spending money; we were squandering trust, legacy, and time at the expense of the boys and girls who were too young to even vote or recognize a better path than the one we had chosen for them. We soothed ourselves by claiming that we were being compassionate, but we passed on the consequences of our choices to those not yet born. This is not compassion; it is generational theft.
In 1967, when I was born, the national debt stood at $330 billion. Today, it is $36 trillion--more than 100 times greater even after adjusting for inflation. In 2024 alone, we ran a $1.8 trillion deficit. A baby born in America today inherits $106,000 as their share of the national debt on day one.
So what happened to American ingenuity, resolve, and discipline? What happened to it? How did a nation once defined by sacrifice for our kids--think about it--become one that was willing to pilfer their piggy banks?
We have some urgent challenges. Twenty-first century Americans are not being asked to storm Normandy's beaches or endure winters at Valley Forge. The task upon us may seem less heroic, but it remains both daunting and deeply patriotic. What is that task? To simply stop spending more than we are willing to pay for today.
The question isn't just ``How did America's financial and cultural debt get so deep?'' It is ``How can we claw our way out of this financial and cultural hole?'' The answer comes down to identifying what we value and what we believe is worth the sacrifice.
For me, that is my family and my country. I love them both, and I know many of you share those same sentiments. I believe that we only sacrifice for the things we love. I will repeat that. I believe we only sacrifice for the things we love. That is why it is crucial and consequential that we remind ourselves and instruct our children to love this country, reminding ourselves that this pattern and promise of American liberty forged a noble, innovative nation that is worth loving and worth fighting for, because why would anyone sacrifice for a nation they don't love or for neighbors they don't feel a patriotic affection for?
America has been self-aware from the beginning. We never thought we were perfect. But every generation is supposed to put in the sweat and tears to form a more perfect Union.
We were the first Nation rooted in the confidence that our rights come not from Kings or governments but from God, that we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is a beautiful thought. That idea is exceptional. This country is exceptional. There are none like it in the world, and we must teach the next generation what our countrymen sacrificed to secure. And that is why this Nation is worth loving with an active and enduring patriotism.
Loving America doesn't mean agreeing with every policy or politician. It is not required. But it does require being confident in the idea of America and being willing to sacrifice for the cause of this Nation-- not in the abstract but in real ways: by being good stewards of what was handed down to us and honoring those who came before us by adopting their discipline and by becoming the kind of neighbors who are willing to work a little harder, take a little less, and give a little more to preserve what has made this country great.
I stand here today as the beneficiary of those who sacrificed for me and for all of us. I was blessed to be adopted into a loving home where they taught me that faith, family, freedom, and hard work are the most reliable anecdotes for poverty and despair the world has ever known.
We are still a nation where a newborn can begin life in a foster home in Detroit, grow up in the rural Midwest, and have the honor of serving as a U.S. Senator.
As Americans, no matter our background, whether we come from abundance or struggle, we have all inherited the gift of freedom, passed down from earlier Americans. We stand on their shoulders.
Let's not force the next generation to remember us as the ones who broke the two-centuries-long chain of self-sacrifice but, rather, as the ones who reforged it.
To my colleagues and constituents, count me in as one who is willing to do my part, to work hard, forgo convenience, and reinforce that chain that will sustain our Nation for future generations.
I will listen to your ideas, and I hope you will listen to mine. I will operate from the principled belief that we must elevate liberty and personal responsibility above expediency and entitlement and that our children should not have to pay the price for our lack of discipline.
The America I aspire to serve is defined by courage and a love that refuses to take more than it gives.
As it has so many times in our history, may these convictions prevail in this Chamber and in the classrooms, boardrooms, break rooms, and living rooms of these United States. Consider this my prayer for our Nation, and may God work through us to make it so.
Mr. President, I had the opportunity to meet Senator Husted when he was State Representative Husted about 15, maybe 20 years ago. I don't want to age myself. I was down in Columbus meeting a few State reps down there, and I see this guy and go: Man, who is that young guy who sounded really, really smart? I walked up to him and introduced myself. It was Jon Husted.
In that period of time, what I have seen is a great person. He is not just a great public servant. This is somebody who could have spent his entire adult life making a lot of money. He is a very smart and gifted person. Instead, he has dedicated his entire time to actually making this country better. The reason for that you just heard today. He is somebody who is a deep person of faith, who is a great father, a great husband, and honestly a great friend.
So, look, don't take my word for it. The Senator does not know that I did this. So I think you owe it to hear.
So here is just a sampling of what the people in Ohio said based on a simple request: Tell me what you think of Senator Husted.
Let me start with the first one:
Signed, Ohio Governor and former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine.
Second one:
Alex Triantafilou, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party.
Next one:
Eighteen years. Pretty impressive.
Current Ohio Speaker of the House Matt Huffman.
Next one:
Ohio Senate President Rob McColley. Next one:
That is from the current Lieutenant Governor and former Ohio State football head coach, Jim Tressell.
And the last one:
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.
I will end with this, Mr. President. Look at what he has already accomplished. I can say a little bit falls here in this Chamber. About 8 years ago, I remember sitting with Senator Husted--then-Lieutenant Governor, Candidate Husted, Nominee Husted--in a little office building in downtown Cleveland. He said: I have an idea that is going to be called Innovate Ohio.
Jon, what is that?
We are going to put together leaders of the Ohio innovation ecosystem and make Ohio the most attractive State where you can build and grow a company.
And we had our first meeting. Who was in that meeting? Now-Senator Jon Husted, now-Senator me, Bernie Moreno, soon-to-be Governor Vivek Ramaswamy, and our third Ohio honorary senator, Vice President JD Vance--all hand-selected by Senator Husted to participate 8 years ago in Innovation Task Force.
So on nights when we go through vote-aramas and we are here 24, 30 hours, it is you whom I have to blame, Senator Husted, for encouraging me to seek public service.
I came to DC not knowing what to expect, and having somebody whom I consider a friend, somebody whom I know we can talk about anything and hash things out has made this job, very, very rewarding. Thank you for your service to Ohio. I look forward to serving with you in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, when Iran's proxies launched a full- scale war on Israel, October 7, 2023, President Biden pledged an unwavering commitment to Israel's security. That was the right message in the moment.
But as I warned publicly at the time, Israel needed more than just rhetorical solidarity. Like Ukraine, Israel needed precious time, space to maneuver, and materiel support to defeat a shared enemy. And yet, as in Ukraine, America's commitment has indeed wavered. Our support has not been ironclad.
Instead, under the previous administration, American support was delayed, restricted, and paired with attempts to micromanage Israel's operations and even interfere with Israeli politics. And at every turn, the progressive left and isolationist right hyperventilated about the specter of so-called forever war.
Fortunately, Israel held its ground. Israelis certainly weren't enthused about a ground war in Gaza. Their leaders knew that war would be difficult. But they knew it was unavoidable so long as Hamas terrorists still refused to release its hostages. They also knew lasting security meant changing Iran's calculus, not just responding to attacks from proxies.
So Israel decided to turn Iran's terrorist assets into liabilities. Despite the pearl-clutching here in Washington, our allies simultaneously decapitated Hezbollah and crippled Hamas. Their bold operations created a new opportunity for Lebanon to claw back its sovereignty from a terrorist state within a state.
Meanwhile, the collapse of the brutal Assad regime in Syria brought down a Russian vassal and Iran's favorite corridor of weapons and terrorist finance.
These are the circumstances President Trump inherited. What to do with them has been the subject of quite some debate. Some of his advisers and supporters came with Obama-Biden-era talking points, ready to urge him to continue his predecessor's policy of constraining Israel. Some had argued publicly that America had no vital or existential interests in the Middle East or claimed the region was a distraction from other priorities. They warned of forever war.
Some seemed to push for nuclear negotiations with parameters eerily similar to the nuclear deal the President withdrew from his first term. They even proposed Iran could keep enriching uranium, until the President, rightly, correctly, quashed that idea.
These mixed messages emboldened Iran and its proxies. After all, why give up if administration officials saw the Middle East as little more than a distraction or if they seem as fearful of restoring deterrence as the previous guys?
So Hamas kept holding hostages. The Houthis kept targeting Israel and Red Sea commerce. And the Islamic Republic kept marching toward a nuclear weapon. And in response, Israel took the next logical step to restore deterrence.
Once again, innovative and decisive strikes destroyed Iran's air defenses and imposed immediate--immediate--costs on Tehran. Leaders across Israel's politics stood united behind the daring operations.
Ah, but here in America, the same restrainers, anti-Israel progressives, and self-proclaimed realists warned again of regional conflagration if the President intervened alongside or even supported Israel's strikes.
The President's own--his own--Director of National Intelligence traveled to Hiroshima to record a bizarre video, not as a warning against Tehran's nuclear ambitions but presumably against American or Israeli operations to blunt them.
Now, fortunately, the President rejected the pleas of appeasers and isolationists. The strikes he ordered dealt a massive blow to Iran's nuclear program, bolstered American credibility, and strengthened U.S. and Israel leverage to end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for terrorism for good.
Thanks to Israel's historic efforts for more than a year and a half, Iran's ability to threaten regional stability is massively degraded. Not since before the Islamic Revolution has there been such an opportunity for America, Israel, and our Arab partners to reset regional dynamics on such favorable terms.
Achieving it has required no large-scale deployment of U.S. ground forces. It required only supporting our friends. Israel is a close ally and a strategic asset, not a liability. And the strategic return on our investment in assisting Israel is incalculable. Standing with our Israeli friends offers a powerful lesson about American leadership, the value of alliances and partnerships, and the real nature of peace through strength.
And this lesson extends far, far beyond the Middle East.
If America refuses to apply it elsewhere--like Ukraine--we do so at grave risk to our own interests. But that is
Congress recently learned that a senior DOD official conducted a review of DOD security assistance efforts and--listen to this-- concluded that the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, among other programs, was wasteful. This is a Republican administration panning a program created by the Republican Congress in 2015 to counter President Obama's toothless response to Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine.
