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.
16Senate Resolution 503: Recognizing the Third Commemoration of the Anti- LGBTQ+ Attack That Occurred on November 19-20, 2022, at Club Q, an LGBTQ+ Bar in Colorado Springs, Colorado
17Senate Resolution 504: Expressing Support for the Designation of November 20, 2025, Through December 20, 2025, as "National Survivors of Homicide Victims Awareness Month"
19Senate Resolution 506: Honoring Wadee Alfayoumi, a 6-Year-Old Palestinian-American Boy, Murdered as a Victim of a Hate Crime for His Palestinian-Muslim Identity, in the State of Illinois
21Senate Resolution 508: Designating November 8, 2025, as "National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Stem) Day" and Celebrating the Importance of Science, Technology, Engineering...
Thirty bills and eight resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 3197-3226, S.J. Res. 96, and S. Res. 503- 509.
Pages S8238-39
Measures Passed
Epstein Files Transparency Act: Senate passed H.R. 4405, to require the Attorney General to release all documents and records in possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein.
Page S8211
Legacy Mine Cleanup Act of 2025
Senate passed S. 2741, to establish within the Environmental Protection Agency the Office of Mountains, Deserts, and Plains, after agreeing to the committee amendment.
Pages S8245-48
Great Lakes Fishery Research Reauthorization Act
Senate passed S. 2878, to reauthorize funding to monitor, assess, and research the Great Lakes Basin.
Page S8248
Save Our Seas 2.0 Marine Debris Infrastructure Programs Reauthorization Act
Senate passed S. 3022, to amend the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act to reauthorize certain Environmental Protection Agency programs.
Page S8248
National Rural Health Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 507, designating November 20, 2025, as ``National Rural Health Day''.
Page S8248
National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Stem) Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 508, designating November 8, 2025, as ``National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Day'' and celebrating the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in education and the workforce in the United States.
Page S8248
World Food Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 509, designating October 16, 2025, and October 16, 2026, as ``World Food Day''.
Page S8248
Measures Considered
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026: Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 4016, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026.
Pages S8211-16, S8218-26
Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment: Agreement
Senate began consideration of S.J. Res. 89, 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 ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', after agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Pages S8216-18
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 621), Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to consideration of the joint resolution.
Page S8217
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that all time on the joint resolution be expired, and at 1:45 p.m., on Thursday, November 20, 2025, Senate begin consideration of H.J. Res. 130, 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 ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', and vote on passage of H.J. Res. 130.
Page S8218
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 11:00 a.m., Senate begin consideration of H.J. Res. 130, 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 ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.
Page S8248
Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review Final Rule
By 46 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 622), Senate failed to agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 76, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Extension of Deadlines in Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review Final Rule''.
Page S8226
Appointments
United States Holocaust Memorial Council for the 119th Congress: The Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, pursuant to Public Law 96-388, as amended by Public Law 97-84, and further amended by Public Law 106-292, appointed the following Senator to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council for the 119th Congress: Senator Rick Scott.
Page S8245
Economic Impact of Tariff Modifications: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3426, to require the Congressional Budget Office to conduct an economic review of the economic impact of tariff modifications before implementation, and the papers with respect to the bill be returned to the House of Representatives at their request.
Page S8245
Nomination Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nomination: By 66 yeas to 32 nays (Vote No. EX. 620), Ho Nieh, of Alabama, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2029.
Pages S8216, S8248
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S8241-45
Record Votes
Three record votes were taken today. (Total--622)
Pages S8216-17, S8226
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:43 p.m., until 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 20, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S8248.)
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: 53 of 136 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Epstein Files Transparency Act
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate having received from the House H.R. 4405, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the bill, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill is considered read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The bill (H.R. 4405) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The great Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. One in eighteen people receives a lung cancer diagnosis during their lifetime. Twelve percent of the diagnoses have had no tobacco exposure. This disease impacts hundreds of thousands of families across our country.
My friend Marlys Carlson of Stratford, IA, finished her battle with lung cancer in July of this year and is now with her Lord and Savior. I want to raise awareness for lung cancer in her honor today.
Mr. President, I have spoken a lot over the years about the need for a strong military. I believe that keeping cutting-edge responsibilities we have in America at the cutting edge of military capabilities is one of the most important responsibilities we have in Congress. I often say that if we don't get national security right, the rest is conversation.
The need for a strong national defense has been put into stark relief over the last few years as the world has grown more dangerous and as we have seen serious gaps in our own preparedness. And after 4 years of underinvestment during the Biden administration, Republicans made it clear that we would work to put our military back on the right track by investing in modernization to ensure our military is ready for today's threats and tomorrow's.
We have followed through on that promise since taking office at the beginning of this year. That began with a major investment in our military capabilities in the One Big Beautiful Bill. We also prioritized passing the Senate's National Defense Authorization Act, which includes significant reforms to weapons-buying as well as more than 100 amendments adopted through regular order on the Senate floor.
This week, we continue those efforts with the Defense appropriations bill, which will provide the resources to continue our mission of rebuilding our military capabilities. That starts with the men and women serving in uniform.
This bill funds a 3.8-percent pay raise for our troops, and it supports military members and their families with investments in housing, childcare, and education for military families. It also funds bonuses that will, hopefully, help to ensure that we can sustain the record-setting recruitment success we have had this year, a complete turnaround, I might add, from recruitment challenges of the not-so- distant past.
The Defense funding bill makes critical investments that will help ensure our servicemembers have the military capabilities that they need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That includes funding shipbuilding efforts and expanding our Air Force fleet, accelerating delivery of the Golden Dome for America, and investing in munitions, drones, and emerging technologies.
I do want to emphasize, though, that while this bill and the One Big Beautiful Bill make important investments in rebuilding our military, this can't be a one-time exercise. These are the types of investments that we will need to sustain in the coming years if we want our enemies to think twice before attacking us.
I appreciate the work that our colleagues have done to produce a robust funding bill. This bill reflects the priorities and input of a lot of Senators, and it has garnered significant bipartisan support coming out of the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 26 to 3. And it is not the only one.
The Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Chair Collins, has advanced a number of bipartisan full-year funding bills. We have already brought three of those bills to the floor under an open process.
We passed them in August, the earliest the Senate has passed appropriations bills since 2018, and that package was signed into law last week.
That is how the appropriations process is supposed to work. Unfortunately, that is not how it was working the last few years under the Democrat majority. So when I became majority leader, I made it clear that I wanted to get back to regular order. And as I said, we were making progress on that this year; that is, until Democrats needlessly chose to shut down the government.
Before the shutdown, we were getting ready to bring the Defense funding bill to the floor. We just needed a few more weeks under a continuing resolution so we could finish our work. But Democrats took advantage of the situation for leverage, and they kept the government shut down and appropriations work halted for 43 days.
Despite their recent actions, I know a number of my Democrat colleagues do share Republicans' interest in seeing regular order restored. Well, now it is time to act like it.
As I said before, during and now after the shutdown, this is our chance for regular order. We don't have time to waste. We have already wasted a lot of time on a completely avoidable government shutdown.
Let's get to work.
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, yesterday, with near unanimity, the House and Senate agreed to pass legislation to compel Donald Trump to release the Epstein files. A few hours after the House voted, I came to the floor and got unanimous consent for the Senate to immediately pass this bill, and a few moments ago, the Senate received the Epstein bill from the House. We are glad the House has sent us the bill, and this means it will get to the President's desk quickly.
After months of waiting, months of Republican delay, after so many failed attempts from Donald Trump to hide the truth, the Epstein Files Transparency Act is headed to his desk. And, again, this is a very important moment for so many people whose lives have been destroyed by Jeffrey Epstein and his circle of abusers and monsters.
So I want to thank, again, all the advocates, the survivors, and the victims groups who raised their voices, who spoke courageously about the need for accountability, and pushed Congress to take action.
It is a shame that so many Republicans, Donald Trump, and Republican leaders in Congress tried for months to prevent the truth from coming out. Republican leaders had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get this bill over the finish line. Left to their own devices, these Republican leaders would have never let the bill see the light of day. But that shows you how powerful this issue is, and it shows you that when a strong group of people--they may be a small group, but with moral right on their side, with great conviction--they can get to the truth and move that desire forward.
But I want to be very clear: The job is not done. The vote is not the end. It is only the beginning. Once the President signs the bill, he must apply and execute it faithfully. There must be no funny business from Donald Trump. He must not use the excuse of frivolous investigations to release some Epstein documents while intentionally hiding others that deserve to be seen by the American public.
This is not an invitation for Donald Trump to pick and choose his version of the truth. This bill is a command for the President to be fully transparent, to come fully clean, and to provide full honesty to the American people, even if he doesn't want to.
So I want to be clear: Anything less than full transparency will be unacceptable in the eyes of the American people.
If Donald Trump refuses to comply, if he refuses to obey the law, Senate Democrats will hold him accountable. We will exercise oversight. We will demand transparency. We will make it clear to the American people that Donald Trump has broken his promise to come clean on Jeffrey Epstein.
Mr. President, now on costs and the high cost of living that American people are facing, 2 weeks ago, the American people, not only in New Jersey and Virginia but across the country, sent their loudest message yet that they are fed up--just fed up--with the high cost of living.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say Donald Trump's top priority right now should be lowering prices, and no other issue comes close. A Marist poll released this morning shows the American people know precisely who is fighting for them and who is making life more difficult, because the most important issue keeping Americans up at night right now can be summed up in one word: costs--or in three words: cost of living. And that is exactly the issue Donald Trump and Republicans have ignored and even made worse.
Now, just yesterday, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he will never sign an extension of the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, and we know, if they expire, people's cost for healthcare, so vital to American families, is going to go up--$500 a month, $1,000 a month, $20,000 a year. How are families going to pay for that? And faced with the Hobson's choice of cutting back on everything else dramatically or having no healthcare for their families, Americans will hate that choice. And that is why we are fighting so hard for them.
Donald Trump says to the American people: Drop dead. That is his message in the middle of the most stressful open enrollment period, perhaps ever--just incredibly out of touch.
So Republicans can ignore high costs at not just their own political peril but also to the immense detriment of American families.
That is who they are hurting, which is why Democrats will keep the fight going. It is why we Democrats have worked for months and continue to fight every day to do something about people's healthcare costs. It is why Democrats have fought relentlessly and continue to fight relentlessly against Donald Trump's ``Big Ugly Bill.'' It is why Democrats have demanded that Republicans work with us to extend the premium tax credits. We
Donald Trump may think affordability is some kind of Democratic ``con job,'' as he derisively called it, but the opposite is true: Americans are fed up with high costs, and they need a lifeline while Donald Trump is tossing them an anchor.
Mr. President, on Venezuela, last week, Donald Trump said he is ``sort of decided'' on his military strategy on Venezuela. This follows Trump sending our largest U.S. aircraft carrier and thousands of U.S. sailors and marines to the Caribbean, as part of the largest military buildup in this hemisphere in decades. Yet Congress has gotten very few answers from the Trump administration about this rapid and potentially dangerous escalation.
In fact, on multiple occasions, I have directed Secretary Rubio to explain their escalatory actions toward Venezuela, but, so far, I have received very little from him.
So, today, I am renewing my call on Secretary Rubio to provide an all-Senators classified briefing on this military buildup and the reported plans for military operations in Venezuela.
To date, the Trump administration has failed its duty under the law to consult with Congress on preparations for military action in Venezuela. We have heard no clear goals. We have heard no clear timeline. We have heard no clear explanation for what Donald Trump's ultimate objective is in the region, and military action could risk the lives of thousands of U.S. servicemembers and destabilize the entire region.
Make no mistake, the Maduro regime is horrific, undemocratic, and the United States should be strong in using all legal tools against drug traffickers who poison Americans with deadly narcotics. But the last thing Americans want right now is another endless war. The last thing Americans need is Donald Trump bumbling the United States into a war with Venezuela.
