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.
13Senate Resolution 444: Condemning the Dictator of the People's Republic of China, Xi Jinping, for Deceit, Undermining Prospects for Peace and Security, and Orchestrating Crimes Against Humanity
16Senate Resolution 447: Designating September 25, 2025, as "National Ataxia Awareness Day", and Raising Awareness of Ataxia, Ataxia Research, and the Search for a Cure
17Senate Resolution 448: Designating October 1, 2025, as "Energy Efficiency Day" in Celebration of the Economic and Environmental Benefits That Have Been Driven by Private Sector Innovation And...
Ten bills and six resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 2993-3002, and S. Res. 444-449.
Page S7094
Measures Passed
Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan: By 50 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. 560), Senate passed H.J. Res. 106, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''.
Pages S7052-61
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 50 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 559), Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to consideration of the joint resolution.
Page S7052
National Defense Authorization Act
By 77 yeas to 20 nays (Vote No. 570), Senate passed 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, by the order of the Senate of Thursday, October 9, 2025, 60 Senators having voted in the affirmative, and after taking action on the following amendments and motion proposed thereto:
Pages S7041-51, S7062-87
Adopted
Cornyn (for Cruz) Amendment No. 3274 (to Amendment No. 3748), to extend the prohibition on certain reductions to B-1 bomber aircraft squadrons. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Page S7063
Gillibrand (for Cotton) Amendment No. 3759 (to Amendment No. 3748), to modify the authority to protect certain facilities and assets of the United States from incursions. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Pages S7066-67
Moran Amendment No. 3814 (to Amendment No. 3748), to improve the availability of care for veterans from facilities and providers of the Department of Defense. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Pages S7068-69
Lee Amendment No. 3288 (to Amendment No. 3748), to address the treatment of funds received by National Guard Bureau as reimbursement from States. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Page S7069
Cornyn Amendment No. 3926 (to Amendment No. 3748), to protect the national security of the United States by imposing sanctions with respect to certain persons of the People's Republic of China and prohibiting and requiring notifications with respect to certain investments by United States persons in the People's Republic of China. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Pages S7069-70
Hagerty/Peters Amendment No. 3841 (to Amendment No. 3748), to prohibit contracting with certain biotechnology providers. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Page S7070
Kaine/Young Amendment No. 3337 (to Amendment No. 3748), to repeal the authorization for use of military force against Iraq. (A unanimous- consent agreement was reached providing that the requirement of a 60 affirmative vote threshold, be vitiated.)
Pages S7072-73
Wicker (for Scott (SC)) Amendment No. 3340 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to annually review, update, and report on the facilities and property of the United states Government determined to be national security sensitive for purposes of review of real estate transactions under section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Hassan) Amendment No. 2928 (to Amendment No. 3748), to make certain spouses eligible for service under the disabled veterans' outreach program.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Grassley) Amendment No. 3355 (to Amendment No. 3748), to expand the authority of the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police to protect retired and former Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Warnock) Amendment No. 2952 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Secretary of Defense to implement recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States relating to critical military housing supply and affordability.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for McCormick/Kelly) Amendment No. 3376 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require a strategy for United States security assistance to Mexico.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Ossoff/Grassley) Amendment No. 2971 (to Amendment No. 3748), to direct the Office for Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice to continue implementing the anti-trafficking recommendations of the Government Accountability Office and to report to Congress regarding such implementation.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Cornyn) Amendment No. 3405 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require a plan to modernize the nuclear security enterprise.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Kaine/Warner) Amendment No. 3039 (to Amendment No. 3748), to authorize the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to reimburse the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, for costs directly associated with the removal and replacement of certain drinking water wells.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Capito) Amendment No. 3435 (to Amendment No. 3748), to reauthorize the Second Chance Act of 2007.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Gallego) Amendment No. 3136 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require a report on the feasibility of implementing artificial intelligence into anti-money laundering investigations relating to activity by foreign terrorist organizations, drug cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Lankford) Amendment No. 3439 (to Amendment No. 3748), to prohibit certain reductions to the inventory of E-3 airborne warning and control system aircraft.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Duckworth) Amendment No. 3156 (to Amendment No. 3748), to include as an additional right or privilege of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (and their beneficiaries) certain leave provided under title 10, United States Code, to commissioned officers of the Army (or their beneficiaries).
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Blackburn) Amendment No. 3489 (to Amendment No. 3748), to direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, to conduct a study of the national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and devices that combine a modem and a router.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Shaheen/Grassley) Amendment No. 3351 (to Amendment No. 3748), to authorize grants to implement school-community partnerships for preventing substance use and misuse among youth.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 3703 (to Amendment No. 3748), to address disclosures by directors, officers, and principal stockholders of foreign private issuers.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Booker) Amendment No. 3530 (to Amendment No. 3748), to provide for fairness in the issuance of tactical equipment to Diplomatic Security Service personnel.
Wicker (for Slotkin) Amendment No. 3557 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of foreign exposure from Department of Defense cloud computing contracts and to require the Secretary of Defense to update guidance to reduce, mitigate, or eliminate risk.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Ricketts) Amendment No. 3788 (to Amendment No. 3748), to make improvements to the AUKUS partnership.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Peters) Amendment No. 3570 (to Amendment No. 3748), to establish the Commercial Space Activity Advisory Committee.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Hawley) Amendment No. 3799 (to Amendment No. 3748), to establish requirements and prohibitions relating to the provision of health care services at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Hickenlooper/Crapo) Amendment No. 3601 (to Amendment No. 3748), to clarify limitations applicable to the authority to transfer functions of the Air National Guard to the Space Force.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Rounds/Cortez Masto) Amendment No. 3810 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review and prohibit certain transactions relating to agriculture.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Coons/Young) Amendment No. 3712 (to Amendment No. 3748), to allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into memoranda of understanding for the purpose of scientific and technical cooperation in the mapping of critical minerals and rare earth elements.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Tillis/Shaheen) Amendment No. 3811 (to Amendment No. 3748), to strengthen relations between the United States and the countries in the Western Balkans.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Cortez Masto) Amendment No. 3724 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require that additional factors be included in the design of counseling pathways under the Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Moran) Amendment No. 3813 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the provision of certain services to veterans in the Freely Associated States.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Klobuchar/Cruz) Amendment No. 3751 (to Amendment No. 3748), to improve the safety and security of Members of Congress, immediate family members of Members of Congress, and congressional staff.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Grassley/Durbin) Amendment No. 3823 (to Amendment No. 3748), to modify the requirements for transfers of United States defense articles and defense services among the Baltic states.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Klobuchar/Grassley) Amendment No. 3818 (to Amendment No. 3748), to enhance United States support for identifying and recovering Ukrainian children who were abducted by the Russian Federation, and to hold accountable those who are responsible for such abductions.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 3702 (to Amendment No. 3748), to improve coordination between Federal and State agencies and the Do Not Pay working system.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Durbin) Amendment No. 3825 (to Amendment No. 3748), to authorize the establishment of a Baltic Security Initiative for the purpose of strengthening the defensive capabilities of the Baltic Countries.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Fischer) Amendment No. 3842 (to Amendment No. 3748), to establish a military-civilian medical surge program.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Padilla/Cramer) Amendment No. 3834 (to Amendment No. 3748), to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to provide for certain ways in which credit unions may be Agent members of the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Cruz) Amendment No. 3890 (to Amendment No. 3748), to establish the SkyFoundry Program.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Hirono) Amendment No. 2979 (to Amendment No. 3748), to exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Grassley) Amendment No. 3272 (to Amendment No. 3748), to support law enforcement agencies and crime victims.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Cruz) Amendment No. 3742 (to Amendment No. 3748), to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Scott (SC)/Warren) Amendment No. 3901 (to Amendment No. 3748), to increase the supply of affordable housing in America.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Shaheen/Risch) Amendment No. 3819 (to Amendment No. 3748), to provide for certain authorities of the Department of State.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Graham/Van Hollen) Amendment No. 3899 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the President or his designee to certify whether the Government of Syria is meeting certain conditions following repeal of the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act of 2019.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Sullivan/Whitehouse) Amendment No. 3888 (to Amendment No. 3748), to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing at its sources globally.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Collins/Duckworth) Amendment No. 3880 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require a report on the United States boot industrial base and Berry Amendment compliance.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Hirono) Amendment No. 3015 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility study on the removal of oil from sunken World War II vessels in waters near the Federal States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Peters) Amendment No. 3753 (to Amendment No. 3748), to improve coordination of Federal efforts to identify and mitigate health and national security risks through a monitoring system to map essential medicine supply chains using data analytics.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Shaheen/Risch) Amendment No. 3826 (to Amendment No. 3748), to modify and reauthorize the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Coons) Amendment No. 3728 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the executive branch to develop a whole-of-government strategy to disrupt growing cooperation among the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which are the foremost adversaries of the United States, and mitigate the risks posed to the United States.
Pages S7074-86
Wicker (for Gallego) Amendment No. 3928 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for deploying microreactors.
Pages S7074-86
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 S7086
Wicker/Reed Modified Amendment No. 3748, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S7086
Rejected
By 14 yeas to 83 nays (Vote No. 562), Paul Amendment No. 3761 (to Amendment No. 3748), to prohibit earnings on balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository institution. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S7062-63
By 53 yeas to 43 nays (Vote No. 563), Scott (FL) Amendment No. 3535 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of the Inspector General of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S7063-65
By 51 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. 564), Curtis Amendment No. 3697 (to Amendment No. 3748), to require a review of the methodologies used to determine the amounts of locality-based comparability payments and to require the President's Pay Agent to conduct a pilot program establishing alternative models for determining the amounts of those payments. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S7065-66
Marshall Amendment No. 3213 (to Amendment No. 3748), to prohibit the flying, draping, or other display of any flag other than the flag of the United States at covered public buildings.
Pages S7067-68
By 46 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 565), Schumer/Schatz Amendment No. 3109 (to Amendment No. 3748), to prohibit the use of funds to procure or modify foreign aircraft for presidential aircraft. (A unanimous- consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S7070-71
By 47 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 566), Van Hollen Amendment No. 3872 (to Amendment No. 3748), to amend title 32, United States Code, to clarify certain limitations on full-time National Guard duty performed in a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia. (A unanimous- consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S7071-72
By 46 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 567), Duckworth Amendment No. 3210 (to Amendment No. 3748), to limit the provision of support by the Armed Forces to civilian law enforcement activities. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Page S7072
By 10 yeas to 88 nays (Vote No. 568), Sanders Amendment No. 3853 (to Amendment No. 3748), to reduce the bloated Pentagon budget by 10 percent and instead expand veteran dental care at the Department of Veterans Affairs. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Pages S7073-74
By 47 yeas to 50 nays (Vote 569), Merkley/Wyden Amendment No. 3927 (to Amendment No. 3748), to limit the use of Federal law enforcement officers for crowd control. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Page S7074
Withdrawn
Thune Amendment No. 3863 (to Amendment No. 3427), relating to the enactment date.
Page S7086
Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Thune Amendment No. 3866, relating to the enactment date.
Page S7086
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
Thune Amendment No. 3864 (to the language proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 3748), relating to the enactment date, fell when Thune Amendment No. 3863 (to Amendment No. 3427) (listed above) was withdrawn.
Page S7086
Thune Amendment No. 3865 (to Amendment No. 3864), relating to the enactment date, fell when Thune Amendment No. 3864 (to the language proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 3748) (listed above) fell.
Page S7086
Thune Amendment No. 3867 (to (the instructions) Amendment No. 3866), relating to the enactment date, fell when motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Thune Amendment No. 3866 (listed above) was withdrawn.
Page S7086
Thune Amendment No. 3868 (to Amendment No. 3867), relating to the enactment date, fell when Thune Amendment No. 3867 (to (the instructions) Amendment No. 3866) (listed above) fell.
Page S7086
250th birthday of the United States Navy
Senate agreed to S. Res. 446, recognizing the 250th birthday of the United States Navy.
Page S7101
National Ataxia Awareness Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 447, designating September 25, 2025, as ``National Ataxia Awareness Day'', and raising awareness of ataxia, ataxia research, and the search for a cure.
Page S7101
Energy Efficiency Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 448, designating October 1, 2025, as ``Energy Efficiency Day'' in celebration of the economic and environmental benefits that have been driven by private sector innovation and Federal energy efficiency policies.
Page S7101
Postal Service 250th anniversary
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 337, recognizing the 250th anniversary of the postal service of the United States, and the resolution was then agreed to. Oscar J.
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: 60 of 344 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026: Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 2296, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, once again, in the Chaplain's prayer, he brought up the issue before the U.S. Senate and presented it to the Lord about the problems created by the shutdown of the government. Not only are the employees of the U.S. Senate not being paid and 750,000 civil servants are furloughed without pay, but we are also beginning to read in business pages of the newspapers about the impact on the economy. For the State of Iowa, the White House Office of Economic Policy said that, weekly, it was doing damage to the economy of my State of Iowa of $137 million.
So we have to get the government back to work because it costs money to shut the government down, and it costs money to open the government up. The government is supposed to be a service to the American people, besides protecting the American people, and quite frankly, none of that can be done when it is shut down.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about some information that I got from whistleblowers the first time on September 23 of last year. At that time, I spoke to my fellow Senators, making public very concerning whistleblower allegations.
The whistleblower alleged to my office that the Postal Service, which is an independent government Agency, had hired registered sex offenders as
To date, the Postal Service has refused to provide a list of names of registered sex offenders. The Postal Service has provided some information about the number of sex offenders working at the Postal Service.
On July 7, 2025, the Postal Service confirmed that in 2024, the Agency employed 150 registered sex offenders. The letter said that of the 150, 102 had ``access to the public.'' Of the 102, 77 were mail carriers.
News even more alarming in that letter: The Postal Service doesn't track the routes used by employees who are registered sex offenders. We don't even know the locations where these carriers deliver their mail. The Postal Service also doesn't track the crimes that led to an employee's registration on the sex offender register.
On August 7, 2025, I wrote the Postal Service requesting additional information. So this is what I want to know about how the Postal Service ensures our communities are safe and what the crimes were, and that is just among other questions I have. To date, I have received no response.
When it comes to this matter, our communities deserve much better than what they are getting from the Postal Service, and we have to make sure that the Postal Service is as protective of people's safety as any other Agency of government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, before I begin, I want to mention the very welcome news that the first phase of the historic Israel-Gaza peace plan brokered by President Trump and his administration, working with allies and partners in the region, has been agreed to. This will finally mean the release of all remaining hostages, living and dead, who have been held by Hamas since its October 7, 2023, attack.
It is vital that Israel and especially Hamas implement the terms of this agreement as quickly as possible so that this can truly mark the beginning of an end to the bloodshed. I hope a lasting peace for this most war-torn of regions.
In addition to both sides adhering to all agreed-upon terms, true peace will also require that there is never again a threat to Israel emanating from Gaza.
This means that Hamas must disarm and relinquish any role in governance in the Gaza Strip, and I know the President and Secretary Rubio continue to work relentlessly to pursue peace and make this a reality.
I am grateful for this news, and my prayers today are for the successful release of all hostages, the success of this agreement, and the protection of all innocents in harm's way.
Mr. President, we are now 9 days into the Democrats' government shutdown--9 days in which Democrats have had multiple opportunities to support a clean, nonpartisan CR--sitting right here at the Senate desk--to reopen the government; something that has been passed by our colleagues in the House of Representatives, that has achieved 55 Senators, a Senate majority. Out of 100 Senators, 55 Senators support this 24-page resolution sitting at the desk, which could open up the government today because as soon as the Senate passes it, the President will sign it into law.
This is the same nonpartisan measure that, as I said, passed the House 3 weeks ago, no partisan riders, no gimmicks, no partisan policies, Republican policies, anything like that--a simple resolution, 24 pages long, to open up our government and make sure that the Federal employees and the American people who depend upon them get paid.
The President is ready to sign it. All it takes is a handful of Democrats. There are three Democrats who have already supported this clean continuing resolution. Just a handful more, and we can end this shutdown in a matter of hours.
Fifty-five Senators, a Senate majority--a majority of the 100 U.S. Senators, a majority of the House of Representatives, the President of the United States is prepared to sign it. That is how straightforward this proposition is.
We have already seen plenty of negative impacts from the Democrat shutdown. A whole new wave of pain begins tomorrow if Democrats don't act because if we fail to fund the government by the end of day today, American servicemembers begin going without their paychecks starting tomorrow.
That is right. If Democrats can't bring themselves to reopen the government by the end of the day, our troops--the people who protect and defend this country--will start missing their paychecks. To say that that is unacceptable is an understatement.
Many of our servicemembers are serving in harm's way at this moment. All of them stand ready to rush into danger at a moment's notice to protect the rest of us. They and their families make numerous sacrifices to serve our country. The idea--the very idea--that they won't get a paycheck because Democrats can't bring themselves to accept a clean, nonpartisan CR is beyond the pale.
If the government remains shut down after today, instead of getting our troops paid, they are going to have to continue stretching what money they have saved. Unfortunately, sometimes that is not very much.
As one advocate for military families put it, ``This isn't just a financial hardship--it's destabilizing for households and military readiness alike.''
``Military readiness.''
Many families have already begun to visit food banks near bases, and it is even harder on families with a loved one who is deployed. Amy Palmer, who runs an organization that helps military families in Colorado, said families of the deployed ``are having to navigate this alone. They're used to getting the paycheck . . . and paying bills on behalf of their entire family, and with that servicemember deployed and not really having that support system from them . . . it is really hard.''
It is not just our troops who are going to be missing a paycheck. Civilian workers will also be missing part of their pay starting this Friday, including law enforcement officers like the members of our very own Capitol Police. Food banks and other nonprofits around the country are bracing for increased demand from Federal employees, especially here in the national Capitol region.
I remember when the Democrat leader was a passionate opponent of government shutdowns because of their impact on Federal workers. I am pretty sure that was just 6 months ago.
Other Democrats used to be concerned about the impact on Federal workers as well. A few years ago, our Democrat colleague from New Jersey--himself, a former career Federal worker--had this to say:
Yet Democrats aren't showing the slightest interest in reopening the government to ensure troops and Federal employees get paid.
Later today, we are going to have another vote on the clean continuing resolution to open up the government. As I said, we are a handful of Democrats away from passing this continuing resolution and reopening the government, a handful of votes away from paying our troops, and we are going to see if that matters to Democrats.
We will see if Democrats choose to pay America's troops or if they, once again, bow to the demands of their far-left base, which is telling them to hold out, or their strategists who are telling them that they are ``winning'' the shutdown.
Well, based on the reporting this morning, Democrats couldn't care less whether military families miss a paycheck tomorrow.
In an interview posted this morning, the Democrat leader said:
``Every day gets better for us.''
This isn't a political game. Democrats might feel that way, but I don't know of anybody else that does. The longer this goes on, the more the American people realize the Democrats own this shutdown.
A Morning Consult poll finds that ``voters increasingly blame Democrats for the government shutdown.''
In the latest Harvard-Harris poll, 65 percent of voters think Democrats
But Democrats are apparently being told to hold the line by their far-left base, and so this shutdown drags on.
We can solve the issue of troop pay and every other problem we are seeing today--today--by passing this clean, nonpartisan CR and sending it to the President. He is ready to sign it. If Democrats would only agree, we could reopen the government in just a few hours, literally, pay our troops, pay our Federal workers, and stop this madness.