I would like to see the analysis behind the administration's decision to zero out USAI in its fiscal 2026 request. I would like to hear them try to explain away the massive return on investment of America's security assistance to Ukraine and the previous lessons we have learned from our Ukrainian partners.
The Secretary of the Army has, rightly, called Ukraine--listen to this--``the Silicon Valley of warfare.'' Do his colleagues at the Pentagon think this assessment is wrong or do they just not think access to cutting-edge, modern combat is valuable?
Well, here is the truth: USAI and other security efforts have helped us, measurably, address shortcomings in strategy, capabilities, and production capacity that would have gone ignored until it was too late.
It is an inconvenient reality for isolationists and restrainers, but for a tiny percent--a tiny percent--of our defense budget, we helped a smaller military resist invasion by a vastly larger one and degrade a major U.S. adversary.
As with Israel, Ukraine is fighting an adversary of the United States. Our support does not entangle us in a far-off foreign conflict. For Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, America is the main enemy, the Great Satan. If these adversaries beat our friends, the threat to America becomes a thousand times greater. We should be grateful for friends so willing to defend our collective interests against common folks.
Partnership with Ukraine is teaching us what modern warfare could mean for U.S. forces when they do face direct conflict. It has tested our assumptions about munitions inventories, expenditure rates, electronic warfare, and the duration of conflict.
Without Ukraine's experience with U.S. weapons, we would have been surprised to find some advanced systems quickly rendered inoperable on future battlefields. The money we invest in USAI on weapons for Ukraine expands our own production capacity in the process and will improve the quality of our own munitions.
Supplemental appropriations on Ukraine and Israel, in turn, backfill our own stocks with brand new capabilities--not just 155-mm rounds but air defenses and long-range fires, with specific investment in solid rocket motors.
These investments help us prepare for conflict in the Indo-Pacific, and production would be slower in the absence of our partnership with Ukraine. Not doing more to address our growing defense needs isn't a failure of foresight. It is a failure of political will.
Everyone wants to see an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, but the price of peace matters. If we want enduring stability in Europe, we can't fall for an illusory peace. We should know enough history not to dismiss this as merely ``a quarrel in a faraway country, between two people of whom we no nothing.''
It is a major war of conquest in Europe--the most significant since the days of Nazi Germany--and allies and adversaries half a world away are watching it closely for clues about America's resolve.
Certainly, Europe's deepening commitments to collective defense will make real peace more enforceable. The President's insistence has driven much of this progress. Putin's brutality has reinforced it.
Since 2022, our European NATO allies have made historic--historic-- investments in defense, often buying from us. Many are preparing to make even larger commitments at this week's NATO summit. All of that is good news. But we can't expect allies to continue signing up for 3.5 and 5 percent commitments if America insists on falling further behind.
Likewise, we can't expect Putin to end his aggression if he thinks America's abandonment of Ukraine is just a matter of time. And we can't expect anyone to take America's threats and commitments seriously if we are content to let our own strength atrophy.
A base budget request that cuts defense spending in real terms doesn't show Moscow we are serious, let alone Beijing. Leading from behind would be bad enough, but this is just plain falling behind.
The strongest deterrence is denying an adversary's objectives through military means. Israel is restoring this deterrence in the Middle East. Ukraine is achieving it by holding its own against Russia, but it needs help.
Recently, I have asked administration officials simple questions, like: Who is the aggressor in the conflict?
The answer is pretty obvious. But a second, equally simple question seems to actually trip them up: Who do we want to win? Who do we want to win?
The President made the right call to stand with Israel. I hope he will also decide to stand with Ukraine, prevent Russian victory, and start reversing a dangerous downward trend in our defense budgets.
I hope he will recognize Russia's attempt to ``tap him along'' for what it is. Putin is getting mixed messages from us. He thinks he has time. He believes the West is weak and divided.
But the President, at very little cost, can shatter that illusion. It is time to impose sanctions, raise the price of Russia's aggression, redouble security assistance to Ukraine, and drive the Kremlin to seek peace. It is time for deterrence through denial.
There is no surer path to a just and enduring peace, no better way to demonstrate that peace through strength actually means something, no clearer sign to allies and adversaries watching closely, from the Western Hemisphere to the Indo-Pacific, that America still has the will to lead.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, in every single State, there are Americans relying on the National Flood Insurance Program to protect their home. It is shaded in every State. There are people who are making claims on the National Flood Insurance Program. Congress has the responsibility to serve all Americans, regardless of age, income, or ZIP Code.
Since President Biden's implementation of Risk Rating 2.0, seniors and low- and middle-income homeowners have been left behind. Earlier this month, I led eight of my Republican colleagues in urging FEMA to end the Biden-era Risk Rating 2.0. I want to work with the President to fix the mess the Biden administration has created.
Now, I want to share with my colleagues the same case we made in that letter for why action is needed now.
Every year, on June 1, the phrase ``hoping for the best, preparing for the worst'' comes to mind. For the folks in Louisiana, it is a way of life.
The hurricane season begins. With a higher gulf temperature than usual, meteorologists predict 13 to 19 named storms, 6 to 10 hurricanes, and 3 to 5 major hurricanes hitting the United States before the year's end. That is somewhere in the United States, not just the gulf coast.
I will note that the meteorologists always predict a lot. It is easier to be wrong predicting a lot than to be wrong predicting very few. But, nonetheless, we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
In my State, if there is such a warning, folks know what to do. They stock up on some nonperishable food items, they get their prescriptions renewed, they take care of their windows, they check on their neighbors, and they will also be bracing themselves financially.
Folks in my State are still trying to get back on their feet after 4 years of financial distress under the Biden administration. Add the cost of recovery, if there is a severe weather event, and many families just cannot afford it.
That is why we have the National Flood Insurance Program, a safety net program for millions across the country, including those in my State, for the last 50 years. Because of the National Flood Insurance Program, a retired couple in Livingston Parish who just paid off their mortgage sleeps better knowing that they are covered the next time or if they ever flood.
The single working woman in Cameron Parish rests assured, knowing that there is help available when it comes time to replace the siding and roof tiles which may have been torn loose by torrential winds.
But this program--and the peace of mind for those who rely on it--is threatened. Since FEMA, under the Biden administration, implemented Risk Rating 2.0, premiums have skyrocketed, making desperately needed protection unaffordable for millions. Over 80 percent of NFIP policyholders in Louisiana saw a spike in their premiums after its implementation in 2021. The protection that millions desperately need has been unaffordable.
When I say ``unaffordable,'' I am not talking about a $1 or $200 increase, although that might be too much for some families. I am talking about an almost $2,000 increase for a homeowner in Waggaman, LA, and about a $4,500 increase for a homeowner in Gibson.
This is where they started, in the white, and this is where they went to, in the red.
So if you say ``unaffordable,'' for a family of limited means, paying almost $600 to go to $2,500 is a big jump--a 334-percent jump. To go from $600 to $5,100 is a 750-percent jump. And here in Belle Chasse, LA, it goes from $5,070 to $8,800--over a 1,400-percent increase.
That is unaffordable. For a family with limited income--perhaps a fixed income--to see that kind of a jump is, one more time, unaffordable.
The question is, Has FEMA been transparent about these increases?
The answer is no.
In fact, some of these folks have never flooded. They are not really quite sure why their premiums are rising. But because they are rising so rapidly and so much, they have no option but to drop their NFIP coverage altogether, which, of course, is the worst possible situation because, now, they are totally vulnerable.
It is important to note that Congress has not been allowed to weigh in on these increases. Under President Biden, Congress was stonewalled. Now, with President Trump in charge, I trust there will be more transparency into the Risk Rating 2.0 methodology than we have had.
The American people--and, certainly, those in Louisiana--made it clear when they elected President Trump that they are ready to end the confusion and high prices of the previous administration. They are talking about the grocery store, the gas pump, and, yes, also flood insurance.
The National Flood Insurance Program, if you add to that homeowner's insurance, is the heart of the cost-of-living crisis Americans struggled with under President Biden.
Now, we have a chance to bring down prices on flood insurance in the same way that President Trump has brought down all of these other prices--gas, eggs, milk--you name it. And I wish to work with my Senate colleagues, my congressional colleagues, and with President Trump to make life affordable again.
As hurricane season ramps up, the clock is ticking. Let's act now.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today because for the last few years, I think we can best describe the time in America as a time of record high prices and wide-open borders. Prices soared by over 20 percent, which was a 40-year high; 10 million illegal immigrants flooded across our Nation's borders; American families struggled; and communities were unsafe.
So in November of this past year, the American people said: Enough. They rejected the chaos and the extremism of the Democratic Party and the Democratic leadership, and they chose Republicans in order to get the country back on track.
So the bill that we are voting on this week is the Republican plan: a plan for a safer and more prosperous America. It is a plan to cut taxes, lower prices, secure the border, and, of course, to strengthen our Nation. It is the blueprint to renew, to rebuild, and to restore our Nation. Here is how.
First, our bill stops a $4 trillion tax increase. Now, that would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Every Senate Democrat has vowed to stop the bill. That is because the Democrats are the party of record high taxes. They want people's taxes to go up to a tune of $4 trillion. If the Democrats have their way, every working family in America will pay more in taxes. They will see a higher tax bill next year.
So if you make between $30,000 and $80,000 a year, when our bill passes, you are going to get a 15 percent tax cut. We cut taxes on overtime, on Social Security, and on tips. If you are a waiter or a police officer or a nurse, you are going to keep more of what you earn. If you are on Social Security, you will see more money at the end of each month through a larger deduction. Now, this is real relief for the American people who have been suffering through 4 years of record high prices.
Additionally--and, as a doctor, I think this is critically important--our bill strengthens Medicaid. Medicaid exists for the vulnerable: for children, for pregnant women, for the disabled. That is who it was set up and established for. But, right now, Medicaid is failing them. And the problem, of course, is the waste and the fraud and the abuse and the corruption that has been allowed to get into that system as a result of the last 4 years of liberal leadership in Washington.
