Legislative Session
Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 168, H.R. 5371.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, it is November--November. It has been 5 weeks since Democrats shut down the government, and once again, we start this week by asking, is this the week that Democrats end their shutdown?
I have said before that there are no winners in a government shutdown. There are no winners, but there are plenty of losers. Chief among them is the American people. As the senior Democrat from Virginia said just last year, ``Shutdowns aren't victimless crimes.'' And, after 5 weeks, the victims of the Democrats' shutdown are starting to pile up.
Military families have turned to food banks in significant numbers, and they are not the only ones. Food banks in this area and around the country have seen an influx of Federal workers who are missing paychecks due to the shutdown. And things are set to get much worse with SNAP running on limited emergency funds and its future uncertain. Thanks to the Democrats, millions more Americans--millions--are now at risk of going hungry. Yet the Democrats' shutdown marches on.
Of course, letting Americans go hungry is just the beginning. Thanks to Democrats, Head Start Programs are beginning to close, housing assistance programs are at risk, seniors and people in rural areas can't access telehealth services, National Guard training is on hold, and veterans programs are on pause. I am sorry to say I could go on. Actually, I could go on for a while. Shutdowns have consequences, and the pain is being felt around the country.
Last week, it seemed that Democrats were beginning to acknowledge that their shutdown was having consequences. We even heard Democrats express concern that Americans were suffering. But when they were given the chance to end all of that suffering, the vast majority of Democrats in this body were perfectly willing to prolong the shutdown and the American people's pain. The vast majority of Democrats voted once again against a clean continuing resolution--the only bill on offer that could end all this suffering literally in a matter of hours. It is the only bill in the Senate that would fix every single issue I just mentioned. It would pay our troops and fund SNAP, Head Start, veterans programs, and pay our staffers.
Three Democrat Senators already support that clean continuing resolution.
The Democrat from Maine, who supported the clean CR in the House, said:
The Teamsters Union and the American Federation of Government Employees--more traditionally allies of Democrats, to be frank--have called for Congress to spare the American people further pain and to pass the clean continuing resolution, and they are far from the only ones.
It should not be this hard for a handful of Democrats to support a clean bill that simply reopens the government. It is a very straightforward proposition. It is a 24-page bill that is sitting right here at the Senate desk--not a single new Republican policy, no partisan policy riders, nothing that Democrats haven't supported before on numerous occasions. It just reopens the government, and it is just five Democrat votes away from being sent to the President, who would sign it literally in a matter of hours.
This bill is also the quickest way to get to discussions about healthcare--that is, if Democrats are serious about solving the ObamaCare problem and not just interested in using it as a political issue. As I have said more times than I can count, Republicans are more than willing to have a healthcare discussion with Democrats. In fact, had Democrats voted to reopen the government last week, President Trump would be meeting with them this week.
Unlike Democrats, who want to continue papering over the unaffordability of ObamaCare forevermore, Republicans have ideas for actually lowering healthcare costs--and lowering costs not just for Americans on ObamaCare but also for seniors, vulnerable Americans, and the majority of Americans who get their healthcare through their employers. So we are ready and willing to have that discussion, but first Democrats need to stop playing politics with people's lives and reopen the government.
Airline travel is snarled. Small businesses are suffering. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are working without pay. And now 40 million Americans in need are at risk of losing their food stamps.
So the question is, How long--how long--are Democrats going to continue this? Another month? two? three? How much suffering is enough for Democrats?
The bill is sitting right there. We have voted on it 13 times already. We will get that opportunity to vote on it a 14th time tomorrow. For the sake of the American people, let's hope that at least some Democrats can see their way to ending this and ending it soon.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, last Friday, the courts spoke loudly. They spoke clearly: Donald Trump cannot block SNAP benefits and treat hungry Americans as political pawns.
The stories from the weekend were shameful and sickening: people overwhelming food banks, handing out groceries in lieu of Halloween candy, teachers paying out of pocket to give their students extra food. Across America, appalling scenes were seen of people worried they wouldn't be able to feed their families and even themselves. This is appalling, and the courts did the right thing to step in to follow the law.