And this notion that somehow in this political game, the Democrats believe, according to their leader, that ``every day gets better for us,'' that is not the experience of the American people. It is time to end this shutdown and reopen this government. Let's pass this CR today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, last night, nearly 2 years to the day of Hamas's vicious attack on October 7, after nearly 2 long years of devastating war in Gaza, it appears that a cease-fire and hostage agreement has been reached. If this agreement is implemented, then, finally, after 2 years of immense suffering, the hostages could soon be free, there could be a cease-fire, and the victims of this painful conflict can start to rebuild their lives. This brings a huge sigh of relief to the hostage families, to all of Israel, and to Palestinians who have suffered for so long in this horrific humanitarian catastrophe.
Now, we await details and final acceptance and implementation from all parties of the first phase, and we must begin the even harder work of closing negotiations to end the war, to start building the day after in Gaza without Hamas, to surge humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, and to build a lasting peace--a lasting peace--that ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
This morning, I hope and pray that all of the hostages are released, including the deceased hostages. I will never give up until all of the hostages are home, including the remains of my constituents Omer Neutra and Itay Chen. I have gotten to know their families well over the last 2 years, and I share their desperation to bring them home for proper burial and closure.
The work is not over, but any step to end this nightmare is one that should be celebrated and carefully implemented.
Mr. President, now, on the shutdown and the Trump administration, the Federal Government has now been shut down for more than a week, but Donald Trump, Speaker Johnson, and Republicans in Congress are nowhere to be found. Instead of playing with people's lives, Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress need to sit down with Democrats and have a serious negotiation to fix healthcare and reopen the government at once.
Workers are starting to miss out on paychecks. Seniors are worried about delays at the Social Security Administration. Small businesses with government contracts are in the dark.
We need to end this shutdown as soon as possible. Every day that Republicans refuse to negotiate to end this shutdown, the worse it gets for Americans, and the clearer it becomes who is fighting for them.
Each day, our case to fix healthcare and end the shutdown gets better and better, stronger and stronger, because families are opening their letters showing how high their premiums will climb if Republicans get their way. They are seeing why this fight matters. It is about protecting their healthcare, their bank accounts, their futures.
But Republicans are absent. The House is literally on vacation. And Donald Trump, meanwhile, continues to play with people's lives and threaten mass layoffs for Federal workers.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Republican leaders in Congress have been urging the administration not to follow through with their threats of mass layoffs and no back pay for furloughed Federal workers. The Journal wrote that ``far-reaching government cuts and firings could backfire with the public.'' And aides have been ``warning that such moves could cause voters to blame Republicans for the shutdown.'' That is the Wall Street Journal.
Well, this is spot-on. If Donald Trump thinks that punishing Federal workers and treating the American public as pawns is going to help him politically, he is making a terrible mistake, because the American people are smart. They see what Trump and the Republicans are doing. They know Republicans are the ones in charge. They have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate--not Democrats.
We Democrats want to end this shutdown as quickly as we can, but Donald Trump and Republicans need to negotiate with us in a serious way to fix the healthcare premiums crisis. We can and should do both. It is not either-or, like Republicans think.
President Trump, meanwhile, is simply not taking this shutdown seriously, because, as we speak, the Trump administration continues to negotiate a $20 billion bailout for Argentina to prop up a MAGA ally. Apparently, Donald Trump thinks that $20 billion for a MAGA-friendly government in Argentina is fine, but fixing healthcare premiums here at home is not.
Meanwhile, thanks to Trump's bungled trade war with China, American soybean farmers have been shut out of foreign markets and are facing mass bankruptcies. With American farmers cut out, farmers in countries like Argentina are taking advantage, selling a record number of soybeans to China. But instead of helping American farms now in the middle of a shutdown, Donald Trump wants to send $20 billion to Argentina to help them compete against American farmers, all while hungry Americans face higher grocery prices and the largest cuts ever to nutrition aid, thanks to Donald Trump and the Republicans' ``Big Ugly Bill.''
It is utter lunacy. Whose side is Donald Trump on?
And the situation is no better here in Congress. In the middle of a shutdown crisis, Speaker Johnson has shut the lights off to the Halls of Congress. We Democrats have made clear that Republicans need to engage with us in serious negotiation to end this destructive shutdown and fix healthcare premiums as soon as we can, but Speaker Johnson has sent the House on vacation. He has sent Members home now for 3 weeks, and it sounds like he will keep them away for at least another week more. The House of Representatives has not held a vote--a single vote-- since September 19, 20 days ago.
In fact, would you care to guess how many days the House has been in town since the end of July? Twelve days. That is it. Since the summer, the House of Representatives has held votes for only 12 days.
If you are someone who works two jobs or works weekends or overtime to make ends meet, what on Earth are you supposed to think when House Republicans can't even be bothered to show up to reopen the government?
House Republicans are getting paid and not working, and they are asking Federal workers to work and not get paid. If your electricity prices are skyrocketing, if your premiums are going up by thousands of dollars, if you are getting charged more for a cup of coffee or your groceries, and you see Republicans on vacation for 3 weeks straight, that is basically a middle finger to hard-working Americans.
And let's be clear. The Speaker's dig-in-at-all-costs approach is not sitting well with some Members of his own party.
Yesterday, Marjorie Taylor Greene said the following:
Representative Massie of Kentucky tweeted something similar:
Said Republican Massie.
Representative Kevin Kiley of California, Republican, meanwhile, posted this:
So the cracks are showing on the Republican side because they know
And in Louisiana, in fact, I would have thought that of all people interested in fixing ACA premiums, it would have been a Representative from the State of Louisiana. Yesterday, I read a sobering report from the Times-Picayune saying that ``Louisiana stands to lose the most'' if the ACA premium tax credits expire.
According to that report, 85,000 Louisiana residents will lose health insurance. Many will see their premiums skyrocket. The average 60-year- old Louisiana couple making $85,000 a year would see insurance costs rise from $600 a month to $2,000 a month.
Hear that, Mr. Speaker? That is your constituents. Good Americans in your own State will suffer the most if the ACA premiums expire.
People will go bankrupt, people will get sick, people will die--all because the Speaker chose to keep the House on vacation, rather than come to work, negotiate with Democrats to fix this healthcare crisis, and end their Trump shutdown. Shameful.
We urge the Republicans to back away from their corner and have serious negotiations that the American people deserve and expect before people get sick and go bankrupt.
Mr. President, now, finally, on a different, more somber but grateful note, last month, the Senate lost a beloved member of our family: Kevin McDonald.
Kevin served as the scheduler for our former colleague Senator Patrick Leahy for over 30 years, and I know Patrick would be the first to admit that he wouldn't have had the great career he did without Kevin by his side.
I am sure there were many days when I called Patrick 10 or 20 times-- I still remember his phone number--or asked him to rush to my office in the middle of something else, and made Kevin's life hell trying to keep his schedule. But Kevin, the consummate professional he was, always found a way to make it work.
He made the hardest days feel easier. He made the busiest days feel smoother. And everyone who knew him, whether you were a Senator, a staffer, a parking attendant, or a police officer--everyone--just loved to be around him. He was the life of every party. He lit up every room he walked into and had an innate ability to turn friends into family.
We will all miss Kevin. We thank him for his service to the Senate, the State of Vermont, and the country. Our prayers are with his family, his friends, and his loved ones.
Mr. President, I come to the floor having just listened to the minority leader talk, and I read in Punchbowl News, this morning, the minority leader making a statement to Punchbowl.
He thinks the Democrats have momentum. His statement is:
That is what he said in an interview from his office, yesterday, when he was interviewed by the news. He said:
Who is us? Not better for the American people. Who does he mean by us? Not the military who is not getting paid, not the Border Patrol that is not getting paid, not the air traffic controllers who aren't getting paid. Who is us?
He is playing a game. The Washington Post talked about it, just yesterday, in that headline in their editorial page: Democrat ``leaders play a dangerous game.''
That is what we have here. And what does the minority leader say? ``Every day gets better for us.'' Who in the world is ``us''? Is it this group that has organized the shutdown? They have talked about having an orchestrated group of the far-left wing, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party organizing and orchestrating the shutdown, planning for weeks in the minority leader's office, closely coordinated. It is hurting the American people, but the minority leader has said it is getting better for them.
Look, how can they brag about the damage that they are doing to the American people, whether it is women on the Women, Infants, and Children Program needing food; whether it is small businesses applying for loans through the Small Business Administration; our troops; our Border Patrol. But, boy, from what I see from the minority leader and where he is trying to lead this country, it is a perfect quote for the shutdown: It gets better for them every day. I will tell you, it is rubbish, and it is hurting our country.
Thirteen times we have voted to open the government, keep it open with a continuing resolution, in Joe Biden's term, and now they are not going to do it because Donald Trump is in the White House. That is what we have in this country today--a political game being played by the Democrats because they think that every day gets better for them.
This isn't right versus left; this is right versus wrong. That is what we are facing in this country today. There are 1.3 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coastguardsmen--guardians on Active Duty to protect our Nation, protect our freedoms. They are going to miss their paychecks, but Chuck Schumer says it is getting better for them.
For the brave men and women in uniform, one date looms large. It is October 15. Normally, October 15 is payday. This year, under the Schumer shutdown, where it is getting better for Schumer every day, it is going to be a day that paychecks don't arrive for every one of them.
Nine days ago, October 1, servicemembers of the ranks got their last paycheck, and it is going to be their last paycheck until the dangerous game, the political game that Schumer and the others are playing ends and government reopens. We could do it today with a vote. We are going to have an opportunity to do it.
And it is wrong. It is just wrong to do this as a game because it is getting better for them every day--or so they think.
This Friday, October 10, tomorrow, Border Patrol agents and other Federal workers will receive only half a paycheck. The Democrat leader says it is getting better for them.
Seventy-two percent of military families say their most pressing concern is missing a paycheck.
Half a million military families relocate to new duty stations each year. For them, costs can be crushing. Moving costs the families an average of $8,000 out of pocket. Normally, this is reimbursed--may not be for a while.
Chuck Schumer says it is getting better for them every day.
Under the Schumer shutdown, military families are going to be forced to stretch out the budgets, dip into savings, and take out loans. This adds to financial stress and strain.
At Fort Hood in Texas, the local food bank is seeing a 34-percent spike in demand just since the shutdown began. Military families are lining up for food, diapers, and baby formula. One employee there said the situation in Fort Hood had never happened, ever.
Maybe they are just stocking up because they know that, for the Democrats, they think it is getting better every day. That is what they are aiming for.
What in the heck are they thinking? Well, those people that have planned and organized all of this are thinking: Hey, we have a big rally coming to Washington, a ``No Kings'' rally coming up on the 18th. Getting better for them every day. Let's just hurt the military more; the Border Patrol more; the women, infants, and children more--hurt them because it is getting better for them every day.
Who is the ``us''? It is the leftwing of the Democratic Party; it is not the American people.
That is what we are focused on here. I want to focus on opening the government up for the American people. We have offered a clean continuing resolution at current funding levels, at Biden's funding levels, current levels. It reopens the government, pays our servicemembers.
Republicans want to reopen the government. We have voted to not shut down the government. We want to make sure our troops don't miss the paycheck on October 15. Not the Democrats because they think it is getting better for them.
The date on their calendar is not the 15th, which is the date on the calendar of every military member; their date is
This shutdown is all about politics. That is what it is all about. It has been planned and orchestrated and organized for months.
The Washington Post editorial said it best: The Democrats are playing ``a dangerous game.'' They are choosing politics over the paychecks of the American working men and women who protect our Nation. And this weakness defines today's Democratic Party. They are radical. They are extreme. They are dangerous. They are scary. They are out of touch. But they think it is getting better for those people every day.
They are holding our military hostage. Why? Because they want to impress the leftwing activists. It is indefensible.
Servicemembers now have to worry about putting food on the table so that the Democrats and Senator Schumer can try to satisfy the far-left, liberal wing of the party, who will never be satisfied until this country is destroyed. That is what they want.
It is no surprise that 55 percent of Americans say Democrats are shutting down the government just to please their radical base.
The Senate can reopen the government today, but we need a handful of Democrats to join us. Democrats voted 13 times for a clean continuing resolution under Joe Biden. They know that the Schumer shutdown--it is reckless, it is radical, and it is wrong.
Democrats don't seem to care because, according to Chuck Schumer, ``Every day gets better for us.'' As a result, the Democrats are threatening America's safety, our security, and our prosperity.
The American people don't want the government closed. Chuck Schumer does because every day gets better for him.
Two in three Americans demand Democrats accept the continuing resolution at current funding levels. It is the right thing to do. It is fair. It is reasonable. It is time Democrats listen to them. It is time to open the government so the troops can get paid.
That is what this is all about--a political game being played by the radical left. And they believe it is getting better for them each day, and Chuck Schumer--this wasn't some offhanded comment; this is exactly what he said yesterday in a sit-down interview with the press in his office. These were planned words and orchestrated to appeal to the people that he is trying to appeal to, who are not the average American who just wants to go to work, just wants to get paid a fair wage for a fair, full day's work, and defend the country.
So I know who the ``us'' is when he says ``us,'' and it is not the American people; it is not the hard-working people of your State or my State who want to get up, go to work, get the kids to school, put food on the table, and live in this greatest country of all times.
That is what we are dealing with, and that is why I came to the floor this morning, because when I heard this comment by the minority leader, I could not let it stand, and the American people deserve better.
Mr. President, on a separate matter, I want to talk about something else.
In July, President Trump signed into law the working-families tax cut. That legislation stopped a $4 trillion tax increase, it secured our border, it unleashed American energy, and it slashed wasteful Washington spending.
I thought one of the most egregious subsidies we eliminated was the electric vehicle tax credits. Under Joe Biden, Washington provided lucrative, luxury tax credits to prop up EV sales. The Biden car bribes forced working families to subsidize vehicles that people didn't want, couldn't afford, and weren't very practical in my State.
I have fought against these costly EV handouts for years. I introduced bills to repeal them, and I was joined by my Republican colleagues. I especially want to recognize the senior Senator from Ohio, Senator Bernie Moreno.
Hard-working families should not be forced to bankroll luxury vehicles for wealthy elites. Republicans in Congress acted decisively. We terminated the EV tax credits. We deliberately chose September 30 as the end date for the subsidies. This quick termination meant significant savings for taxpayers--$200 billion in savings over the next 10 years.
But, as the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In Washington, we have to follow up and fight to protect taxpayers and taxpayer dollars even when the intent of Congress is clear. That is where I really want to point out the hard work of Senator Moreno, because that is what the Republicans are doing.
In recent weeks, Senator Moreno and I read troubling news. There was a last-ditch effort to game the system in the final days before the cutoff date. We immediately wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to alert him about the issue and to address the problem. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is chairman of the Commerce Committee, also raised his concern with the Treasury Department about the subsidies.
Major car companies responded to the letter, and they changed their policies, and I encourage all companies to follow their lead.
Republicans are going to continue to protect taxpayers and ensure these subsidies are gone for good. Here is the reality: The subsidies were never needed in the first place. Look at what has happened since Congress ended them. Tesla has actually lowered its prices. They have done it by stripping out luxury features, like vegan leather seats and ambient lighting. Hyundai slashed nearly $10,000 off of their Georgia- built model. This is precisely how fair market competition works.
Americans elected Republicans to end Washington wasteful spending. We are keeping our word.
So I am going to continue to work with my Senate colleagues and the Trump administration to keep this loophole closed, to enforce the law, and to protect hard-working taxpayers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, we are in an unfortunate period of hyperpartisanship that doesn't look good from this angle, and I know it doesn't look good to the general public. But I have some good, bipartisan news that might make us feel better about our national security. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I come to the floor this morning and say that we are finally in a position to take up on the floor and vote on and pass the National Defense Authorization Act.
This is a very important act that we have managed, in times of majority and minority in Democratic and Republican administrations, to pass each year for over six decades.
My partner and colleague, the former chairman of the committee, Jack Reed, and now ranking Democrat member, has worked with me, along with our Armed Services Committee members and our capable staffs, and we have built a strong, bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act.
It started this summer, when, earlier than usual, the committee approved our bill by an overwhelming majority of 26 to 1. Let me say that again. In this time when we can't seem to muster a 60-vote majority to keep us in business as a Federal Government, we were able to pass the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 26 to 1. It is member-driven, and it is full of national security priorities from Senators across this body on both sides of the aisle. It is designed to make important changes to make our country stronger, to make our defenses better and more able to defend ourselves and, therefore, to prevent armed conflict.
Senator Reed and I have worked with majority and minority Members to build a bipartisan package of 49 amendments to be offered on the floor, and we are within moments of a decision point. We can decide to bring this matter to the floor and get unanimous consent to lock in consideration or we can begin voting, which will take us into the afternoon. I have to say that based on experience, if we don't get this locked in at this moment, then we will miss an opportunity to consider these amendments on the floor because we simply are going to run out of time if
The package was included in the substitute amendment, which we filed back before the August break.
Since that time, we worked closely to take the next step. We have 47 amendments for a second managers' package, and this has been agreed upon by the ranking member and by me and by our membership, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. It contains numerous bipartisan items. We might not take all 17 votes, but we have teed up 17 votes--again, split evenly or split as evenly as possible between Republican bills and Democrat bills.
I say to you, Mr. President, and I say to the leadership of the Democratic minority in this Senate, we are ready to vote on the NDAA. We are ready to show on both sides of the aisle that the Senate can act in the interest of national security and get something done on a bipartisan basis.
For heaven's sake, we need to do that at this moment, even more importantly than at other times. We have a great product before us. It makes huge changes--significant changes--and we need to send the signal that we can do this, get it then coordinated with the House version, which has already been passed, and move it to the President of the United States for his early signature.
I, genuinely, thank my partner, Senator Jack Reed, for his tireless work with me to get to this point. I was looking forward to locking in a unanimous consent request at this moment, but I have been told to hold off. It could be coming in just a few minutes. But we have to get that unanimous consent to avoid vote after vote after vote on cloture on these various proposals and amendments. We have to lock that in. We must do it this morning--in the next hour perhaps--between now and the first vote, which I believe begins in about 30 minutes.
We simply cannot delay this process any longer. Let me make it clear: If we do not bring this to the floor today, this matter will not have time for deliberation on the Senate floor, and we will have to basically pretend that we are having a conference between House and Senate Members, and a very small group of Senators will have to write this bill and bring it to the floor for final passage. That is not the way this ought to be done, and it can be avoided with a unanimous consent request in just a very few minutes.
The good news is, we are ready to proceed. The good news is, the committee is united, 26 to 1, and my ranking member and I are ready to proceed. We simply need a Democratic leader to come down here and agree to unanimous consent.
Mr. President, we have all talked about what the primary goal is right now in the Senate. It is to reopen the Federal Government, but that is not all we need to reopen right now.
As we focus on ending this shutdown, I have come to speak in support of a disapproval resolution that is now pending. This is H.J. Res. 106. This is the companion to the resolution that Senator Sullivan and I have introduced to reopen the Central Yukon resource management plan after BLM finalized it over our objection last fall.
The formal name of this rule is the Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. The name is big, and it is a really big area, encompassing nearly 56 million acres, mostly in Northern and Interior Alaska, so the full State of Alaska.
But it is this central area here that is really quite substantial. Not all of that is Federal land. You will see the different colors here. In fact, most of it is not. This RMP is only supposed to affect 13.3 million acres managed by BLM. That is still a lot of land. To put it into perspective, it is more than twice the total acreage of Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Vermont. That is what you are looking at here within this region.
We do need an RMP, resource management plan, to guide management of the Central Yukon's Federal acres. This plan is meant to replace older regimes that were put in place back in 1981, 1986, and 1991, as well as some lands that are unplanned. This is a big undertaking. It has been going on for a long time. It started back in 2013, 12 years ago, costing taxpayers millions of dollars to complete.