Experts tell us that over the past number of years, over $1.1 trillion has been wasted on improper payments alone. And Washington was happy to shovel the money out of this city to big States and big cities. In States such as California, money meant for the vulnerable was siphoned off; it was diverted for free healthcare for illegal immigrants. Well, our bill stops all of that.
We also believe and add the fact that there needs to be work requirements--work requirements for able-bodied, working-age people. If people can work, they should work. That is how you move people from poverty to a paycheck.
Additionally, our bill secures the border and deports illegal immigrants. The border has been wide open for the last 4 years. Over 10 million illegal immigrants have come into the country. We have seen the numbers. We have seen the videos, the crime, the chaos allowed by the previous administration, and we have seen how quickly things can change with real leadership in the White House. It is dramatic. It is the improvement that the American people have wanted.
Our bill invests $160 billion in public safety--hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs agents, hiring 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, finishing the wall, giving our officers a well-deserved bonus for keeping our communities safe.
Additionally, the bill we have unleashes American energy. Under Joe Biden, energy prices rose 31 percent in 4 years. We fix that by producing more energy right here at home in America. We open up energy production onshore, offshore, and in Alaska. That means affordable gas prices, lower energy bills, good-paying American jobs. It powers innovation here at home. America is an energy superpower, and once again, we are going to act like it.
Additionally, our bill restores American strength. For 4 years under Joe Biden, the world saw American weakness. This bill, as well as our actions last weekend, sent a clear message: America is strong again. We invest $150 billion in our military, we build 13 new warships, and we boost shipbuilding capacities.
Remember, strength deters. Weakness invites aggression. A ready America is a safe and strong America. That is what Americans want, it is what they need, and it is what Americans voted for in November: lower taxes, safer communities, secure borders, a strong economy, leaders who put common sense ahead of chaos. And that is exactly what this bill delivers.
This bill keeps the promises that we made to the American people, while a vote against the bill--and that is what the Democrats are coming to the floor and they are promising, saying: We have to beat this thing. That would saddle hard-working Americans with the largest tax increase ever, with open borders, with a weaker economy, a weaker country. And that is what they come to the floor and say they are fighting for.
I ask the American people: Whose side do you stand on? What is it that
In 2017, we cut taxes, we rolled back redtape, we unleashed American energy, and it created the best economy in my lifetime. Middle-class incomes rose by nearly $6,000 across the board. Energy was much more affordable. We did it before. With this bill, we will do it again.
So, today, Senate Republicans stand united: united to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and more jobs here at home. This bill that we will vote on this week opens the next chapter in our great American comeback story. Republicans are ready to get America back on track.
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, where is Russia? Where is President Putin? I ask that question in light of what has been happening over the past week in Iran. Where is Russia? Where is President Putin? You couldn't find either one of them with a search party. ``Dog the Bounty Hunter,'' all of a sudden, couldn't find President Putin. All of a sudden, even Google can't find Russia.
I thought Iran and Russia were peeps. I thought they were best friends. I mean, for decades, Iran and Russia have had a partnership where they have attacked everyone in the freedom-loving West. They are best buds.
Now, I know Iran has a relationship with China, but that is more transactional. China just likes to buy Iran's cheap oil.
With Russia and Iran, it was supposed to be a deeper, more meaningful relationship. And this isn't something new; this has been a partnership for decades.
I remember when Putin invaded Ukraine. One of the first allies he turned to was Iran, and Iran sent Russia ammunition, and Iran sent Russia artillery shells, and Iran sent Russia drones. Iran has sent Russia drones and ammunition and artillery shells every single day of the war.
So where is Russia? I mean, it hasn't been a good week for Iran. Where is Russia?
On Monday of this week, Iran's top diplomat met with President Putin and asked for help. Do you know what President Putin said he would provide? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Some kind of friend.
You know, it is not the first time that we have seen President Putin's true colors. It has happened before. You would think that Iran would learn. The month after Iran, through Hamas, attacked Israel back in October of 2023, Iran immediately asked Moscow to supply Iran with-- because Iran knew what was coming, and so did Hamas. They knew retribution was coming from Israel. Iran asked Moscow for jet fighters, for attack helicopters, air defense systems, and training jets, and Iran was sure that their buddy Putin would be there. Putin sent them a few jets and said: Go away. Don't bother me.
Then, not long ago, when Israel took out the better part of Iran's air defense system, its golden dome--it wasn't exactly golden. It was more like tin. But the Israelis took it out. Iran asked Russia, said: Look, we have to rearm. We are naked and alone here. We need more air defense missiles to shoot down the Israeli planes.
President Putin said: Go away. Don't bother me.
What a friend.
President Putin has done it to other countries. Russia has had alliances not just with Iran through the years. I will give you a couple of examples. Armenia. Armenia and Russia were best buds, two peas in a pod, but when Armenia got in a war with Azerbaijan, once again, you couldn't find Russia with a search party.
Iran and Russia worked together to prop up al-Assad in Syria. Remember that, when the people of Syria were revolting against Assad, who had blood under his fingernails? Do you know who kept him afloat? Iran, yes, but especially Russia.
Then Assad got in trouble, and that is when he really needed Russia. He went to Mr. Putin and said: Help me. Help me.
Mr. Putin said: No. You are on your own. You can come to my country, where they can't get to you, but that is it. Too bad. I don't need you anymore.
A lot is going on with respect to the Middle East right now, but I hope the world knows what kind of friend Russia is. I hope other countries that Russia has alliances with and that Russia is assiduously courting to be a ``partnership'' notice how Russia reacts to their friends.
Where is Russia? Where is Putin? All of a sudden, you can't find him. Now, I am delighted with that. I am just delighted. But this was very, very predictable. With friends like Russia--I say this to every country in the world that might be thinking about partnering with Russia--with friends like Russia, who needs enemies?
Mr. President, bombing another country is an act of war; and last week, Donald Trump launched an attack that could spin the United States into another endless war in the Middle East. What followed from that decision can only be described as pure madness.
Trump declared total victory. Iran threatened retaliation. Americans in the region were forced to shelter in place.
Trump's own team then admitted no one knows where the nuclear materials are and what nuclear capacity Iran might still have. Trump called for regime change, and then last night, just for a moment, we hoped and believed there was a cease-fire, only for us to wake up to frantic posts on social media by the President begging both sides to stop shooting missiles and rockets at each other.
Today, the Deputy Commander of Central Command could not describe what kind of contingency plans the Defense Department was making or even whether they did or didn't have plans for the United States to put boots on the ground in this Middle East conflict.
And a classified briefing scheduled for right now that we should be having so that all the Senators can ask questions about what has happened and what is currently happening in Iran has just been scrapped by the Republicans for another 48 hours.
There is no grand plan. There is no careful effort to develop a responsible U.S. foreign policy designed to keep us all safe. Once again, Donald Trump serves up chaos--dangerous chaos--that threatens the long-term security of the American people.
New reporting by CNN and the New York Times suggest Donald Trump's bombing of Iran failed to destroy its nuclear program.
The media reports highlight that the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months--a few months, while risking another war in the Middle East.
Now, we all agree that Iran should not and cannot have a nuclear weapon. We are committed to that. But the only successful strategy for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is diplomacy, something that Donald Trump has been pursuing right up until Prime Minister Netanyahu began bombing Iran. That is what we need right now, for all sides to come to the table to build an agreement that is sturdy and that cements lasting peace in place.
But Trump's reckless action, backed by many Republicans in Congress, makes it more likely that this crisis escalates into a deadly cycle of violence. Trump's reckless action puts American lives at risk. Trump's reckless action risks initiating another endless war that could last months, or even decades, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have the power to put a stop to this madness right now. Senator Kaine
Americans don't need another war. Americans don't want another war. They need and want good jobs and lower prices, and that is exactly what we should be focused on.
Mr. President, I would like to just briefly talk about the postponement of our hearing that was supposed to be occurring at this time. This last-minute postponement is outrageous, evasive, derelict. Senators deserve full transparency, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening.
What is the administration so afraid of? Why won't they engage with Congress on the critical details--the results of the recent strike, the scope and trajectory of this conflict, the administration's long-term strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and, of course, the potential risks facing American citizens and our brave servicemembers? Such obstruction undermines the very principles of accountability and oversight that guard our democracy.
So if the press reporting about the impact of last weekend's strikes in Iran is true--and I cannot confirm them--then that might be the reason why the administration postponed our classified briefing today at the very
So I ask again, What is the administration hiding? It is time for answers.
I thank my colleague from Delaware for her courtesy.
Mr. President, there are moments in our lives when everything changes, when the world shifts underneath you and a new reality forms. These are moments when you remember exactly where you were, what you were doing, and who you were with.
June 24, 2022, was one of those days. Three years ago, I marched with my House colleagues to the Supreme Court. I stood in solidarity with Democrats and Republicans alike. We felt shock, disbelief, anger, and sadness at the loss of one of our fundamental rights. On that day, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and for many, their lives were turned upside down.
Since then, extreme Republicans and President Trump have said that abortion is a States' rights issue--States' rights. Yet, over the last 3 years, we have watched as quietly and purposefully they have chipped away at our rights, chipped away at our bodily autonomy, because the goal has always been a national abortion ban.
Three Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices and the Dobbs decision later and we are still watching this unfold. Anti-abortion extremists have been piecing together a puzzle that, when it is completed, will create a national abortion ban, and they add a new piece each and every day.
Over the next hour, my colleagues and I will lay out what the Republican national abortion ban looks like, what it means for everyday Americans, and what we can do about it because these efforts will hurt all of us--especially young women, women of low income, women in rural areas, and women of color.
For me, this is personal. I could have lost my daughter-in-law because she did not get the care she needed. And I remember getting a call on Christmas morning. I was in the kitchen, I was cooking, and I heard my daughter-in-law on the other end of the phone say: Mom, my water just broke. It is too soon.