But the Trump administration still refuses to fully comply. A few hours ago, the administration announced that it will provide only partial SNAP benefits to 42 million Americans facing food insecurity, even though the courts affirmed that the USDA has the transfer authority to ensure everyone can receive full benefits. Everyone can get full benefits. The only person standing in the way is Donald Trump--Donald Trump.
Even after the courts have spoken, the administration continues to use kids, seniors, disabled Americans, and working parents as political pawns, dangling the threat of hunger over their heads.
Providing partial benefits is not enough, is not compliant with the law, and it is particularly cruel of Trump with the Thanksgiving season around the corner. Let me say this: Providing partial SNAP benefits is a floor and cannot be a ceiling. Let me repeat. Providing SNAP benefits is a floor, not a ceiling.
The administration must do more, and the courts should do everything they can to force this administration--cruel as it may be manipulating hungry people, as it is doing, the courts must make sure that full benefits are restored. Only Trump is standing in the way.
Mr. President, on open enrollment, it was a bitter, stressful weekend for millions of Americans, but you would never guess it listening to Donald Trump. Let's start with open enrollment, which began Saturday.
If you look at the papers this weekend, the phrase that everyone used was ``sticker shock''--``sticker shock.'' While Donald Trump is bragging about remodeling bathrooms at the White House, Americans are panicking about how they will afford healthcare next year.
I read an article from ABC News that interviewed a photographer from Utah who gets her healthcare through the ACA. She will go from paying $495 a month--already outrageous--to $2,100 a month--an increase more of than four times. It is more than her mortgage.
That is Donald Trump's America: Americans pay more for healthcare than they do on their mortgage. It is outrageous, and it just puts an anchor, a financial anchor, around the ankles of every family.
And what is Donald Trump doing in the middle of all of this, this horrible sticker-shock crisis that people are just feeling so awful about? Well, if you watched Donald Trump this weekend on ``60 Minutes,'' you saw a President utterly dismissive of the pain his policies have caused working people. While people are paying more for everyday expenses, Donald Trump went on TV to insist that everything is fine. He claimed, yet again, that we have no inflation in this country. The only problem: That is a lie.
Trump, talk to the average American and tell them they have no inflation as they are paying more for everything; particularly this weekend, they learned how much more they are paying for healthcare.
Mr. President, inflation has accelerated--actually accelerated--since the start of Trump's trade war. Donald Trump also celebrated that grocery prices are ``going down.'' Which grocery store does he shop in? Probably none. But when Donald Trump celebrates that grocery prices are going down, it is a surprise to people who actually shop at grocery stores because they are seeing prices go up and up and up.
When Donald Trump was asked what he is doing to end the shutdown, he said his usual nonsense: It is the other side's fault.
It is utterly ridiculous. Donald Trump is the President. People look to him to negotiate, to fix problems.
Finally, I will note this: Donald Trump was also asked several times what his plan is for fixing healthcare. And what was his answer? Pure gibberish because he doesn't have a plan for healthcare.
The only plan Republicans have for healthcare seems to be to eliminate it and then to tell working people to go figure it out on their own. That is not a healthcare plan; that is cruel. But it is what Republicans have tried to do with healthcare for decades. We all remember the moment when John McCain rebuked his party to preserve it.
Democrats have been very clear from the start. We need to lower people's healthcare costs. We need to reopen the government. We need to extend the ACA premium credits. That is what a majority of Americans want.
Mr. President, now on Omer Neutra, my late constituent from New York.
Today is a bittersweet day of heartbreak and relief. Two deeply anguishing years after Hamas brutally murdered Neutra on October 7, finally--finally--Omer Neutra's remains have been returned to Israel.
Omer was a proud New Yorker, a Long Islander, a constituent of mine. I have met with his family many, many times since October 7, and I have been so inspired by their courage, their strength, their resolve. Nothing--nothing--will ever reverse the pain of losing their beloved son. Nothing will erase that pain. But after long last, Omer can now be laid to rest in a proper burial. May his memory be a blessing.
Still today, the remains of eight more hostages murdered by the brutal Hamas remain in captivity, including that of another New Yorker, Itay Chen. We will never stop working until every last hostage is home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor on Wednesday to tell the story of some high school kids in Chicago. They did a remarkable thing last Tuesday, 6 days ago. These kids live in a neighborhood known as Little Village, and they go to high school there--to some well-respected high schools--Little Village Lawndale High Schools.