I didn't want to have to overturn this RMP because I really do respect much of the work that was done--certainly, the people who worked really hard to do it. I also recognize that some Alaskans support pieces of last year's final plan and are concerned that their input could be lost if it is reopened.
But the problem we have here and why we are taking this resolution up today, is that the Biden administration, which was in office during the last few years of this 12-year process, really has left us with no choice here. They lost sight of the need for balanced management. They dropped any pretense of it from the final plan.
So despite objections from me, from Senator Sullivan, the State of Alaska, many Alaskan stakeholders, BLM kind of plowed ahead, and they finalized a plan that overwhelmingly prioritizes conservation but fails to reflect the principle of multiple use, multiple use that is required with our public lands and fails to honor the explicit requirements of a Federal law.
There are some very significant issues within this plan. There are further deficiencies based on what BLM pledged to do and then refused to do. And that combination is what caused us to file this resolution and to seek a more balanced plan going forward.
Let's go through those problems in a little bit greater detail. I expect that one of the things you are going to hear today in opposition is that this is unprecedented; that Congress is now overturning 12 years of nonpolitical, legally sound Agency work. If that were true, I would not be standing here in opposition to this. I would be a no on the resolution, but that is not where we are.
In December of 2020 and BLM's eighth year of work on this RMP, the Agency released a draft plan with a pretty reasonable preferred alternative. This is a proposal that would have protected sensitive areas; it would have upheld subsistence and recreational uses; it would have provided opportunities for resource development and other legal uses on BLM land. Under that proposal, many outdated public land orders--we call them PLOs--would have been lifted, and the majority of BLM lands would have been accessible.
Just a few years later, we saw a very different preferred alternative emerge from BLM. This was in the middle of the Biden administration. The final Record of Decision issued last November is 362 pages long. There are multiple appendices that total another 1,428 pages. It is 1,800 pages. This is the stack of the maps and the pages of the final Record of Decision--1,800 pages showing those various designations and restrictions.
This is in not a user-friendly plan. It is not a printer-friendly plan, that is for sure. But it is also not a BLM employee-friendly plan. It is long and complex. And unless you are really superinvested in learning what was designated as visual resource management class II as opposed to class III or IV, you are probably not really going to enjoy reading it.
The differences between what the BLM proposed in 2020 and what BLM finalized in 2024 show how this process went off the rails. I will give you a couple of examples here. In 2020, BLM proposed one area of critical environmental concern--we call them ACECs--and research natural area. These are administrative withdrawals for conservation and restrict other uses. This covered 77,000 acres.
Then, last year, BLM's final RMP ballooned this to include 21 ACECs and RNAs, covering 3.6 million acres. This is imposing restrictions on nearly 47 times more land.
In 2020, BLM proposed 497,000 acres of special recreation management areas. In 2024, we saw that triple to 1.453 million acres. In 2020, BLM proposed a little over a million acres of utility and transportation corridors. In 2024, that fell by two-thirds to just 33,000 acres.
In 2020, BLM proposed to have almost 7.5 million acres open to fluid mineral leasing. Then, in 2024, it leaves just 845,000 acres, and that is 89 percent
There is a lot more I could go through, but the point is that restrictions exploded in the final plan while opportunities for economic development were severely curtailed. We saw it over and over in Alaska over the last 4 years. We don't think it was any accident. You have heard my colleague speak on the floor about this a great deal, but it was just, really, the last administration's goal to reduce and curtail many of these activities. BLM's treatment of public land orders, which have been obsolete in Alaska for decades, also backslid dramatically. These came to be in the 1970s when Alaska's land ownership was greatly unsettled, but they should have been revoked a long time ago.
In 2020, BLM proposed to revoke 5.863 million acres of so-called d-1 withdrawals, but then, in 2024, BLM zeroes that out. Instead, they have only lifted withdrawals for one narrow purpose. It is an important purpose, but it is very narrow, and that is allotments for eligible Alaska Vietnam veterans but no others. In 2020, BLM proposed to lift PLO 5150, reflecting State and Native selections around our Trans- Alaska Pipeline corridor, but then, in 2024, BLM reversed course. It refused to lift a single acre of PLO 5150 within the RMP process.
The problem is that BLM told us--they told me; they told my team-- that they would address PLO 5150 through a separate process. They called it a tiered environmental assessment, and they said that that was going to begin immediately after the finalization of the Central Yukon RMP. They just had to get to that point, and they just needed us to back off so they could. Guess what never happened. The day after the State of Alaska's consistency review period for the Central Yukon RMP ended, BLM canceled its separate process for PLO 5150. It was an absurd decision.
BLM spent years--they spent years--telling us that they could only lift public land orders within the RMP process. And then, as the Central Yukon RMP nears completion, they then tell us that they could only lift one of the most visible PLOs in Alaska outside of it. And then as soon as we reach that point, they break their promise, immediately pulling the whole thing down.
My team was actually on the phone with BLM when this happened. They asked about the process, and they were told everything was on track. Everything was going just fine. Right after--probably not even more than 30 minutes after that--BLM calls State officials to tell them it is off and is never coming back. If that is not a bait and switch, you know, I don't know what is. This is where you can start to see how BLM's actions--both what it did and what it refused to do in this RMP-- directly contradict multiple Federal laws.
The first is ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. That was Alaska's grand bargain. This is where Congress withdrew and conserved tens of millions of acres in our State in exchange for reasonable opportunities for economic development, whether it be within the 1002 Area, the Ambler Road, but this was the deal back in 1980. And to confirm that Alaska had done its part for national conservation, ANILCA also includes several of what we call ``no more'' clauses, reflecting the fact that we were done and that no more wilderness needed to be designated in the State of Alaska.
It should be pretty apparent that the unilateral, administrative designation of 3.6 million acres of ACECs, dozens of other restrictions across millions of other acres, and the retention of virtually all land withdrawals, which were supposed to be lifted decades ago, are all directly contrary to ANILCA.
The Central Yukon plan also conflicts with a law that I wrote called the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. Some people around here are still surprised that Alaska's land ownership is still not settled yet. Sixty-six years after statehood, neither our State nor our Native land entitlements have been fulfilled. We have got millions of acres remaining outstanding on both of these, and their settlement hinges on the Federal Government making available and then transferring selected lands.
Congress agreed to enact my Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act back in 2004. We set this goal that our land entitlements would be complete by 2009. That was the 50th anniversary of statehood. Well, that didn't happen, but some good did come from it. BLM surveyed its land withdrawals in Alaska. Then, in 2006, there was a report to Congress that recommended that 95 percent of them--covering 152 million acres--could be lifted consistent with the protection of the public's interest. The only caveat here was that BLM preferred to lift its orders through its land planning process.
So we worked with them. We pushed to make that happen. We have appropriated funding to make it happen. But when BLM undertakes a new RMP and decides that not a single acre of a single PLO can be lifted across 13.3 million acres for any other purpose other than Native allotments, you are going to see patience run out, and then it turns to frustration; it turns to opposition. Then it takes us to where we are today, which is to the congressional disapproval of a resource management plan.
I would also point out that the Central Yukon RMP conflicts with ANCSA, or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The regional ANC in the Central Yukon area, Doyon, has rightly pointed out that BLM's actions in this RMP would make it difficult, if not impossible, to utilize its lands for the benefit of its people in line with congressional intent.
In a letter to Alaska's congressional delegation, Doyon explained how BLM's restrictive land designations will ``complicate access to and use of Doyon lands and potentially prevent Doyon from fully realizing the economic and other benefits that Congress intended it would enjoy as a result of ANCSA's settlement of aboriginal land claims.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.
We also received a letter of support for this resolution from the North Slope Trilateral, which includes the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC. Their letter lays out a series of fundamental flaws within the final Central Yukon plan, including its failure to account for North Slope priorities, the impact that it would have on Native lands, the barriers it creates to cooperative land management, the restrictions it imposes to foreclose the production of rare earth elements and other resources, as well as the lack of consultation with Alaska Natives who live on the North Slope during its development.
As the Trilateral writes, ``The result is a plan that ignores congressional intent under both ANCSA and ANILCA, disregards the economic needs of North Slope communities, and creates unnecessary obstacles to infrastructure, energy, and community health across northern Alaska.''
So, again, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the North Slope leaders be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.
The sad part is that what these Alaskans are pointing to-- restrictions that encumber access to lands and opportunities--was largely the point of BLM's final RMP, and that again points to why we are here to disapprove this plan.
I should point out that there is a big misunderstanding about the effects of this resolution. There have been some false claims out there, and I think there has been some kind of sloppy reporting of them. But when the House passed this resolution, we saw over and over again in different articles that somehow or other the passage of that resolution had approved the Ambler Access Project, which is not the case. That project has been in permitting for a decade. Then, just on Monday, President Trump issued a determination reapproving it, which we appreciate, but nothing in this disapproval resolution approves that project. So that is just misinformation out there.
What is true is that, over the course of decades, Congress has ceded a lot of authority on Federal land management to the executive branch. We trust them to follow the laws that we have made and find a balance between competing uses and priorities. We know it is not
That is what we are doing. We are reminding BLM that these are public lands that are generally available for multiple use, not exclusively conserved lands with layer after layer of administrative restrictions heaped onto them.
Before I end here, I would like to briefly discuss what comes next if we are able to pass this disapproval resolution.
It should be very clear. Passage does not invalidate 12 years of Agency work. It does not overturn the environmental analysis that has been done or the public comments that have been received. We are simply reopening this plan, and we are telling BLM: Return. Come back with a new one that is more balanced. That shouldn't be hard, and it shouldn't take that long because the plan already exists. It was just abandoned once the Biden administration took office.
For 8 years, BLM was on the right track in this process. It has a readymade plan in the form of its preferred alternative from 2020. The record of decision from last year even acknowledges that the 2020 preferred alternative features a ``blend of resource protection and resource development.'' It is an actual balance between the two, and that is what we should be seeking. It is time to go back to that proposal, update it as needed based on the passage of time, and put into place a final Central Yukon plan that maintains access, respects multiple use, and conserves where necessary and appropriate.
It is entirely possible to serve the varied interests of this region, and through this resolution, that is exactly what we are telling BLM to do. When they do, we will have a final Central Yukon resource management plan that Alaska's delegation, the State of Alaska, the largest landowner in the region--Doyon--and a wide range of Alaska stakeholders can support. So I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to cloture on the motions to proceed to Calendar No. 167, S. 2882, and Calendar No. 168, H.R. 5371.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for her remarks on the vote that we are getting ready to take on the CRA that deals with the Central Yukon plan.
I am going to be a little bit more brief since she covered a lot of material and did a great job of doing it, but I want to give my colleagues just a little sense of the elements of why this plan-- ``plan''--needs to be repealed by the U.S. Senate as part of a CRA.
By the way, Mr. President, this is going to continue in the vein of what we did with your great State of Montana and North Dakota the last 2 days on the Senate floor with these CRAs.
What is going on here? We all know what is going on here both with regard to Montana and with regard to North Dakota and, of course, with regard to Alaska. The previous administration came in and said: Even though it is probably illegal, we are going to try to lock up these States because we don't want resource development in these States.
Imagine, Mr. President, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, the Central Yukon plan that the Biden administration issued--we didn't want it. Nobody really wanted it in Alaska. It is almost 56 million acres. That is the size of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania combined, just that one plan. It gives you a sense of how big my State is. But can you imagine a President of the United States, if you are a Republican, telling the people of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania that they are going to be saddled with a plan they didn't want to large swaths of their land, destroying thousands of jobs, which is what this plan would do? Nobody would accept that.
This planned scheme of the Biden administration disregards local voices, ignores protections guaranteed under Federal law--ANCSA and ANILCA--and undermines the ability of Alaska Native corporations, which did not want it, to access and responsibly develop their lands, which Congress gave them in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971.
These are the key elements of why it is a problem. It is also part of a long pattern with the Biden administration that I never tire of reminding people.
This is the chart we call the last frontier lockup. The last administration issued 70 Executive orders and Executive actions singularly focused on Alaska--7-0. I confronted President Biden in the Oval Office respectfully when we were at 48. Here is the list of them, by the way, of the 70. That is each one, 7-0--only against Alaska.
I said: Mr. President, why are you doing this? Why are you going to war with my people--working families, Americans? You are sanctioning Alaska more than you sanctioned Iran and Venezuela, and they are terrorist regimes.
He didn't know. I don't think he knew what was going on. But it was wrong.
This, by the way, this Central Yukon management plan, was one of the 70 that we didn't want; that the vast majority of the Native people didn't want; certainly that the Native corporation Doyon--most of their land--they didn't want it.
What we need to do instead, as opposed to locking up Alaska--I said to President Biden: It is not good for Alaska, sir, but it is also not good for America--is we need to do this: unleash Alaska's extraordinary resource potential.
By the way, thank you, President Trump.
This is a day-one Executive order, one of the first Executive orders President Trump issued when he came into office in January and said: We are not going to lock up Alaska; we are going to unleash it.
In his Executive order, we also have essentially getting rid of this Central Yukon management plan from the Biden administration.
So thank you, Mr. President.
Now, my colleagues--I am asking all of them, and I am particularly asking my Democratic colleagues, because I want you guys to show that you are not so anti-Alaska.
The Democratic Party at the national level has become the anti-Alaska party, and that is the anti-Alaska Native party. So many things that we care about in my State in the interest of the Native people--all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make it a point--a point--to try to crush us in our opportunity and cancel Native voices--yes, indigenous voices. They are always working to cancel them.
Here is your opportunity, Democrat colleagues, to vote yes on this CRA. Listen to me and Senator Murkowski, the people who represent the people in the great State of Alaska. Listen to President Trump. That is what we want.
I am going to mention just one final thing on why this is so important, why I get really animated about this with all of my colleagues.
A lot of people have seen this chart, but I like showing it because it is a really important issue. This is a chart from the American Medical Association from 1980 to 2014. It has life expectancy in America. The places that are blue, darker blue, and purple, if you look at the chart, these people are living longer. Purple is 13 years. So in 24 years, in certain parts of America, the life expectancy of Americans increased by 13 years.
Unfortunately, in our great Nation--look at the yellow, orange, and red on this chart. That is actually life expectancy decreasing. Of course, nobody wants that. A lot of that was the opioid epidemic and things.
But guess which State had the greatest increase in life expectancy of anyplace in America from 1980 to 2014 according to the American Medical Association. Alaska--especially the North Slope region, interior Alaska, the Aleutian Island area, southeast Alaska.
So what happened from 1980 to 2014 in that part of Alaska? I will tell you what happened. Responsible resource development happened, and people started living longer. They got jobs. They got water and sewer, flushed toilets, gymnasiums, health clinics--things that the lower 48 just takes for granted that we didn't have in a lot of our State. Because we had responsible resource development--mining oil and gas on the North Slope, fishing out on the Aleutian Island chains--all because of laws we made here in Congress, the people of Alaska, particularly the Native people, started living longer--living longer.
I have asked my colleagues--and I have used this chart a lot--to give me an indicator of policy success more important than the people you represent living longer. There isn't one. That is the most important. The people you represent are living longer. Why? Because of responsible resource development. There is no doubt. Here is the chart. Alaskans are living up to 13 years longer.
Now, Native people in my State, unfortunately, started at a really low level--some of the lowest levels of life expectancy--but because we are developing our resources responsibly, my constituents are living longer.
So when you have these groups and you have the Biden administration and, no offense, you have a lot of my Senate Democratic colleagues trying to shut down my State, which they always do, do you know what you are doing? You are actually impacting people's lives and how long they live.
This is really important for me and the people I represent. This is a good opportunity to tell the Biden administration: Hey, you are not going to do this. You are not going to do it to Montana, you are not going to do it to North Dakota, and you certainly are not going to do it to Alaska because you are going to negatively impact people's lives.
I really hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I really hope at least one or two Democrats have the courage to come and say: Do you know what, Dan, you have been talking about this for 10 years. I agree with you. I am going to vote to rescind this Biden CRA or this Biden Yukon management plan that nobody wanted, to help your State and help America.
One more thing. In this part of the State where that Central Yukon management plan is--like I said, 56 million
I was in an Armed Services hearing recently, and everybody, including a lot of my Democrat colleagues, said: Gosh, we are so reliant on China for critical minerals. What can we do?
I can tell you what you can do: Quit shutting down my State. Let us develop critical minerals in Alaska as opposed to relying on them from China.
That is another reason this is important--for the national security of our country.
With that, I ask all of my colleagues to support this CRA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, and notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order to call up the following amendments to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296: Paul, No. 3761; Cruz, No. 3274; Scott of Florida, No. 3535; Marshall, No. 3213; Moran, No. 3814; Curtis, No. 3697; Lee-Duckworth, No. 3288; Cotton-Gillibrand, No. 3759; Cornyn-Cortez Masto, No. 3926; Hagerty- Peters, No. 3841; Schumer, No. 3109; Van Hollen, No. 3872; Duckworth, No. 3210; Warnock, No. 3010; Kaine, No. 3337; Sanders, No. 3853; and Merkley, No. 3927; further, that with respect to the amendments listed above, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, with no further amendments or motions in order and with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; further, that upon disposition of the Merkley amendment, No. 3927, the following amendments be called up and made pending en bloc and that they be the only remaining amendments in order to S. 2296: Scott of South Carolina, No. 3340; Hassan, No. 2928; Grassley, No. 3355; Warnock, No. 2952; McCormick, No. 3376; Ossoff, No. 2971; Cornyn, No. 3405; Kaine, No. 3039; Capito, No. 3435; Gallego, No. 3136; Lankford, No. 3439; Duckworth, No. 3156; Blackburn, No. 3489; Shaheen, No. 3351; Kennedy, No. 3703; Booker, No. 3530; Daines, No. 3732; Slotkin, No. 3557; Ricketts, No. 3788; Peters, No. 3570; Hawley, No. 3799; Hickenlooper, No. 3601; Rounds, No. 3810; Coons, 3712; Tillis, No. 3811; Cortez Masto, No. 3724; Moran, No. 3813; Klobuchar, No. 3751; Grassley, No. 3823; Klobuchar, No. 3818; Kennedy, No. 3702; Durbin, No. 3825; Fischer, No. 3842; Padilla, No. 3834, Cruz, No. 3890; Hirono, No. 2979; Grassley-Durbin, No. 3272; Cruz-Cantwell, No. 3742; Scott of South Carolina-Warren, No. 3901, Risch-Shaheen, No. 3819; Graham, No. 3899; Sullivan-Whitehouse, No. 3888; Collins, No. 3880, Hirono, No. 3015; Peters, No. 3753; Shaheen-Risch, No. 3826; Coons, No. 3728; Gallego, No. 3928; that the Senate vote on the amendments en bloc; that upon disposition of the amendments, the pending Thune amendments and motions be withdrawn, the Ernst amendment No. 3427 be agreed to, and the Wicker-Reed substitute amendment No. 3748, as modified, and as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the two leaders to enter motions to reconsider without being on the prevailing side with respect to the cloture votes on the motion to proceed to S. 2882 and H.R. 5371.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2882, a bill making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, this motion is not agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 168, H.R. 5371, a bill making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2026, and for other purposes, 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.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Central Yukon Record of Decision And...
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Central Yukon Record of Decision And...
Mr. President, we are now 9 days into the government shutdown, and the disruption of the shutdown is being felt by many Americans. Particularly, what I want to talk about is the many Americans who are traveling or working in the aviation industry.
Government shutdowns are detrimental to some of our most basic functions of government, and our already-fragile air traffic control system is facing strain from this occurrence.
