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.
10Senate Resolution 414: Designating September 2025 as "National Child Awareness Month" to Promote Awareness of Charities That Benefit Children as Well as Youth-Serving Organizations Throughout The...
12Senate Resolution 416: Expressing Support for the Designation of September 2025 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in Order to Educate Communities Across the United States About Sickle Cell...
(Legislative Day of Tuesday, September 16, 2025) Routine Proceedings, pages S6779-S6800 Measures Introduced
Ten bills and five resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 2914-2923, and S. Res. 414-418.
Page S6971
Measures Reported
S. 1092, to require certain products to be labeled with `Do Not Flush' labeling, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. (S. Rept. No. 119-63)
Page S6791
Measures Passed
Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was discharged from further consideration of S. 269, to improve coordination between Federal and State agencies and the Do Not Pay working system, and the bill was then passed, after agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Page S6798
Thune (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 3912, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S6798
National Child Awareness Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 414, designating September 2025 as ``National Child Awareness Month'' to promote awareness of charities that benefit children as well as youth- serving organizations throughout the United States and recognizing the efforts made by those charities and organizations on behalf of children and youth as critical contributions to the future of the United States.
Page S6798
Gold Star Families Remembrance Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 415, designating the week of September 21 through September 27, 2025, as ``Gold Star Families Remembrance Week''.
Page S6798
Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 416, expressing support for the designation of September 2025 as ``Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month'' in order to educate communities across the United States about sickle cell disease and the need for research, early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs with respect to complications from sickle cell disease and conditions related to sickle cell disease.
Page S6798
Telehealth Awareness Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 417, supporting the designation of the week of September 14 through September 20, 2025, as ``Telehealth Awareness Week''.
Page S6798
National Truck Driver Appreciation Week
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 225, designating the week of September 14 through September 20, 2025, as ``National Truck Driver Appreciation Week'', and the resolution was then agreed to.
Pages S6798-99
Measures Failed
Continuing Appropriations and Extensions and Other Matters Act: By 47 yeas to 45 nays (Vote No. 527), Senate failed to pass S. 2882, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, September 18, 2025, the bill having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not passed.
Page S6785
Subsequently, Senator Schumer entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate failed to pass the bill.
Page S6785
Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act
By 44 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 528), Senate failed to pass H.R. 5371, making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2026. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, September 18, 2025, the bill having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not passed.
Page S6785
Subsequently, Senator Thune entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which Senate failed to pass the bill.
Page S6785
Measures Considered
National Defense Authorization Act--Agreement: Senate resumed consideration of S. 2296, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, taking action on the following amendments and motions proposed thereto:
Pages S6781-84
Pending
Wicker/Reed Amendment Modified No. 3748, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S6782
Wicker (for Ernst) Amendment No. 3427 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on casualty assistance and long-term care programs.
Page S6782
Thune Amendment No. 3863 (to Amendment No. 3427), relating to the enactment date.
Page S6782
Thune Amendment No. 3864 (to the language proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 3748), relating to the enactment date.
Page S6782
Thune Amendment No. 3865 (to Amendment No. 3864), relating to the enactment date.
Page S6782
Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Thune Amendment No. 3866, relating to the enactment date.
Page S6782
Thune Amendment No. 3867 (to (the instructions) Amendment No. 3866), relating to the enactment date.
Page S6782
Thune Amendment No. 3868 (to Amendment No. 3867), relating to the enactment date.
Page S6782
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 3 p.m., on Monday, September 29, 2025, Senate resume consideration of the bill.
Page S6799
Eliminate Shutdowns Act: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 2806, to provide for automatic continuing appropriations.
Page S6799
A motion was entered to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur on Monday, September 29, 2025.
Page S6799
Pro Forma Sessions: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the Senate adjourn, to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times: Monday, September 22, 2025 at 8:30 a.m., and Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 12 noon; and when the Senate adjourns, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m., on Monday, September 29, 2025.
Page S6799
Waltz Nomination: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that on Monday, September 29, 2025, notwithstanding Rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to the nomination of Michael G. Waltz, of Florida, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, ripen at 5:30 p.m.
Page S6799
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 47 yeas to 43 nays (Vote No. EX. 530), Michael G. Waltz, of Florida, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the Rank of Ambassador, and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations.
Pages S6786, S6799
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 47 yeas to 45 nays (Vote No. 529), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Pages S6785-86
45 Air Force nominations in the rank of general. 7 Army nominations in the rank of general. 4 Marine Corps nominations in the rank of general. 2 Navy nominations in the rank of admiral. Routine lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force.
Pages S6799-S6800
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S6792-96
Record Votes
Four record votes were taken today. (Total--530)
Pages S6785, S6786
Adjournment
Senate convened at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 2:34 p.m., until 8:30 a.m. on Monday, September 22, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S6799.)
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: 43 of 105 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, what I am going to say is, remember the history of Putin saying 20 years ago that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster of the 20th century and that Putin's goal was to reestablish the Soviet Empire; and we see that going on every day with how he is destroying Ukraine.
So everyone interested in religious freedom in Russia and Ukraine should read the recent report by the Free Russia Foundation. The Free Russia Foundation is an organization of Russians who wants a ``free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous Russia reintegrated into the international community as a constructive and positive actor.''
This organization's recent report, entitled ``The Russian Orthodox Church and the War,'' demonstrates how this church body supports the ongoing invasion of Ukraine through propaganda, rituals for the invaders, diplomatic manipulation, and espionage. Now, doesn't that seem very odd for a church--any church--to have that as goals?
The Russian Orthodox Church is also actively engaged in suppressing and persecuting other Christian denominations, including Orthodox believers who do not answer to Russia.
It seems shocking to me to see Russians talk about the main Christian denomination in Russia in this way, but remember this: After initially persecuting Orthodox believers, dictator Joseph Stalin co-opted the Russian Orthodox Church to support the Soviet state. At that time, the Russian Orthodox faithful outside of Russia broke all ties with the Soviet-installed patriarch. Today's Russian Orthodox Church is dominated by leaders who came of age under the KGB-controlled church structure. Now understand this: The current patriarch of Moscow was a KGB agent, so it is no wonder that he is close to Putin.
The Free Russia report documents the Moscow patriarch's blessing of the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. It quotes the patriarch's September 2022 sermon:
Now, as a Christian--and, I hope, for any Christian--I find that shocking. So does the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the first among equals in the Orthodox tradition.
He said of the Moscow patriarch's support for Putin and his war:
It is damaging to the prestige of the whole of Orthodoxy because Orthodoxy doesn't support war, violence [or] terrorism.