She went to the hospital, but, again, the hospital we went to could not provide the care that she needed for the miscarriage that she was having, and they sent her home. I remember thinking about all the committee hearings that I had on the Health Subcommittee in--the Health Committee in the House and how the data was clear that we in this country have a maternal mortality crisis, that Black women die three times the rate of our White counterparts, and all I could think was, we have to get you somewhere. And we did.
Fortunately, Ebony is here alive today. Fortunately, Ebony was able to have my beautiful granddaughter--because of IVF, I might add.
But stories like these are all too common. It disproportionately affects Black and Brown women. We face reproductive challenges. We have a higher mortality rate. We have higher rates of reproductive cancers. We have higher rates of preterm births.
Like I said, this is personal.
We are here today to show the American people that we did not forget about the Dobbs decision, especially because the majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--believe that we should have legal and safe abortions.
We are here today to tell the Republican Party: You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be the party of personal freedom while telling us what to do with our bodies.
President Trump, you can't claim to be the fertilization President while making it more dangerous for women to give birth.
You can't claim to be the party of strong economic growth while cutting Medicaid, food assistance, and childcare for many women who need it to participate in the workforce--and all to give tax breaks to people who already have all of these resources.
We are here today to show extreme Republicans across the Nation that we see what you are doing--quietly assembling the pieces of the puzzle. And when it is completed, it will strip Americans of their access to abortion care in red States and blue States.
We are here to show just how important it is that we fight this reconciliation bill. Whether you call it a ``Big Bad Bill'' or whether you call it a ``Big Ugly Bill,'' whatever you call it, this is the moment for people to speak up because it is just another piece of the puzzle, and we are here to shine a light on the ultimate goal of a national abortion ban.
I stand here, and I think about the young women I saw as I came to this floor. I think about my niece. I think about my daughter and I think about my granddaughter and the fact that they now have less rights than I did, than my mother did, and than my grandmother did and that today it is important for us to not forget and to make sure that we recognize what this is all about and that we want the best for our young people in this country.
Mr. President, I want to make sure that the country and this institution knows that the leadership of our new colleague from the State of Delaware is making a difference already. She has been doing yeoman's work on this for quite some time.
In fact, in the other body, as it is called, the House of Representatives, she stood for the values that have been expressed here today and we so appreciate her leadership and I thank her, personally, for including me.
We are on the floor to mark an anniversary of what was essentially the end of women having power over healthcare decisions. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, many of my Democratic colleagues and I warned that it would be deadly for women. We were labeled liars and gaslighters and fearmongers. And, unfortunately, for the women of America, you don't have to take our word for it. Since the Dobbs ruling was handed down 3 years ago, 22 States have passed restrictive, near- or total abortion bans, and countless women have died as a direct result of those laws.
In Georgia, Amber Nicole Thurman died after she developed an infection during pregnancy and was denied lifesaving reproductive care under her State's new abortion law.
In Texas, Porsha Ngumezi, a mom of two, was expecting her third child when she suddenly developed complications and began miscarrying. She died after going to the ER where she was denied the care she needed, and she was left to bleed out all because her doctors were too scared to perform the necessary medical care under Texas's abortion law.
Josseli Barnica of Texas was pregnant, hoping to give her daughter another sibling, when she developed complications with her pregnancy. She rushed to the hospital where doctors left her to suffer for 40 hours without giving her the healthcare she needed. That was because it was illegal under Texas law. She died 3 days later after developing a preventable infection because she had been denied care.
Despite Federal law that requires providers to give women reproductive care in emergency medical situations, these States are letting women die anyway. Every single one of these deaths was preventable if Republican lawmakers hadn't put abortion bans in place that threaten doctors and hospitals with jail time and other legal actions if they provide necessary reproductive care.
Many of the women hurt by these abortion bans are already mothers or women hoping to start a family, but because they are being denied necessary care, those that don't die are often being left with complications that take away their ability to have kids in the future.
In Tennessee, Breanna Cecil had to travel out of State, all the way to Chicago, to get an abortion after a complication with her pregnancy. But before returning to Tennessee, she developed a recurring infection that resulted in invasive surgery that left her infertile. Breanna says that her State's strict abortion law ``took away her fertility.''
So I am going to end very briefly by fast forwarding to 2025. Republicans don't seem to have learned any lessons. They don't seem phased by the pain and suffering their laws are causing
Mr. President, Planned Parenthood does not receive a single dime--not a dime--of Federal funding for abortion care. These clinics do receive funding to provide essential care, like STD and cancer screenings and annual exams--often, for women of color or women living in low-income communities to have access to this care.
All of this will be ripped away under the Republicans' ``Big Bad Budget Bill,'' alongside the 16 million people they plan on kicking off their health insurance with their Medicaid and affordable care cuts.
Before Roe was overturned, I warned repeatedly that the loss of privacy--the loss of the right to make your most private decisions free of government intrusion--would have a domino effect. Unfortunately, that has become the reality. The overturn of Roe has not stopped an abortion.
Since the Dobbs ruling, Republican lawmakers and conservative judges have also taken aim at the use of IVF and contraception. A headline out of Ohio, less than 1 week ago, reads:
The endgame for Republicans here is a politician in every single exam room and bedroom in America; a politician between you and your doctor, between you and your spouse.
The overturn of Roe has stripped women in America of the right to make their own healthcare decisions. It has stripped women of control over their own bodies and has stripped women of their basic constitutional rights.
Mr. President, ever since I chaired the first-ever congressional hearing on access to abortion medication, back in 1990, I felt that this was a fundamental right that women were entitled to. I am just as committed today to battling against these draconian laws as long as it takes to secure women the ability to make their own healthcare decisions.
I see a number of my colleagues on the floor who have been eloquent speakers for women's healthcare. I want to close by thanking my colleague from Delaware, again, for championing all of us to be here at this time to make sure that we made a difference and spoke out. We very much appreciate your leadership.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I rise today to mark 3 years since half of America was stripped of their reproductive freedom. That is 3 years of women having fewer constitutional rights and freedoms in this country than their mothers and grandmothers; 3 years of women being forced to travel hours out of State to access basic care; and 3 years of Americans unable to make their own choices about their own bodies, their own health, their own families, their own future.
In Wisconsin, women don't have to imagine what the consequences of Roe v. Wade being overturned would be like. We lived it. For 15 months, in my State, women were sent back to live under a law that was passed before the Civil War. Yes, you heard me correctly--a law that was passed in 1849, 70 years before women would get the right to vote and only 1 year after the State of Wisconsin became a State.
Women who wanted to control their bodies had to drive hours. They had to arrange childcare, take time off of work, and pay for lodging just to access healthcare. Other pregnant women in our State bled in hospital parking lots for hours until they were on the verge of death before they were legally allowed to receive care.
Others, like Meagan, one of my constituents, found out that she and her husband were expecting. They found that out in April of 2023. She told me:
But that joy didn't last. At her 20-week ultrasound, Meagan discovered that her baby had severe abnormalities and likely would not survive. What is worse, every day that Meagan remained pregnant, her life was in danger too. But instead of grieving their loss in private and at home, Meagan and her husband were forced to travel to Minnesota to end her pregnancy.
She wrote to me last year:
The answers to those questions under Wisconsin's pre-Civil War abortion ban was, sadly, yes.
Thankfully, Wisconsin has restored access to abortion care in three counties. That still leaves women in 69 counties who face long drives and wait times to see a doctor for care.
I will be the first to say that we have some serious work to do to give women the full freedom to control their bodies. But instead of listening to the vast majority of Americans and working in good faith to restore Roe, my Republican colleagues are doing just the opposite.
The Republicans' ``Big Beautiful Betrayal'' is another step toward a backdoor national abortion ban. Their bill will defund Planned Parenthood, putting access to abortion care, once again, in jeopardy for Wisconsin women. And for many Americans, Planned Parenthood clinics are the only option they have for affordable healthcare, from basic reproductive care to lifesaving cancer screenings.
This ``Big Beautiful Betrayal Bill'' says that the mother of three, the young woman trying to make ends meet, the veteran in need of care, and anyone else on Medicaid can't use their coverage at Planned Parenthood for things like annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control--not abortion, just basic healthcare that everyone needs and that my Republican colleagues, by the way, say they support.
But by doing this, it will defund one of the only abortion providers in many places and take Republicans one step closer to their ultimate goal of banning abortion nationwide.
It is no secret that this has been their plan. Since the day Roe was decided, it has become the mission of so many Republicans to turn back the clock and take away this constitutional right, this freedom.
And it all came to a head when our current President was last in office. Our current President's litmus test when nominating Supreme Court Justices was, of course, if they would rule to take away a woman's right to abortion. I don't think I need to tell you what happened next.
But overturning Roe was not enough for President Trump. In just the past 5 months, he has worked to undermine a woman's right to lifesaving abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, otherwise known as EMTALA. He has worked to freeze title X funding for family planning and reproductive health services like birth control. He has worked to remove medically sound, expert information on reproductive care from government websites. And he has worked to jeopardize protections for women who are harassed while accessing clinics.
While Republicans advance their plan that will further restrict a woman's right to choose, Democrats are fighting back. Today, alongside every one of my Democratic colleagues, I introduced the Women's Health Protection Act to do what most Americans want: restore reproductive freedom for women nationwide.
I want to give a shout-out to my colleague Senator Blumenthal, with whom I worked so closely on the Women's Health Protection Act, over so many years.
This bill would tell Republicans to butt out of women's healthcare, ensuring that States can't impose medically unnecessary restrictions, like mandatory waiting periods or invasive ultrasounds, that infringe upon a woman's right to choose.
Today, we are not just marking 3 years since Roe v. Wade was overturned. We are marking 3 years of my Republican colleagues actively blocking any progress to restore the right to choose. We are marking 3 years of women's lives being in danger because Republicans are in our exam rooms, and lawyers across this country are truly playing doctors.
After 3 years of swearing abortion is an issue for the States, this President is chipping away even further at this freedom, and my Republican colleagues
We are not giving up. We are with the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Dobbs decision and the fundamental rights that it stole from millions of women in this country. We are going to fight every day until those rights are restored.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I am so honored to follow my colleague from Wisconsin, who has been such a steadfast and strong partner in this effort to advance the Women's Health Protection Act.