They decided on Tuesday to stage a parade in Little Village to protest what ICE is doing to that community and to the city of Chicago. It was peaceful. It was constructive. They marched several blocks, carried copies of the Constitution with them, American flags, Mexican flags, signs that they had prepared. I remember one, and I may misstate exactly what it said, but it basically said: Our parents have done so much to protect us. Now we are going to do everything we can to protect them.
I went, on Friday, to meet with these students. It turned out they were all girls--all women Latina students. For some reason or another, the boys didn't get into the organization, though they did participate in the parade. These
I have been to a lot of meetings with a lot of so-called experts in this country about its future, but I learned more in that hour with those girls, those young women, than in many of those other meetings.
They knew exactly what they were doing was dangerous. Their parents had warned them not to stage a parade because the ICE agents had been in the neighborhood in the previous 2 weeks, but they were determined to do something and say something. Most of them were in tears as they talked to me about what they felt personally about this experience.
One of the leaders said: I am an American. I was born here. I love this country, and I want to be part of it. Look what it is doing to our families.
And another young woman broke down when she said that, right before the parade happened, her father had been detained. She said in tears, over and over again: My father is not a criminal.
Her father has been involved for 7 years to try to get his citizenship status cleared up. He has been back and forth in court. He was in the process of doing this when he was detained and has been spirited off somewhere we don't know.
I thought of that experience and what both those young girls had been through, and I thought about the courage they showed, their love of this country, their determination to be part of it. But their love of their family and their willingness to risk everything for their parents, that is the reality of life in Chicago and in many neighborhoods today. When President Trump announced publicly that he was going to send in the military, if necessary, but the ICE forces to go through Chicago, he said he was looking for rapists and murderers and terrorists and the criminally insane. He said it over and over again.
Well, guess who he is arresting. Guess who they are detaining. They have yet to report one rapist, murderer, or terrorist. They are taking people--they are taking the man who sells the tamales on the corner--I am not kidding--a 75-year-old man who sells what they call elote, which are corncobs that they steam and are very popular in the community.
Rapists, murderers, terrorists, criminally insane--no. Some of them are clearly out of status in their citizenship papers. Some are American citizens. Of all the people that they have arrested and detained, 70 percent of them have no criminal record--no criminal record--and yet they are being harassed.
So they picked the weekend to do that--this last weekend--which is so special to so many American families. I think, if I had to pin my wife down on her favorite holiday, it would be Halloween. She loves it. She gets these big bowls of candy, and the kids come from everywhere in our neighborhood in Springfield. And they did this last Friday. I am sure many of us had a similar experience. The kids are so excited to get free candy and show off their costumes, and she greets everyone like they are her grandkids. It is a personal thing.
We were worried about this last Halloween weekend in Chicago because of the ICE forces that were roaming the streets. Governor Pritzker asked for a special favor. He asked the ICE agents to take off Halloween night. Spare the kids. Don't make them worry about whether, when they go out for candy, somebody is going to be arrested. I joined him in that plea. I thought it was common sense.
You know what happened? Kristi Noem, who is the Secretary of DHS, said: By no means; we are going out, if necessary. And they did.
The ICE agents went to Evanston, which is a town just north of the city of Chicago. There was an incident that occurred there which was incredible. The ICE agents were roaming through the town looking for landscape workers.
Well, guess what is going on. Those landscape workers are raking leaves. They are doing the work that they do every year, that we count on them to do. And this year ICE was going to arrest them, and they did.
Terrible things happened too. There was a long story, and I ask unanimous consent that the story from the Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
(Jonathan Bullington, Gregory Royal Pratt, Alice Yin, Tess Kenny,
Mr. President, when you read this article, you realize what is happening here. These ICE agents, whom Kristi Noem calls her ``dream team,'' they have completely ignored the Constitution when it comes to due process. They are snatching up people right and left. Who are their targets? The Hispanic population, for sure, or anyone who looks Hispanic, or anyone who lives in a Hispanic neighborhood, or anyone who stands on the street corner with a whistle to try to warn off people that the ICE agents are coming, and certainly those who are in the occupations normally filled by immigrants like landscape workers.