There has been a lot of propaganda claiming that the Russian Orthodox Church is somehow a victim of religious persecution in this war. In fact, it is a leading perpetrator of the persecution of fellow Orthodox believers, evangelicals, and other churches. I had a chance to meet a year ago with 30 church leaders from Ukraine who told how this persecution was going on.
Don't take my word for it, though. Read this report that I have quoted from by these pro-democracy Russians.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, the House has just passed a short-term, clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution to fund the government for a few additional weeks while we continue bipartisan work on appropriations bills, and, today, we will be voting on that clean, nonpartisan CR as well as on the CR the Democrats introduced Wednesday night.
On the floor yesterday, the Democrat leader said: The contrast between the Republican bill and the Democrat bill is glaring.
Well, he has got that right. The contrast between the Republican bill and the Democrat bill is glaring. The Republican bill is a clean, nonpartisan, short-term continuing resolution to fund the government to give us time to do the full appropriations process, and the Democrat bill is the exact opposite. It is what you might call not a clean CR--a dirty CR--laden down with partisan policies and appeals to the Democrats' leftist base.
When I became majority leader, I made it very clear that I wanted the Senate to return to the regular order consideration of appropriations bills. I was not and am not interested in funding the government through last-minute, backroom deals. The right way to fund the government, whenever humanly possible, is through regular order here in the Senate. That means taking appropriations bills through committee, where Republicans and Democrats alike have a chance to make their voices heard, and then bringing those bills to the Senate floor for more debate and amendment. That process is good for Senators of both parties, to say nothing of being best for the American people.
But Democrats can't take ``yes'' for an answer, so instead of working with Republicans to fund the government through a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution so that we can get back to bipartisan negotiations on appropriations, Democrats are yielding to the desires of their rabidly leftist base and are attempting to hold government funding hostage to a long list of partisan demands.
The kind of clean CR Republicans have put forward used to be something Democrats embraced. In fact, Democrats voted in favor of clean CRs no fewer than 13 times during the Biden administration. Yet, now that Republicans are offering a clean CR, it is somehow a no-go. It is funny how that happens.
The Democrat leader has tried to defend his party's double standards by suggesting that this is a special case. Really? Really? Why is it always a special case with Democrats?
The truth is, the only thing special about this case is that Democrats can't stand the fact that the American people elected Donald Trump. So we all have to live with their endless temper tantrum, which apparently may now include shutting down the government.
I could spend some time talking about the measure Democrats put forward yesterday. I could talk about how it would allow noncitizens and able-bodied adults who won't work to stay on the Medicaid rolls, while at the same time ripping away the historic investment in home- and community-based services for Americans with disabilities. I could talk about how it would eliminate a transformational investment in rural healthcare, dilute Medicaid resources for those most in need, and a whole lot more. But suffice it to say that it is a fundamentally unserious proposal designed to appease Democrats' liberal base, and it has zero chance of making it through Congress. And they know that.
I can't stop Democrats from opposing our nonpartisan continuing resolution. If they want to shut down the government, they have the power to do so. But if they think they are going to gain political points from shutting down the government over a clean, nonpartisan CR-- something they voted for 13 times under the Biden administration--I would strongly urge them to think again.
The ball is in the Democrats' court. They can vote with the Republicans on a clean, nonpartisan CR to fund the government and allow the Senate to complete additional appropriations work or they can vote for their own partisan CR and move the country one step closer to a shutdown. For the sake of the American people, I hope they will choose to vote with us.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, today, all of America can see the glaring contrast between Republican and Democratic priorities, as shown by the bills each party introduced late yesterday.
Senators will have to choose to stand with Donald Trump and keep the same lousy status quo and cause the Trump healthcare shutdown or stand with the American people, protect their healthcare, and keep the government functioning.
Today, we have a rare moment in the Senate where two bills come to the floor that truly crystallize the contrast between the two parties.
On the Republican side, Americans will see more of the same high costs, especially on healthcare, more of the same failures of the last 9 months or, instead, Republicans can vote to undo the destruction Donald Trump has inflicted on American healthcare and instead work on a bipartisan bill--the only bipartisan bill that can win--to keep the government open. That is what Democrats offer the American people. The choice is clear.
Our Republican colleagues seem to think Americans are happy with the direction of this country. They are voting like they think the status quo is good enough even though they have heard from so many of their constituents about the fear of hospitals closing, of healthcare being diminished, of premiums going way up, hundreds of dollars each month. They have heard that from their constituents, but they stick with Donald Trump, who doesn't give a hoot about them.
Republicans are voting like the status quo is good enough. They are wrong. Americans are tired of the status quo. They are tired of Donald Trump's chaos and inflationary policies.
By not even negotiating, by trying to make this partisan, Donald Trump and Republicans are shutting the government down.
People are paying more for groceries, more for their electric bills, more for rent. Even a cup of coffee every morning has gotten more expensive under Donald Trump.
Healthcare in America has been plunged into crisis. Fifteen million Americans will lose their healthcare. Premiums are set to go through the roof--hundreds of dollars each month, thousands of dollars each year. The American family--average family--can't afford that.
Republicans--what do they say? Well, let's kick the can down the road. Republicans say: Let's put it off. Let's do it later. But for Republicans, ``later'' means ``never.''
We should solve this healthcare crisis now. People are already getting letters in the mail saying their premiums are about to go up next year by $300, $400, $500--God forbid, even more.
A new report today showed that if we extend these tax credits, the vast majority of the benefits will go to the working- and middle-class families--the families who need help. That is what Democrats want to do here today.
Also, hospitals from Virginia to Nebraska, from Maine to California, are shutting down right now--not next
If you are an adult with parents who live in a nursing home, what is going to happen if that nursing home closes due to budget cuts? Hundreds--hundreds--of nursing homes will close because they depend on Medicaid, which has been slashed. Most people, most average families, can't afford to take their parents in, and there is no way they could provide the same care and expertise that a nursing home could.
I have talked to long-term care centers--in Republican districts no less--where doctors and nurses and healthcare workers and parents are frustrated or worried--worried their jobs are imperiled and worried even more that their patients are imperiled. They cannot understand how Donald Trump and Republicans are so OK with cutting their funding. In short, it is a betrayal. That is what the status quo looks like under Donald Trump.
Also, let me speak to my own colleagues here in the Senate who care about this institution and who, in normal times, would love to work together with the other side to make good things happen for the country. Donald Trump and his little minion Russell Vought have made a total mockery of the congressional appropriations process. He has trampled over Congress's power of the purse. He has illegally frozen, canceled, and redirected--unilaterally misappropriated--hundreds of billions in funding.