We are reminded how fragile our air system is by the facts of what occurred on January 29, when a flight from Kansas to Washington, DC, did not land safely at Washington Reagan, and it claimed the lives of 67 people.
Over the time that I have been in Congress, we have had a number of shutdowns and, in many instances, even Kansans told me: Shut her down. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to me.
I have never found the value in a government shutdown. That accident that I just mentioned forced Congress and our Nation to reckon with an issue that has plagued us for decades: Why have we not effectively modernized our airspace system?
Since that crash, steps have been taken to train more controllers and enhance the aviation system, including a $12.5 billion investment in modernizing our airspace. But those efforts become much more difficult while Congress fails to keep the government operating and the shutdown is in place.
The Wall Street Journal, just this week, aptly summed up the current crisis stating: We ``have a system under pressure that now just has another 100 pounds of weight on it.''
The failure to pass a continuing resolution is slowly crushing our aviation system. Our system is too fragile and the stakes are too high for us to continue operating the national aviation system in the manner we are doing so. We will reach a breaking point, and this could result in the closing of our airspace or portions of it.
The consequences of the shutdown on our aviation system aren't isolated to major cities and large airports as the viability of the Air Service Program is also now put at risk. This program incentivizes airlines to provide commercial flights to rural communities that normally wouldn't be able to attract business from major airlines on their own. In Kansas, there are five such airports that use this program to provide flights to their communities. These flights allow my constituents to fly to larger cities for business, to see the family, for doctors' appointments, and so many other things. Several of these airports have seen and continue to see record levels of passenger growth.
All of these factors are chipping away at the sustainability and safety of our Nation's aviation system. In a previous Congress, I introduced the Aviation Funding Stability Act, which allows the FAA to draw from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to make certain that critical operations continue when there is an appropriations lapse. In March of this year, I reintroduced this bill as we faced this threat of a shutdown. This legislation is still important, but the fact is that the only real solution here is to pass the continuing resolution.
We set out earlier this year, in a bipartisan manner, to transform our aviation system to make it safer for everyone, but that work is now significantly hindered without having an open and functioning government. The Senate Appropriations subcommittee, of which I am a member--the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee--has done its job. I joined my colleagues in advancing the fiscal year 2026 funding bill for the Department of Transportation but including all the aviation matters at the FAA and otherwise. We did that in July.
It included more than $22 billion for the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, with $5 billion for the FAA's facilities and equipment account--critical funding for modernizing outdated equipment in our national airspace. This legislation also included funding to hire 2,500 air traffic controllers to close the gap in our workforce. For every day we remain in a shutdown, the air traffic controller shortage gets worse, and the strain on the aviation system intensifies. Our system has a breaking point, and I hope that this dysfunction that we are undergoing stops before we see dramatic and damaging consequences.
My point is that the continuing resolution is standing in the way of the appropriations process. We have a majority leader who is willing to bring appropriations bills to the floor. They deserve the Senate's consideration of those appropriations bills. The challenge we face is getting them done by the end of the fiscal year; therefore, we have put in place a continuing resolution until a date in later November. This is a straightforward continuing resolution to give us the time to complete the appropriations process, including the money for the Transportation Department and the safety components that are included therein.
My second point is that a continuing resolution is necessary to avoid a shutdown. That point is that the shutdown is damaging to us in many ways to our Nation. It is broadly damaging to us because it allows those who are critics and those who are adversaries to realize that we are not as capable of functioning as we should be so that even our allies wonder what is going on in the United States.
The point I want to make is that there are consequences to the position we have allowed ourselves to get in, and it affects the safety of Americans every day. In having experienced the loss of life from the flight on January 29 from Wichita, KS, to Washington, DC, we should be doing everything we can to make certain that our air traffic system and the necessary components are in place to make sure that traveling American citizens and the citizens of the world who use our airline system have a safe and secure flight when they board a plane in the United States. The silliness of where we are today is impeding our ability to make that true.
I don't know when a shutdown makes sense, but the consequences of this one, in lieu of a short-term, clean CR for a few more weeks to complete our appropriations work, is a shutdown that makes absolutely no sense or is of any benefit to America.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to act now to pass this short-term continuing resolution so we can alleviate the pressures on our aviation system, return to doing our jobs in appropriating government funding, and provide much needed certainty and stability for our Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, we are just over a week into Republicans' shutdown and just over 3 weeks from open enrollment, when massive premium hikes become a stone-cold reality for our families. Yet Republican leaders refuse to sit down and talk with us about addressing both of those challenges.
President Trump and Russ Vought are just openly--gleefully--plotting how they can make this shutdown as painful as possible. House Republicans are not even here for the third week in a row, and Leader Thune has refused to do anything other than vote on the same, failed, partisan CR over and over and over. The clock is ticking. Republicans would rather sit on their hands than sit down at the table.
When we ask to talk about healthcare, the only word that the Republican leader seems to know is ``later.'' Excuse me. But why couldn't we have addressed this challenge any earlier? The Republican leader bent over backward to shovel new tax cuts at billionaires earlier this year. He did not tell CEOs to wait when it came to Republican tax breaks that expire at the end of this year. Why is he telling families now to wait when rates are being set now? when price announcements will be in the mail any day now? and when open enrollment is right around the corner? Why do Republicans want to wait until higher rates are locked in and families are priced out of healthcare? We have to tackle this before those rates are locked.
I have been warning for months about what this will mean for Washington State and for our country. Maybe the Republican leader needs to hear about what this means for his constituents.
In South Dakota, there are 50,000 people who rely on the healthcare tax credits to get their health coverage. On average, those South Dakota families will see their premiums more than triple if Republicans refuse to save the tax credits. These are hard-working families, including many farmers. And it is not just a challenge in South Dakota. Over a quarter of farmers in our country are covered through those exchanges. Do any of my colleagues think we should do nothing while farmers lose their healthcare? Do any of my colleagues want to stand by while families across the country see their premiums double?
You know, we have common ground here, but that doesn't do any good when Republicans refuse--outright refuse--to come to the table and negotiate. It doesn't do a lot of good when House Republicans are out on vacation for the third week in a row. You know, this clock has been ticking all year long, and the time to avoid those massive premiums is just about up. There is no waiting. There is no later. You can either start talking with us now to reopen the government and act to stop premium hikes before the open enrollment or you can talk to your constituents about why you decided to sit on your hands and do diddly- squat as their premiums went through the roof. The choice is yours.
The Democrats are here. We are still at the table. We have always been here. We have never left. We are ready today--today--to work out a serious deal to address the healthcare crisis and reopen the government.
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, right now, Republicans control the White House, the House, and the Senate. In other words, Republicans control the
Earlier this year, Trump tried to shut down Social Security offices across the country, making it much harder for recipients of Social Security benefits to call Social Security, find out the information they needed, and to access their benefits. So Social Security reversed course on this I call it lamebrain idea to close some of the offices when they responded to the huge hue and cry from people who said that was not something that should be happening to Social Security recipients.
Another example: This regime slashed the Department of Education, firing more than half of the Education Department's staff, as part of an all-out assault on the Federal support for public education in our country. If President Trump had his way, he would just get rid of the Federal Department of Education altogether, but since only Congress can do that, they did things like firing half of the staff.
Now they are coming after programs millions of Americans rely on for their healthcare. Republicans created this healthcare crisis when they passed their ``Big Ugly Bill,'' which guts Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP, among other programs.
At the same time, Donald Trump zeroed out funding for research on diseases such as cancer. And when we are talking about research on children's cancer, to cut off funding for that kind of research is more than mean. They also cut out funding for research on diabetes, Alzheimer's, halting studies that could unlock major breakthroughs and literally save lives.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of Americans oppose what this regime is doing regarding healthcare. Republicans know their position is indefensible, which is why they are resorting to lies and excuses--lies that get more desperate by the day. They are lying because they don't want the American people to know the truth.
What is that truth? The truth is that Republicans are happy to make permanent massive tax cuts for billionaires in their ``Big Ugly Bill'' but refused--refused--to make permanent tax credits hard-working families rely on to get their healthcare.
Misplaced priorities are nothing new for Republicans. I was in the House when we passed the Affordable Care Act--the ACA--which expanded healthcare to more than 20 million Americans who up to that point did not even have healthcare. I was here in the Senate as Republicans tried over and over again to repeal the ACA and kick those millions of Americans off their healthcare.
It is rich that these same Republicans who crusaded for years to get rid of the ACA now stand before the American people talking about how much they care about their healthcare. Why should the American people believe these lies as they are, even as we speak, getting notices of huge increases in their healthcare costs? The American people don't believe the Republican lies. They see right through them.
Meanwhile, Republicans, unwilling to do what the American people want, now claim that, well, extending these credits isn't urgent, so we can do this a few months from now. We don't have to do it now. There is no sense of urgency.
Another lie.
Time is of the essence. Open enrollment under the ACA starts in just a few weeks, and because of Republicans' refusal to act--I repeat-- people across the country are getting notices saying: Here is what your ACA premiums are going to cost you.
The figures are astounding. Without an extension of these credits, average out-of-pocket premium costs for a family of four in Hawaii are expected to increase from $10,000 to more than $16,000 a year--an increase of more than $6,000, or $500 a month.
Maybe in Trump's world, $500 isn't much, but to everybody else, that is a lot. Billionaires may not care that millions of people in our country are getting these notices about their increase in healthcare, but the rest of us do. For so many families, these huge increases could well break the bank.
Let's face it--this is not a red State or blue State issue. Hard- working Americans in every State across the country rely on the ACA for healthcare coverage, and they are all about to see their costs skyrocket.
In Speaker Johnson's home State of Louisiana, where nearly 300,000 people--his constituents--get their healthcare through the ACA, a family of four in Louisiana can expect to see their premiums increase by more than $9,000 a year.
In South Dakota, Senate Leader Thune's home State, out-of-pocket costs for a family of four will increase by more than $13,000 a year. Think about that. Without action, Leader Thune's constituents will be paying $13,000 more than last year for the very same coverage and the same benefits.
Nationwide, it is estimated that healthcare premiums will more than double for hard-working families. Make no mistake, plenty of families won't be able to afford these significant hikes and will be forced to go without healthcare--all because Republicans refuse to act.
Working families are awakening to this healthcare crisis because--and I repeat--they are getting their increase notices even as we speak. And they know who is responsible. It is the Republicans, with their ``Big Ugly Bill.''
Trump returned to office promising to lower costs on day one--yet another lie. It is not happening. More than 250 days later, Americans are facing the fallout from this regime's reckless economic policies, including the disastrous tariffs that are decimating small businesses.
So instead of actually doing anything to lower costs for our hard- working families, the Republicans have shut down the government because they really don't care that families have to pay so much more for healthcare. Many of them--millions of them--are going to drop healthcare because they will not be able to afford these increases.
Under the Trump regime, Americans are poorer because costs are not going down, and they are about to get sicker when they no longer can afford the healthcare that was provided through the ACA tax credits.
Democrats, on the other hand, know that the health and welfare and well-being of the American people are worth fighting for and that keeping the government running shouldn't come at the cost of Americans' healthcare.
We talk about what I would call a completely stupid choice--not even a choice. We should keep the government running, but if the Republicans are so intent on giving permanent tax breaks to the billionaires, they should give permanent tax credits to the millions of Americans who need and deserve this healthcare.
Frankly, Republicans can end the government shutdown today if they agree to restore healthcare to the American people. Until then, Democrats are going to keep fighting to protect Americans' healthcare, reopen the government, and hold this regime accountable for the harm they are inflicting on this country every single day.
Mr. President, one of the proudest moments of my life was the first time I ever laced up my boots, put on my uniform, and raised my right hand to swear my oath to the Constitution as a member of the Illinois Army National Guard, and I cherished every day that I got to wake up and call myself a soldier.
And it is because I love our military so deeply that I refuse to let a five-time, draft-dodging coward abuse it for his own personal gain. At Quantico last week, Trump told our top military leaders that he wants American servicemembers to ``train'' against the same citizens they swear an oath to protect.
Last month, he essentially declared war on Chicago, one of the largest cities in the country that he leads, with a meme from a Vietnam war movie about the loss of all humanity when military action is unchecked by ethics or the laws of war. And this week, he made good on his threats, forcing hundreds of National Guardsmen into our city, against the will of the people of Illinois or its legally elected representatives.
For months, Trump has fabricated claims of chaos and crime on American streets to justify false claims that
In the last few weeks in Chicago, we have seen Trump's agents detain innocent Americans, deny citizens their right to legal representation, point weapons at civilians, zip-tie children, arrest elected officials, ransack apartment buildings, injure journalists, and shoot a priest in the head with pepper balls for the so-called crime of peacefully praying for nonviolence. They have even shot two people, leaving one--a father of two young children--dead, making dubious and unsubstantiated claims in their attempt to justify their use of lethal force.
It is obvious what Trump is doing. He is targeting and punishing the cities who dare to push back against his abuse of power. And while he is currently targeting blue cities with his lies, if these deployments are not stopped, there will be nothing to stop him--or any future President--from doing this to anyone, anywhere, for any made-up reason that is also untethered to reality.
So let's be clear. Ordering our troops to intimidate Americans in their own communities doesn't make our Nation safer. Policing Americans in their own communities is not the National Guard's job. They can't make arrests, and they are not adequately trained to carry out police duties in urban environments.
These deployments are yet another Trump move straight out of the Authoritarian 101 textbook. They further jeopardize civil rights while distracting our troops from executing their core mission of keeping Americans safe from the real adversaries who wish us harm.
We know that Trump's actions are not about law and order--because if he cared about law and order, he wouldn't gleefully refuse to coordinate with State and local officials. He wouldn't have literally defunded our police by freezing and slashing Federal dollars that help hire, train, and equip law enforcement. He wouldn't be diverting Federal resources and agents away from operations that investigate drug cartels and drug traffickers, from missions that identify and disrupt foreign terrorist plots, and from actions that protect our families from cyber attacks to do it. But he is.
And instead of supporting and expanding proven violent crime prevention strategies, he is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to terrorize law-abiding citizens who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
Trump is taking our troops away from their missions just to do his personal bidding, forcing them to confront peacefully protesting Americans, instead of using their time to train to protect our Nation in case of future conflicts with America's adversaries around the world.
Our troops didn't sign up for this. They signed up to defend Americans' rights to free speech, not to intimidate Americans from exercising that right. Our troops are willing to die to defend this country, not to defend one man's ego.
Los Angeles did not ask for this; Washington, DC, did not ask for this; Portland did not ask for this; Chicago did not ask for this; our servicemembers did not ask for this.
I am relieved to announce that just moments ago I secured a Senate hearing in the coming weeks with witnesses from the Trump administration where I will ask tough questions and demand answers on these unjustifiable actions because I refuse to stay silent as our military and our servicemembers' sacrifices are disrespected and abused by a man who was never brave enough to serve himself.
I cannot let him keep giving our troops the middle finger while eroding the hard-won trust and confidence they have earned from the American public over generations of military service. These days, I may no longer be wearing my Army uniform, but it still hangs proudly in my Senate office. And now, I spend a lot of my time seated on the Senate floor rather than beneath my Black Hawk's main rotors, but my core mission is still the same as when I was in the National Guard: to keep America as strong and as safe as she should be.
If only Donald Trump cared about doing the same.
I yield the floor and recognize my colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Illinois.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois Senator Duckworth for inviting me to join her on the floor to discuss what is happening in our State.
Before I do, I want to make sure it is well known for those who follow this debate to explain how she became my Senate colleague.
There was a day some 20 years ago when I was given two tickets to the Presidential State of the Union Address, and my staff had asked me if there was any particular guest I would like to invite. I said: No, why don't you call out to Walter Reed military hospital and see if there is an Illinois veteran who can come and join us. They told me, shortly after that, that they had found someone who was coming.
I didn't know that person. Her name was Tammy Duckworth. She was in full dress uniform when she came into my office, merely a few weeks since her helicopter had been shot down over in Iraq, and she had gone through some terrible surgeries and was recovering. But she came into my office with a large smile on her face and her husband Brian pushing her wheelchair.
That was how we met. She was my guest at the State of the Union Address.
We became friends. I became an ombudsman for Walter Reed. She had soldiers calling me from all over the United States asking for help. I didn't regret it one bit. I was honored to do it.
So I worked up the courage to ask her if she would consider running for Congress, and she said to me: I would have to talk it over with Brian.
I thought, I have got a live one here. She sounds like she is interested, which she was.
Her first try for office was not successful for Congress, but she later became head of the Veterans' Administration for the State of Illinois and then ran successfully to serve with me as a Member of the House. When there was a vacancy available for the U.S. Senate seat, I not only encouraged her but endorsed her and did everything I could to help. I am honored to have her as my colleague.
She is an extraordinary person, has more bravery than any 10 people I know, and she has shown her devotion for this country by serving in the Guard for over 20 years--23 years?--23 years in the Guard.
So when it comes to issues involving the Guard, there is no better expert that has ever served in the U.S. Senate. Illinois is lucky; America is lucky to have Tammy Duckworth, and I am lucky to be able to join her today.
We are proud of our heritage in the State of Illinois. We call it the ``Land of Lincoln,'' and I recall an incident that is worth repeating.
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Edwardsville, IL. That is downstate near St. Louis. In this speech, he asked:
Lincoln emphasized that it was not America's army or the power of our weapons. The founder of the Republican Party Abraham Lincoln said:
This is what is responsible for the maintenance of our freedoms. How the Republican Party has changed from those early days.
Yesterday, President Trump deployed 500 National Guard troops to our State of Illinois. The President ignored the pleas from elected officials across Illinois that these deployments were unnecessary and unwanted and a dangerous escalation of a situation the President himself has created.
Leaders of the chamber of commerce and businesses in our State held a press conference and begged the President: Don't send in the troops. You are sitting here peddling a message which is not true. It is not unsafe in Illinois. People there are proud to be part of that State. We know we are not perfect. Like every other place, we can be
That message was clear from the business leaders in my State, but President Donald Trump didn't care what they had to say. He wanted to deploy our Nation's military to Illinois to spread fear and sow chaos. And in both those efforts, sad to say, he succeeded.
The President has no legal basis for deploying Federal troops to Illinois against the wishes of the Illinois Governor. There is no rebellion or insurrection happening in our State. Americans have the right, under the First Amendment, to protest this administration's cruel and misguided immigration policy. There is no room for violence whatsoever in this exchange of information and points of view, but it is part of our constitutional guarantee.
There is no argument, as some of my colleagues claimed during our Judiciary Committee markup meeting this morning, that this is anything like the civil rights-era abuses of the National Guard by multiple Presidents to enforce desegregation laws when segregationist Governors in the South were defying Federal law and court orders.
President Dwight David Eisenhower, a general himself, federalized the Arkansas National Guard after the Governor outright refused to comply with the law and was preventing the Little Rock Nine from entering the previously all-White Central High School, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
There is no argument and no evidence whatsoever that the Governor of Illinois is disobeying any Federal law or court order. There is no historical analogy between the situation in the 1960s and the situation in Illinois today.
In fact, the current administration has sued Illinois to attempt to commandeer State law and force Illinois to implement this administration's immigration policies. Courts have repeatedly found that Illinois does not have a responsibility to implement Federal immigration laws.
There is no statute or provision in the Constitution that allows the President to use the National Guard as props in his political theater or to suppress constitutionally protected dissent against his inhumane immigration crackdown.
In addition, the Trump administration has recklessly surged hundreds of Federal law enforcement officers who are employing increasingly aggressive tactics against immigrants and their families and those suspected of being immigrants. They have said quite boldly: We are looking for people who look like this, subject to jurisdiction.