Those are the targets. This is a ``racist'' effort. I use that word advisedly. It is a racist effort. It is not about terrorists and murderers and rapists. It is about people with an accent, people who look like they are Hispanic.
Well, that is what happened in the city of Evanston. And their vans-- unmarked vans--roamed through the neighborhoods. These masked secret police of the immigration Agencies were roaming through the neighborhoods looking for anyone who appeared to be Spanish. That is what they did.
I want to read a statement. They pulled over a man, certainly not Spanish. His name is Morgan Krupinski, part of the great Polish population of the city of Chicago. Listen to what he had to say after he watched the ICE agents go through his neighborhood in Skokie.
That is the name of the company--
And then he said:
That is in the article that I put in the Record.
So I say to my Republican friends: If you think you are winning in the popular vote with this approach, think twice. This is not American. This is not necessary. This is intimidation--and intimidation felt by a high school in Little Village in Chicago and intimidation felt by a suburb north of Chicago which is not usually characterized
It is really an amazing historical experience, constitutional experience, that we are facing, and it is one that we won't soon forget.
And as I reflect on going back every weekend and seeing further evidence of this travesty, I think--bottom line--there are good stories coming out of this as well: neighbors who finally gather together with their neighbors in the neighborhood and stand up for those who are being harassed by ICE and its Agencies.
Mr. President, there is another thing that is going on, too, that seems to be totally unrelated, but I want to call it out.
If you are looking for a kosher delicatessen in Chicago, let me tell you my favorite: Manny's. It is right off Roosevelt Road in downtown Chicago. The Raskin family has owned this deli for many years--80, in fact. Danny Raskin, a grandson of the founder of the delicatessen, is running it today. He is a wonderful young businessman. He is struggling with the impact of the trade war and the impact of increasing costs for the basic products he sells. But you won't find a better pastrami sandwich, a corned beef, or a latke or kreplach soup anywhere. Manny's is one of the best.
Why do I break in with this advertisement for Danny Raskin? I want to tell you why. Manny's Deli, located right by the University of Illinois at Chicago, has been a legend in the community for eight decades. If you walk into Manny's, you will see a microcosm of the city of Chicago--people from everywhere, every kind of background--joined together over a fondness for his hearty portions and delicious sandwiches.
Manny's has been a staple in this community. Today, they announced they will provide free meals for those on SNAP--free meals. Why has Manny's found it necessary to feed those on SNAP? Because President Trump became the first President in history to deliberately disrupt the processing of November's SNAP benefits, jeopardizing 42 million Americans' food security.
Although the Department of Agriculture was told by two Federal courts that they had the authority to fully fund SNAP, today they announced they will only pay half of the November benefits. That is going to cause a real hardship for millions of Americans on what used to be known as the Food Stamp Program.
Thankfully, Manny's Delicatessen in Chicago is willing to do what the Trump administration is not--working to make sure that nobody in their city goes hungry. They are going to offer a sandwich, potato pancake, and some desert to the people who come in with SNAP cards. I am grateful to the great staff at Manny's and their owner Danny Raskin for their generosity as SNAP payments are cut under President Trump.
But Manny's isn't the only restaurant in the city of Chicago helping those on SNAP; it is one among many stepping up across Chicago to make sure Illinoisans don't go hungry. Tazza Italian Ristorante, Wooden Paddle, and one of the better pizza places, Lou Malnati's, and other restaurants as well are offering SNAP recipients free or discounted lunch during the month of November. I am grateful for their assistance as Chicagoans face the reality of President Trump's cruel SNAP cuts.
I hope that we here in Washington will learn from the kindness demonstrated by these restaurants and that we will work as hard as they do to feed and keep Americans safe.
Let me just add in closing that there is another man involved in this story, and I want to mention his name. It is Wayne Gordon. Wayne Gordon has been the minister at Lawndale Christian Church for over 40 years. He graduated from Wheaton College, went into the ministry after he coached basketball at Farragut High School, and started the church in the Lawndale section--a poor, largely Black section of Chicago. But he and his wife moved there 40 years ago and still live there to this day. They started Lawndale Christian.
He is an evangelical minister who prays for me every day, thank goodness, and I try to return the favor. But I am sure he is the mentor that Danny Raskin mentioned as his inspiration for providing this food.
Hats off to Coach Wayne Gordon and Danny Raskin for this amazing display of care at a time when it is needed more than ever.