Why the heck should the Senate vote on a budget if Russell Vought singlehandedly, with Donald Trump's support, can undo it all? And that includes NIH research. It includes public broadcasting and so much else. It is all illegal. It cannot be tolerated. Why pass a budget if Russell Vought can unilaterally rescind it? Every Senator should not stand for it, including our Republican colleagues. Democrats will certainly not stand for it. Will Republicans?
Republicans cannot expect that another take-it-or-leave-it extension of government funding that fails to address healthcare costs is going to cut it for the American people. What we should do instead is move forward with our Democratic proposal to work to keep the government open, to lower people's premiums, to protect people's healthcare.
Finally, both sides should at least talk. Donald Trump does not want to talk. He has said to Republicans: ``Don't even bother'' to deal with Democrats. That is Donald Trump saying he--he--wants a shutdown.
You have to have two parties to pass a bill. If you say ``Don't deal with Democrats,'' you are saying you want a shutdown. That is what Trump has said. He either doesn't know the Senate procedure, where you need 60 votes--that is obvious--or he doesn't know math, because he only has 53.
Donald Trump is saying he wants a shutdown, and Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson should resist Trump's bullying. They know the only way to pass a budget is with bipartisan negotiation. In the 4 years when we Democrats had a majority, there was never a shutdown. Why? We talked to our Republican colleagues and created bipartisan proposals. We sat down and talked, which was normally what happened, except our Republican colleagues--Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson--are too afraid to buck Donald Trump.
Well, the American people won't stand for Donald Trump's status quo. They don't like the Republican partisanship. They expect both sides to come together and address the real needs they face, from healthcare to the cost of living. This is what Democrats offer the American people with our bill today if Senate Republicans heed their call.
Mr. President, I must speak for another moment about the FCC.
We are in a moment of peril--dire peril--in America because yesterday Donald Trump said he intends to put a dagger through the heart of what America is about when he said that he doesn't believe in free speech, that maybe the licenses and ability to speak of people and broadcast companies that disagree with him should be taken away.
When Donald Trump says the FCC should consider revoking licenses of networks with shows and hosts who are ``against me'' and who ``give me only bad publicity,'' he is talking about a dictatorship. That is what dictatorships do--they shut down anyone who has any disagreement with them. But that is what he is threatening to do today through Brendan Carr. He said:
That is censorship. It is disgusting. It is a violation of the First Amendment. What Trump is doing comes right out of Xi and Putin's playbook. He is launching in broad daylight a naked attack on perhaps the most basic freedom in America: free speech. For hundreds of years, America has been proud to be a land of free speech, and Donald Trump is the first President who really attempts to put a dagger through its heart.
Where are our Republican colleagues? They know this is wrong. Silence; obeisance to Donald Trump's destruction of free speech and democracy. He is launching in broad daylight an attack on one of the most basic freedoms in America, which is free speech, and it is being challenged through his flack at the FCC, Brendan Carr, who coerced ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel for his comments that he or Trump didn't like.
Donald Trump's attack on free speech is despicable. It is anti- American. It is the road to dictatorship. And it is not the first time Donald Trump has done this. He is launching investigations into companies to bully them into submission. And it is not just late-night talk show hosts; Donald Trump and MAGA have said they will try to silence others.
When Carr goes on a podcast and says the FCC ``can do this the easy way or the hard way'' to make sure Kimmel is silenced, that is an attack on every single media outlet, whether it is traditional or digital. That is an attack on every single American.
So today I am, with Senators Markey and Lujan, calling on Chairman Carr to demand to know how the FCC defines ``public interest'' under Carr, which networks must adhere to; to ask Carr did his staff communicate--he or his staff--with Disney, ABC, or their affiliates.
We all know the murder of Charlie Kirk was abhorrent and evil, plain and simple, but it is repulsive that the Trump administration is exploiting this tragic death as an excuse to go after anyone they don't like politically, including by silencing free speech.
While Donald Trump tries to take away people's freedoms, Republicans in Congress are bowing in obeisance to his throne because they are too scared to stand up to him. They know he will cast retribution on them, as he has on networks and people in the press.
In conclusion, freedom is as fundamental as it gets in America. Everyone knows that. Republicans know that. Conservatives know that. For the longest time, everyone--Ronald Reagan on down--has defended free speech. But if you lose freedom of speech, it is the road to autocracy.
Mr. Carr is one of the greatest threats to free speech in American history. He must resign immediately, and if not, Trump should fire him.
Mr. President, 2 years ago, when the government was on the brink of a shutdown, the then-majority leader, now-minority leader, Senator Schumer of New York, wrote a letter to his colleagues--I have it here--dated September 2023. It says:
In his letter, Senator Schumer wrote:
He went on to say:
Well, I am happy to announce that just in the last hour, the House of Representatives passed, in a bipartisan vote, a continuing resolution to keep the government funded.
That is not what we are seeing today, though, from the minority leader. Senator Schumer has written this time not a ``Dear Colleague'' letter but the biggest ransom note in American history.
One trillion dollars in ransom for 4 weeks of keeping the government open. It is filled with partisan, political poison pills that will never become law.
What we are seeing today from the minority leader is exactly what he once condemned. He is holding the American people hostage. What he is promoting today is not a spending bill; it is a shakedown--the Schumer shakedown, the Schumer strategy to lead to a Schumer shutdown.
Let me break down this ransom note line by line because the American people deserve to know what the Democrats are demanding. Their $1 trillion demand includes $500 billion to continue the COVID-era spending spree. We were originally told that the COVID bonus subsidies would be temporary. Democrats now want to turn them into a permanent government giveaway. This is in spite of the fact that the COVID crisis ended years ago.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman was right. He said:
Additionally, Democrats want to weaken Medicaid for those who need it the most. Republicans' comprehensive economic plan strengthens Medicaid. We reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. Democrats want to kill those reforms. They want to repeal the entire healthcare section of the law.
Democrats would rather shut down the government than stop States from paying for free healthcare for illegal immigrants. Democrats want to continue to give Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults who refuse to work. Democrats are holding America hostage for people who broke our laws and for people who refuse to get jobs.
Now let's talk about money that the Democrats want to send overseas. This bill spends billions of dollars on radical climate projects: Zimbabwe, $13 million for ``civic engagement''; Honduras, $25 million for ``climate resilience''; West Africa, $40 million for ``low- emissions development.'' Let that sink in. Republicans want to keep the government open, pay our troops here at home. Democrats would rather fund climate projects overseas and are willing to shut down the government if we are not willing to do that.