They have pulled FBI, DEA, and ATF agents from their assignments to carry out the President's immigration agenda, taking them away from the mission to combat crimes like terrorism, gun violence, human trafficking, and drug smuggling.
How does this make America safer?
We all know the litany that Donald Trump has repeated over and over again at political rallies and meetings since he was reelected as President. He is trying to stop murderers, rapists, terrorists, criminally insane people, and sexual predators from coming into this country.
Look what is happening with this mass deportation effort that he has authored. Over 70 percent of those who have been detained by ICE so far--over 70 percent--have no criminal record whatsoever, none whosoever.
This is not about stopping crime. This is about going after immigrants. If the Trump administration truly wanted to help my city of Chicago and our State of Illinois, it wouldn't defy Illinois-elected leaders; it would work with us. It would restore the millions of dollars that it suspended in crime prevention and public safety grants.
How can this President say with a straight face that he wants to reduce crime in our State and cut back the very programs law enforcement counts on to train and be prepared and effective in the field when reducing crime? He has chosen to put boots and guns on the street and call in the military from Texas.
At the end of the day, these deployments are about President Trump and Stephen Miller's personal agenda to send troops primarily into blue cities and to deport immigrants without any criminal history at the expense of national security and public safety.
Nearly a quarter of all FBI agents--a quarter of them, one out of four--are now focused on immigration. How can this possibly make America safer? The tactics that are being used by ICE and others in support of the President's mission are outrageous.
On Tuesday, September 30, there was a raid in the middle of the night on an apartment house in South Shore in the city of Chicago. Three hundred ICE agents flew in Black Hawk helicopters and rappelled down to the roof of an apartment building. It was a scene made for the movies. That is exactly what it was.
They ransacked apartments that people were living in, crashed down their doors and pulled them out of bed and lined them up on the street. They bound the children with ties--plastic ties or handcuffs--and they decided to make it all a movie production for television and video.
It was supposedly to stop drug activities by gangs. No evidence whatsoever has been produced of that. It was a horrible scene. I am sure these children will never forget as long as they live being pulled out of bed in the middle of the night and watching their parents being interrogated, arrested, and detained.
That is the idea of this administration in enforcing the law. It just goes too far. Steve Miller, the President's domestic adviser, is the architect of this travesty. For any of you who may not think these deployments may not affect you, it is just Illinois' problem, you are wrong.
The very act undermines our Constitution and belief in liberty above all. As President Lincoln warned us in that same speech, ``Destroy this spirit [of liberty] and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors.''
While the Guard is in Illinois now, it could be in your State next; it could be your family taken from their homes and their beds in the middle of the night in an indiscriminate raid.
Does it sound preposterous? The 2,200 South Shore apartment building people can tell you it is not preposterous. It is actually what happened--have tear gas and guns pointed at you for speaking out.
Congress must act and speak out against this increasingly authoritarian administration. We are a coequal branch of government, and it is time we act like one. I implore my Republican colleagues--and I know they are loyal to President Trump--I implore them to join Senator Duckworth and me and describe these deployments for what they are; they are an illegal, immoral power grab by a President determined to consolidate his power and stifle any dissents.
If we here in this Senate Chamber, fortunate enough to represent the people in this country, will not stand up, then who will?
Once again, I want to thank my colleague Senator Duckworth for calling us down to the Senate floor to raise this issue. She and I are hoping, if the Senate schedule allows, we will be able to get back to Illinois this weekend and then have an opportunity to learn even more about this grave situation.
In the meantime, I ask people involved to show courage, to understand that the odds are against them, and the people who are trying to harass them are well-armed and can be very serious with what they do. But America's values will prevail over this President and this situation, and my State of Illinois will return to a situation where it is not being invaded by the Guard of other States.
Incidentally, I will close by saying this: I have no animus against members of the Guard, either in Illinois or in Texas. They are good men and women who put their hands in the air and swore an oath to our Constitution to serve our country. They are in a situation where they are being used, unfortunately, for a bad situation with this President, but we need them, and I continue to look forward to working with them in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, last year, I was privileged to lead a bipartisan delegation of 20 of our colleagues to Normandy, celebrating the
I believe the Presiding Officer was there. We were part of a bipartisan group, evenly divided--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. What we heard and saw I think will stay with us for a lifetime, particularly from the veterans who remembered that day. They are in their hundred- year-old ages of their lives.
After speaking to them, we heard speeches from the President of the United States, of France, and leaders of Europe. But what stuck with me was what I heard from the veterans.
One of them said to me, ``This was our moment.''
``This was our moment.''
We walked through the American cemetery, those silent rows of white grave markers, down to the beach, Omaha Beach, where I thought of those 18- and 20-year-old boys jumping out of landing craft with 80 pounds on their backs, into 8 feet of water, under a hail of machine gun bullets and mortar fire, onto a beach three football fields long--three football fields long--without any cover. There were no trees, there were no dunes, and the hail of gunfire and mortars kept coming.
I think 90 percent died in the first wave, maybe 80 percent in the second. They kept going--a third and a fourth wave, storming the cliffs, taking back Europe, and saving democracy.
I kept thinking, as I walked on that bleak beach, windswept, waves crashing, ``That was our moment.'' I kept thinking about the veteran who said that to me. It was an American moment, and our reason for going to Normandy was to honor those young men who saved democracy.
This is our moment. This is our moment to save democracy. I know it sounds like an exaggeration to say that our democracy is now under attack, but it is from adversaries and enemies abroad--China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. But we also have to make sure that we safeguard our liberties at home against attack and efforts to undermine them, even if some may feel they are well-meaning.
One of them and only one of them is the illegal and unconstitutional use of our military and the deployment of National Guard into American cities to do what local law enforcement--our police and others, State and local law enforcement--are supposed to do under our scheme of government, where our military protects us from adversaries abroad, and the FBI, the DEA, and our State and local police make sure we are safe at home.
For 250 years, the military has defended our great Republic without fail. It is the bulwark of freedom for this Nation. It is the hope for millions and millions around the world who yearn for freedom. It is nonpolitical. It remains one of the few institutions the American people still revere. Americans have faith in the military because it is nonpolitical.
So what the President is risking by using our military, whether it is the National Guard or Active-Duty marines or another branch of service, is not only a threat to the individual liberties of people in those cities but also the credibility and reverence that the American people have for this venerable institution that has protected us from aggression and threats abroad.
By pursuing political goals with our young men and women in uniform, he risks recruitment for the military; he risks the respect that our constituents have that enables us to work for full funding and support for our military, embodied by the National Defense Authorization Act that we will consider hopefully just within a few hours.
When the Armed Services Committee considers the National Defense Authorization Act, the votes at the end are almost always near unanimous. In fact, in my 15 years on that committee, they have been nearly unanimous every year. And we vote on it in a timely way to make sure that we show support for this necessary institution.
The risk to our military as well as to our individual rights and liberties is what prompted me to introduce the Insurrection Act of 2024.
We all know that the Insurrection Act has a long history. It was written over 200 years ago, in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of Wabash--in those instances, probably not at the tip of the tongue of most of us.
The forces of law enforcement were limited and poorly equipped. They were barely existent. Local police. Virtually no State had its own police. So there was a need for potential use of the military in those instances. But even then, use of military was limited under the original Insurrection Act because Americans feared a permanent standing police doing local law enforcement.
I drafted this legislation in an effort to amend that outdated law, which gives the President enormous, unchecked powers to deploy the military to quell domestic rebellion.
Now, the lack of defining terms, the absence of real accountability, and the vagueness of that statute are the reasons we now need reform.
Limits were imposed, but the limits are filled with loopholes, practical gaps that fail to check the President's power. The problems the act was designed to address are no longer commensurate with the dangers it is now creating.
I reintroduced this legislation for this Congress, and I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort.
The President's actions over the last 8 months demonstrate the need for this urgent reform and increased congressional oversight.
Earlier this week, the President suggested that he would invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy more guardsmen in major cities if the courts or Governors delayed deployment. So I stand here with my colleagues from Oregon, Illinois, and California, whose constituents are living through this threat. It is now a reality as much as a threat.
I warned this body 2 years ago of this reality--unchecked power deployed unconsciously.
I should say that this kind of use of the military poses a tremendous threat to all of our civil liberties even if we are not from California or Oregon or Illinois. It could happen in Connecticut. And the lack of a factual basis for it is well documented in the district court decision issued by a Federal judge days ago citing the absence of any real need on the ground in real time, with evidence before her court-- statements from ICE officers that there was no need.
Her findings, which are airtight and persuasive, are the reason why I am here to say the National Guard should not be deployed there. Reliance should be placed on local and State police. There should be challenges to any deployment in Illinois or California to test whether it is actually needed to preserve order.
The National Guard has always been a symbol of hope for communities. We have seen it in Connecticut when disaster struck. When there are weather catastrophes, the National Guard is in our neighborhoods to help remove downed trees or provide access to homes and to preserve order when local police can't do it. But now, they are being used to turn the military into the President's personal army.
The Founders warned of threats to liberty that a standing army would create. It was one of their biggest fears because they had lived through a time when the British had a standing army in their neighborhoods--in fact, went into their homes and, without permission, used their homes and shelters and food.
Through the years, through great force of effort at times, the military has remained politically independent. It is under the Commander in Chief, but it is nonpolitical. My bill would protect not only American citizens from Executive overreach but also the military from becoming pawns in any kind of political game.
This legislation would create checks and balances, limit the scope of these deployments, authorize extensions via joint resolution, and create a judicial review process. These commonsense solutions would amend an outdated law that no longer fully serves the interests of this Nation.
For the sake of our military and the constituents we represent, I hope my colleagues will support this effort because this use of the military is part of a larger effort to shift the focus of our national defense to policing the homeland rather than protecting us from threats abroad.
We need to provide strong, vibrant, vigorous law enforcement and support
We need to put our money where our mouth is. This administration needs to support our State and local police not just in rhetoric but in reality. The reality is that there must be reform in the Insurrection Act, not just to protect our citizens and our liberties at this moment--this is our moment--but also the well-being and strength of the American military.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I join my colleagues, today, in standing up for Americans' basic constitutional rights.
Donald Trump has again deployed agents and troops to my hometown of Portland, OR, and to other American cities. He announced this authoritarian occupation with orders for Federal agents to use ``full force.''
Since then, he has deployed Federal law enforcement from the Department of Homeland Security, and he has activated 200 Oregon National Guard members, over the objection of the Governor of Oregon, local leaders in Portland, and local law enforcement. He has tried to deploy an additional 300 troops from California--from the National Guard there--and 400 troops from the Texas National Guard, all to my hometown.
Colleagues, during this government shutdown, our Guard members will not even be paid for this unnecessary, unwanted deployment. Activating the Oregon National Guard alone is going to cost $10 million and will pull Guard members away from much more important work.
If Donald Trump truly wanted to help Oregon or Illinois or California, the money would be better spent cracking down on fentanyl traffickers, ending his tariffs that are gutting small businesses, and holding down health costs.
Instead, Donald Trump says U.S. cities like Portland ought to be used as ``training grounds'' for the military.
I would say to the Senate: Let that one sink in. The President of the United States thinks it is acceptable to use American cities as training grounds for the military. In my view, that is unconscionable.
My hometown is a vibrant and peaceful city. It doesn't require any deployment of Federal troops or additional Federal agents to keep our community safe. In fact, the Federal judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump himself, has ruled repeatedly against a troop deployment. She said there was ``no showing that military help is necessary to protect law enforcement or the one federal building for ICE.''
Portland's police department has said there is no need for Federal agents in our city, as well, and that the administration's deployment of ICE agents is making it actually harder for them to do their jobs and keep our cities safe.
The notion that my hometown is somehow a war zone in need of saving is a fantasy made up by Donald Trump and far-right trolls.
Oregonians have taken to social media to show that my community is really peaceful. You see it in our gardens, in our vegetable stands. You see it in musicians playing on the sidewalks.
My constituents have long engaged in peaceful First Amendment activity. The Governor and mayor of Portland have the appropriate resources to maintain peace and order in our communities.
My view is this Trump unilateral action is an abuse of Executive authority. He is clearly hoping that he can incite violence and undermine the constitutional balance of power between the Federal Government and our States.
In addition to the judicial ruling in Oregon last month, a Federal judge in California ruled that the Trump administration actually violated black letter law through the deployment of troops to Los Angeles. His Los Angeles deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly limits the power of the Federal Government to use the military for domestic purposes.
Unfortunately, none of this is new to my hometown. Five years ago, Portland experienced the consequences of an unnecessary and outrageous Federal deployment under Donald Trump's first Presidency.
In the summer of 2020, the White House unleashed Federal agents on Portland. It was like an occupying army, complete with military-grade equipment and violent tactics that were totally unacceptable on American soil. Federal agents shot at Portland residents, tear-gassed families, drove in unmarked vehicles, and grabbed people off the street without an explanation.
Federal agents didn't identify themselves. They didn't wear uniforms. They beat up on those who asked them basic questions about their actions.
There is no question in my mind that another deployment by this administration is going to result in similar abuses, similar violations of Americans' constitutional rights. Inciting violence is clearly Donald Trump's intent.
And I want to make it clear: As Oregon's senior Senator, I am going to continue doing everything to work with my colleagues to fight back against Trump's Federal occupation and show America, from coast to coast, the beauty and the strength of my hometown.
I yield the floor, and I note my partner in the Oregon congressional delegation. He and I have teamed up every step of the way and will continue to do so.
Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon has laid out the situation very well. An authoritarian President emboldened by a rubberstamp Congress, emboldened by a deferential Supreme Court, is sending military troops against American citizens who are peacefully protesting in city after city.
This is un-American. It is a fundamental violation of the purpose of our military, which is to defend us from foreign powers, not to be a tool in a President's hand to attack people who disagree with his point of view. That happens in countries that don't have a President but have a King--that have a dictator. That is not our tradition here. Our whole entire Constitution is about government by and for the people, not by and for a man at the top of the executive branch, using the military against his own citizens.
By law, federalizing the National Guard is quite limited. It can only be done, unless it is done in partnership with a Governor, if there is an invasion or if there is a rebellion. At the time these laws were written, it was well-understood exactly what those are--an invasion, just what you picture: a military force on our border about to cross that border and attack the United States of America, or they have already crossed the border. That is an invasion. Or a rebellion--a rebellion: a large group, well organized, well weaponized, that is trying to overturn the Government of the United States of America.
At the very start of our Republic, there was a rebellion called the Shays' Rebellion. A whole group in the northeastern part of our country were very upset about the challenges they were facing as farmers. They got organized. They had weapons, and they were shutting down the courts that were doing foreclosures on their farms. And they were seeking access to a Federal armory.
Shays' Rebellion--a large group, well organized, weaponized, trying to overturn the government.
The last time we saw a rebellion in the United States of America was when President Trump, in his first term, organized a mob to attack this Capitol to prevent the votes from being counted in the electoral college. That would meet the test of a rebellion.
But peaceful protesters holding signs of concern about the policies of this President or the actions of one of his
Obviously, there is nothing approaching an invasion or a rebellion in the city of Portland. Senator Wyden and I were outside of ICE a couple weekends ago. I saw three women in a group holding a couple of signs. Right now there is a group called Paws for Peace. They are getting together with puppy dogs and dogs. And the ``paws'' is P-A-W-S. Creative, Portland-style protesting to say they are not happy with the administration.
I don't think a bunch of folks holding their puppy dogs constitute a well-organized, well-armed group trying to overthrow the government.
Then there is another group that is called Pastry and Pajamas, and they are out there in the morning handing out pastries to people. They are in their pajamas, encouraging peaceful protesting. They may disagree with the administration, but what they are exercising is as American as an apple pie or an apple pie pastry--making their voice known.
But Trump decided he wanted to create a riot in Portland. Why does he want to create a riot in Portland? Because he wants a violent encounter in order to justify putting the military in our cities--in other words, put the military into the cities to create a riot, then use that as a justification for the military being in the cities.
That is an extraordinary risk to our Republic. That is an extraordinary risk to people--a government of, by, and for the people-- and not just in Portland but in L.A., in DC, in Chicago.
What the instructions appear to be to his Federal agents is to provoke violence by attacking peaceful protesters. The Oregonian, a major newspaper in our State, did a report in which they said their staff witnessed the Federal agents attacking peaceful protesters. I thought that was a very unusual article. It wasn't the newspaper reporters saying people present at the protest alleged that the Federal agents attacked peaceful protesters. No, it said: Our staff witnessed this.
Then there is Oregon Public Broadcasting. Oregon Public Broadcasting was down there with videographers. What they witnessed was this: The Federal agents asked the protesters to move back several blocks, and they did. And there was no conflict between the protesters and the Federal agents. Behind this line of Federal agents were videographers.
Why were the videographers right behind the line of Federal agents? Well, a very interesting thing happened. After the protesters moved back--not just one block or two blocks but three blocks--and the Federal agents have a line across the street with the videographers right behind them. Upon command, the Federal agents threw down tear gas. They threw down these bang-snap devices that sound like gunfire going off--flash-bangs, they are called; it sounds like gunfire--and pepper balls. And, of course, you suddenly have a cloud of smoke. You are hearing what sounds like gunfire, and people are retreating from the tear gas. And they were taking videos of that, trying to say they were disrupting a riot; they were dispelling a riot.
This is like ``Wag the Dog,'' where a totally artificial war is reported, only in that case, it happened overseas. This is the first time I know of in American history that a President has staged a fake riot to try to convince the courts or one of his news stations that serve him so well that something is there that isn't there; that a riot is there when it is not there.
Any true-blooded patriot of the United States of America should be terrified that we have a government faking a riot to try to be able to justify sending troops into our cities. That is what we face right now.
This picture to my right was witnessed by the news media. They put this up. You have a woman who is talking to two officers. She had not disobeyed any command they had given her. There was no physical confrontation.
A third agent walks up holding pepper spray in his hand and, after a few seconds, fully unleashes it straight into her face and to the man standing next to her.
That is the type of assault from these Federal agents occurring on peaceful protesters, recorded by the news media and reported. This is not something from some bystander who happened to put the scene up on TikTok, who didn't witness the entire thing or understand what was happening, but from the major news media.
Here is a case in Chicago. A pastor in the traditional motion of praying and blessing is standing outside the building, by himself--no obvious resistance to any kind of command--and he is shot in the head from agents on top of the building. He reports that he was hit twice in the head and, I think, five times on the body.
Wow.
These folks are unleashing rapid-fire attacks, apparently with pepper balls or, as he described it, some kind of ammo that releases some kind of chemical taking him right down to the street by this attack, for praying--an attack by Federal agents on a pastor praying in front of a building.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous moment in which an authoritarian President is proceeding to attack due process, to attack freedom of speech, to attack freedom of the press, to weaponize the Department of Justice, using it against those who disagree with him, and then seeking to get the court's permission to send the military in the streets to attack people who are peacefully protesting who disagree with him.
We are at the moment right now where we are awaiting a decision from a panel of three judges in the Ninth Circuit. The district judge who adjudicated the effort by Trump to federalize the Oregon National Guard said: There is nothing close to rebellion. There is nothing close to an invasion. So the standard is not met.
Then President Trump said: I am going to send the federalized force from California and Texas to Oregon.
In fact, 100 agents arrived from California. The same judge said: The same standard applies.
Regardless of what happened that federalized those folks in California or Texas, the question is: Is there a rebellion or invasion in Oregon?
And there is not. So she put a temporary stay on it.
The Ninth Circuit said: We are going to take a look at this. So we are going to freeze things in place.