Mr. President, let me close saying this: We can solve this problem in the Senate, and we can do it this week. There is no excuse. The President is back from his trip overseas. The House can be called into session and return--and they should be--sooner rather than later. We can sit down and work out the problem of what to do with skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
Let me tell you what I have been told by the Illinois Department of Insurance. They told me that health insurance premiums are going to double in the northern part of our State, near Chicago, and triple in the rural, smalltown sections downstate--triple the current level of health insurance premiums. How in the world will families struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck manage that?
That is a legitimate question. My Republican friends should join me in asking that question, and they should go beyond these vague references the President made last night on ``60 Minutes'' about ``We have some ideas.'' I have heard that for years now, and we don't know what those ideas are.
What we should do is sit down and work together to solve both problems. Open up the government, which we can do when we reach an agreement--and we can going forward--on health costs that are going to make 24 million Americans lose their health insurance.
We all should share feelings about the families that are struggling with this--both things--and we can do it if we work together. Drop the fanfare. Close the door. Find a table. Invite the President and the leaders, Republican and Democrat. Get it done this week. We can do it. I believe we can if we have the will to. I hope some of the people will step up on the other side of the aisle and join in this bipartisan effort. That is the only way to end this government shutdown.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to Tung nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, we are now over a month into a shutdown caused by the refusal of Senate Democrats to vote for a short-term, stopgap spending bill that expires November 21. So much time has passed that we are now only 3 weeks out from that new deadline even if they were to vote to pass this short-term funding bill that has passed the House of Representatives.
This cannot be explained by logic or reason; this can only be explained by politics and by the Democratic leader's desire to keep his job and to survive in the next election because he is afraid of his own political party and that they will throw him overboard if he were to agree to a short-term, stopgap spending bill, which we did 13 times when President Biden was in office.
But we are also hearing that they want us to negotiate the expiring Biden COVID-era subsidies for the ObamaCare exchange. Since they want to talk about that, I would just reiterate what President Trump has said, what Speaker Johnson has said, and what the majority leader of the Senate has said: We are happy to talk about anything and everything you want to talk about once you reopen the government.
But since Democrats brought it up and since they still insist on keeping the government shut down, endangering people flying, causing enormous inconvenience at the international Bush Airport in Houston-- there is a 3-hour wait for people to simply get through the security line at TSA.
We know that 42 million people have been denied access to supplemental nutrition--some of the most vulnerable people in our country--and we know that Federal Government employees are not being paid even though they are obviously working.
I have not heard a Senate Democrat say ``Well, I am going to withhold my pay during this shutdown,'' as those of
But they also say they want this conversation to be about health insurance. Since they want to talk about ObamaCare, I figured I would oblige them.
Now, we know that health insurance rates have certainly continued to go up. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the cost of a family health insurance plan in 2025 is nearly $27,000.
If you are 1 of the 16 million people on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, your premium is scheduled to go up 18 percent next year--18 percent. At the same time, if you are on an employer-provided insurance plan, premiums will go up roughly 6 or 7 percent--6 or 7 percent versus 18 percent. Well, there must be a good reason for that astronomical figure for the ObamaCare plans, and I plan on mentioning a few reasons why that is so.
Well, employers are paying for much of the health insurance premiums for their employees, but increased costs eat away at the budget they have to pay wages and other benefits. So employee salaries will become stagnant as employers have to pay more each year for health insurance.
For small businesses, the margin is even greater--or I say the margin should be smaller. The increased costs of healthcare for their employees might mean they can't offer generous raises or might mean they can't afford to hire as many people as they previously did.
So clearly the rising cost of healthcare and health insurance is a problem for individuals and employers, but a fair question is, How did we get here?
Well, the first place we have to look is ObamaCare, popularly known as the Affordable Care Act. The fact of the matter is, it is the ``Unaffordable Care Act.''
When President Obama signed this highly controversial signature healthcare plan into policy, he promised that it would make health insurance affordable for the American people.