Democrats are willfully wasting billions of hard-working Americans' tax dollars on their liberal fantasies. Republicans are proposing 7 weeks of clean funding. It is what passed the House in a bipartisan way just an hour ago, and Democrats instead are demanding seven figures for foreign slush funds.
Mr. President, let me point out that Democrats do make some spending cuts. Regrettably, those cuts target our Nation's most vulnerable hospitals in rural communities. Democrats want to eliminate the $50 billion Rural Hospital Stabilization Fund. It is something we just passed earlier this year--passed it this summer. It is something that I hear about from our hospitals at home and how grateful they are. And I am a doctor. I practiced medicine in my home State of Wyoming for more than 20 years. I was president of the Wyoming Medical Society. I know the stresses and strains on rural hospitals, and that is why this was passed.
Mr. President, your home State of West Virginia experiences exactly the same thing. We both know how many small community hospitals need the kind of help that we were able to pass that the Democrats now want to strip away. With rural hospitals under significant stress, the last thing Congress should do is remove the funds designated to help keep them open, and they want to instead spend this money in foreign countries. That is what the Democrats want to do.
Let me return to Senator Schumer's own words:
Yet hostage-taking is exactly what he is doing today.
Senator Schumer is demanding a trillion dollars in new spending for keeping the government open 4 weeks. He is sending billions of dollars to foreign countries but slashing billions of dollars for rural hospitals in our own country; subsidizing free healthcare for people who refuse to get jobs but threatening the paychecks of the people whose job it is to keep our Nation safe.
He is demanding a far-left wish list or else he wants to shut down the government. That is the Democrat strategy today; make no mistake. Republicans will hold Democrats accountable for supporting this dangerous political theater.
The good news is Congress can keep the government open and functioning without hostage-taking and without shakedowns. Republicans' clean continuing bipartisan resolution that just passed the House with a bipartisan vote is ready to go; 7 weeks long, it gives Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee the time they need to finish their work.
I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and ranking member on the floor right now.
The House passed it today, bipartisan; President says he will sign it. Senate Democrats voted for similar bills not once, not twice, but 13 times when Joe Biden was President. There is only one person standing in the way of keeping the government open. That is the Minority Leader.
He has said it himself: We cannot afford hostage-taking. I would say to the Minority Leader: Stop holding the government hostage; stop holding the American people hostage; get rid of the ransom note; keep the government open. The American people deserve better than a trillion-dollar shakedown.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, I would just make one point to my good friend from Wyoming. When we were in the majority for 4 years, there was not a shutdown--not one. Why? Because we did what you are supposed to do: talk in a bipartisan negotiation and each side has input.
The reason we are having a shutdown now is you and your leadership refuse to talk to Democrats and have input and want only your imprimatur on the bill, which we believe hurts Americans badly with healthcare.
Never a shutdown when we were in leadership. You can quote all the things you want. We did it the right way. You are not.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, in just a short bit, we are going to vote on a bill that Democrats introduced earlier this week that does a couple of critical things. First of all, it prevents a needless shutdown at the end of this month,
Secondly, this bill takes critical steps to prevent Russ Vought from stealing money from cancer research or Trump deciding unilaterally he is going to cut off funding he doesn't like.
Third, it provides critical new security resources to keep Federal officials safe and help ensure political violence does not tear further at the fabric of our democracy.
And, fourth, this bill addresses the looming Republican healthcare crisis to stop healthcare costs from rocketing up and our rural hospitals from shutting down. These are four priorities that I think every single Member of Congress should be able to agree with.
I am afraid that while some of my Republican colleagues say they want to address the healthcare tax credits, they are quick to caveat that now is not the right time. Republican leaders said as much.
So I have to ask: When is the time? It seems to me the time is now. When Republicans say they don't want to talk about healthcare yet, what they are saying is, they don't want to talk about it until a lot of the damage has been done because premium hikes are already being announced and people will receive letters in the mail with their new rates next month.
So the time to act, really, is now. The clock is ticking, but Republicans don't want to even have a conversation about that yet. Well, Democrats are forcing a conversation. Our bill will not only avoid a government shutdown and give us time to continue working on our funding bills, it would address the imminent healthcare crisis, preventing premiums from skyrocketing by extending healthcare tax credits before those higher premiums kick in and are locked in and reversing Republicans' massive Medicaid cuts that will kick millions off of their insurance and shutter hospitals.
This vote will show America who seriously wants to help our families afford healthcare and keep those hospitals open and who is content to let those costs skyrocket and hospitals to close.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes on our bill that we would introduce this week on the Democrat side so we can act with the urgency this moment requires.
Let me be clear: Do I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to join me in voting for this funding bill that we introduced? Absolutely. But if they choose not to, the Senate will move to consideration of the partisan House-passed CR.
I want to be crystal clear here. There was and still is, in fact, a path to preventing a shutdown, and it starts with the Republican leadership finally sitting down with our Democratic leadership, something they have refused, for literally weeks, to do.
You want Democratic votes on a funding bill? A good place to start is by actually trying to win those votes. But instead of so much as talking to Democrats about how to stop millions of Americans from losing their healthcare or seeing their premiums double or worse, the Republican leadership has decided to follow Trump's orders, blow off Democrats, and risk a Republican shutdown.
I have had productive conversations with my fellow appropriators, but those conversations only mean so much when Republican leadership choses to pull the rug out from under us. Four-corner negotiations were positive, but leadership has to be involved to wrap those negotiations and at least discuss healthcare.
If Republican leadership refuses to even speak with our Democratic leadership, where does that leave us? Instead of meeting us at the table to hammer out a bipartisan short-term CR, advance the critical work on those bills, and kick off serious talks on healthcare, House Republicans went off alone. They released a bill that utterly fails to address priorities that are top of mind for so many families.
That is a choice Republicans have made, and it is downright callous. After all, if Republicans insist on inaction, higher premiums are going to be locked in for people across our country. That is the cost of delay.
But Republicans are, essentially, saying the American people should just accept massive price increases for healthcare. And they expect Democrats to just simply go along. And even if Republicans decide to wait until the last minute for an extension, 1.5 million Americans will still lose their healthcare.
Republicans are trying to act like just cutting one party out of those talks and then trying to demand their votes is somehow business as usual--no way; no thanks.
I will be voting no on the Republican funding bill because there is a better way here. Why not sit down with our Democratic leadership to talk about how we pass the short-term CR, how we make progress, critical progress on our full-year funding bills, and how we handle this healthcare crisis?