So, again, I am calling on the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio to provide an all-Senators classified briefing on current military planning for operations in Venezuela.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today having just heard the minority leader talk about affordability. What I didn't hear him talk about are any of the things he would reverse from the 4 years of the Biden administration that brought us the high prices that we are facing today.
Republicans are attacking the affordability crisis. We are tackling it head-on. It was created by reckless spending and higher taxes during the Biden administration--an indisputable fact.
Those Democrat policies--and many Democrats in this body voted for them; we saw them--they led to the highest inflation in 40 years. In just 4 years, prices rose over 21 percent, and the cost of energy alone--and the Presiding Officer's State and mine are energy-producing States--the cost of energy for Americans went up 31 percent.
From the grocery store to the gas station, high prices stretched and strained and squeezed the budgets of working families all across America. That is why Joe Biden and the Democrats will go down in history as the party of high prices and open borders--indisputable.
Republicans are making our Nation safer and more prosperous. The economy is improving. Inflation has cooled. The economy is growing. Gas prices are now at the lowest they have been in 4 years. For the first time in years, wages are rising faster than prices. America is getting back on track.
Republicans are building on these results by ensuring that Americans get to keep more of the money they earn. That is why earlier this year we passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act.
In Wyoming alone, families can save $2,400 a year because of the tax cuts. I heard about it when I was working with coal miners last Friday in Gillette, WY.
Waiters, barbers, and bartenders are going to keep about $1,300 more each year in their pockets because of our policy of no tax on tips. Nurses and firefighters and police officers are going to keep about $1,400 more this year because of no tax on overtime.
New parents now get a thousand-dollar Trump account for every newborn child. Parents can use this money to invest in their child's future. All parents are going to get a bigger child tax credit--$2,200 per child this year.
Seniors are going to keep more of their hard-earned money as well in their Social Security. There is now a $6,000 deduction on Social Security income.
All of these things are designed to keep more money in people's pockets. That is where it belongs.
On the other hand, Democrats voted for the highest tax increase in the history of this country--$4 trillion. That is what they wanted to see.
Right now, today, Republicans are cutting, here in Congress, waste and reducing spending. We do this by restoring fiscal discipline and regular order, and we are doing it for the regular appropriations process.
Mr. President, you are part of that committee.
This is a far cry from where the Democrats were when they were in the majority. Remember last year--then, the majority leader was Chuck Schumer, and at that time, he blocked every bipartisan appropriations bill that came out of committee, blocked each and every one of them, didn't allow a single one of them to come here to the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed 3 appropriations bills of the 12 total. They each received overwhelming bipartisan support in committee, and some had unanimous support. They were signed into law last week when President Trump reopened the government. Those bills provide care for our veterans. They support food assistance through the SNAP program. Forty-two million Americans rely on that program.
The Senate is now prepared to move forward on another five appropriations bills. They eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful Washington spending. At the same time, they modernize our military, they support our servicemembers, and they invest in our long-term security. They also invest in urgent transportation needs, in keeping our highways safe.
Importantly, these bills all have proven bipartisan support. Here are the vote totals: In the committee--29 members of the committee--in the committee, Defense, 26 to 3; Commerce, Justice, and Science, 19 to 10; Interior, 26 to 2; Labor and Health, 26 to 3; Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, 27 to 1. We are talking about bills that earned overwhelmingly bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee. They deserve to earn similarly strong bipartisan support on this floor when they reach the Senate floor.
The government shutdown is now behind us. Many Democrats--and I heard them all talking about it this past Sunday on television--they wish the government were still shut down. They didn't seem to care that they caused pain and hunger and anxiety all across the country. They want to ignore the fact that it cost the American economy tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity.
Now the government is open again. Republicans are back to investing in the priorities of the American people. We are investing in priorities to make America safer and more prosperous. We are getting America back on track with affordable prices and lower taxes. Republicans are going to continue to put more money in the pockets and purses and paychecks of America's hard-working families because that is where it belongs.
Mr. President, on another matter, today, the U.S. Senate will take the first steps to undo a very harmful piece of the previous administration's reckless and radical barrage of runaway regulations.
Astonishingly, last year, the Biden administration finalized a rule that prohibited new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin in my home State of Wyoming. The idea was to force Wyoming to say goodbye to producing energy that is actually affordable, available, reliable, and abundant right here in America.
The Powder River Basin supplies about 45 percent of our Nation's coal.
Now I am very, very grateful to my colleague Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming. She has led the charge in the Senate to overturn this Joe Biden abuse of power, and she did it using the Congressional Review Act.
I also want to thank our Congresswoman Harriet Hageman. She led this effort in the House of Representatives, and last night, the CRA passed that Chamber, and we will address it today.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution right here today on the Senate floor.
I commend President Trump and the Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum for their strong support for Wyoming coal. Both President Trump and Secretary Burgum understand that national security starts with energy security and that affordability starts with affordable American energy. That is why the Trump administration is investing in clean American coal, and that is Wyoming coal.
This week, the Senate must reverse another one of the many bad Joe Biden runaway regulations. The one we are repealing today targeted affordable, reliable, and abundant American energy. That is proof that Republicans are getting America back on track.
Mr. President, it has been a little over a year since President Trump was elected in his second term of office. The key part of the campaign and mandate was to secure the border and to reverse the disastrous open-border policies of the Biden administration.
As we see, President Trump is delivering on that campaign promise by implementing the very policies that the American people voted for, not to mention the fact that these policies and these laws were passed by Congress and signed into law, and our law enforcement Agencies are merely enforcing laws that Congress itself has passed.
The President is doing this by securing the United States-Mexican border to prevent more illegal aliens from coming into the country and also removing illegal aliens who entered our country during President Biden's open-border disaster.