Those Oregon National Guards and those 100 from California are going to stay at a training ground until they make their ruling. Their ruling--they held a hearing today--may be tomorrow. It may be days from now. We don't know.
Of course, that will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
There are legal scholars who are saying: Here is the challenge. Although there is an objective standard in the law, we have a Supreme Court that has already invented things that are not in the Constitution, interpreted things in a way that was totally different from the way they were considered at the time the law was written.
So the Supreme Court may say--in spite of the fact that there is an objective standard for federalizing the National Guard, the Supreme Court may say we are simply deferring to the President.
Are you kidding me?
This is a fundamental issue in the United States of America, that the military might be used against American citizens. There is a standard in the law.
Supreme Court, wake up. Do your job in the framework of the Constitution and in the framework of the laws that were passed. Quit inventing things to create an authoritarian state.
Why am I so worried that our Supreme Court has gone so far off track? Because, last year, they found invisible ink in the Constitution.
They had a case, Trump v. the United States of America. In that case, the question was: Is the President above the law? Is the President immune from any potential criminal prosecution for acts that he deems acts of the government?
I thought, well, absolutely not, of course. Our Founders were terrified that a President would become a King. If they wanted the President immune from prosecution, they could have put that in the Constitution.
Can you find that in the Constitution? Can any of my colleagues on the left side of the aisle or the right side of the aisle show me that in the Constitution? It is not there because our
But the Supreme Court did because they thought that is too big a burden for the President to bear. They thought: In our judgment, we think it is a good idea to give the President protection, so he doesn't have to stay up late at night worrying whether he is creating a crime or not.
Well, let me tell you, the Constitution says policy is written here-- written here in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives down the hall. That becomes policy when the President signs it. Policy is not the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States. They are supposed to be defending the Constitution.
The pastor said:
He was shot seven times with pepper balls in the face and arms and torso without warning, a Presbyterian pastor.
That is what our country is coming to--an assault on anyone who stands up and exercises freedom--freedom--to share their opinion.
Aren't there 100 Senators here who stand for freedom? Why is there not one Senator across the aisle standing for freedom here on the floor of the Senate today, not one? Why? Why is there not one Senator standing up and saying that there is no clause in the Constitution that makes the President a King--immune from prosecution for crimes committed under their law? Why is there not one Senator across the aisle saying that we will not stand for the attack on due process? the attack on free speech?
I assure you, if there were a President saying to FOX News that ``you have to take a program off the air'' that the President doesn't like, every Senator across the aisle would be standing up and saying that that is a breach of free speech. I would be standing up and saying the same thing, just as I am now, because it shouldn't matter whether it is a right-leaning or a left-leaning network. They should be able to put on air what they want. That is what freedom of the press is.
So we have seen 9 months of this President making this country sicker and poorer; 9 months of personal corruption, selling access to himself through his crypto enterprises; 9 months of covering up the Epstein files that he doesn't want released because his name is in them; 9 months of slashing healthcare for families to fund tax breaks for billionaires; 9 months of cutting nutrition for children to fund tax breaks for billionaires. A bill passed this body that runs up $30 trillion in additional debt, over 30 years, to fund tax breaks for the richest Americans.
It is a families lose, billionaires win vision, and it is the wrong vision here in a Republic where we celebrate government by and for the people. A Republic that is exercising appropriately would be families thrive and the affluent and the powerful pay their fair share. That is the vision that all of us should be pursuing.
The fact that this horrific bill came out and passed--the ``Big Ugly Betrayal of Americans Act''--that slashed healthcare in order to fund more riches for the richest among us shows you it is not working right.
What is really not working right is that the President of the United States is deploying military forces, hoping to establish that it is OK to do so; that it is OK for them to accept orders to go out and attack our cities, to attack peaceful protesters; that he will get a court decision that gives him this power.
Colleagues, let's be 100 strong behind the vision of freedom, the vision of rights for Americans and say: Hell no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I want to take a look at the last 9 months in this country, at the first 9 months of this administration, and see just how far we have traveled down the road toward dictatorship in 9 months. So let me see if in less than 9 minutes I can summarize 9 months.
First, let's look at the President's early attacks on our universities and the President withholding Federal funding from universities that are using a curriculum he doesn't like or employing professors he doesn't want or that are unwilling to make changes that sacrifice their academic freedom and that suit the ideological predilections of the administration. An attack on our institutions of higher learning is unprecedented in our history. Some of the first attacks on the freedom of the American people were attacks on our universities.
They were, in quick succession, followed by attacks on law firms; that is, the President of the United States telling law firms that you must not represent these unpopular clients--unpopular to the President--because they took action against the President or they spoke out against the President or they belonged to the Justice Department when the Justice Department was investigating the President's corruption. So the President has tried to dictate to the legal community who it can defend and who it cannot.
In our country, our Founders underscored the importance of the right of representation, of the right to a jury trial, of the right even for unpopular causes to have representation. Indeed, John Adams took on one of the most unpopular cases of his time and represented those clients because he wanted to establish the principle in American jurisprudence that everyone is entitled to counsel, but under this administration, that is not true.
This administration has attacked law firms and said: You shall not represent these clients, and if you do, we will cut off your access to courthouses or we will cut off your access to Federal contracts or security clearances that you would need to represent your clients.
Sadly, as in the case of universities, many law firms have crumbled. Having given years of lip service--decades of lip service--to the idea that everyone is entitled to vigorous representation, they have crumbled.
But the administration wasn't content to try to silence universities or professors or to silence law firms. The censorship and the intimidation campaign continued in the President using the power of the regulatory body of the Federal Communications Commission to try to silence late-night comedians because they told jokes about the President. Effectively, with Paramount, which wanted to merge with Skydance, it was made abundantly clear that that merger--that multimillion-dollar merger--wouldn't go forward unless you paid off the President in his litigation against CBS. Unless you paid the President millions of dollars, personally, that merger was not going to go through. And what is more, that pesky, late-night comedian Stephen Colbert needs to go. So Stephen Colbert gets his show canceled. Jimmy Kimmel gets his show canceled. His show was, thankfully, brought back, but the administration is using regulatory power to censor late-night comedians.
He is going after the press, the freedom of the press, telling the AP: If you don't use my Gulf of America lexicon instead of the Gulf of Mexico, you are not going to be able to cover certain things at the White House. You are not going to be able to accompany the President on certain trips.
He is suing the Wall Street Journal because they are reporting about his contacts with Jeffrey Epstein.
He is trying to silence the media, intimidate the media, chill the media, and it is working. You see the Washington Post change their editorial policy. You see the LA Times withhold its editorial of the Presidential election. The censorship is working.
But it is not just the press. It is not just late-night comedy. It is not just universities. It is not just law firms. The President is telling corporate America: You can't hire this person. Microsoft, you can't hire this person.
The threat is, if they do, they won't get government contracts.
The President is saying to other companies: You want to export your product? You have got to give the U.S. Government a share. You have got to make the U.S. Government an equity partner in your company.
And if under Bill Clinton the era of Big Government was over, the era of Big Government is back with Donald Trump--a Big Government that can make decisions about whom corporations can do business with and where and what they can export and whom they can hire.
But it doesn't stop there, of course, because now the President is using the
Now we have this--what brings us to the floor tonight--and that is the unprecedented use of the military, the U.S. military, and our Guard against our own people.
You have the President telling a roomful of generals and admirals that there is an enemy within, and that enemy is the American people or at least those American people who didn't vote for him. They are the enemy within, and he is going to go after them. He wants the military to use those American cities that didn't vote for him as their training grounds. No sooner is it said than we see helicopters over the skies in Chicago, and we see military troops rappelling from Black Hawks. We see the military being used against their own citizens. We see children shackled, crying for their parents in the middle of the night. We see signs of horror and chaos.
We see a President so determined to use the military against our own people that, when a Governor says: No, you cannot use our National Guard in this lawless way, he commandeers the military anyway. California was the test case. We were the first. Los Angeles was the first. Over the objections of the mayor of Los Angeles and the objections of the Governor of California, the President of the United States commandeered California's National Guard to be used against our own people to increase the risk of violence and disorder so that the President might have a pretext to order in more military troops.
Now, in California, like in most States, we revere our National Guard for what they do for us during good times and hard times; how they protect us from fire and flood. So to abuse the Guard in that way, to try to breach the trust the Guard has with our own citizens, is a calamity. It is gravely damaging the morale of the troops in the Guard even as it is damaging the trust of the people of the State in their Guard.
Now we see this replicated in Portland--this militarization, this attack on American cities. We see this in court in Portland, wherein the judge, in hearing the government's case for the use and misuse of this military force, says that its presentation is untethered to fact-- untethered to fact; that there is no lawful basis, no factual basis, to use the military in this way.
Now they are doing the same in Chicago, and they are threatening San Francisco. And if they can't get a State's own National Guard to be used against its own citizens, they are now inviting the Guard from other States, like Texas, to leave their State, with a willing Governor, to send them to another State.
I was grateful to hear the Republican Governor of Oklahoma speak out against this terrible abuse of the National Guard, which not only undermines the military readiness of our forces to be abused in this way but is so deliberately divisive that we would have one State now turn against another State; that we would have Texas against Illinois and deploy Texas's military in that way--its Guard in that way--was previously unthinkable. It should be unthinkable today.
Today, it is California. Today, it is Illinois. Today, it is Oregon. Where will it be tomorrow? Where does this end? I will tell you where it ends. It ends in more civil strife. It ends in more morale problems in the military. It ends in a lesser democracy. If we are here in 9 months, where will we be with 4 years of this? I will tell you this: We will not be a democracy. At the pace we are going, in 4 years, we will not be a democracy.
But today, 9 months into this, it is not too late to put a stop to this. All that it would require is a handful of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to say: Enough. Enough already. Enough of the attacks on our universities and our press. Enough of the attacks on our cities. Enough of the weaponization of our Department of Justice. Enough of the lawlessness. We are going to be Senators once again. We are going to assert the power of Congress once again to put an end, to put a stop to this lawlessness.
That is all it would take, is a few people of conscience to stand up to this President and say: Enough.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
Mr. President, I ask that the Senate execute the order of October 8 in relation to the Mascott nomination. I ask unanimous consent that all subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration, and I would advise our colleagues that we intend to enforce that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Jennifer Lee Mascott, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Ms. Mascott is a nominee who was selected for her loyalty to President Trump and her extreme view on expansive Presidential power, which she has advocated for many years.
At a Federalist Society event in 2018, she agreed with John Eastman, President Trump's disgraced and disbarred lawyer, in stating that any independence of independent Agencies is ``too much.'' And just days before she joined the White House Counsel's Office, she stated that the Supreme Court should overrule Humphrey's Executor, the landmark 90-year precedent establishing the constitutionality of laws protecting the heads of independent Agencies from being fired. She claimed that ``the President needs to be able to . . . get rid of folks who don't follow his instructions'' at independent Agencies.
If Ms. Mascott's arguments carry the day, President Trump will be free to continue his holy war against bipartisan independent Agencies entrusted with protecting the rights and safety of Americans like the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If he succeeds, something as important as consumer protection will be based on the whims of the political party in power, not the valued expertise of subject matter experts.
Just last year, Ms. Mascott told this committee that the Supreme Court's outrageous decision granting sweeping immunity to President Trump was ``modest.''
I am also troubled by Ms. Mascott's selection process for this Delaware seat. Nominees are required to provide details about how they were selected, but Ms. Mascott failed to provide the dates when she was interviewed by the White House Counsel's Office. Notably, the Delaware Senators suggested to the White House several well-qualified conservative jurists who had strong ties to the Delaware legal community. Ms. Mascott was selected although she has never lived in Delaware nor any State in the Third Circuit; she is not licensed to practice in Delaware; and she was only admitted to the Third Circuit this May.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose her nomination.
I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Cortez Masto) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and execute the order with respect to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296.
I would reiterate that last vote was a 10-minute vote that took 27 minutes. People should stay close to the floor. Ten-minute votes, OK? Ten-minute votes.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, the Federal Reserve pays both foreign and domestic banks to simply park their money in Fed accounts--in other words, to not loan money at all.
Over the past 5 years, the Fed's big bank bailout amounts to over half a trillion dollars. This bailout causes the Fed to operate at a loss, which means the Fed cannot remit profits to the taxpayer as it normally does. According to the economist Judy Shelton, if these payments stopped, ``banks would [buy] Treasury Securities,'' and it would bring interest rates down. Some people say that this program is a floor to interest rates.
My amendment ends these subsidies. Let's end the Fed's big bank bailout. Let's lower interest rates. Please vote for my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, during the 2008 financial crisis and the $700 billion bailout for giant banks, the Federal Reserve exploited another authority to shovel money out the back door and into the hands of those giant banks.
For the first time ever, the Fed started paying interest on overnight funds that big financial institutions deposit with the Fed. This was a dream come true for those financial giants--no risk and lots of free money printed by the Fed.
How much money? Seven hundred eighty-five billion dollars since 2008.
Some of that money could have been used to pay down the national debt or fund tax cuts or whatever Congress wanted. Instead, public money went
And the Fed has a very convoluted argument about why they should be allowed to pay interest, claiming it helps them set interest rates. But no one is fooled. Before 2008, the Fed managed interest rates while paying zero on overnight funds and never had a problem.
Let's call this out for what it is: another taxpayer subsidy for giant banks.
If another emergency happens and the Fed needs authority to lend out money like that, make them come to Congress, and let's get a vote on it.
Last year alone, the banks earned $270 billion in profits. Jamie Dimon made $39 million. Other megabanks' CEOs made at least $30 million. The banking industry does not need another subsidy from American taxpayers.
This bipartisan proposal would end that subsidy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Paul No. 3761. And understand, today's vote is just the start of a bipartisan fight to get this bill signed into law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I oppose the Paul amendment. This amendment would remove one of the primary tools used by the Federal Reserve to implement monetary policy. The Fed used these tools that have been indicated on the floor with great effectiveness to contain the damage in financial crises in 2008 and 2020.
In this uncertain economic moment, handcuffing the Fed would be a grave mistake. Unemployment is increasing, inflation is not contained, markets are highly volatile, tariffs are imposed and rescinded, and the Fed is under constant attack from the White House.
The Fed needs all the tools in its box to prevent a crisis. We cannot wait in another crisis to have the Fed ask Congress to respond. That would be going in the wrong direction. If Congress does remove these tools, then the Fed could be forced to begin a fire sale on Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities worth trillions of dollars, and the Fed will no longer be able to control the monetary system.
We have to do what we can to ensure that the Federal Reserve can prevent a crisis, and that it is not left waiting on the sidelines in the crisis unable to respond effectively.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, briefly, a number of Members are at their desks and will vote from their desks. I am told that the majority leader means it when he says we are going to have 10-minute votes. I would urge my colleagues, we can have a speedy disposition of all of these important amendments or we can go into the wee hours. I urge my Members to consider their votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
Mr. President, this amendment would make sure there is no gap between the deployment of the B-1 bomber currently housed in Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota and Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. No gap--we don't retire this workhorse prematurely until the development and deployment of the B-21 bomber.
This not only has the largest payload of any U.S. aircraft, it is also the U.S. Air Force's testbed bomber for hypersonic weapons, making it a supersonic standoff missile truck ready for future conflict.
I would ask all of my colleagues to support it, and we would be happy to have a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, this amendment would not change the current budget or program of the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force is already planning to keep the B-1 fleet longer than 2030, but this will signal a congressional intent to do so.
I would also request a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, I rise today to offer my amendment, Scott No. 3535, to bring accountability and transparency to every American, including our brave service men and women.
For too long, our Nation's central bank, under the leadership of Jay Powell, has failed to do its basic duty of providing stability for American families.
Jay Powell's Federal Reserve has not only mismanaged the Federal's monetary policy but is overseeing regulatory and bank failures, reports of corruption, unethical practices among its own members, and a flagrant disregard for the best interest of American families.
This is all being completely overlooked by their inspector general because he is handpicked by the Fed Chairman, reports to the Fed Chairman. He gets paid by the Fed Chairman. He sets his salary. It is a clear conflict of interest.
We need accountability at the Fed to rebuild the public's trust, and that means bringing in an independent, Senate-confirmed inspector general at the Federal Reserve.
I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to establish an independent inspector general at the Federal Reserve so we can bring true accountability to the Fed and ensure the central bank is working in America's best interest.
I yield to my colleague Senator Warren.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Scott's bill that would increase oversight of the Federal Reserve.
I believe in Fed independence so the Fed can do its work setting interest rates and maximizing employment, but independence does not mean insulation from following the rules--especially ethics rules.
For years, the Fed has rebuffed congressional oversight, and for years, Fed officials have been caught up in ethics scandals without any accountability.
Unlike virtually every other major Federal Agency, the Fed hires and fires and sets the salary for its own inspector general. That means that in 2021, when high-level Fed officials were embroiled in a scandal involving financial trades they made during the COVID pandemic, the Fed's own in-house IG conducted the only investigation and said, essentially: Nothing to see here.
Maybe that is right, but the Fed's watchdog should be truly independent and able to call out abuses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this amendment.
I will say there is no argument that we should reform parts of the process for an IG for the Federal Reserve, but this amendment is not that reform that is necessary.
What this amendment does is it will increase the political control over an independent central bank by allowing the President--the President--to hire and fire the Federal Reserve's independent inspector general at will.
This is part of the administration's attack on the Fed's independence--the independence that is absolutely integral to our economy's success. The President has attempted to illegally remove a Governor from her post and threatened to fire the Chair of the Board. He is doing this to exert political control over the Fed's monetary decisions.
No President, current or future--this should also apply to future Presidents--should have increased powers to politicize our central bank and its critical monetary policy decisions, whether it is by attempting to take it over through the OMB, manufacturing partisan investigations at the Justice Department, or appointing a political operative as the inspector general.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against increasing Presidential power and threatening the independence of the Federal Reserve. We are seeing that now. We cannot further that attempt.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment to create a pilot program to address the shortcomings in the locality pay system that are impacting Utah and likely impacting all of you in your military installations and all of your Federal employees around this country.
The outdated locality pay formula has several flaws in its metrics. In my State, it doesn't take into account blue-collar workers. It doesn't even take into account cost of living.
My amendment creates a pilot program for OPM to use Utah's situation as a case study on these pay disparities to improve the formulas for all of us. It is a top priority for Hill Air Force Base and a top priority for me. I suspect, in many of your cases, it is a priority as well.
Mr. President, first off, I would just like to say I thank my colleague from Utah for raising this incredibly important issue.
I have also heard about this issue with Federal locality pay in my home State of Michigan. And I don't think this is a problem just in Utah and Michigan; it is in all of our States. However, I have concerns about how this amendment, as drafted, could unintentionally weaken existing safeguards that ensure consistency and competitive salaries across the Federal workforce. Opening the door to these kinds of changes, in this current environment that we are in right now, is particularly concerning.
The administration has already frozen locality pay and is reshaping the Federal workforce in ways that I certainly do not support. This amendment would give the administration too much authority to inflict additional pain on Federal employees. I would be happy to work together with my colleague on a bill that provides Federal employees with the competitive compensation that they certainly deserve and includes appropriate safeguards to prevent unintended consequences that I know the sponsor of this amendment wants to avoid as well.
But I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment until we can go through the work necessary. And I give my commitment to do that to my colleague and friend the Senator from Utah and that we will get this right because it is an issue. It is just not ready today.
Mr. President, my thanks to my colleague from Michigan. I think it is clear that we share the objective together.