After all, Republicans are willing to say to the press, they want all of these things, they say it in front of the cameras. Why aren't they willing to say it in a room with Leader Schumer and Leader Jeffries? Why aren't they willing to just meet and actually start charting a course on how we move forward on that?
I think the main reason is Donald Trump. Again, he told Republicans don't even bother dealing with Democrats. Seems like Republican leaders are just afraid to cross the aisle and have a simple meeting, a mere conversation, if it risks losing Donald Trump.
That is wrong, and it is dangerous because with rare exception, just about every bill we pass here in the Senate takes 60 votes. So to get things done for our families back home, Republicans need to work with Democrats. And if Republican leadership cannot find the courage to do that on what should be low-hanging fruit here, if they can't sit down with our Democratic leadership to talk about a short-term CR, what does that mean for the work we have been doing on our full-year spending bills? What does it mean for extending those healthcare tax credits? And what does it mean for any of the other challenging issues we would all like to work together on to address?
It is deeply disappointing to me that the Republican leaders have chosen to go down the partisan route we are here on today. But there is still time to do the right thing. They should come to the table.
I am a ``no'' on the Republican CR, but my colleagues should know I am committed to this process. After all, there is so much at stake in all of our annual funding bills. It matters tremendously that we fully fund WIC to make sure moms and babies don't go hungry; it is hugely important that we fund the VA to make sure our veterans are getting the quality of care we promised them when they come home.
Families in my State and across the country are counting on us here in Congress to protect funding for childcare and Head Start so our kids can learn and grow. There are students and parents at school districts across America counting on us here in Congress to protect funding for kids with disabilities; for schools in some of our poorest communities.
There are patients everywhere in the country who are desperately counting on us to do our job to federally fund cancer research in hopes of a cure or for a clinical trial that might give them some more time with their loved ones.
I could go on--funding to replace lead pipes or to treat opioid addiction. The work we do in our Appropriations Committee matters. The outcomes that this Congress dictates over how we spend taxpayer dollars matter. It is hugely consequential for millions of Americans, and I am so glad that there is strong bipartisan support for so many of those programs because when we can all agree on something good, that is a win for all of our constituents.
So, yes, I want us to find a way forward so we can keep working on our full-year spending bills that will actually help people. We have already passed eight of those spending bills out of our committee; three on the floor that we are working right now really hard to conference so they can be signed into law.
These are all bills that help people and solve problems. None of us should want to hand the pen over to Russ Vought and give him or Trump or anyone else at the White House more power of our Federal spending. That is
There is a better path forward. I would ask Republican leadership: Simply come to the table. Compromise is a very basic principle. Every American understands it. And if Republicans don't bother working with the Democrats just because Donald Trump told them to, this would be a Republican shutdown.
The Republicans control all of government: the House, the Senate, the White House. The American people know who will be to blame. I ask that we work to move forward to choose a different path, work together and avert this shutdown.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, I rise to urge passage of the funding bill that was approved by the House of Representatives earlier today. Now, let's be clear on what this bill is and what it is not.
It is a stopgap measure, which is known as a continuing resolution or often called a CR. It is straightforward. It continues current funding levels for government until November 21. That gives Congress the time that we need to continue our work on the annual appropriations bills.
It is not a yearlong CR. Republicans do not want a yearlong CR. The reason we are operating under a yearlong CR for the first time in history for the Department of Defense, which is causing tremendous difficulties, is because the then-majority leader Senator Schumer refused to bring a single appropriations bill to the Senate floor in the last Congress despite the hard and bipartisan work of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So let's be clear on that.
Once again, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have worked hard over the last several months to advance annual appropriations bills and carry out our constitutional responsibility of the power of the purse.
Last month, the full Senate passed with overwhelming bipartisan support our first package of fiscal year 2026 annual appropriations bills. They included the bills funding agriculture and the FDA; military construction and veterans affairs; and the legislative branch.
This marked the first time since 2018--7 years ago--that the Senate approved annual appropriations bills before the August home State work period.
In the intervening weeks, the leaders of the relevant Senate subcommittees have been working very hard with their House counterparts on both sides of the aisle to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate bills.
We hope to have final versions of these three bills soon that can be considered in both Chambers, enacted, and sent to the President for his signature.
In addition, Majority Leader Thune has already expressed a willingness, indeed a commitment, to bring another package of fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills to the Senate floor next month.
This is a welcome change from the last year when then-majority leader Senator Schumer refused to bring a single one of the 12 annual appropriations bills to the Senate floor for consideration. Those are the facts.
The result of that obstruction was a full-year continuing resolution for fiscal year 2025 and a delayed start to our current appropriations process.
To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to avoid a similar fate for fiscal year 2026, I say, work with us to complete the annual funding bills, just as we are doing in committee. Pass this clean CR, which has no poison pills, so that we can prevent disruptions to vital programs on which the American people rely while Congress completes its work on the annual funding bills. It should be that simple.
Government shutdowns have negative consequences across government and across the Nation. They require certain government employees such as Border Patrol agents, members of our military and Coast Guard, TSA screeners, and air traffic controllers, among others, to report to work with no certainty on when they will next receive their paycheck.
Shutdowns put critical investments in our national defense on hold, training exercises could be limited, which could hurt our Nation's readiness. New programs would be paused, delaying new capabilities from getting to our warfighters.
Under a shutdown, Federal funding for important national priorities would be halted, including grants to State and local law enforcement and other first responders, new funding and support for the Head Start Program and child welfare services, as well as formula grants to States that support older Americans and individuals with disabilities.
Most day-to-day operations at our national parks would cease. The first week of October is usually peak foliage in Downeast Maine. It is a time when visitors flock to Arcadia National Park in Maine--the crown jewel of Maine. In previous shutdowns, park personnel were kept to a minimum. Visitor service centers were closed. Restrooms were not maintained. Trails were not cleared. All of this affects the visitor experience and has a ripple effect, harming our local small businesses when tourists decide to cancel their reservations.
Instead of supporting a clean CR to prevent a government shutdown, congressional Democrats, sadly, have put forth a partisan alternative that is full of poison pill riders and significant policy changes.
This is not a clean CR just extending existing funding levels until, well, in their case, until the end of October, in the case of what I thought was an agreed-upon bipartisan date, November 21, as the House bill would do.
Most appalling--and I want to make sure that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle realize this--the Democratic version of the continuing resolution would repeal the $50 billion fund that I authored to help our rural hospitals that are on the brink of closure. I am sure that is a problem in the Presiding Officer's State as well.