Aggressive immigration enforcement is not unprecedented. President Obama, who has been praised by the left for unifying the country, deported more than 2\1/2\ million illegal immigrants, earning him the title ``Deporter-in-Chief.'' Democrats seem to have forgotten this data point, but I am happy to remind them.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the progressive left in the Democratic Party these days has lost its mind in the face of enforcement of current immigration laws--again, which the American people voted for and Congress has passed. They haven't hesitated to spread misinformation and vilify the very men and women in law enforcement who are enforcing our immigration laws. These groups have not stopped spreading lies. They are actually inciting violent mobs to impede the enforcement of laws that Congress has passed.
Inciting mob violence against any law enforcement officer is unacceptable, and those who do so have to be held accountable. For this reason, I am holding a hearing, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, to examine these unfounded attacks on our law enforcement agents.
In particular, we will consider what is unfolding in America's so- called sanctuary cities.
Under President Biden, millions of unvetted illegal immigrants entered our country across the U.S.-Mexico border. These included criminal aliens, violent gang members, including MS-13, Tren de Aragua, and individuals on the Terror Watchlist that came not just from Mexico or Central America but from literally every corner of the world.
And where did they go after they crossed the border? These individuals found refuge primarily in America's sanctuary cities-- places like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are currently 12 sanctuary States and more than 200 sanctuary cities in the United States. Many of these States and communities have passed laws that actually prevent local police officers from cooperating with Federal law enforcement officers employed by ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This means that, in some instances, these local law enforcement officers can't share information about detained or incarcerated aliens, or honor DHS--Department of Homeland Security--detainers placed on criminal aliens. So ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has no alternative but to conduct raids on various sites to detain illegal aliens and then see that they are removed from the country.
So just to explain that a minute, when an illegal alien is arrested and placed in a local jail, if local authorities are allowed to and do, in fact, cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that transfer from the local jail to the immigration officials can occur in the jail, and then ICE doesn't need to conduct dangerous raids in our communities in these sanctuary cities.
But in the sanctuary cities, that is not possible. They have no alternative, since there is no cooperation at the local level. So in those jurisdictions, in the so-called sanctuary cities, criminal aliens are released back into their communities and inevitably reoffend--that means they commit other crimes--rather than being detained by the Department of Homeland Security and allowing them to take custody.
This practice not only defies common sense; it makes the role of immigration enforcement officers more difficult and, in the end, more painful for each of these communities.
I would hope, at least, that some of my colleagues across the aisle would agree that criminal aliens should be detained and deported. I am not sure they would agree with that. It seems, by their conduct and by their votes, they are suggesting that illegal aliens have just as much right to be in the United States as you and me.
So once these criminals are picked up off the streets and detained in jails, why wouldn't we want Federal law enforcement officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be able to accept them, transfer them from the jail authorities to ICE custody, and then deport them?
Any alien who has already shown a complete disregard for U.S. law should not be allowed to stay in the United States.
Sanctuary cities, instead, have the practice of actually releasing these very people--sometimes dangerous people whom we all know should be first in line for deportation.
ICE would not have to go into communities and find criminal aliens if elected officials and local governments would simply cooperate with Federal law enforcement authorities. These cities could have facilitated enforcement the easy way, but, instead, they chose the hard way.
Instead of reporting this unfortunate reality truthfully, mainstream media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC have ignored the real harm that these criminal aliens have caused in these communities and instead directed their ire toward law enforcement. This is sort of a manifestation of what used to be called the ``defund the police'' movement, which has made so many communities in our States and Nation unsafe, because ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, which are employed by the Department of Homeland Security, are Federal law enforcement officials.
And, basically, when the mainstream media accuses them of what, in essence, is just doing their job, they are suggesting that the laws should not be enforced and that the fault, if there is fault, lies with the Federal law enforcement officers that are simply doing their job as mandated by Congress.
The mainstream media and Democratic elected officials have used incendiary rhetoric to fan the flames of public protest that are anything but ``mostly peaceful.'' The result has been widespread assault on our law enforcement officers.
Protestors and criminal aliens have physically attacked them in some instances. They have rammed officers
Leftwing protestors have laid down on the street in an attempt to prevent vehicles belonging to law enforcement from entering or leaving detention facilities and even slashed government vehicle tires, all in an effort to prevent ICE and Customs and Border Protection from doing their job.
Officers have been pepper-sprayed, choked, punched, and injured to the point of hospitalization in some cases. These individuals who seem to be celebrated and certainly given a lot of publicity in the mainstream media, as if they were in the right--these groups have prevented the arrest and removal of criminals--documented criminals-- including facilitating the escape, in one case, of a convicted child rapist who is now out there somewhere in the community at large.
The Democratic Party claims to be the party of the people, but when it comes to protecting the American people from violent gangs like Tren de Aragua, pedophiles, and rapists, they simply look the other way or claim that the fault lies with law enforcement, not the people who have already violated our laws.
Progressive activists have done everything they can imagine to impede immigration enforcement officers from carrying out their duty, including doxing them, putting their personal information on the Web, and even making death threats.
The leftwing media has been intent on giving this behavior a pass, but Senate Republicans will not give them a pass.
So I encourage all of my colleagues and all of my constituents back home in Texas to tune into the hearing that we intend to have this afternoon in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In this hearing, we will hear testimony from Sheriff Boyd, who will give an update on Texas's cooperation with immigration enforcement and how it protects their officers and local communities. Danielle Carter-Walters will offer insight into how leftwing policies are failing Chicago residents and other Americans living in sanctuary cities, and Mia Cathell, an investigative journalist from the Washington Examiner, will offer a journalist's perspective on how leftwing groups are funding these protests against ICE.
While the mainstream media, apparently, will stop at nothing to spread lies and vilify the very people who have sworn to uphold our laws, my Republican colleagues and I are not afraid to push back in order to let the American people know the truth.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 76, the CRA introduced by my colleague from California Senator Schiff to repeal the Trump EPA's interim final rule that extends the compliance deadlines for the Biden administration's stringent attack on oil and natural gas facilities.
Over the past 4 years, we witnessed an onslaught of regulation like nothing we have ever seen before--an attack that specifically targeted affordable and reliable sources of energy like oil and natural gas, among others. The purpose of these overbearing and in some cases outright illegal rules was clear: It was an attempt to shut down conventional energy in our country from sources the Democrats just don't like.