I also want to point out that I do share your concerns and am anxious to work with you. In my perfect world, we would do this in conference because every day this is not figured out is a day that our troops are not getting the
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 3697.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Cotton-Gillibrand amendment, No. 3759, and I further ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3759, the Comprehensive Operations for Unmanned-System Neutralization and Threat Elimination Response Act, or the COUNTER Act.
This is a commonsense amendment to mitigate threats to military facilities from unmanned aircraft systems. Hundreds of drones have been spotted in the vicinity of military installations over the past 2 years, including military sensitive sites like Langley Air Force Base.
But current laws give the Department of Defense quite limited authority to mitigate these threats, and the patchwork of interagency coordination required to address them leaves gaps that endanger our military bases and the men and women who serve there.
This is an alarming threat to our national security.
That is why this amendment is so important. It would give the DOD the authority to secure all of its bases, enhancing the protection against unmanned aircraft system incursions.
It would also allow the DOD to share information about threats posed by UAS with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to improve the interagency mitigation efforts.
Additionally, the amendment includes language that protects Americans' privacy and constitutional rights, while still meeting the needs of the military to protect our servicemembers and sensitive military sites.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to strengthen our national security and protect our military facilities.
Madam President, I thank Senator Gillibrand for her work on this legislation. I think most Americans, if not a few Senators, are shocked when they learn how little defenses our troops have against drones that are approaching their military bases. They really have to wait until an unidentified drone demonstrates hostile intent before they can neutralize the threat. That is not what we would say if a box truck was driving up to a base. We shouldn't have to say it when a drone is approaching a base.
Senator Gillibrand has cited a lot of recent threats here. This legislation would close the gap, simplify military guidance, and make our troops safer.
I would urge everyone a ``yes'' vote, and I think Senator Gillibrand and I would welcome a voice vote as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 3759.
The amendment (No. 3759) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be the Marshall amendment No. 3213, and I further ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, the American flag represents something deeply personal to most of us in this room. Someone from every generation in my family, going back to the Civil War, has served under one flag--the American flag.
It is more than stars and stripes. This one flag is a symbol of sacrifice, of freedom and unity. Every time we place our hands over our hearts, we are reminded that we are one Nation under God. We are not a patchwork of ideologies competing for space on a flagpole. No flag that divides or politicizes should ever be flown on a Federal building.
This is about respect. It is about unity and putting America first, standing together under one flag--the Stars and Stripes--and that is why I urge my colleagues to support our amendment, ensuring only the American flag is flown on Federal buildings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Madam President, Senator Marshall's amendment would prohibit any flag other than the U.S. flag from being flown outside or in publicly accessible areas of military installations, public buildings in the United States, American Embassies and consulates, and public areas of congressional office buildings, including hallways.
This amendment raises serious constitutional concerns about the right of free expression. But one example would be that a Member of Congress could not fly the flag of Israel, for example, unless he or she were being visited by an Israeli Ambassador. And that is a constraint, I think, on speech and the rights of Members of Congress, as well as others.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this.
With respect to specific military installations, in the fiscal year 2024 national defense bill, section 1052 gave the Secretary of Defense discretion to indicate what flag would be appropriate on a military installation. So we have dealt with this issue before in a bipartisan manner.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on Senator Marshall's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 3213.
Madam President, I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 3814 to the NDAA. This amendment would improve collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to expand access to care for veterans and support greater utilization of military medical treatment facilities. Current law allows DOD to downgrade the scope of a military treatment facility if the facility volume doesn't justify the capacity of patients and if surrounding communities can absorb this capacity.
My amendment, which incorporates feedback from DOD and VA, would require improved outreach, education, training, and partnership between the VA and DOD. It would make certain that excess capacity at military medical treatment facilities is used to increase access to care for veterans living in that community, while also providing more training opportunities for DOD personnel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Madam President, across the country, our guardsmen are on the frontlines of our national security.
They are on the frontlines of our national security, securing our cities and our border, and, most commonly, leading natural disaster recovery efforts in our various States.
In 2022, over half of the National Guard's members responded to natural disasters, including wildfires, hurricanes, winter storms, tornadoes, and even volcanoes.
The National Guard's motto is ``Always Ready, Always There,'' and yet there is an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle jeopardizing the readiness of Guard assets for future missions. When the National Guard is used in a State Active-Duty status for missions like disaster response, the State may use Federal equipment to complete the mission but must reimburse the Federal National Guard Bureau for the associated expenses. Current law requires those reimbursements to flow through the Treasury Department rather than the Guard unit incurring the expense.
Why does this matter? Well, it matters because we need to get rid of this unnecessary step that is harming the States and the Guard.
The amendment simply directs reimbursements to the appropriate Guard unit directly, the unit where the asset resides, to ensure its readiness for future missions.
If we are going to expect the Guard to be always ready and always there, we must streamline the State Active-Duty reimbursement process and ensure the Guard is made whole.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam President, this is a bipartisan amendment that deals with a longstanding, multiyear issue supported by 49 State adjutant generals. When the National Guard units are mobilized by their Governors and paid for by the Federal Government, our antiquated reimbursement system for reimbursing the National Guard for maintenance of their Federal equipment leads to long delays for States to receive the promised funds.
This amendment only modernizes our payment system to ensure that the Federal Government more efficiently reimburses States to ensure that Federal National Guard equipment that is used for title 32 or State Active-Duty missions of our Guard, such as responses to natural disasters, can be adequately maintained.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Madam President, this amendment has widespread support. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Lee-Duckworth amendment No. 3288.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 3288.
The amendment (No. 3288) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
(Purpose: To protect the national security of the United States by imposing sanctions with respect to certain persons of the People's Republic of China and prohibiting and requiring notifications with respect to certain investments by United States persons in the People's Republic of China.)
If this amendment sounds familiar, it is. It passed the 118th Congress by a vote of 91 to 6. Simply stated, this is a transparency bill that will give us some insight into the amount of money being invested in the People's Republic of China and the extent to which those investment dollars are directly flowing into the arsenal of our greatest strategic adversary: the People's Republic of China.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission noted that the United States is the most important foreign source of investment to semiconductors, quantum computing, and AI in China.
Because of China's military fusion strategy, these investments are directly bolstering the People's Liberation Army. Voting for this amendment will provide transparency to us as policymakers to know where the money is going and how it is being used in China--hopefully, the way that we can protect ourselves and protect our interests in the Indo-Pacific.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Madam President, we have a responsibility to ensure that the United States remains the world's leader in advanced technology. There is broad bipartisan agreement that we should be developing the most sensitive, cutting-edge technologies right here at home, rather than funding their development in countries that do not share our values.
This amendment would advance that goal by codifying a program to screen specific types of U.S. investments in China and other countries of concern.
It would protect our national security and help ensure that American ingenuity, innovation, and investment do not end up turbocharging these countries' advancements in fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and microelectronics.
I commend Senators Cortez Masto and Cornyn for their leadership in this effort and look forward to working with my colleagues to get versions of this important legislation signed into law.
Today's vote is an important bipartisan step to protect American innovation and safeguard our national security.
Madam President, this is an extremely important amendment which will protect America's interests, and I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the amendment, Cornyn- Cortez Masto No. 3926.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question now occurs on adoption of amendment No. 3926.
The amendment (No. 3926) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
(Purpose: To prohibit contracting with certain biotechnology providers.)
Madam President, I stand before you today to urge the adoption of the Hagerty-Peters amendment for the bipartisan BIOSECURE Act.
The BIOSECURE Act is rooted in basic common sense. It would stop U.S. taxpayer money from going to Chinese technology companies that are aligned with the People's Liberation Army, companies like BGI.
The threat we face is real, and it is growing. Communist China has openly identified biotechnology as a key domain for future warfare. To cite just one chilling example, in 2017, National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army wrote about the possibility of ``specific ethnic genetic attacks'' that ``can be a precise, targeted attack''-- get this--``that destroys a race, or a specific group of people, or a specific person.'' This is bone-chilling, this is real, and this is the objective of the CCP and the PLA through this DNA data collection.
The Chinese military entity added that ``its potentially huge war effectiveness can bring extreme panic to human beings.'' Of course it would.
That is not science fiction; that is a PLA strategy document.
Companies like BGI--one of the so-called national champions of Chinese biotech--are in position to facilitate what was once heretofore unthinkable: a genetically targeted bioweapon. Evidence suggests that BGI is working with China's military to conduct joint research. It is using the Chinese military supercomputers to process biodata, and it is collaborating with Chinese military hospitals to genetically enhance the performance of Chinese soldiers. Can you believe this?
Under China's national intelligence laws, all Chinese companies, regardless of where they operate in the world, must turn over any data they have collected if the Chinese Government wants it. Given the stated interest of the PLA in bioweapons, you can be sure they will be interested in the genetic data of Americans.
Make no mistake, BGI and companies like it are not just commercial actors; they are tools of the CCP--collecting, storing, and analyzing DNA for millions of people worldwide, including the genetic data of Americans that they collect, very often without informed consent. That is why the Department of War has already singled out BGI on its list of communist companies that operate in the United States and that collaborate with the People's Liberation Army.
The solution is simple. The BIOSECURE Act stops U.S. taxpayer money from flowing to biotechnology companies of concern. It ensures that the Federal Government cannot buy from, contract with, nor subsidize CCP- controlled biotech firms that put at risk the DNA of American citizens and the security of the United States. It gives industry an adjustment period when new entities are designated as ``biotechnology companies of concern.'' It provides limited waiver authority where absolutely necessary on a case-by-case basis.
Just last month, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin were overheard talking about biotechnology, organ transplants, and even the possibly of extending life to 150 years. They know what is at stake. We must acknowledge it too.
This amendment is about protecting Americans' most personal information--their DNA. I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Madam President, I commend Senator Hagerty and Senator Peters, who is not on the floor right now, but I also commend him for his leadership on this amendment, which should pass overwhelmingly.
I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to the Hagerty-Peters amendment No. 3841.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Madam President, back in May, President Trump accepted the largest foreign gift to an American President in modern history--a $400 million luxury Boeing 747 for use as Air Force One.
It is outrageous that President Trump wants to fly around the world like a King while Americans are getting hammered by tariffs and paying more for healthcare, groceries, rent, and electricity.
Some say that this plane was gifted and that it didn't cost the United States anything, but make no mistake about it, merely retrofitting this foreign-owned luxury jet to make it fully operational will cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
That is money that shouldn't be wasted, so, today, I have an amendment that will make sure not a penny of taxpayer dollars provided in this NDAA will go to any remodeling or maintenance of the President's foreign-owned Air Force One.
It would prohibit funds authorized by this bill from being diverted for procurement, modification, restoration, or maintenance of an aircraft previously owned by a foreign government for the purpose of providing a Presidential airlift, and it would ensure the security and continued reliability of the Air Force One fleet.
Republicans like to talk about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. Spending even a penny of taxpayer dollars on retrofitting this luxury is about as wasteful--as wasteful--as it gets.
I urge my Republican colleagues who care about spending taxpayer dollars responsibly to support this amendment.
Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would have a significant negative effect on our U.S. nuclear deterrence.
In addition to the obvious stab at President Trump, the way the amendment is drafted would affect one of our military's most important programs: the Survivable Airborne Operations Center--otherwise known as the Doomsday Plane.
This aircraft program is crucial to ensuring command and control for the President if we are attacked with nuclear weapons. It is an important part of our nuclear deterrent.
The program purchased a Boeing 747 aircraft from Korean Air, and thus this program would be unable to spend appropriated money this year if this amendment passes.
For those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Madam President, this amendment says that the Governor of one State may not deploy its National Guard to another State without the consent of the Governor of the recipient State.
As the Republican Governor of Oklahoma Kevin Stitt said today, ``As a federalist believer, one governor against another governor, I don't think that's the right way to approach this.''
I agree. And it is worth noting that Governor Stitt is the current chairman of the National Governors Association.
Voluntary cooperation is one thing, but I don't think any of my colleagues would appreciate it if the Governor of Maryland used Federal dollar-supported National Guard troops in Maryland to deploy to any of your States without the consent of your State. That is the principle behind this amendment.
One thing my friend did not mention is this also affects Washington, DC. Another reason I oppose this amendment is it would weaken Federal authority over the DC National Guard and hinder its ability to respond to a crisis.
Cooperation with the Mayor of DC is valuable, but collaboration does not require granting the Mayor Commander-in-Chief powers over a Federal military force. The President must retain that authority to ensure unity in command in a rapid, coordinated Federal response when it is needed most.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Madam President, in the last few months, we have seen President Trump force military troops, uninvited, into American cities--first into Los Angeles, then into our Nation's Capital, and now into Chicago.
Let's be clear: Ordering our troops to intimidate the very Americans they were willing to risk their lives to protect does nothing to make our Nation stronger. It is just another move straight out of an authoritarian 101 playbook. A move that tramples on civil rights instills fear among Americans and distracts our troops from their core mission of keeping Americans safe from actual adversaries who wish to do us harm. Our National Guard signed up to serve and protect this country, not to protect one man's thin skin.
That is why, today, I am introducing a provision that would reduce the misuse of the military for nonmilitary purposes. It would install commonsense congressional oversight by requiring Congress to approve any redirection of expensive military assets to support law enforcement for longer than 30 days. This is essential to protecting against civil rights abuse, including the use of military bases for detentions or providing DOD surveillance to support policing on U.S. soil.
To be clear, my provision would allow States facing situations that overwhelm their capacities from natural disasters and public health emergencies to benefit from research in military and logistical support for a month. It would also help ensure that America's elected representatives, not a wannabe dictator, get to decide whether to bring in military readiness of such extraordinary measures.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care about respecting our troops as much as they claim to, they have no choice but to join me in voting yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Madam President, protecting the American people and their property is fundamental to the government. In fact, it is a core principle and the responsibility of the Federal Government. I see no need or any good reason to remove the tools that the President has to do exactly that--to protect people and property.
The use of our military to support local law enforcement, not to become law enforcement, is legal. President Trump has proven it to be effective. I think that just because you don't like the current President, it is not a reason to make dramatic changes to the laws that restrict him from doing the very thing he promised he would do when he ran for the office.
I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Mr. President, the Iraq war started 22 years ago; the Gulf war, 34 years ago. Today, Iraq is a partner, not an adversary, and it is time for the law to reflect that.
DOD has assured Congress that operations can continue without these expired AUMFs. Our amendment does not implicate the 2001 AUMF, which is critical to ongoing operations.
Both Chambers have passed the same repeal before on a bipartisan basis. The House included it in its NDAA this year. Let's do the same here in the Senate and close the book on these forever wars.
Madam President, I want to thank my colleague. Senator Young and I have worked on this for a number of years. As he mentioned, the first Gulf war started in 1991, the second Gulf war in 2002, and it was over in 2011--14 years ago.
Last week, the Pentagon issued a statement about the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, and this was the statement from the Pentagon:
An adversary to a partner beating a sword into a plowshare.
Both Houses have voted to repeal this war, and it is time that we take this action. This will be the first congressional repeal of a war authorization since the Gulf of Tonkin in 1971.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Madam President, I intend to vote against this. I think keeping this AUMF actually would help us assure continued success.
I think I see how the wind is blowing, and I will consent to a voice vote. Understanding that that is the sentiment of the body, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold in relation to amendment No. 3337.
Madam President, amendment No. 3853 is very simple. It would cut 10 percent from this Defense bill, excluding military personnel and the Defense Health Program, and it would use those funds to provide direct dental care to all veterans eligible for healthcare from the VA.
We are now spending over $1 trillion a year on the military--more than the next nine nations combined.
While Congress has cut funding for housing, education, nutrition, this bill increases military spending by over 8 percent.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is the only major Federal Agency not capable of passing an independent audit, and nobody denies that there is not massive waste, fraud, and abuse within the DOD.
As the former chair of the Veterans' Committee, I agree with all of the major veterans organizations, that we have got to strengthen VA healthcare, and one of the gaps in that system is a lack of dental care. We have got veterans whose teeth are rotting in their mouth. They cannot get dental care.
I think we should get our priorities right. Let's cut a very large military budget, spending much too much. Let's protect our veterans. Let's pass this amendment.
Madam President, our military budgets are already carefully balanced. It is based on our national security priorities. Indiscriminate cuts contemplated in this amendment would undercut our readiness.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Madam President, back in 2021, in the NDAA, we had a clause that said Federal military police who were responding to a civil disturbance need to wear visible identification, including an individual identifier, which could, in fact, be a number or a name, and the name of the armed services, but there are three points of confusion that exist in this 2021 law.
The first is, what is included in civil disturbance? So this amendment clarifies that it includes crowd and riot control and arrests at protests and demonstrations.
Second of all, what about security contractors that serve the Federal police or Federal services? It says, yes, those are covered.
Third, that when you are going to a civil disturbance in support of the Federal Government, it also includes whether you are going in support of local police, to clarify that distinction.
That is all it is--three simple things--and it is so important to engender trust in America that we have this type of basic provision but clarified so we understand exactly when it applies.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but let me explain why. During the discussions in our Armed Services Committee, we recognized that there was an issue that Republicans and Democrats both agreed on. Senator Duckworth offered a bipartisan amendment that specifically addressed this particular issue. It requires members of the armed services to wear their name tag, with one exception that Senator Merkley does not address appropriately, we believe; and that is the issue of a riot.
In the case of a riot, we decided that it was not appropriate to require these young men and women to wear that name tag. They still have to have their uniforms on, but they don't have to wear a name tag during that time period.
It is a good, bipartisan amendment. It is already found within the body of this bill.
Madam President, let me just note that that provision now creates a conflict with the 2021 law that does require an individual identifier. So this amendment resolves that conflict and ensures there is trust by having that trust-building name or number on the uniform as well.
I encourage an ``aye'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Madam President, I call up the amendments en bloc as provided by the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following
The amendments are as follows:
States to annually review, update, and report on the facilities and
property of the United States Government determined to be national security sensitive for purposes of review of real estate transactions
(Purpose: To make certain spouses eligible for services under the
and the Supreme Court Police to protect retired and former Chief
Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States
relating to critical military housing supply and affordability)
and Space Administration to reimburse the Town of Chincoteague,
(Purpose: To require a report on the feasibility of implementing
artificial intelligence into anti-money laundering investigations relating to activity by foreign terrorist organizations, drug cartels,
(Purpose: To prohibit certain reductions to the inventory of E-3
beneficiaries) certain leave provided under title 10, United States
Code, to commissioned officers of the Army (or their beneficiaries)
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, to
conduct a study of the national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and devices that combine a modem and router, and for
partnerships for preventing substance use and misuse among youth)
(Purpose: To improve the bill.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 2, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
to conduct an audit of foreign exposure from Department of Defense cloud computing contracts and to require the Secretary of Defense to
provision of health care services at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri)
(Purpose: To clarify limitations applicable to the authority to
transfer functions of the Air National Guard to the Space Force)
States to review and prohibit certain transactions relating to
(Purpose: To allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into memoranda of understanding for the purpose of scientific and technical
cooperation in the mapping of critical minerals and rare earth
(Purpose: To strengthen relations between the United States and the countries in the Western Balkans, and for other purposes.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 8, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To improve the safety and security of Members of Congress, immediate family members of Members of Congress, and congressional staff.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 3, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To modify the requirements for transfers of United States
(Purpose: To enhance United States support for identifying and
(Purpose: To establish a military-civilian medical surge program)
(Purpose: To support law enforcement agencies and crime victims.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 31, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 2, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To increase the supply of affordable housing in America.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 18, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To provide for certain authorities of the Department of State, and for other purposes.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 8, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing at its sources globally.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 15, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
near the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau)
(Purpose: To modify and reauthorize the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 8, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To require the executive branch to develop a whole-of- government strategy to disrupt growing cooperation among the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which are the foremost adversaries of the United States, and mitigate the risks posed to the United States.)