In Maine, we have already seen one hospital closure this year, and this fund is vital to other rural hospitals across the State and across the Nation that are struggling to stay afloat and provide essential healthcare to their communities.
Now, I support extending the enhanced premium tax credit for health insurance, but unlike appropriations, that issue does not have a September 30 deadline. It should be a priority for us to take up before the end of the year because, as has been mentioned by the vice chair, insurance bureaus across this country have approved substantial rate increases--24 percent in the State of Maine--so we do need to act. But that is a significant policy change, and the deadline is not September 30.
I urge my colleagues to abandon this brinksmanship that does not serve the American people well, that is unworthy of this Senate, and adopt this straightforward bill sent to us by the House, which the President is willing to sign into law without any further delay and which will avoid a completely unnecessary and harmful shutdown of government.
This would allow us the time to complete the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process and continue our work to find a path forward on the enhanced premium tax credit.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
I ask unanimous consent that if either of the votes on S. 2882 and H.R. 5371 fail of passage, it be in order for the two leaders to enter motions to reconsider without being on the prevailing side; further, that third readings with respect to the previous order be vitiated and that both bills be considered read a second time and immediately placed on the calendar.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 45, as follows:
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 47, and the nays are 45.
The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the bill is not passed.
The bill (S. 2882) was rejected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on passage of H.R. 5371, the cloture motion filed during yesterday's session of the Senate on Executive Calendar No. 410 ripen immediately; further, I ask that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Waltz nomination be waived; and that if cloture is invoked, all debate time be expired and the Senate vote immediately on confirmation of the nomination; finally, that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
I ask unanimous consent that these votes be 10-minute votes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 48, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 48. The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the bill is not passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call with respect to rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Michael G. Waltz, of Florida, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the Rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of The United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 45, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote yeas are 47, the nays 45.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 43, as follows:
The nomination confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Madam President, I am going to be very clear. The clock is ticking. On October 1, if Congress fails to reauthorize the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, we are set to lose an absolutely invaluable cornerstone of our national cyber security defense.
For the past 10 years, this law has enabled private companies and Federal Agencies to share cyber threat information both quickly and securely before attacks spread. The protections in this law enable us to mitigate threats before cyber security systems become compromised and irreversible damage is inflicted across our country. If those protections are allowed to lapse, our Nation's information networks will be exposed, vulnerable, and defenseless more so than ever before.
We face unrelenting cyber security threats from criminal hackers and foreign adversaries each and every day. Just this year, hackers backed by the Chinese Government exploited a vulnerability with Microsoft's SharePoint--a platform that runs on many of our computers right here in the Senate--allowing them to access critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive government systems. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware incident, which was linked to a ransomware group based in Russia, brought down a critical gas pipeline, disrupting the daily lives of millions of people on the east coast. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act ensures that the government can quickly work with companies experiencing these attacks to stop them from becoming even more widespread.
Adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran are actively working to develop better tools and utilize artificial intelligence to supercharge their cyber attack capabilities. If we don't take immediate action to prevent these cyber security protections from expiring, we will lose one of our Nation's best defenses and empower our adversaries to launch attacks. A lapse in these protections will also embolden cyber criminals to use the same malicious tools to wreak havoc on our economy, exploit America's personal information, disrupt critical services, leaving our government unable to stop them.
The bottom line is, if we don't extend these protections today, our Nation will be significantly less safe from cyber security attacks on October 1.
This should be straightforward. Ten years ago, CISA 2015 was voted out of the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Most recently, our colleagues on the House Homeland Security Committee just moved an extension of these authorities for 10 years out of that committee by a vote of 26 to 0--unanimous. It has a proven track record, and that is why. Over the past 10 years, it has established a trusted public- private partnership that safeguards our Nation against ever-evolving cyber security threats.
This is a voluntary program that industry stakeholders and the Trump administration are asking us to renew. Organizations, including the Business
That is why it was disappointing to see that, after making a public commitment to working on renewing this legislation earlier this year, the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee abruptly canceled a committee business meeting this week where we were expected to debate and vote on this very important bill and extension. Committee members on both sides of the aisle want to see action to prevent this law from expiring in the next few days, but we were blocked from even having a discussion about the policy or draft legislation.
The chairman's actions are not only at odds with our committee and my colleagues who sit on the Homeland Security Committee but with our colleagues on the House Homeland Security Committee and Trump administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross--all who want to see this extension for 10 years.
In April of this year, Senator Rounds and I introduced a bipartisan bill that would provide a clean extension for the law for 10 years, ensuring that the private sector can continue to rely on these protections for years to come.
With just days before this law will expire and without action from the chairman of the committee, I urge my colleagues to quickly pass this bill. Keep one of our strongest cyber security defenses in place. If we don't move now, we will essentially open the door for cyber criminals and foreign adversaries to do irrevocable damage to our information networks, our major industries, and our economy as a whole.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1337 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
Madam President, I rise to discuss the Democratic continuing resolution proposal that was on the floor earlier.
Neither proposal gained sufficient votes, and that means we have work to do to find a compromise that will enable the government to stay open, and I want to make clear why I believe the Democratic proposal has some real strong merit for Virginians and for Members of this body, both Democratic and Republican, and why I think this is such a strong proposal.
My advocacy for the Democratic position is basically focused on two issues: healthcare and the underlying basic notion that we all get-- that a deal should be a deal.
During August, I think, as most of us did, I traveled around my home State of Virginia a lot and talked to many people. The Senate had passed the reconciliation bill--that partisan bill--in July, and during the August recess, I heard a boatload from Virginians about their concerns.
Because of that reconciliation bill, six hospitals in Virginia are at risk of closure. These hospitals are all in the rural parts of the Commonwealth.
There are 302,000-plus Virginians who will likely completely lose their health insurance, 136,000 will lose the health insurance that they are currently able to access through the Affordable Care Act, and another 166,000 will likely lose health insurance because of cuts to the Medicaid Program. Virginia has a population of about 8\1/2\ million; 302,000 people losing their health insurance is pretty significant.
Those who continue to have health insurance will see significant premium increases. According to the State Corporation Commission, which is the body in Virginia that regulates industries like insurance companies, the 10 insurers that participate in the Virginia individual market in 2026 have requested rate increases from their 2025 rates, with most insurers proposing average increases of 20 percent or higher.
What would that mean? The Kaiser Family Foundation says a family of four, with two adults aged 50 and two kids under 21, are likely to pay an additional $311 per month, or $3,729 per year, because of the reconciliation reduction of ACA tax credits.