Through this barrage of overregulation, the Biden administration created record-high gas prices and a grid reliability crisis that our Nation must now address.
We must recognize that we are really in a critical moment for American energy. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has found that over the next 10 years, due to a rise in energy consumption and the policy-driven retirement of our existing power generation, our country may face major electric reliability concerns. The Biden administration compounded these issues through regulations that sought to force a transition to unreliable, intermittent energy resources.
We must take action now to ensure that future electricity demand is met, and we can do this by continuing to produce natural gas.
Fracking and shale gas have revolutionized American energy, leading to lower prices, job growth, and increased energy security.
According to the Energy Information Administration, the rapid expansion of natural gas in the United States has decreased-- decreased--the power sector's carbon dioxide emissions by over 35 percent in the last 20 years. Additionally, upstream oil and gas production reduced its methane emissions by more than 40 percent over the last 10 years.
Natural gas is an affordable, reliable, and clean source of energy, vital to reducing our emissions. We should be expanding production of this resource, not restricting it. Unfortunately, restriction is the purpose of this CRA.
This rule put in place by the Trump administration extends compliance deadlines for crude oil and natural gas facilities because the Biden EPA set standards that are simply unachievable.
In a time of energy uncertainty, my Democratic colleagues should be in total support of expanding the use of natural gas. Instead, they are forcing a vote to increase our energy prices.
The CRA is an attempt to take us back to Biden-era energy policy, and I urge my colleagues to swiftly reject this motion to proceed.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of Ho Nieh's confirmation to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Our Nation is poised to unleash a nuclear power revival, and a strong NRC, guided by exceptional leadership, is central to enabling the use of nuclear energy.
Fully realizing nuclear energy's potential will improve electric reliability, which I spoke about in my former remarks, strengthen American energy and national security, and drive economic growth.
In 1974, Congress established the NRC to serve as our Nation's independent nuclear safety regulator. In the years since, our nuclear energy sector has matured, technology has advanced, and safety has been prioritized, as always.
There is now an opportunity to take the experience and know-how to build a new nuclear future. Doing so mandates a nuclear safety regulator that is ready to meet the moment and to do so by leading with its best attributes. Those attributes are embodied in the NRC's principles of good regulation: independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability. Each of these principles is a necessary pillar for the NRC's work, especially as the NRC implements the consequential task that it currently faces.
Last year, in passing my bill, the ADVANCE Act, Congress spoke with an overwhelming bipartisan voice that we must urgently modernize our regulations to prioritize what matters most. President Trump reinforced that message in May when he issued an Executive order tasking the Commission with a major reexamination of the NRC's nuclear safety rules. The ADVANCE Act and President Trump's Executive order both empower the Commission to deliver on a vision of deploying more nuclear power and doing so quickly and safely.
As the Commission acts on these directives, it must do so in a way that does not undermine regulatory certainty and works with all stakeholders to make sure the NRC's efforts are enduring.
I am confident that Ho Nieh will carry the principles of good regulation forward as the Commission implements our Nation's nuclear energy policy.
Mr. Nieh has served in a broad range of positions at the NRC and at international nuclear organizations.
As the leader of the most consequential office of the NRC--that office is called the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation--he laid out a vision of the NRC's role to make sure that the safe use of nuclear energy is possible. This set the tone for what the Commission established earlier this year when they
Following his departure from the NRC, Mr. Nieh gained firsthand experience in understanding the role of regulatory compliance as a senior executive for a large nuclear facility. He also served on loan to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations--the industry's own nuclear safety watchdog that seeks to promote excellence in nuclear performance.
I support Ho Nieh's nomination to serve as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because of his outstanding technical expertise, his real-world knowledge of regulatory compliance, his strong leadership and experience, and his commitment to executing the recently updated NRC mission statement.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for his confirmation to the NRC.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice).
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, 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 actions.
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 "Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision...
Madam President, Wyoming became a State in 1890. It was the 44th State to enter the Union. In 1893, Wyoming adopted our State seal, which also appears on our State flag inside the buffalo, and on that seal are two figures that tell the story of Wyoming.
(Mr. SCHMITT assumed the Chair.)
One figure represents the livestock industry and the ranchers and cattlemen of Wyoming, and the other represents our mining heritage-- here, it says mining and oil--the miners that power America and have powered it for years.
These two industries are instrumental to my State, but in terms of gross State product, no industry comes close to the energy industry. Wyoming is an energy-producing State.
For over 130 years, these figures have stood as a testament to Wyoming's values: hard work, self-reliance, and providing for our Nation.
The Biden administration looked at that seal and decided Wyoming's way of life has to end. They wanted to unilaterally rip the mining symbol from our State's seal. One way they wanted to end this mining heritage was via the Buffalo Resource Management Plan amendment, which was a deliberate, calculated attack on our miners and an assault on every Wyoming family that depends on coal. Wyoming has since 1986 been the No. 1 coal producer in the Nation. We produce 40 percent of America's coal.
So today, I come before the Senate in defense of the people of Wyoming and our rich energy sector. In a last-minute, desperate, post- election attempt to promote his anti-energy Green New Deal scam, President Biden issued the Buffalo Resource Management Plan amendment to cripple Wyoming's coal industry. Biden's Bureau of Land Management zeroed out almost 500,000 acres of coal in Wyoming, shutting down the possibility of any future coal leasing.
This is why I introduced the congressional resolution of disapproval with Senator Barrasso to overturn this reckless, anti-Wyoming assault. We have the backing of the Department of the Interior, and we have the full support of President Trump.
As I said earlier, Wyoming produces 40 percent of America's coal. The Powder River Basin holds more than 48 billion short tons--enough to power our Nation for more than a century.
The Biden plan would have destroyed thousands of high-paying Wyoming jobs, erased billions in labor income, and gutted the State revenue that funds our communities and, more importantly, our K-through-12 school system.