I will be honest in this Chamber. When we first introduced this measure, almost 15 years ago, the idea that Roe v. Wade could or would be tossed aside was unimaginable. It was firmly established law for decades, relied on by American women and men.
In a stroke of catastrophic, misguided ruling, the Supreme Court cast it aside, ignoring strong precedent and all the doctrines of law that normally would apply. So the Women's Health Protection Act now is more necessary than ever before, certainly than in the days when we first offered it.
My own involvement, actually, in this issue began when I was a law clerk to Justice Blackmun in the year after Roe v. Wade. There was still controversy about whether Roe would survive. But in decision after decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed it. And, in fact, as a member of the Connecticut State Senate, I offered a bill, and it passed, to codify Roe v. Wade in our State laws in Connecticut.
Connecticut has led the Nation proudly in protecting reproductive rights, in safeguarding access to clinics where abortion services are provided, in fighting for Planned Parenthood funding, in protecting doctors who provide these critical services to women coming from other States that may actually criminalize that kind of care.
But we know now what the challenge is and what we must do. The Women's Health Protection Act should be the law of our land. But in the meantime, we have to fight the efforts to handicap and straitjacket women in their efforts simply to seek basic healthcare.
We are in the midst of an assault on women's healthcare. It is really an attack on women and families.
Men have a stake in this fight. You cannot escape this issue simply because you are a man. It affects you and your family as much as it does women.
The decision in Dobbs stripped millions of women of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. The idea that Dobbs would simply return the issue of reproductive rights to the State was always disingenuous. States across the country have created a full-blown healthcare crisis in the chaos and confusion that has ensued.
Since Dobbs, more than 31 million women live in States where abortion is banned or under the threat of banning it, and nearly 9 million women live in the 12 States with bills proposing to bring homicide charges against them for having an abortion.
The effects of Dobbs don't have to be a matter of speculation anymore. I actually commissioned or requested a study from the GAO in 2022 about the economic effects of Dobbs. That report has just been released 3 years later. My first reaction was: Why did it take so long? My second reaction was: Thank goodness you took that long and you did an honest and accurate appraisal of what the effects are.
Here is the bottom line: Dobbs has been a death sentence--literally, a death sentence--for countless women, and it has been a condemnation to financial disaster for many more.
This study shows, inextricably, the link between denial of healthcare and the maternal mortality rate for women and their financial distress, even if they survive.
The Trump administration has aggravated this problem in, literally, just recent weeks. On June 19, 2025, a Trump-appointed Federal judge struck down a Biden administration rule that strengthened privacy protections for information related to productive healthcare, such as abortion and gender-affirming care.
On March 5, 2025, President Trump announced his administration would no longer enforce a Federal law that requires hospitals to provide women abortion care in an emergency when their lives are threatened. When, literally, they could die, no longer will emergency rooms be required to provide that care.
On April 1 of this year, the Trump administration began withholding tens of millions of dollars under title X in family grants for Planned Parenthood and other organizations in our country that support critical family planning efforts and preventive healthcare, including cancer screening, pregnancy testing, birth control, treatment of sexually transmitted infections, infertility services, and more. It is not just efforts to prevent abortion; it is a war on women's health, launched by this administration. And, unfortunately, this administration is just getting started.
The fact is that unsafe and unintended pregnancies have huge costs in lives and dollars, impacting all of us. That is why I am proud to live in Connecticut that has expanded abortion care and ensured that women in other States could access compassionate care if necessary.
But the attacks by Republicans continue, and they are attacks on reproductive freedom, on women's healthcare, seeking now to restrict access to abortion medication, refusing to recognize the right to use contraceptives, working to defund preventive healthcare through Medicaid in clinics like Planned Parenthood.
I am proud to continue this fight. It is a fight that we absolutely must win. It may not be in the next days, but we will be fighting in the next days against the provisions of this ``Big Ugly Betrayal'' that so disgrace our Nation if passed.
I am grateful for all of the Members on our side who are joining us today on this third anniversary of Dobbs to say: Enough is enough. We need to protect reproductive freedoms from this onslaught against women.
Mr. President, right now, this administration is causing so much chaos and confusion that it is sometimes hard to take stock of the damage being done.
But the anniversary of the day today, for Roe v. Wade when it was overturned, is a reminder that we can't let all of that chaos distract us from the work being done to roll back women's reproductive rights right under our noses.
I have to thank my colleague from Delaware Lisa Blunt Rochester and all of my colleagues today for really bringing attention and focus to the important work we do as Senators but really highlighting the impact that decisions made by some of our colleagues, including those in the White House, are having a devastating impact across this country on women and women's healthcare rights.
One of the things that is happening right now is this Republican tax bill that they are trying to force through Congress right now. This tax bill essentially guts reproductive healthcare in this country. The Republicans' billionaire tax giveaway bill, as we know it, is a bill that will cut $800 billion in Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But the legislation that passed the House would also decimate women's healthcare. Not only would it force cuts to critical services in this country, but it also cuts off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
That Medicaid funding wouldn't be going toward abortions. Planned Parenthood providers distribute birth control, conduct wellness exams, test for and treat STIs, and provide lifesaving cancer screenings.
For many Americans with Medicaid, especially in underserved areas, Planned Parenthood is the only accessible source of this care. Defunding it, which is what the Republicans want to do in this reconciliation bill, jeopardizes basic healthcare services that more than 1 million men and women rely on.
It is already outrageous that so many Planned Parenthood health centers in anti-choice States around the country have been forced to close over the last several years, but if they are prohibited from treating patients with Medicaid nationwide, many clinics--even in States where abortion remains legal, like my State in Nevada--may be forced to close their doors.
In States like mine, where women have access to essential reproductive care, Republicans are working to strip that access away, ignoring the will of States like Nevada that have chosen to protect these rights.
Republican legislators in States across the country are also quietly working to gut access to reproductive care. Last November, voters in seven different States approved ballot measures to protect or expand reproductive rights. But in the months since, extremist politicians in more than half of those States have tried to ignore the will of their voters and push new restrictions on abortion access.
And in several other States, anti-choice politicians are working to block similar ballot initiatives in the future. They are trying to ignore what people have clearly voted for, and then they are trying to make it so people can't actually vote on those issues at all--because let's be clear, for anti-choice politicians, this is about controlling women.
Let me give you an example. In Arizona, voters went to the polls last November and overwhelmingly chose to enshrine abortion protections in their State constitution. But since then, Republican politicians, in their State legislature, have been trying to pass bills that would limit the use of medication abortion and ban doctors from even informing women about abortion as a potential treatment option.
Or how about Missouri, where anti-choice politicians are trying to get a measure on the ballot that would overturn the abortion rights protections Missouri voters just approved last November?
These plots to subvert the will of voters and roll back women's rights in the States may not be capturing everyone's attention right now, but it is happening. We need to shed light on it because it is just as dangerous as some of the harmful policies coming out of this administration.
We can't forget that this administration is also taking steps to take away women's reproductive rights without any input from legislators at all.
The Food and Drug Administration has appointed commissioners who want to reexamine the safety of the abortion pill, mifepristone. And, no surprise, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is encouraging it. He has already asked the FDA to ``review the latest data on mifepristone.''
Secretary Kennedy is raising questions and injecting doubt about this medication that has already been proven to be safe and effective over the years. This is a man who, at one time, said he believed it was ``always the woman's right to choose.''
Mifepristone accounts for over 60 percent of abortions nationwide. Any attempts to restrict access to this medication would jeopardize the health and autonomy of women in Nevada and across the country. This is an overt tactic by the administration to continue to take away access to the abortion pill nationwide.
In fact, the Trump administration made it more clear than ever that they are not concerned about women's safety when they eliminated guidance that hospitals have to provide abortions in emergency situations.
We have a law in this country that hospitals that receive Federal funding are required to provide medical care to stabilize a health emergency, including for pregnant patients. In cases where an abortion is necessary to stabilize a patient, hospitals are obligated to provide that care. It is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act--or EMTALA, as many people know it.
I want to stress that EMTALA is the law of the land, and emergency abortion care is protected under EMTALA. But the problem is that this administration is telling women they are unwilling to enforce these protections. That is incredibly dangerous, and it ignores the laws.
It might not be front-page news every day, but when you take all of these actions together, it is clear that this administration and Republicans at every level of government are taking the steps they need to implement a nationwide abortion ban.
We have to remain vigilant and demand changes when these harmful policies emerge because we know that anti-choice politicians all across the country, including here in Washington, will continue to push them and take away women's access to healthcare.
It is happening at the Supreme Court, too, where the Justices who struck down Roe v. Wade are taking up multiple abortion rights cases.
So as we mark the anniversary of the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which took the constitutional right to an abortion away from every woman in this country, I want to thank my colleagues who are standing strong and standing with me today and every day in this fight.
We will never stop pushing back against this administration's--and any other anti-choice politician's--attempts to make women second-class citizens in America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for up to 4 minutes each prior to the scheduled vote: Hassan, Klobuchar, Blunt Rochester, and now me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester for holding this floor block to mark a grim--very grim--anniversary in America.
Three years ago today, as we know, MAGA Justices on the Court eliminated the protections of Roe in the disastrous, terrible, nasty Dobbs decision. In one fell swoop, hard-right Justices overturned decades of precedent and ripped away the fundamental right to choose for millions of American women.
When the Dobbs decision was leaked, I stood here on the floor and said it would be ``one of the worst and most damaging opinions the Court has handed down in modern history,'' and unfortunately, 3 years later, that much has proved to be true.
Today, 21 States have significantly restricted the right to choose. At least 14 States have passed what are practically total abortion bans. In a State like Texas, maternal mortality is spiking. One in five Americans today has to travel great distances, even cross State lines, and wait weeks or more to get the care they need. People are dying because of the Dobbs decision. And--listen to this--State-level restrictions on abortion, combined with the lack of Federal protections, are costing the U.S. economy $133 billion nationally. Without reproductive healthcare protections, fewer women are participating in the workforce, stunting our economy. It is utterly regressive.