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 2, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Thune amendments and motions are withdrawn; amendment No. 3427 is agreed to, and the substitute amendment No. 3748, as modified, and as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3427) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3748), in the nature of a substitute, as modified, and as amended, was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
Madam President, we are considering the National Defense Authorization Act at a time when our democracy and our Constitution are under attack from a lawless President. We are also in the middle of a 9-day-long government shutdown, and we should be working to get the government open. Instead, Senate Republicans are seeking to conduct business-as-usual instead of addressing the impending spike in healthcare costs for American families and responsibly funding the government.
The NDAA includes critical investments in our national defense. Maryland has a key role to play in developing the technologies of the future that will keep our Nation at the cutting-edge and is the proud home of tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians working in the defense sector, as well as critical military installations. I have continually pressed for resources for our servicemembers and veterans and their families and investments in the military installations in our State that conduct groundbreaking research and support our defense.
But these are not normal times. We are witnessing an authoritarian power-grab by President Trump, and Congress has a responsibility to stand up as a coequal, not subservient, branch of this government. We need to call it what it is: President Trump is using the power of the government, including the U.S. military, to coerce and silence voices he disagrees with. This is a playbook that dictators have used around the world, and now, it is the Trump playbook.
To date, Trump has deployed the National Guard to the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Chicago. He has also ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, which has been temporarily blocked by the courts, and earlier today, a judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago as well. He is manufacturing claims of emergency and chaos to send the Guard to engage in domestic law enforcement rather than using Federal resources to work with local partners to keep communities safe and pulling members of the military away from other critical missions. The National Guard has also been supporting ICE as agents arrest and disappear people without due process. And as State and local leaders and courts of law stand in the way of these deployments, Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to bypass them and the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Trump's deployment of the military to assist in domestic law enforcement is a clear violation of U.S. law, including the Posse Comitatus Act. And a Federal judge agrees. On September 2, a Federal judge in the Northern District of California found that the Trump administration ``willfully'' violated the Posse Comitatus Act in its deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles and stated that the Trump administration clearly intends to ``[create] a national police force with the President as its chief.'' Trump clearly telegraphed this intention in his speech to top military brass at Quantico, when he called for using American cities as ``training grounds for our military'' and asserted that ``we're under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms.''
The deployment in Los Angeles marked the first time since 1965 that the National Guard has been activated without the State Governor's consent. And it has not stopped. Trump's power grab in DC and other cities is part of his accelerating effort to militarize the streets of our country. That is why I offered an amendment to block the President from deploying the National Guard to a State, or the District of Columbia, if that State's Governor, or the DC Mayor, objects. Sen. Duckworth also put forward an amendment that would require the President to provide notification to Congress before dedicating any military or defense equipment for local law enforcement purposes. Unfortunately, both efforts failed.
At its heart, Trump's politicization of the National Guard is sowing fear and distrust and is a danger to our democracy. Enabling the military to patrol American streets chills lawful protest, blurs the line between military and civilian authority, and erodes public trust in nonpartisan service.
Trump's illegal use of U.S. Armed Forces also includes his recent missile strikes against boats in international waters, which have been flagrant violations of both U.S. and international law and can only be seen as extrajudicial killings. There is simply no evidence that these vessels posed an imminent threat, nor is there an active armed conflict between the United States and any cartel or South American country. Trump has pursued these actions in gross violation of international law and without congressional authorization.
Back in March, Trump also dredged up an old war-time law, the Alien Enemies Act, to target immigrants and deport them without due process. The administration also reached deep into the dustbin of Cold War paranoia and pulled out the McCarran-Walter Act--a relic of the McCarthy era--to brand student protestors as threats to the foreign policy of the great United States of America, used a transnational crime unit to secretly target campus protesters, and then disappeared them into ICE detention facilities with the ultimate goal of deporting them. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, but like the
Taken together, these abuses of power show an increasingly brazen and lawless administration that is misusing defense spending. These concerns only further my existing reservations around the continued uncontrolled growth in defense spending, especially when the Pentagon continues to fail independent audits, most recently in November 2024. In that audit, only 11 DOD components achieved clean audit opinions, but 13, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force did not. On top of that, from FY 2021 to FY 2025, authorization levels for defense spending have gone up from $740 billion to $895 billion, a 21 percent increase over the 5-year period. If this bill is enacted, we will be authorizing $924 billion, almost a trillion dollars in spending. This does not include the recent partisan budget reconciliation bill that passed into law in July 2025, which included over $150 billion in mandatory defense spending. I concur with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, that we need to put our defense dollars to better strategic use and make the hard choices necessary to right-size our overall defense spending. If we truly care about government efficiency, we must apply the same standard to the Department of Defense, which represents over half of total Federal discretionary spending.
This is the first time during my service in the Senate that I am voting against the NDAA. I do not make this decision lightly. Ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to defend the United States is critical, and I will never waver in protecting our servicemembers. But what we are seeing in America today and over the last few months should be a wakeup call for everyone in this Chamber. We cannot and should not authorize almost a trillion dollars in defense spending for an administration that is currently using the military to conduct local law enforcement operations and to rip communities apart. That is using the power of the Executive to silence the media, undermine the judicial system, and chill speech.
We deploy a strong military to protect our democracy and freedom from foreign threats and adversaries. Sadly, today, the threats to liberties and the rule of law are coming from our own Commander in Chief, and I will not vote to give him a blank check.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. President, I am delighted that this body has passed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act with such an overwhelming vote.
At the outset, let me thank the dozens of staff members who have made this possible--and I know that my friend and colleague the ranking member will also express his appreciation to a very hard-working and capable and intelligent list.
But let me name my staff, specifically, and it is going to take a while to thank them all: Adam Barker, Kristina Belcourt, Levi Brunt, Cody Emerson, ``Marty'' Fromuth, Megan Galindo, Isaac Jalkanen, Lauren Johnson, Katie Karam, Greg Lilly, Eric Lofgren, Katie Magnus, Jonathan Moore, Katie Romaine, Mike Tokar, Eric Trager, Adam Trull, Mike Urena, Dave Vasquez, Terry Miller, Emily Yetter, Dan Hillenbrand, Beth Spivey, Ryan Bates, Jonathan Bowen, Leah Brewer, Luke Chaney, Mike Gerhart, Anna Given, Meredith Gravatte, Madeline Guenther, Brad Patout, Rick Berger, Brendan Gavin, and John Keast.
And it is possible that I have left some out, but I really do owe a debt of gratitude--and so does my friend Senator Reed--to both staffs on both sides of the aisle for all of the technical work and advice in making this work.
I would remind those listening that this bill passed a committee 26 to 1. That was an overwhelming positive and speedy passage. It is designed to send a clear message.
We agree that we are not where we need to be, and this bill helps us close the gap, and it does so by focusing on two themes: rebuilding but also reforming. And we really need the ``reform'' part. This bill includes $924.7 billion as a top line. This is an increase, and it is needed. It recognizes the urgent need to rebuild our military systems, technologies, and hardware.
We also adopted the most significant acquisition reform proposal in decades. And let me give Members one example
American innovators are developing the technologies that can dominate the battlefields of the 21st century. The FoRGED proposal in this National Defense Authorization Act taps into that talent.
This bill was Member-driven, both in the committee and on the floor. Our committee approved 985 items that were led by individual Senators in this body.
Our September substitute amendment contained 49 amendments--20 from Republicans, 20 from Democrats, and 9 that were bipartisan. The second managers' package was included today, including another 47 amendments-- again, bipartisan.
And today we took 14 rollcall votes, and because we are so united and joined together to make a strong voice for national defense, we took 9 voice votes. I don't know when we have done that, but I think it sends a strong message, and I hope it does. Altogether, 1,098 Member items.
This is what collaborative, bipartisan legislation looks like. And in highly charged partisan times, this ought to be refreshing news to the American people.
My friend Jack Reed is a veteran of military service, and he is a veteran of this Congress and is a capable partner who works shoulder to shoulder with me on the Armed Services Committee. I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for his cooperation and diligence in actually getting this bill brought to the floor.
The fact that we were able to finish about 9 o'clock tonight is a testament to that because earlier today, we really did not know around noon if we would be able to come to a consensus. So much negotiation and so much give-and-take has taken place so that we could get on the floor and make a strong statement and send a strong message.
It amplifies the voices of Senators in this body as we begin to conference with our House colleagues.
We are not where we need to be. This doesn't get us everywhere we need to be, but it moves us along the way toward reform and an increase in a realization that we live in the most dangerous world that we have seen in decades.
So I yield the floor with gratitude and thanks to my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, first, I would like to commend Chairman Wicker whose leadership was absolutely essential to reaching this moment. He, too, is a veteran. He, too, understands the needs of our men and women in uniform, and he also recognizes and has contributed significantly with his floor staff, which has set a new standard for acquisitions.
We have to get it through the conference, but I am sure we will.
The hallmark of the Senate Armed Services Committee has long been bipartisanship, and I am glad we have continued this tradition for the 65th consecutive year.
I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We were able to adopt, as the chairman indicated, hundreds of amendments during the committee markup, and I am glad that with bipartisan cooperation this evening, we adopted dozens more.
This is strong, forward-looking legislation that we can all be very proud of.
I am confident we will provide the Department of Defense and our military men and women with the resources they need to meet and overcome the national security threats that we face in a very, very challenging world.
I, too, would like to take this opportunity to recognize the phenomenal staff that made this bill possible. I want to specifically recognize the director of the Democratic staff Elizabeth King and the director of the Republican staff John Keast. They have led their staffs, and they have worked together with the utmost professionalism.
And I would also like to take the time to thank the staffers on the Democratic side, since the chairman has rightfully identified his staff members: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jenny Davis, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Kevin Gates, Creighton Greene, Gary Leeling, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Mike Noblet, Chad Johnson, John Quirk, Andy Scott, Cole Stevens, Meredith Werner, Isabelle Picciotti, Brittany Amador, Sofia Kamali, and Noah Sisk.
Also let me thank the floor staff and leadership staff. You have been a part of this process the last several weeks, and you have done a remarkable job. We thank you for that very, very much.
Mr. President, this is a good moment. Now on to the next moment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to overturn the Biden administration's restrictive Central Yukon land management scheme, which threatens Alaska's self-determination and resource development. I ask my colleagues to support our resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 106, to protect Alaska's rights and future.
The implementation of the Biden administration's Record of Decision and Approved Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, RMP, prohibits the development of natural resources and essential infrastructure in a broad and sweeping manner--completely undermining multiple-use management while ignoring the needs and input of local residents. We need to ensure that our conservation policies consider and allow for adequate economic opportunities for the communities and people impacted by those policies.
Alaskans are some of the foremost conservationists in the world, with a long-standing record of balancing conservation with responsible resource and infrastructure development. On top of the jobs provided to Alaskan residents, responsible resource development funds various initiatives across the State, including education, infrastructure, and community services. It feeds our families, sustains our communities, and provides livelihoods for the thousands of Alaskans who work to responsibly develop the vast timber, mineral, material, and oil and gas resources that Alaska is blessed with.
In the heart of my State is the Central Yukon planning area, which comprises 56 million acres in central and northern Alaska, an area roughly equivalent to the entirety of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania combined. The Bureau of Land Management--BLM--manages nearly a quarter--13.3 million acres of that area. The other major landholders within the area include the State of Alaska with 25.4 million acres, approximately 45 percent of the planning area, and Doyon, Limited, one of the 12 land-owning Alaska Native regional corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act--ANCSA--with an ownership interest in 4.65 million acres. Approximately 3,000 miles of Doyon's land borders BLM land. Many of those millions of acres were selected by Doyon for their economic development potential, consistent with the intent of ANCSA. The northernmost part of the planning area covers the traditional lands of the Inupiat people in the Arctic Slope Region.
This vast area includes enormous critical mineral potential of national and strategic importance. As our geostrategic adversaries continue to place tighter controls on minerals essential for defense, advanced technology, and manufacturing, America needs these resources responsibly developed in places like Alaska. Additionally, the area includes incredible oil and gas resources that help to contribute to America's energy dominance. Further, this region contains abundant timberlands and substantial sand and gravel material resources that are essential for roads, airstrips, and other infrastructure. Local access to these materials allows rural villages
Importantly, the area also contains the Dalton Highway and the right- of-way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, Alaska's most essential piece of infrastructure and a nationally strategic asset for the United States. This system transports crude oil 800 miles from the North Slope oil fields to marine terminals in Valdez and provides the vital access necessary to develop the resources in the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, the ANWR Coastal Plain, and construct the Alaska LNG pipeline.
In 1971, the Department of the Interior issued Public Land Order-- PLO--5150 withdrawing from selection a 5.3 million acre stretch of Federal land to reserve it as a utility and transportation corridor to facilitate monetizing the oil reserves on the North Slope. These lands covered the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System right-of-way and the North Slope Haul Road, which was later named the Dalton Highway. The significance of these lands to Alaska cannot be understated; they represent the State of Alaska's highest priority land selections, and the State has top-filed for these lands pursuant to Section 906(e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA.
After more than 60 years following the passage of the Alaska Statehood Act by Congress in 1958, Alaska has yet to receive its full land entitlement. To this day, over 60 percent of the land in Alaska is managed by the Federal Government. Key to the State's ability to finalize its land selections is the lifting of PLO 5150, which will enable the State to satisfy a large portion of its outstanding statehood land entitlement and unencumber other lands that have been selected to fulfill the entitlements of Alaska Native Corporations, the University of Alaska, and Alaska Native Vietnam Veteran land allotments.
In 2006, as directed by the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, sponsored by my colleague Senator Murkowski, BLM released a report finding that withdrawals on 152.18 million out of 158.96 million acres--95 percent--``have outlived their original purpose'' and ``could be lifted consistent with the protection of the public's interest.'' BLM recommended that PLOs be lifted on 50.1 million acres of land it manages in Alaska. In 2012, then Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar wrote Alaska Governor Sean Parnell that ``BLM is committed to working with the State to consider further modifications of PLO 5150`` and indicated that the BLM Alaska State Office would initiate the planning process for the Central Yukon planning area to evaluate the public lands within the utility corridor located north of the Yukon River and said, ``I consider fulfillment of the State of Alaska's land entitlement a top priority.''
Beginning in 2013, BLM began the formal public scoping process for the resource management plan, kicking off a multi-year-long planning process with dozens of public meetings and thousands of hours of hard work by BLM as part of the process of drafting an Environmental Impact Statement--EIS--to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act. In December 2020, BLM released its Draft Resource Management Plan/EIS and identified Alternative C2 as the preferred alternative, blending resource protection and resource development, closing some 1 million acres to mineral material sales, but leaving 13.1 million acres open to locatable mineral entry. Importantly, Alternative C2 recommended full revocation of PLO 5150, enabling the State of Alaska's top-filed lands to become valid selections. It also recommended revocation of approximately 5.2 million acres of ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdraws opening land for selection by Alaska Native Vietnam-Era Veterans who qualify for a land allotment under the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, P.L. 116-9.
While not perfect, Alternative C2 served as an important discussion point and something the largest land stakeholders in the area--the State of Alaska and Doyon--could work with toward a balanced final Record of Decision. However, following the election of President Biden, he announced plans to review the Central Yukon RMP EIS, one of 70 Executive actions the Biden administration took targeting Alaska. In April 2024, BLM issued its Proposed RMP/Final EIS, identifying a new Alternative E that was not previously made available for public review and comment and contained sweeping restrictions on land use. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS had protests filed from Doyon Limited, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the Alaska Miners Association, and the State of Alaska--all denied, ignoring Alaska Native voices and the people who live in and responsibly develop Alaska every day. This new Alternative E became the Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan in November 2024, which the passage of this joint resolution of disapproval would invalidate.
While the approved Central Yukon RMP applies only to the BLM-managed areas within the planning area, it affected access for other landholders in the region, principally Doyon and the State of Alaska. The Central Yukon RMP designated 21 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern spanning 3.6 million acres and reclassified Visual Resource Management areas in ways that hinder infrastructure development.
Section 1326 of ANILCA provides clear and unambiguous restrictions on executive branch actions with respect to future withdrawals and further studies or reviews without congressional approval. Under ANILCA's ``no more clause,'' BLM may not withdraw more than 5,000 acres, in the aggregate, without congressional authorization. Designation of ACECs that remove lands from operation of the public land laws is a de facto withdrawal and an insult to Congress's express intent in ANILCA, locking up critical resources that our Nation needs to counter our dependency on hostile foreign powers.
Doyon, the largest Alaska Native Corporation stakeholder in the Central Yukon Planning Area, notes these restrictive land designations complicate access to their lands and prevent it from realizing the economic and other benefits that Congress intended it would enjoy as a result of ANCSA's settlement of Alaska Native land claims. Doyon's letter of support for the disapproval resolution called the Central Yukon RMP ``misguided and harmful'' and cites the profound implications on the ability to place communication, electric transmission, and other infrastructure these land restrictions create, adding further obstacles to the extraordinary challenges faced by rural communities in Alaska, many of which are disconnected from the road system.
Furthermore, the approved Central Yukon RMP did not recommend revoking PLO 5150--which has long outlived its original purpose--or ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals, with limited exceptions, frustrating the State's ability to fulfill its statehood land entitlement and perpetuating unnecessary encumbrances on public lands in contradiction to BLM's own findings in the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act Report to Congress.
Fortunately, elections have consequences, and on his first day in office of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14153, ``Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' which called for the rescission of the 2024 Record of Decision and a reimplementation of the draft RMP and EIS issued in December 2020. The Executive order further directed the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate the potential rescission of PLO 5150, and Secretary Burgum has admirably taken concrete steps toward delivering on that commitment. This disapproval resolution would effectuate the President's directive in Executive Order 14153, immediately rescinding the Record of Decision and would advance the ongoing work to revoke PLO 5150 and review outdated ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals predicated on the underlying EIS, which would not be invalidated by H.J. Res. 106.
The House has already passed this joint resolution, recognizing the impact that this highly restrictive plan would have on our national security, the massive Federal overreach stifling economic development opportunities, and the disregard for Alaska Native voices. I spoke of Doyon, Limited's letter of support earlier, but this resolution is also supported by the North Slope Regional Trilateral which is made up of the elected leaders of the
I urge my colleagues to reject unlawful regulatory overreach, reinforce American mineral and energy security, and uphold Federal law and Alaska Native land rights by supporting the Alaska delegation and voting for this joint resolution of disapproval and rescinding this Record of Decision.
Mr. President, had Kaine amendment No. 3337 to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296, FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, been a recorded rollcall vote, I would have voted no.
Mr. President, had Kaine amendment No. 3337 to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296, FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, been a recorded rollcall vote, I would have voted no.
Mr. President, had Kaine amendment No. 3337 to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296, FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, been a recorded rollcall vote, I would have voted no.
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 Thursday, October 9, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 9, 2025, at 9:50 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 9, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 9, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my congressional fellows and interns for the remainder of this Congress. They are Mary Horton, Kathleen Song, Valerie Hines, and Michael Notti.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 446, 250th Navy Birthday; S. Res. 447, Ataxia Awareness Day; S. Res. 448, Energy Efficiency Day:
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 the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
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 the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to S. Res. 337.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2283 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The 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 bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2283) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 151, S. 1440.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1440) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 157, S. 1728.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment 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 committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1728), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 158, S. 2403.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment 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 committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2403), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. 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 Friday, October 10, at 11:30 a.m.; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, October 10, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, October 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 5371 ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