Moreover, the Biden Bureau of Land Management and this resource management plan didn't just attack coal, it aimed to lock up Federal land that belongs to the American people.
While the Biden administration tried to shutter American coal mines, our foreign adversaries are ramping up production. Their coal is dirtier, their environmental standards are nonexistent, and their labor practices include child labor and human rights abuses no American would ever tolerate.
Shuttering U.S. coal doesn't help the planet; it outsources pollution to the worst polluters on Earth and sends American jobs straight overseas.
American coal--Wyoming coal--is the cleanest, safest, and most responsibly produced coal in the world. The most recent coal plant that was built
That is what makes Wyoming coal the cleanest, safest, and most responsibly produced coal in the world.
The last time I visited that coal-fired powerplant, where we have people testing the effluence and able to practice and provide experiments for new methodologies to produce cleaner coal, the Chinese were there in Campbell County, WY, trying to learn.
The Buffalo RMPA is national security sabotage disguised as a far- left environmental policy.
President Trump has already made it clear that if this resolution reaches his desk, he will sign it. He knows Wyoming coal is vital to his American energy dominance agenda.
By passing this resolution, we will reopen 481,000 acres for coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, protect over 4,000 Wyoming jobs, safeguard more than $1.9 billion in labor output, preserve the revenue that keeps Wyoming schools strong, and ensure that coal remains available to power America's future.
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 "Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision...
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, just last month, I stood here on this floor to speak about the dangers of using a congressional resolution of disapproval to change resource management plans for public lands around the country. I described how using congressional resolutions to circumvent public input would upend decades of public land planning practice, how it would put our entire public lands management process at risk.
Since then, Congress has passed three separate congressional resolutions of disapproval to amend resource management plans: one in central and northern Alaska, one in eastern Montana, and one in North Dakota. And now, this week, the Senate will vote on a new resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act--this time for northeastern Wyoming.
While none of those first three have been signed by the President yet, I stand here today, as we prepare to vote on this new congressional resolution of disapproval, to reiterate the message that I shared weeks ago: We cannot and we should not manage our public lands through the Congressional Review Act resolutions.
First, there are very real consequences of reversing decades-old resource management plans, and those consequences could be devastating to communities, to businesses, to jobs, and to our public lands.
Until this year, Congress had never used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration ever considered land use plans to be ``rules'' under the law.
Let me say that again. No administration, Republican or Democratic, since the Congressional Review Act became law in 1996, has ever treated these land use plans as ``rules.'' Here is what that means: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, as is required for rules. What does that mean? Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to Congress and no administration has ever submitted a land use plan to Congress, ever, then if these plans are rules, every land use plan after 1996 never actually went into effect. If they never went into effect, then all of the leases and the permits and the rights-of-way that were issued under them may not be legally valid, throwing us effectively into chaos on our public lands. We are talking about every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreational permit, timber sale, or, yes, oil and gas lease issued under a plan finalized after 1996. All of them are now open to litigation--every single one.
The actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating. For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on our public lands. The damage could be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to the communities that depend on these places to make a living.
Secondly, we know that CRAs cut the public out of land use planning. This vote and all the votes like it sweep away years and years of public input in conversations both about the public lands on a particular landscape and public lands nationally.
To put it bluntly, Senate Republicans found a way to rewrite the rules of the game because they didn't like the outcome, and every vote they take to do it is insulting to the public.
Resource management plans are meant to include communities in the process of deciding how to use our public lands, not exclude them. Does that mean everyone agrees with what is in
From coming together to decide where to prioritize recreation and where to protect wild game habitat to identifying what lands should be used for grazing or which cultural sites should be protected, resource management plans take time because they incorporate input from the folks who own our public lands--Americans across this country.
When these plans are amended, that takes time too. Resource management plans aren't meant to be one and done; they are meant to evolve over time. Here is how that works when it is done the right way:
First, the public gets a say about what in the plan needs to be updated. Based on those comments, the Bureau of Land Management drafts a plan that includes alternatives. Those alternatives capture the range of public comments, making space for all of the voices that have weighed into the process so far--voices calling for more energy development, voices calling for more conservation, voices identifying important areas for recreation for the benefits of locals and businesses alike.
Once that draft is completed, the public gets another chance to engage. In person and with written comments, the public gets to say what they think the Agency got right and what should be considered moving forward.
Based on that, BLM prepares a final product. When BLM releases the final product, the public has another chance to engage--this time through a formal protest period where individuals can register their objections.
Throughout the entire process, the BLM meets with public land users, with Tribes, with community members, and with the leaders and elected officials in these communities.
The common theme here is clear: When it is done right, the public shapes how public lands are managed. That is not the process being proposed here on the Senate floor. It isn't one that invites the American public in; it is one that shuts them out.
By undoing resource management plans through congressional resolutions of disapproval, Congress is telling Tribal communities that their opinions don't matter about their ancestral lands; they are telling hunters that their opinions don't matter about what lands they just happen to use to fill their families' freezers; they are telling hikers that their opinions don't matter about the routes they know like the back of their hand; telling local communities that the way their land is used is no longer of importance; telling all of us that our voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that make up our American birthright.
When we vote for CRAs as a way to manage our public lands, we vote against including communities in the process; we shut them out from the decision-making process when we should be inviting them in.
Third, today's vote does not account for the hundreds of millions of dollars per day that are generated for local economies by public land recreation and recreators. Recreation on public lands is an economic powerhouse. The recreation industry generates $128 billion in economic activity from public land every single year. It drives $6 billion in Federal tax revenue. It creates jobs. From Bureau of Land Management land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs and contributes more than $12 billion--billion with a ``b''--in economic output.
These numbers are big, and they matter. They matter to outfitters. They matter to small businesses. They matter to local communities. They tell the story of just how valuable these lands are to Americans-- valuable both as a birthright and in dollars and cents.
That rings true in Wyoming, where the plan we are voting on today is located. For example, in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation contributed $2.2 billion to Wyoming's economy. That is over 4 percent of Wyoming's GDP--the fifth highest rate in the Nation. The industry supported almost 16,000 jobs that same year. That is over 5 percent of the State's total--total--employment.