Around the Capitol today are women telling their stories, and they are amazing and they are heart-wrenching. I stood alongside several reproductive rights advocates, including two women whose lives have been upended because of Dobbs: Shanette Williams, the mother of Amber Thurman, the first woman recorded in Georgia to die because of lack of abortion care; and Ashley Ortiz, who couldn't get the care she needed because of Arizona's extreme abortion ban. Shanette and Ashley's stories are just two examples of the irreparable harm Dobbs has inflicted. There are countless more stories like theirs we will never hear about.
The anti-choice fanatics in the Republican Party spent decades campaigning to end Roe. Now that the damage is done, Republicans aren't backing down on this issue; they are doubling down. As I speak, Republicans are trying to jam through one of the most extreme, radical anti-choice provisions in their ``Big Ugly Betrayal.'' Specifically, they have snuck two provisions into their bill--one defunding Planned Parenthood and one eliminating coverage for comprehensive reproductive care.
So Dobbs may have set us back, but today, with Senator Baldwin as our lead, we will again introduce the Women's Health Protection Act to ensure that healthcare providers have the statutory right to provide patients abortion services free from bans and restrictions.
Republicans know to their core how deeply unpopular their abortion bans are, and that is why many Senate Republicans tried to run away from the Dobbs decision at first. But, unfortunately, they are back to their normal ways, trying to achieve a total, nationwide abortion ban. Senate Democrats
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to stand up for the freedom of American women as we mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, and I want to thank Senator Blunt Rochester and my colleagues for leading this effort on the floor this afternoon.
In New Hampshire, we proudly call ourselves the Live Free or Die State, and today, I would like to take a moment to reflect on what the Dobbs decision--a decision that represents the largest attack on freedom in modern American political history--means not only for the future of American women but, even more fundamentally, for freedom in our democracy itself.
It is difficult to keep up with the Trump administration's attacks on freedom, with attacks on our rights to due process, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to vote, and more. Perhaps the President hopes that with each cascading outrage, the American people will forget that he set in motion the events that led to the Supreme Court taking away freedom from half of our population--the fundamental freedom of a woman to make her own health decisions. But, of course, we haven't forgotten. We Americans have never been inclined to forget attacks on our liberties.
What did the Dobbs decision mean? It took away a woman's freedom to make deeply personal health decisions, the freedom to decide when and if to start a family, the freedom to get lifesaving care when a woman's health is imperiled while pregnant.
This is more than a freedom to get a specific medical procedure. In practice, we are talking about the freedom to chart one's own future--a freedom which should be enjoyed by all free and equal citizens in a democracy. But with the Dobbs decision, for the first time in our country's history, our daughters are now less free than their mothers were at their age. Since the Dobbs decision, we have become a country where a fundamental freedom can vanish once a woman crosses a State line. We have returned to a kind of sectionalism of bygone eras that history should have taught us to avoid where women who are pregnant and live in States with draconian laws banning abortion know that in the event of a dire medical emergency, they may have to make a long drive to cross State lines or run the risk of being thrown in jail for just trying to get lifesaving care.
This isn't hypothetical. Already, lives have been imperiled and even lost in experiences that we have heard from Georgia, Florida, Texas, and in States all across the country.
Indeed, at this very moment, Members of this body are seeking to pass legislation--the Republican budget bill--which would, among other measures, make it impossible for many women to get the care they need and shut down women's healthcare clinics all across the country. Their legislation is effectively the final step in establishing a backdoor national abortion ban.
So, to my Republican colleagues: Please stop singing the same song to us that the women of America are being alarmist--a song that we heard before Roe was overturned and that we have continued to hear since. I want to know just when exactly in the process of having one's freedom stripped away are we allowed to become alarmed. Are we only allowed to be concerned about losing a fundamental freedom once that freedom has become nothing more than a memory?
Ultimately, behind all of this talk of laws and precedent, of State statutes and Federal, behind all the medical discussion about women's healthcare, the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe begs us to ask a question as simple and as fundamental as they come, a question that the opponents of reproductive freedom and the President himself ought to answer: When our Declaration of Independence declared that all are created equal, does that promise belong to American women or do we believe that truth is not self-evident after all?
When the suffragettes at Seneca Falls wrote that they ``insist women have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States,'' do we still believe those words or were the suffragettes wrong?
Do we believe that we are better off when everyone gets to chart their own future? In the land of the free, do the full blessings of liberty belong to our daughters as well as our sons?
Can a democracy like ours persist when, divided by State lines, half its people live half-free? In the end, that is what this debate is really all about.
So what is it, on this anniversary, that America's women ask for? It is simple. They want what all Americans want. Their aspiration is to be free. And so long as we wish to call ourselves the world's greatest democracy, the President and this body would do well to remember our country's promise and heed their call.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I rise today, on the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision to shred nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, to say that now is the time to protect freedom.
I appreciated the words of Senator Hassan from the State of New Hampshire, a State grounded in freedom, for her focus on freedom. I also thank Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester for bringing us together today.
In the 3 years since the Supreme Court went against the 70 percent of Americans who believe that healthcare decisions should be made by a woman, with her family and her doctor, instead of by politicians, women have been at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws that are creating chaos when it comes to accessing reproductive healthcare.
Today, 20 States partially or fully ban abortion, affecting more than 31 million women across the country. I ask why women in Minnesota should have different rights--different fundamental rights--than women in Texas, why a woman in Oregon should have different rights than a woman in Georgia.
Women are also being forced away from emergency rooms and left to travel hundreds of miles for healthcare, and doctors are being threatened with prosecution for just doing their jobs.
In Texas, a pregnant teenager died after being denied care at three different hospitals. I will never forget the gut-wrenching testimony I heard from another woman, Amanda Zurawski, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. She nearly died from sepsis after being forced to carry her stillborn daughter Willow to term due to Texas's abortion ban. It was a heartbreaking story.
President Trump has made clear that he was and is, in his own words, proudly the person who ended Roe v. Wade, and his administration is continuing its assault on women's reproductive freedom. The Trump administration has rolled back policies that protect access to lifesaving abortion care during medical crises. It has announced it will be putting mifepristone under review despite the fact that the American Medical Association stated that ``there is no evidence that people are harmed by having access to this safe and effective medication'' that has been on the market, I would add, for more than two decades and is safely used in 90 countries.
But the Trump administration has decided: Well, we know better. We know better than the American Medical Association. We know better than the women of the country that have been using this medication safely. We know better than 90 other countries.
And the President is putting forward nominees to the Federal bench, including ones I have recently questioned, with a demonstrated hostility to reproductive freedom.
As if this wasn't enough, congressional Republicans are also seeking to pass a budget that would leave 1.1 million patients who rely on Planned Parenthood health centers for critical and lifesaving services like cancer screening, STI tests and treatment, and birth control, among other things, with nowhere to go.
We are at a pivotal moment for women's rights in this country. Are we going to continue to move forward or are we going to be sent further back in time? Enough is enough.
As my colleagues have made clear today, we refuse to back down. We
We need to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into law once and for all and guarantee the right to access care. That is why we must pass the Women's Health Protection Act--the first step in addressing the devastating reproductive healthcare crisis that Dobbs unleashed-- and keep fighting any effort to deprive women of the healthcare we need and deserve.
Mr. President, as I close out this time, I had written prepared remarks for my closing, but a word keeps ringing over and over in my head, and that word is ``freedom.'' As I stand here, why today is so important is because it is again another chip chipping at our freedoms.
I stand here as a Black woman who has, in our history, knowledge of what it means for your bodily autonomy to be taken.
I stand here, today, looking at a picture of my granddaughter, who I want to have the same rights that I had growing up.
Today, we mark a 3-year anniversary, but we also have an opportunity to commit to what our future will look like.
This very week, we potentially will see a bill on this floor that will again chip away--chip away--at healthcare, when we know that 40 percent of the births in this country are through Medicaid; chip away at our rights.
So I thank my colleagues for their powerful words today. I thank all of the advocates who came and spoke to us today, all of the individuals who are still fighting the good fight to make sure that we have the rights that we deserve.
I will end with a story of an individual who I just met today. Her name is Nancy Davis, and she is a patient in Louisiana.
She said:
Today, let's turn that outrage into action. Spread the word about what is coming to this floor. Make sure that people stand up, use their voices, use this moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Paul Dabbar, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce, shall be brought to a close?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to recognize Amber Moyerman on her dedicated service to the U.S. Senate. After more than 25 years in the Senate, including 18 years in my office as deputy chief of staff and administrative director, she will be retiring at the end of the month.
Amber grew up in Indian Head, MD. She graduated from St. Mary's Ryken High School in Leonardtown, MD. She continued her education at the College of Southern Maryland where she earned an associate's degree.
In 2000, Amber began her career on Capitol Hill as a staff assistant on the Senate Committee on Finance under the leadership of Chairman William Roth. She quickly rose through the ranks on the committee and served for many years as the deputy clerk. In
As my deputy chief of staff, she has served with distinction, professionalism, and grace. Since day one, Amber has helped guide my office. She was always the first staffer to get into the office every day. Her dependability, dedication, and organizational skills made Amber an indispensable member of my team. She also routinely went above and beyond to make sure our staff had the resources they needed to succeed at work and at home.
While we are all sad to see Amber go, we are all happy to know she is retiring to sunny Florida with her beloved husband Shane and daughter Alexandra. I am grateful Amber chose to dedicate her career to helping make Wyoming and our country a better place. We wish her every success as she embarks on this new adventure.
Mr. President, I missed the following votes, but had I been present, I would have voted: no on rollcall vote No. 302, motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 117, Andrew Hughes, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
I missed the following votes, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 303, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 117, Andrew Hughes, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
I missed the following votes, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 323, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 138, Daniel Zimmerman, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Mr. President, I rise today to honor Col. Darin Durand, a great American and an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force.