In 2016, in a speech to students in Florida, President Obama said:
Now 15 years later, this claim has aged like spoiled milk. Since 2013, the year before ObamaCare took effect, the average ObamaCare enrollee has faced a premium increase of 221 percent. That is since 2013 until today--a 221-percent increase in the premium. This mind- boggling number is only for those who receive health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, which is, of course, as I indicated, a misnomer for the ages. Those who received their coverage through their employer-sponsored plan were not affected by these premium hikes. As I mentioned, the Wall Street Journal said their premiums will go up roughly 6 or 7 percent.
From 2013 to 2019, individuals buying health insurance on the private market faced 143 percent increases in their healthcare premiums. And this number does not account for all Americans who kept their plans but faced increased premiums or less comprehensive coverage.
President Obama knew but he refused to say that for many people, even though this new healthcare law claimed to make healthcare affordable, it did just the opposite. So what did he do? He tried to shift the blame.
The claim that the ``Unaffordable Care Act'' would make healthcare affordable was far from President Obama's only broken promise. In a quip that was later described by a political fact-checking site as the lie of the year for 2013, President Obama said that ``if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' A 2013 political fact-checking site called that the lie of the year.
But we know how the story has ended. By the fall of 2013, 4 million Americans received letters informing them that their then existing healthcare plan would be canceled.
In the same 2016 speech, he said:
Now, that was a complete and utter abdication of responsibility for the disruption that ObamaCare caused. And while it may be true that they were not directly determined by the Affordable Care Act, it is because of the Affordable Care Act that people lost their coverage, and, thus, they could not keep the coverage they had if they wanted it.
ObamaCare did not make healthcare affordable. It created a tangled web of regulations alongside taxpayer-funded subsidies that ultimately only led to higher costs for taxpayers and those receiving care.
The only party that stood to gain the benefit from the ObamaCare chaos was the health insurance companies themselves. They have enjoyed a windfall as a result of ObamaCare. By now, insurance companies have figured out how to use the muddled mess that is the Democrats' healthcare system to lobby for government subsidies, including the continuation of the expiring COVID-19 era subsidies that the Biden administration imposed.
They knew that Democrats would not want to be responsible for the increased premiums and lower coverage. So they threatened premium increases while lobbying Congress to give these insurance companies even more money in the form of enhanced subsidies.
In 2025 alone, U.S. government healthcare subsidies paid directly to insurance companies totaled more than $130 billion. That is your tax dollars paid to insurance companies--$130 billion in 2025 alone.
In some cases, these subsidies pay for phantom enrollees who are likely not even to know that they are covered by one of these policies.
In 2024, there were approximately 12 million Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollees who made zero medical claims, a highly unusual circumstance--12 million, no claims. Roughly 40 percent of those fully subsidized by the Biden-era COVID credits made zero claims, meaning that these insurance companies received these very generous subsidies but incurred zero costs.
Since 2021, the cost taxpayers have incurred to subsidize ObamaCare plans has increased a staggering 150 percent, and many of the ones on these policies are far from the most vulnerable in our population. In 2021, when the Democrats lifted the cap on these subsidies, removing the income eligibility limit, households earning upward of $500,000 were made eligible for taxpayer-subsidized plans.
So you tell me why taxpayers should have to subsidize somebody who makes a half a million dollars a year and buy their health insurance policy for them.
These increasingly expanded subsidies for high earners proves the point that was perhaps the only promise that ObamaCare actually kept-- that the Affordable Care Act was ``just a first step'' toward a taxpayer-funded healthcare system, a single-payer system.
Back in 2016, President Obama compared his signature law to a starter home that would later be upgraded into one that would be much bigger. But based on the way the law actually worked, it is clear that expanding it is not going to make people better off, just the contrary.
So here we are in 2026, and what happened? Are we living in a utopia where healthcare is free or suddenly affordable? Well, just the opposite. Healthcare is now more expensive than ever, with analysts warning that increased costs will continue to eat away at workers' paychecks.
Millions of Americans have faced cancellations of their private insurance plans, while many more are facing devastating premium increases.
And then there are the insurance companies that have reaped hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies while continuing to raise premiums on patients.
I think it is safe to say that ObamaCare was a golden promise that turned out to be almost entirely false.
So when we look for a solution to rising healthcare costs, we should be wary
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.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. President, President Trump has developed a new MAHA strategy. Instead of Make America Healthy Again, his new strategy is ``Make America Hungry Agenda.'' He is weaponizing food against America's most vulnerable families. In my State of Oregon, that means cutting off food to 757,000 people, including 210,000 children and 130,000 seniors.