Now imagine that all of that is put at risk through congressional actions that leave no room for public comment to voice their concerns. There is no planning process--just unilateral decisions made in Washington, DC. So instead of amending the plan and allowing for more public voices to be heard and more communities to weigh in, as we have done for decades before, they just decide to override the whole process, box the public out. Well, you don't have to imagine it because that is what we are doing right now, and you deserve to know.
No land management plan is perfect. All of them need to be reviewed, updated, and improved. But we have a process for that, and it includes listening to our constituents, letting them drive the decisions. CRAs don't do that. They are a blunt instrument. They do the opposite-- shutting out the public and rigging a process to guarantee an outcome of Senate Republicans' choosing.
So I stand here today, and I urge all of you to vote against this CRA. Public lands belong in public hands. They belong to all of us. That means that every single person deserves a chance to provide input on how they are managed.
I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on this resolution of disapproval.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on S.J. Res. 89 be expired, the joint resolution be read a third time, and at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 130, the joint resolution be considered read a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of H.J. Res. 130.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now that the Senate recess for 1 hour.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:28 p.m., recessed until 4:30 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Schmitt).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. President, it is hard to believe that we are nearly at the end of the year, and that is the end of the year since we started this session of Congress and also President Trump's second term in office.
And in that time, there is so much that we have done to get this country back on track and to begin to undo the damage that was inflicted on so many Americans by the Biden administration. We could take a look at the economy because under the Biden administration, inflation reached its highest point in over four decades; far-left regulations killed jobs, and it held industry back; and our trade deficit exploded. Now, in Tennessee, that hurt our farmers and our manufacturers.
Today, the U.S. economy is on the path to being stronger than ever before, thanks to the President's pro-growth agenda, trillions of dollars in new investments, the largest tax cut in history. All of that came about through the Big Beautiful Bill.
Inflation is down 67 percent; jobless claims are beginning to come down;
At the same time, President Trump and his administration have completely reversed the Biden policies and failures at the southern border. For 4 years, President Biden claimed that there was nothing that he could do--nothing at all--to stop more than 10 million illegal aliens from entering our country, including tens of thousands of convicted criminals.
At one point, the daily average of border encounters topped 15,000, and across the country, Americans suffered the tragic consequences, including rampant migrant crime. Today, our border is secure, thanks to President Trump's strong enforcement of the rule of law. Last month, there were just under 8,000 Border Patrol apprehensions at the southwest border--95 percent lower than the monthly average under President Biden. And unlike the Biden administration, President Trump is turning these lawbreakers away instead of welcoming them with taxpayer-funded benefits.
For the sixth straight month, there were zero parole releases into our country. By comparison, in October of 2024 alone, Biden released more than 10,000 illegal aliens into the country.
President Trump and Republicans are also working to undo the damage done by President Biden's two-tiered justice system. Under his watch, the Justice Department and the FBI were rotten to the core, targeting anyone who stood up to the deep State.
They raided Mar-a-Lago, indicted President Trump on baseless charges, and weaponized America's top law enforcement Agency against conservatives, parents, and people of faith. Through Jack Reed Smith's Arctic Frost probe, this abuse of power reached the Halls of Congress, surveilling lawmakers over our political beliefs. The American people want one tier of justice: equal justice for all.
That is why President Trump and Republicans are fighting for full accountability for those who weaponized our government. We must ensure that this abuse of power never ever happens again.
Under the President's leadership, our Federal law enforcement Agencies are focused on their core purpose, enforcing the rule of law and fighting crime. Now, when we talk about fighting crime in Tennessee, we look at Memphis. Last year, the city recorded the highest crime rate in the country, and, for years, Memphians have demanded action to address the crime crisis.
Now President Trump is delivering it with the Memphis Safe Task Force. By coordinating efforts between more than a dozen Federal and State Agencies, including the Memphis Police Department, Tennessee National Guard, FBI, Justice Department, and U.S. Marshals, the task force is delivering incredible results.
In just over a month of operations, authorities have made more than 2,800 arrests, including 164 warrant arrests for aggravated assault, 185 for domestic violence, 83 for narcotics, 34 for robbery, 22 for sexual assault, 25 for homicide. The task force has also located more than 110 missing children. In many ways, the Memphis Safe Task Force is serving as a national model for President Trump's broader mission to reduce violent crime across the country.
Mr. President, that is why I am asking unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 505, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my understanding is this is a resolution that has been fairly recently introduced, so I just got a chance to look at it just really minutes ago.
But it is a concerning resolution. I just want to talk about why I am going to object. First of all, my friend from Tennessee is right, Tennessee has a crime problem. Tennessee has the sixth highest rate of gun crime in the Nation. If you look at the list of the top 10 States with the highest rates of gun crime, it is Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Montana, Oklahoma, all States represented by Republican Senators, all States with Republican legislatures, all States with Republican Governors.
These aren't States that skimp on law enforcement, but they are States that have wildly irresponsible gun laws. They are States that don't invest in interrupting cycles of violence, so it is true that there is a pretty significant violent crime problem in Wyoming and in Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana, Arkansas, Montana, Oklahoma, and in Tennessee.
But I just came across this article from the Tennessee Lookout which quotes data compiled by the University of Memphis, and it says that the increase in arrests in Memphis has been for nonviolent offenses. In fact, a quote from General Sessions Court Clerk Tami Sawyer says:
In fact, the University of Memphis discovered that there hasn't been any influx of new cases involving violent crimes. It seems as if the statistics that the Senator just referenced aren't really different than any other month. What is happening is that there are just a lot more traffic arrests and a lot more nonviolent drug arrests.
I came across another article entitled `` `I Don't Feel Safe': Black Memphis Residents Report Harassment by Trump's Police Task Force.''
This is a long article detailing several instances of pretty horrific treatment of Memphis's Black residents, including racial profiling and other civil rights offenses.