As the Air National Guard Liaison to the Department of the Air Force's Senate Liaison Division from May 2023 to December 2024, Colonel Durand performed his duties with exceptional professionalism during the 118th Congress. Hailing from Plattsmouth, NE, he is a graduate of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He represents a true Total Force officer, having served over 26 years on Active Duty, in the Air Force Reserve, and in the Air National Guard. Like his father, Col. Arthur Durand, U.S. Air Force retired, and his younger brother Lt. Col. Ryan Durand, U.S. Space Force retired, he has demonstrated exceptional and unrivaled officership throughout his career. He served in various personnel, command, and special staff positions with experience at the squadron, group, wing, major command, and combatant command level and deployed in support of Operations Allied Force and Enduring Freedom.
Colonel Durand distinguished himself with professionalism and dedication as the sole Air National Guard Legislative Liaison in the Department of the Air Force's Senate Liaison office. In this role, he advised Department of the Air Force senior leaders and helped shape over 150 strategic engagements with Senators, Congressmen, and staffers to advance U.S. Air Force and Space Force priorities. He provided seamless collaboration with the Department of the Air Force in all 100 Senate offices. In 20 of those offices, one which was mine, he was the principal Air Force liaison to 20 Senators and their staffs. He also collaborated closely with the Senate Space Force Caucus to effectively educate Senate offices and defense committees on the Department of Defense's newest military branch and its alignment with the National Defense Strategy's focus on Reoptimization for Great Power Competition.
A driven leader skilled at building relationships, Colonel Durand spearheaded initiatives within Headquarters Air Force that bridged the information gap between Members of Congress and the Department of the Air Force. He fostered a shared understanding of congressional priorities and Departmental objectives, enabling the alignment of goals and a cohesive, multifunctional approach to achieving them. He directly supported the successful execution of nine Senate confirmation, posture, and subcommittee hearings, and he provided the Senate with critical information and language refinements necessary to complete the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act.
Colonel Durand's commitment to enhancing global partnerships was evident when he planned, executed and led 13 congressional and staff delegation trips. These trips within the United States and overseas, supported the Air Force Caucus, State delegations, key Senate committees, and our allies and partners. These interactions successfully strengthened international collaboration and cultivated relationships crucial for advancing shared defense priorities and select Department of the Air Force equities. His direct involvement and oversight helped Members of Congress make informed decisions to ensure the Department of the Air Force possessed the right authorities and resources necessary to equip our warfighters and fulfill its role.
One highlight is Colonel Durand coleading the Senate delegation for the bicameral 2023 and 2024 Reagan National Defense Forums. His significant efforts resulted in more than 70 successful engagements between Senators, current and former administration officials, senior military leaders, industry executives, technology innovators, and leading-edge thought leaders. These interactions helped my colleagues and our staffs advance conversations and collaborations critical to achieving our shared national security goal of peace through strength.
Colonel Durand became a fixture on Capitol Hill, before moving on to serve as the Air National Guard adviser to the director of the Air Force's legislative liaison in Washington. I know he is forever grateful to his wife Frances for her unwavering commitment and many sacrifices in supporting his calling in the defense of our Nation.
I am thankful for Col. Darin Durand's service and his work with my office and the Senate over the past 2 years on issues of vital importance to the defense of the United States. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act, a vital piece of legislation designed to close dangerous loopholes in online firearm sales.
The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would make it a Federal crime to fraudulently advertise or sell firearms ammunition online, including by circumventing technology companies' terms of service.
Gun violence remains one of the most urgent crises facing our Nation, claiming more than 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. To reduce gun violence in our communities, it is critical that existing gun safety measures are fully enforced.
Background checks, red flag laws, and other safeguards are designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, but online marketplaces have created new avenues to bypass these protections.
Individuals who would fail a routine background check--such as those with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or a history of severe mental illness--can easily obtain firearms online, even in States with strong gun laws. This loophole undermines the very protections meant to keep our communities safe.
Technology companies have taken steps to curb illegal gun sales on their platforms, but sellers continue to exploit gaps in enforcement. Some platforms have banned firearm sales outright, yet sellers circumvent these restrictions by disguising listings.
On Facebook Marketplace, for example, guns are often advertised as ``stickers'' featuring firearm brand logos, while the actual weapons are
Fraudulent firearm listings undermine essential safeguards contribute to gun trafficking, and increase the risk of violent crime. Around 80 percent of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained from sellers who do not conduct background checks, including fraudulent online dealers. From 2017 to 2021, unlicensed sellers were responsible for more than half of all trafficked firearms, amounting to over 68,000 guns.
The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would directly address this growing threat. By prohibiting fraudulent transactions and holding deceptive sellers accountable, this bill would reinforce background check requirements and help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important step forward in our collective efforts to reduce gun violence and protect our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act without delay.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act, a vital piece of legislation designed to close dangerous loopholes in online firearm sales.
The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would make it a Federal crime to fraudulently advertise or sell firearms ammunition online, including by circumventing technology companies' terms of service.
Gun violence remains one of the most urgent crises facing our Nation, claiming more than 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. To reduce gun violence in our communities, it is critical that existing gun safety measures are fully enforced.
Background checks, red flag laws, and other safeguards are designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, but online marketplaces have created new avenues to bypass these protections.
Individuals who would fail a routine background check--such as those with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or a history of severe mental illness--can easily obtain firearms online, even in States with strong gun laws. This loophole undermines the very protections meant to keep our communities safe.
Technology companies have taken steps to curb illegal gun sales on their platforms, but sellers continue to exploit gaps in enforcement. Some platforms have banned firearm sales outright, yet sellers circumvent these restrictions by disguising listings.
On Facebook Marketplace, for example, guns are often advertised as ``stickers'' featuring firearm brand logos, while the actual weapons are
Fraudulent firearm listings undermine essential safeguards contribute to gun trafficking, and increase the risk of violent crime. Around 80 percent of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained from sellers who do not conduct background checks, including fraudulent online dealers. From 2017 to 2021, unlicensed sellers were responsible for more than half of all trafficked firearms, amounting to over 68,000 guns.
The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would directly address this growing threat. By prohibiting fraudulent transactions and holding deceptive sellers accountable, this bill would reinforce background check requirements and help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important step forward in our collective efforts to reduce gun violence and protect our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act without delay.
Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to consider nominations in open session.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Subcommittee on Digital Assets of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing in open session.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until June 25, 2025: Ava O'Neal and Alan Lam.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following summer associates in my office be granted floor privileges until June 25, 2025: Parker Zito, Cole Carmouche, Camille Morrison, and Curtis Laurent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns on their shadow days as follows: Vincent Sheoships for June 24, 2025; and Emma Singleton for July 24, 2025.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 298, S. Res. 299, and S. Res. 300.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stands in recess until 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 140, Paul Dabbar, and the Senate vote on confirmation at 4:15 p.m.; and that following disposition of the Dabbar nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 93, Kenneth Kies; and if cloture is invoked on the Kies nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Thursday June 26; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand in recess under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Merkley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about debt, and more precisely, how the Republican party has been driving massive increases in debt over the last couple decades, both in two ways. The first way is by particular legislative acts, primarily tax bills that have created enormous debt; and the second is by steadily eroding the framework for budgeting and controlling our difference between our revenues and our expenditures that was created in 1974.
If we want to think about the big factors that have been driving up deficits and, therefore, debt, well, the big factors in recent history--war in Afghanistan, massive; war in Iraq, massive; the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003; the Trump tax cuts of 2017--these were huge factors in vastly reducing revenue, primarily by giving enormous giveaways to the very richest Americans.
Well, that is not all the Republican party has been up to in terms of driving massive increases in deficit and debt. They have also been hard at work destroying the infrastructure that all hundred Senators agreed to back in 1974 to get a handle on debt.
Now let's return to the deficits of 1971, 1972, 1973. Those deficits were, on average, $20 billion--$20 billion compared to $2 trillion now. And yet that $20 billion in deficit, average deficit, over those 3 years was enough to have the Members of the Senate and the Members of the House say: We have to get this under control. If we don't get this under control, we are going to undermine the ability of our work to provide a good foundation for families to thrive in the future through good, strong programs for housing and healthcare and education, good strong programs to create good-paying jobs, and good programs for the security of the United States of America. We are going to undermine all of that--the future for the next generation--if we run up these deficits.
So they created that 1974 act. That 1974 act had a couple of different visions. One was a regular budgeting process. That regular budgeting process was laid out--this is the way that you can, at the front end of each fiscal year or preparing for each fiscal year, you can lay out a vision for how much you are going to spend and how much revenue you are going to create. Those expenditures will be laid out committee by committee, and then we will hold people to it, and we can basically do what a family does--have control over our income and our outgo, our revenue and our expenditures, and therefore control over deficits. That was the vision.
That bill also created something completely separate from that, and that was called reconciliation. Reconciliation is a special fast-track, filibuster-free path--for one reason it was created; all 100 Senators agreed--to reduce the deficit.
You can think of Robert Byrd, who was the fiercest defender of the filibuster--that is the 60 votes required to close debate. Yet even he said: Yes, I am fine setting aside that power that gives strength and leverage to the minority for the purpose of reducing the deficit--that one purpose. That was in 1974.
Now let's fast-forward to 1996, 22 years later. You have a Republican House and a Republican Senate. It is the back end of the Gingrich revolution, the election that occurred in 1994 and the people serving from 1995 to 1997. There were several interesting things that happened in that year, in 1996. One was that Congress said: Let's give the President a line-item veto so that programs can be struck down by the President of the United States.
The Supreme Court said: Not so fast. The Constitution is very clear. It gives the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of the United States. If you want to give the power to decide what is spent to the President, well then you have to do a constitutional amendment.
Well, that was the end of the line-item veto.
Then the next thing that was turned to was, let's do a balanced budget amendment. Well, a balanced budget amendment requires two-thirds of each Chamber of those duly elected to say yes to the bill, and then it has to be sent out as a constitutional amendment to be confirmed by two-thirds of the States. That is a big undertaking.