Now, when you think about these numbers, they are hard to envision, but Oregon is roughly 300 miles from the northern border to the southern border. I-5 runs the entire length of the State. So if all of those individuals were lined up on the highway, they would be just 2 feet apart for 300 miles, and every third person, approximately, would be a child. That is the level of impact we are talking about.
You know, when children go without food, the impact is pretty significant. There is the impact on their physical development. There is the impact on their mental development. And, of course, if you are hungry, you can't learn a damn thing in school--so three ways of really hurting America's children, millions of American children.
Congress together, Democrats and Republicans, said this should never happen. The House and the Senate together said this should never happen. So together we created two tools. The first tool is the SNAP contingency fund meant to ensure that families can keep putting food on the table. The second tool is interchange authority that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to use tariff funds to supplement the contingency fund.
Back in September, USDA's--the U.S. Department of Agriculture-- website noted that it planned to use the contingency funds in order to make sure that SNAP was delivered in November, but then in October, last month, it deleted that language, and the President said: My hands are tied. America's most vulnerable families must go hungry.
Well, now we know that the administration certainly was well aware of the contingency fund because it was on their website, and we know that the Department of Agriculture is well aware of its ability to use the interchange to transfer funds from a program that would enable it to provide the full SNAP benefits in the month of November. In fact, it just used this interchange recently in both October and November for the WIC Program.
Right now, section 32 funds--there is $23 billion in there. So just one-fifth of those funds would enable the full November SNAP funds to be distributed.
Last week, I saw a speech by Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, on television, and he was saying that Republicans are not going to provide SNAP funds because it would reduce pressure on Democrats to reopen the government. In other words, the Speaker of the House was saying that America's families, the most vulnerable families--the health and welfare of children, seniors, the most vulnerable adults-- that they are just bargaining chips.
Well, let me tell you, our vulnerable families are not bargaining chips. Basic food for children is not a bargaining chip. So we are here to say: Hell no. It is not acceptable to use children and the most vulnerable as bargaining chips.
That is why 25 States and the District of Columbia filed a suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture to say that it is illegal to stop funding SNAP. On Friday of last week, two judges agreed in two different jurisdictions--in Massachusetts and in Rhode Island--and they said to the Trump administration: You must proceed to fund SNAP. The contingency fund is there for that purpose, and you have other funds to enable, through the interchange, to provide the full amount in November.
Both are needed, because there is about $4.65 billion, we are told, left in the contingency fund, but SNAP, in a single month, can be $8 to $9 billion. So that second tool is essential. And, again, there is $23 billion in there waiting to be used. So there is absolutely no reason not to fund the full SNAP benefits for the month of November.
But then the administration responded to the court, and they said: We are not going to do it. We will use the contingency funds, but we are not going to use the interchange authority.
Well, this results in two problems. The first is that, instead of about $6 a day--which is the standard, average SNAP benefit--it will be about $3 a day. Well, $3 a day isn't very much to feed any member of a family. But there is a second problem that is even worse, and this problem is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a court document filed today--and I have it right here.
I ask unanimous consent that this court document be printed in the official Record, Mr. President.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
In the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Rollins, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Mr. President, this court document was filed today by Patrick Penn. He is the Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at the Department of Agriculture. He says:
So here is the situation. The court said: Fund SNAP, and do it right away.
Today, the administration filed this document saying it will take weeks to months because they are choosing to fund only half, and everything has to be reprogrammed in the computer system to make that happen at the Federal level and for most States. That is not an acceptable strategy. That is going back to saying people are not going to get SNAP benefits in November.
You know, this resolution that I have tonight--it is very simple and expresses a number of thoughts that I have heard from both sides of the aisle. It is a sense of the Senate that the Trump administration is obligated to fund SNAP through the use of the contingency fund. And the courts have made that very clear.
Second, the administration has the authority and the funds to finance SNAP through the month of November, which we know because they have both the contingency fund and they have the interchange fund.
Third, exercising this power is extremely important to the health and wellness of families experiencing hunger, including about 16 million children, 8 million seniors, 4 million people with disabilities, and about 1.2 million veterans.