Virginia hospitals stand to lose up to $26 billion in Medicaid cuts over the course of the next 14 years because of the reconciliation bill. That is the reason why a number of rural hospitals that are sort of on the edge in terms of their financial situation are on the list of concerns about closure.
Just within the last 2 weeks, we actually had the first closures in Virginia. A well-respected healthcare network in the Shenandoah Valley that has a hospital in Augusta County but then has primary care clinics sort of throughout the region that serves patients who can be served there instead of a hospital announced that three of the primary care clinics are closing, and the CEO of the Healthcare Network said they are closing because of the Medicaid cuts made in the reconciliation bill that this body passed in July.
I also heard a lot of stories just from individuals. These are the statistics about what is going to happen in Virginia because of the reconciliation bill, but we talk to constituents all the time.
Mary from Springfield, VA--Northern Virginia--and Kim from Mecklenburg County on the North Carolina border both have children with disabilities who rely on Medicaid for access to care to allow their children to remain in their homes instead of in institutional settings. These moms are very worried that Medicaid cuts won't be available for their children's long-term care.
Brenda is a mother in Salem, VA, near Roanoke. She relies on Medicaid to help her remain in her home and not have to be institutionalized, and she worries that the Medicaid cuts will cost her access to the supports that she needs.
William in Virginia Beach, VA, on our eastern coast, says that his son has Marketplace coverage but is worried that the cuts to the ACA premiums mean that the son will no longer have access to that insurance now that the reconciliation bill has put those premium subsidies on a path to expiration.
Maria works as an employee of an affordable housing community for seniors in Fairfax, right here in the DC area. She said that since the passage of the reconciliation bill, she has seen a growing number of low-income seniors come into her office frightened that their Medicaid coverage will be reduced or terminated.
Sharon lives in Lancaster County, which is in a part of Virginia called the Northern Neck, near the Chesapeake Bay. She has called to ask my office if Rappahannock General Hospital was in jeopardy of closing due to the reconciliation bill. Rappahannock hospital is a facility I know well because my in-laws lived right there in Lancaster before they passed away in the last couple of years. It is one of the six hospitals that is listed on the national list as a hospital in jeopardy as Medicaid cuts phase in.
Then, finally, Caroline from Lynchburg, VA, in Central Virginia, has had coverage through the Virginia Marketplace and is concerned that she will no longer have access to the tax credits and subsidies that have helped her afford health insurance.
These are just seven examples of citizens from all over the Commonwealth whom the reconciliation bill--I read the big statistics about it, but these are individual families who have significant challenges.
What the Democratic CR proposal does is something that many Republicans in this body have said needs to
My visit around Virginia in August sort of made me see this healthcare concern as sort of a spectrum. When you make cuts to Medicaid or to these premiums, five different things happen:
People lose health insurance.
Those who retain health insurance see their premiums go up often because the folks without insurance go to the emergency rooms. That is more expensive care. It has to be paid for, and that tends to assist in driving up the premium cost of those who retain insurance.
Third, as I have indicated has already happened in Virginia, providers close. And when providers close, there is a fourth effect, which is people lose their jobs.
Then the fifth effect is one that I think we should talk about as well. It is not just people losing health insurance and having their premiums go up and seeing their providers close and seeing healthcare professionals lose their jobs; there is a fifth effect.
I was a mayor, and I was a Governor. I did a lot of economic development work in Virginia. I know that one of the things that businesses really care about, if they are looking for places to locate or expand, is what is the local availability of healthcare? It is really difficult to be in a community and try to pitch an economic development project but have the question asked: ``Tell us about your hospital. Tell us about your healthcare network'' and to explain that ``we had a hospital, but it closed. We have had healthcare clinics that closed.'' That makes it very, very difficult.
This fifth effect is an economic effect. The decline in healthcare clinics and hospitals, actually, is sort of like a theft of a community's future because it makes it very difficult to get people to come.
That is why I think the Democratic proposal is a solid one. And I do recognize that in the aftermath of the passage of the reconciliation bill, many Republican colleagues--both in this Chamber and the House-- have said that it is important to come back and fix particularly the expiration of the ACA premium tax subsidies. I think that would be a very smart thing for us all to do.
Finally, there is a second reason I really like the Democratic proposal, and it is this: A deal should be a deal. The Democratic proposal has some components in it that would ensure that when Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate reach a deal that goes to the President's desk and he signs it, that the President then can't immediately take the money away unilaterally.
I think everybody around my Commonwealth--Democrat, Republican, Independent, or the vast majority who don't really care that much about politics--they get that a deal should be a deal. When you negotiate and you shake hands, a deal should be a deal.
This actually is related to healthcare as well. In last year's budget, we had a deal about spending on healthcare priorities. Early in this administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced that he was clawing back billions of dollars of healthcare funding. To Virginia, it was $400 million--$400 million of healthcare funding that we had planned on using during the worst increase in measles, for example, in recent years. It got clawed back from Virginia, and 500 workers and contractors lost their jobs as we were trying to deal with measles and other health epidemics.
I have communities in Virginia that had had economic development projects announced, and they were counting on them for their future. Often, the announcements were attended with great fanfare by our Governor--Governor Youngkin, who is a Republican, who believed these economic deals were a good thing. They were reliant on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act or from the CHIPS manufacturing bill, but those funds, in many instances, have been clawed back.
A deal should be a deal. When we reach a deal, it should be honored so that communities do not plan for healthcare workers, do not plan for economic development projects and feel the rug pulled out from under them.
So those two features of the Democratic proposal: fixing some of the healthcare cuts in the reconciliation bill that, even by many Republicans' accounts, have gone too far; that have already led to closures of clinics in Virginia and great anxiety among individuals.
We can fix those, and we can establish a principle that should be one that we would all agree on that a deal should be a deal.
I hope as we grapple with the two proposals on the table, neither of which we were able to get 60 votes and be passed, we can take some of the wisdom in these Democratic proposals that would serve Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all over this country and make sure that we include them going forward.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I support Senator Merkley's resolution calling on the President of the United States to recognize an independent and sovereign State of Palestine, alongside a secure State of Israel. This is a long-held position of the United States, of both Republican and Democratic administrations, which must not be abandoned.
The choice before us is clear: either we embrace the two-state solution or continue to support today's relentless military occupation. This horrible death and destruction in Gaza must stop. That is why the time for two states can be delayed no longer.
Calling for this does not create a state, but rather reinforces the commitment of the two-state solution.
I am deeply committed to a safe, secure, democratic Israel. But this outcome is only possible if there is also an independent, demilitarized, and sovereign Palestinian state.