In the Senate, it was 1 vote short of having the 67 votes it needed to be passed. Well, that was a very frustrating situation to be in, one vote short. Then the leaders of the House and Senate--the Republican leaders of the House and Senate said: Well, you know, we have this other objective. We want to do a tax bill that will give vast sums of the U.S. Treasury to the very richest Americans, and we know Democrats won't stand for that, so we can't do it through regular order. Let's take that special reconciliation process created in 1974 only for deficit reduction and let's repurpose it to do deficit increases.
But there is a problem there. The whole history was quite clear. You had 22 years of precedent to back up the playing language. So what has to be done? Well, the leader of the Senate, Robert Dole, brought in a new Parliamentarian, Robert Dove, who then created a ruling saying that despite the bill--what it says--and despite the 22 years of precedence, this fast-track can be used to do tax breaks and increase the deficit.
Well, that was a core pillar of the 1974 bill--a fast track only for deficit reduction, a filibuster-free path only for deficit reduction. My Republican colleagues tore it down. They didn't use it immediately because President Clinton, a Democrat, was in the Oval Office. As it turned out, a deal was worked out on other issues, so they didn't do that tax bill until Bush came in 2001. Then they used that power created in 1996.
The reason I am going through this is to convey that my colleagues who have talked about fiscal responsibility have been misleading America because while they talk about fiscal responsibility in practice, they have been running up massive deficits and debt for the people of this country--through the war in Afghanistan, through the war in Iraq, through the 2001 tax bill that Bush put forward, through his 2003 tax bill, through the Trump 2017 tax bill--and they have been destroying the discipline for the special reconciliation process that was designed only for deficit reduction.
But that nuclear event of 1996 in which black became white and white became black, the total betrayal of those Senators who voted--100 of them--for a special filibuster-free process only for deficit reduction--the total betrayal of them. But two things survived. One was that there would be no ability to use reconciliation for deficit creation--increases outside of the 10-year window. The third was continuing to use honest numbers--the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue and the Congressional Budget Office for expenditures.
In fact, CBO was created by that 1974 bill so nonpartisan entities would give us honest numbers so we would quit lying to ourselves every time there was a bill about what it cost, quit lying to ourselves about what a tax provision change would mean. We would be honest with ourselves.
You know, it is like a family doing their budget. If they say ``Well, we are only going to go out to dinner once a month to save money,'' but the reality is that they know they are going to go out to dinner 10 times a month, they are just deceiving themselves. They are putting something in their budget that isn't real.
The idea was integrity--integrity with ourselves, integrity with the American people.
But this brings us to this moment right now on the reconciliation bill because those two pillars of fiscal responsibility that survived the 1996 nuclear action by my Republican colleagues, the two pillars that survived--one, no increase in deficits after 10 years and, second, using honest numbers--those are under complete assault right now, and it is through something that is called by my Republican colleagues a current policy baseline.
Let me explain what this means. Normally, you have a bill, and there is a provision in the bill, and that provision says ``Do this,'' and it goes to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
They say: It is a revenue measure. Here is how much money that it will raise as compared to not having that provision in the bill.
Not having that provision in the bill is current law. Putting the provision in the bill is the vision that is being costed out for honest decision making. So here is a provision. How much will it cost? Here is a change in a program. How much will that cost? That is the normal process. That is the normal process of integrity in any budgeting process. We are going to make a change in what we are doing. How much will it cost?
But along comes the decision by my colleague--whom I work with so well on so many things, but on this, I profoundly disagree with him, the chair of the Budget Committee--and he says: Let's stop doing that process where there is a provision in the bill that changes the law and therefore we will estimate how much it costs. Instead, he says, we will simply pretend that a provision in the bill that ended a tax break and now the provision continues that tax break and therefore it costs money--we will pretend that, all along, we knew that it would go on forever, and therefore it costs nothing.
Well, this is the type of smoke and mirrors that the entire 1974 act was designed to stop. Let's stop pretending. Let's stop trying to camouflage what things cost when we make decisions, when we pass laws here. Let's be honest with ourselves. Let's be honest with the American people.
This strategy--how is this to be accomplished? Well, my colleague the chair of the Budget Committee looks to a provision--section 312--in the law.
Let's talk about Section 312. Section 312 is a provision not in Section 313, which is for reconciliation. Section 312 is completely separate, and it has never been used in reconciliation. It was designed to resolve small technical changes.
Let's look at the record of 312. Again, this provision says the chair--actually, it says the Budget Committee, not the chair--the Budget Committee has authority to resolve some technical problems that occur in the process of normal budget bills--not reconciliation; normal budget bills.
Here are the times it has been used, this provision from 312. It has always been used in a bipartisan way, always with consultation, support from Democrats and Republicans, to resolve a technical issue.
For the first time, my colleague the chair of the Budget Committee is saying: We will use it in a partisan fashion where there is no agreement worked out on how to solve a technical issue. We are going to do something that is pure partisan because we want to hide the cost of this reconciliation bill.
A second point is that section 312 has never been used in a broad fashion. It has always been about a narrow provision--again, not in a reconciliation bill. It has been used routinely to enforce spending allocations by committee. It has been used for the Crime Victims Fund. It has been used for the Power Marketing Administration. It has been used to prevent double counting of a dairy program. It made some
Then there is now, where it is no longer a narrow issue; it is about the entire cost of the bill. Section 312 has been used to resolve ambiguities--again, each and every time, resolve an ambiguity in a bipartisan way on a narrow issue--except now, it is not about resolving ambiguity; it is about lying to the American people about what the bill costs.
Has it ever been used in reconciliation before? No, because it is not part of the two sections that control the reconciliation process--310 and 313. It is not part of that at all. It has never been used in reconciliation, not once, not ever, because it is not part of the law that guides reconciliation.
Finally, I want to emphasize that because it has been about narrow issues, the amount of money involved has been related to those more narrow provisions. Yes, they sound large when they are in the millions--even once, on the adjustments to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, about $3 billion, $2.8 billion--but now we are talking not about a couple of billions, we are talking about more than $3 trillion. Wow, that is something.
In every possible way, 312 power giving the Budget Committee the ability to resolve small technical issues outside of reconciliation doesn't fit with using it now to create a magical baseline to, well, obfuscate what things cost.
Now, the cost of this bill, the provisions in this bill, as compared to not having the provisions in the bill, is a cost of about $3 trillion over 10 years. I think the most recent estimate is $32 trillionish--$37 trillion, and that is over 30 years.
Here, we have the effort to tell the world that no, no, no, don't worry. It is only a couple hundred billion, the cost.
I was struck this morning by the estimate that came from the Joint Committee on Taxation which laid out that the revenue portion debt of this bill will now reduce revenue over a 10-year period by over $4 trillion while my colleagues are telling the world: No. No. It will only reduce it by less than $1 trillion.
Let's stop that type of destruction of the budgeting process. It is not just--not just--that we are lying to ourselves and to the American people about the cost of this bill, we are also destroying that boundary that survived in 1996, that said there will be no deficits in any single title, in any single year after the budget window. The budget window is a 10-year period.
This morning, I read back through section 313. And right in section 313, it lays it out again: No deficit creation in any title, in any year after the budget window.
So I am coming to the floor to say to my colleagues: Do not corrupt the very instruments we created in a bipartisan fashion to control the deficit. Do not use a fake baseline to lie to the American public about the cost of the provisions in this bill. Do not breach the boundary in which you are now going to create deficits beyond a 10-year period.
The reason we had that estimate of $37 trillion over 30 years is because now the measures in the bill continue on that create deficits as far as the eye can see, and CBO said we could only estimate it out 30 years. So that is the number: roughly, $3 trillion over 10 years but $37 trillion over 30 years.
CBO also told us, the Congressional Budget Office--that nonpartisan keeper of integrity in budget discussions--if our estimate of the interest rate is 1 percent off, it will cost about another $24 trillion on top of this. So what are we talking about then? We are talking about over $60 trillion over 30 years.
How does that compare to what we have now? Well, we are actually in the midthirties right now in terms of our Federal debt. We are now over 100 percent of debt to GDP. I had thought, as I got into this discussion, that we were at the 100 percent mark and that our amount of national debt had reached the amount of our gross domestic product. But when I rechecked it, no, we are over it. We are beyond it.
How are we going to be responsible architects of our national journey if we are going to keep pretending that things don't cost in the bills that we pass, if we don't use honest numbers, if we destroy the framework created in 1974 that said no deficits after 10 years? That is not the right course.
We, the Democratic side of the aisle, will keep raising this issue because this bill should never go through this body on a false premise, on a fake cost estimate.
Why is that so important in reconciliation? Because the budget resolution lays out how much revenue change can be tolerated and how much spending can be done by the various committees. So if you don't have honest numbers, you have a completely phony process.
So let's come together and rebuild the bipartisan consensus that we are going to have a stronger framework, a stronger budgeting framework for the national enterprise.
As we build up this massive additional part of debt through wars and through tax bills that deliver the national Treasury to the richest Americans, as we do that, we are undermining the future of our country.
Please, to my Republican colleagues, do not come to this floor and talk about fiscal responsibility. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk. It is that important. It is that important.
I am going to conclude by noting that even without this breaching of the boundaries regarding deficits that run as far as I can see, even without the process of lying to ourselves about what this would cost, even without that, this is a terrible bill.
This bill is families lose, and billionaires win, as simple as that: cutting nutrition programs, which means an estimated 4 million children will go hungry; tax breaks for the richest Americans, tax breaks for billionaires; and 16 million people losing healthcare. Why? To fund tax breaks for billionaires. That is just wrong.
There is a better plan. It should be a bipartisan plan, where we seek to have families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. That is a vision we should all be able to get behind.
So let's take this terrible bill, this bill that creates a debt as far as the eye can see, this bill that creates an estimated $37 trillion in additional debt or even more than $60 trillion, if the interest rate predictions are off by 1 percent over 30 years--let's take this bill, and let's put a stake through its heart and start over and instead have that vision of a bill crafted along the lines of families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share.