Finally, the administration should exercise its legal authority to fund SNAP in November.
Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward.
Mr. President, children, seniors, the disabled, the veterans, our most vulnerable families--they are not bargaining chips. It is simply wrong to treat them as bargaining chips. It is wrong to adopt a position in which they will not even get funded in November after the courts have said: Fund it.
There is enormous damage that is done when children are deprived of food--to their health, to their mental development, to their physical development, to their ability to learn in school. And, of course, there is damage done mentally and physically to all of the adults who are funded in this program.
Food deprivation is not a correct strategy for any government in the United States of America.
Trump's ``Make America Hungry Again'' agenda is wrong. It is immoral. There is just something that really seems like the United States is way off kilter when we have a President who is absolutely passionately excited about building a giant, golden ballroom worthy of Louis XIV to feast, to dine, and to dance with billionaires and power brokers of the world, while letting--in fact, forcing--America's children and vulnerable families to go hungry.
I thank Senator Schumer and the other 44 additional cosponsors who have joined this resolution. I invited all 100 Senators to join it. The five points are certainly ones I have heard expressed on both sides of the aisle. Let's all together say: Fund SNAP, not weeks or months from now but right now, so America's families in every State--regardless of how they are represented in this Chamber--will benefit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my resolution, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority whip.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this isn't lawmaking. This is a political stunt by the Democrats. The resolution they are offering is empty. It is meaningless.
Democrats shut down this government. Democrats have voted against reopening the government 13 times. Democrats are holding food assistance for 42 million Americans hostage, and they are going to do it again tomorrow. They are doing it tonight.
Democrats knew their actions threatened food assistance. They were fully aware of it. This was organized and orchestrated in Chuck Schumer's office months in advance of the shutdown. The Department of Agriculture warned the Democrats weeks ago what was going to happen. The local newspapers around the country--as a matter of fact, a newspaper in the Senator's home State of Oregon reported:
The Oregon paper went on to say:
And still, for 34 days, Democrats have voted time and time again to keep the government closed. If Democrats hadn't voted 13 times to shut down the government, there wouldn't be the lines we are seeing on television down and around the block at food banks and all around the country.
The Senator from Oregon talked about children, using people as pawns, as political pawns. That is exactly what the Democrat whip in the House had said. So, of course, there is going to be suffering. She said it gives them leverage. Senators in this body--Democrats--have said exactly the same thing.
The Democrats have continued to use people as pawns for political purposes, and it is wrong. It has to stop. If Democrats really wanted to help struggling families, they would stop blocking a clean continuing resolution.
The shutdown ends when Democrats end their dangerous political games. And it is a dangerous political game that even the Washington Post has pointed that out. You want to end the food assistance cliff? It is easy. Pass the clean, bipartisan continuing resolution. Democrats should vote for it immediately. Until then, the Schumer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I had really hoped that given the five basic planks of this resolution, which had been expressed on both sides of the aisle, that we would have something other than arguments that sound like, I don't know, moldy bread, stale cheese; arguments we heard time and time again about a shutdown.
But my resolution and my remarks tonight didn't even mention the shutdown. Why is that? Because the shutdown is irrelevant as to whether or not the November SNAP payments are made. We have a contingency fund for that purpose. We created, Democrats and Republicans together, interchange authority for that purpose. There is more than $23 billion sitting in that interchange fund, section 32, tariff funded.
The money is there. The legal authority is there. And this resolution simply says that failing to provide SNAP benefits hurts millions of people and encourages the President to do what the courts asked him to do--told him to do last Friday--provide the funds.
But the administration sneered at the court. They said we are going to adopt a strategy in which the funds may not get to people for weeks or months because we are going to do it in a fashion that requires a reprogram of computers across America.
Really?
There is only one desk that has the power to immediately make these funds available, and that is the desk in the Oval Office. Shouldn't we, representing the people in each of our States, come together in a bipartisan fashion to say that depriving people of food--the most vulnerable families of food--across America is simply wrong, Mr. President? I am speaking to President Trump. President Trump, you have the authority, you have the funds, you have the responsibility. Your ``Make America Hungry Agenda,'' your agenda of starving children and vulnerable families is wrong. Surely, that is something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Let's keep pressing for the President to get those funds to America's vulnerable families immediately.