While the Senate cannot diplomatically recognize an independent Palestine, my colleagues make a reasoned plea in this resolution for President Trump to listen to the American people, to listen to our allies, and to listen to our partners around the world. This step is critical for the peace and security of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
This resolution reinforces the fact that Israel's neighbors want peace. Saudi Arabia has led the entirety of the Arab League in reaffirming that it seeks full normalization and peace with Israel--if and when Israel is willing to recognize that Palestinians deserve what all people deserve: the right to self-determination, sovereignty, freedom, and dignity.
Saudi Arabia and France have also led a multinational initiative this year underlining that the entire Middle East is willing to build a regional security framework that assures the safety of the people of Israel, but Israel must take unequivocal steps toward a Palestinian state.
I urge my colleagues to join us on this timely resolution, which aligns with the objective of nearly 80 years of U.S. policy: two independent states and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2919. A bill to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to promote transparency by permitting the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to allow its disciplinary proceedings to be open to the public, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and audit firms.
Over two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial reporting frauds particularly the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which found various underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of an independent Board, the PCAOB, to oversee auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.
Under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the PCAOB oversees nearly 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing, and these proceedings are typically kept hidden from the public. Furthermore, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years.
This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.
Our bill will restore transparency and reaffirm Congress's intent, by making hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.
Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings strengthens investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.
S. 2920. A bill to enhance civil penalties under the Federal securities laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. Our bipartisan bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Despite the regulatory reforms made after the financial crisis, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist.
The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute its enforcement duties during my time as the chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee in 2011. Around then, a Federal judge criticized the SEC for not pursuing a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major actor in the financial crisis. The judge rightly noted that Citigroup had settled with the Agency for an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC, however, indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' Unfortunately, a decade later, the SEC's statutory authority remains unchanged, and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited even though securities fraud is still as prevalent as ever.
The bipartisan bill we are introducing will discourage misconduct by raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws.
Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``thirds tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors.
Our bill also has two provisions to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street. The first would authorize the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing Federal court or SEC orders--an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These updates would reinforce the
Our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency, deter bad actor, and maintain confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.
S. 2922. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to extend the authorization for certain alternative fuel and clean vehicles to use HOV facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the HOV Lane Exemption Reauthorization Act, which I introduced today.
The HOV toll lane authority for alternative fuel vehicles, in place since 1998, gives States the ability to allow alternative fuel and low- emission vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This authority provides flexibility for State departments of transportation to manage congestion, encourage cleaner cars on the road, and give drivers more options. It is now in use in more than 10 states, including California, Utah, and New York, and has been renewed on a bipartisan basis in each subsequent surface transportation reauthorization bill.
However, due to a drafting error in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the extension expires in September 2025 rather than September 2026 as originally intended. Without congressional action, these programs lapse at the end of this month, creating uncertainty for motorists, consumers, and State transportation officials. It also deprives States of the ability to make their own choices about how best to manage HOV lane access in ways that fit their unique transportation needs.
Our bipartisan bill corrects this oversight and extends the authority through the next fiscal year. This is not a sweeping change or a new mandate; it is a straghtforward, commonsense fix that ensures States can continue a longstanding program that encourages the adoption of low-emission and alternative fuel vehicles and helps ease congestion on our busiest roads. By extending the program, we provide clarity for drivers, predictability for States, and continuity for a policy with bipartisan support.
I want to thank Senator Curtis and Senator Gillibrand for co-leading this bill with me, and I urge our colleagues to join us in ensuring that States like ours are not unfairly penalized for a simple Federal oversight.
Mr. President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and audit firms.
Over two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial reporting frauds particularly the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which found various underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of an independent Board, the PCAOB, to oversee auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.
Under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the PCAOB oversees nearly 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing, and these proceedings are typically kept hidden from the public. Furthermore, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years.
This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.
Our bill will restore transparency and reaffirm Congress's intent, by making hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.
Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings strengthens investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.
Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. Our bipartisan bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Despite the regulatory reforms made after the financial crisis, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist.
The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute its enforcement duties during my time as the chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee in 2011. Around then, a Federal judge criticized the SEC for not pursuing a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major actor in the financial crisis. The judge rightly noted that Citigroup had settled with the Agency for an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC, however, indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' Unfortunately, a decade later, the SEC's statutory authority remains unchanged, and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited even though securities fraud is still as prevalent as ever.
The bipartisan bill we are introducing will discourage misconduct by raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws.
Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``thirds tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors.
Our bill also has two provisions to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street. The first would authorize the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing Federal court or SEC orders--an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These updates would reinforce the
Our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency, deter bad actor, and maintain confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the HOV Lane Exemption Reauthorization Act, which I introduced today.
The HOV toll lane authority for alternative fuel vehicles, in place since 1998, gives States the ability to allow alternative fuel and low- emission vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This authority provides flexibility for State departments of transportation to manage congestion, encourage cleaner cars on the road, and give drivers more options. It is now in use in more than 10 states, including California, Utah, and New York, and has been renewed on a bipartisan basis in each subsequent surface transportation reauthorization bill.
However, due to a drafting error in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the extension expires in September 2025 rather than September 2026 as originally intended. Without congressional action, these programs lapse at the end of this month, creating uncertainty for motorists, consumers, and State transportation officials. It also deprives States of the ability to make their own choices about how best to manage HOV lane access in ways that fit their unique transportation needs.
Our bipartisan bill corrects this oversight and extends the authority through the next fiscal year. This is not a sweeping change or a new mandate; it is a straghtforward, commonsense fix that ensures States can continue a longstanding program that encourages the adoption of low-emission and alternative fuel vehicles and helps ease congestion on our busiest roads. By extending the program, we provide clarity for drivers, predictability for States, and continuity for a policy with bipartisan support.
I want to thank Senator Curtis and Senator Gillibrand for co-leading this bill with me, and I urge our colleagues to join us in ensuring that States like ours are not unfairly penalized for a simple Federal oversight.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Anel Galvez, Radhika Prabhu, and Jacob Baldus for the duration of their legislative fellowships.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 269 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Peters-Wyden substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3912), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to, as follows:
The bill (S. 269), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Madam 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. 414, S. Res. 415, and S. Res. 416.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
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 (Legislative Day of September 16, 2025) under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record (Legislative Day of September 16, 2025) under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 225) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of May 14, 2025, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following days and times: Monday, September 22, at 8:30 a.m., and Thursday, September 25, at 12 noon; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, September 25, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 115, S. 2296; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to Executive Calendar No. 425 ripen at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