I came across another article--this is just in like the last 5 minutes because I didn't have a lot of time to prepare for this--which details a disturbing pattern under President Trump of law enforcement resources being diverted from combating child abuse, sex trafficking, and terrorism because of this apparent obsession with safe driving in Memphis or this obsession with harassing and locking up peaceful immigrants.
So it just doesn't feel like the words in this resolution match up with the reality right now. It seems as if this task force is locking up people and arresting people for nonviolent offenses. It seems as if we are diverting resources from really serious crimes, like terrorism and child abuse. It feels like there are some potential civil rights abuses happening in Memphis.
But it also is just written in a way that is probably much more appropriate for a campaign flyer. The resolve clause is ``recognizing the monumental success of Donald Trump's decisive leadership.'' It calls Donald Trump the most pro-law enforcement President in history. I think this is probably better in a flyer for Donald Trump's reelection campaign in 2028 that he wants to run rather than on the Senate floor.
By the way, in closing, talk to the Capitol Police here about whether Donald Trump is the most pro-law enforcement President in the history of the country. Talk to the police officer who was beat over the head by a flagpole by a rioter in this building who was pardoned by Donald Trump. Ask the police officer who was tased in the neck by one of Donald Trump's supporters and then pardoned whether Donald Trump is the most pro-law enforcement President in history.
This President pardoned every single violent rioter. All you guys said: Oh, well, you know, there were some nonviolent rioters here, and they should be let off the hook, but, no, we shouldn't let off the violent rioters. Donald Trump pardoned every single violent rioter-- rioters who viciously beat Capitol Police officers. All of my Republican friends just looked the other way and said: Well, if Donald Trump thinks that is OK, then so be it.
So, yeah, it seems like the story in Memphis is a lot more complicated than my friend from Tennessee would have us believe, which is why today we shouldn't pass this resolution. We should probably get to the bottom of what is happening.
But it is just offensive to call this President the most pro-law enforcement President in the history of the country when he is endorsing--endorsing and excusing violence being perpetuated on the people that serve us and
Mr. President, what the Senator fails to mention is that the cities with the high crime problem are blue cities. They are blue cities.
Also, what he should know is that 63 percent of the residents of Memphis support having the Memphis Safe Task Force fighting the crime that is there.
Now, Memphis had the highest rate per capita in the Nation in 2024, with 2,501 instances of violent crime for every 100,000 people. Now, that is a stat that came from the FBI, and it is why the people in Memphis wanted us to move forward and do something about this.
Since the start of the task force, overall, violent crime rates have fallen 46 percent when compared to the same period last year, and homicides are down 50 percent. Carjackings and sexual assault are down 60 percent.
So when my colleague objects to this, he is objecting to what the good people of Memphis in this fabulous, iconic city are seeing--the results they are seeing. They want Memphis to be the safest city in the country, not the most violent.
They have objected to the arrest of nearly 2,900 criminals in the last 50 days, including sex offenders, murderers, and other violent criminals. They have objected to the rescue of 116 missing children-- 116 children who have been recovered. They have objected to over 300 known gang members being apprehended. They have objected to the seizure of 470 illegal firearms.
We are going to continue to work to make certain that Memphis is the safest city in the United States.
Mr. President, I think what Senator Murphy was objecting to was calling Donald Trump the most pro-law enforcement President in American history, and I think he laid out all the reasons why that simply isn't true.
Mr. President, I am here because today marks the 50th anniversary of the Senate's passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA. It was just a few weeks after the Senate passed that bill that it was signed into law on November 29, 1975, by President Ford--a bipartisan achievement and a landmark achievement for the United States of America.
I am grateful that my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Hirono are also on the floor with me today to discuss this important achievement 50 years later.
When that passed the Senate and, of course, when it was signed into law, it guaranteed the right to a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. For the first time in America, the law required that schools meet that commitment to all our kids, including kids with disabilities. That is why schools have now developed individualized education programs for students who need them, to meet that requirement. Now children with disabilities share classrooms with kids without disabilities. And it created a process for families to challenge schools that don't uphold their child's right to a good education.
This was a watershed moment in our history and the history of education. IDEA helped end a very dark chapter in our not too distant past when our public schools excluded 80 percent of children with disabilities, and many States forced disabled people to live out their entire lives hidden away in institutions.
For decades, the Federal Government wrote off people with disabilities as ``uneducable,'' and they claimed they could not learn in schools, and they claimed that they could not fit into our society.
The government was wrong. It was dead wrong. It was wrong on the facts because people with disabilities can succeed in school and in the workforce with the right accommodations, and it was wrong morally because that discrimination violated one of the most fundamental American values--that all people are created equal, and all deserve equal dignity and opportunity. It was IDEA that helped right that wrong.
I would be remiss if I did not take the occasion of this anniversary to acknowledge all the people who make special education work every day in America. They are the students with disabilities and their families and their caregivers. They are the teachers, the special education teachers, the paraprofessionals, and the teachers' aides. Then there are the researchers, the advocates, and so many more--the people who created IDEA and the people who keep it alive today. I commend and salute all of them on this important anniversary.
But I can't say the same about this Congress or, in fact, any of the Congresses that convened between that passage 50 years ago and today because while today marks the 50th anniversary of the Senate's passage of IDEA, it is also true that today, 50 years later, we are seeing the continuation of Congress's failure to actually fund the IDEA at the level we promised, at the level the Federal Government committed to.
You see, when Congress established IDEA, when they passed it into law and gave schools new responsibilities to uphold the rights of students with disabilities, Congress also pledged to cover 40 percent of the cost per pupil so that schools had the resources needed to meet these new responsibilities. In other words, we established a Federal mandate for a very good purpose, but then we failed to fund that mandate at the level we promised.
As a result, every year since it was first passed into law 50 years ago, Congress has failed to provide the promised funds for IDEA. In fact, today, we find that IDEA is funded at 12 percent--a little under 12 percent, in fact--of the cost per pupil instead of the 40 percent, leaving schools and students short a whopping $38 billion every year. In my State of Maryland alone, we are getting $670 million less per year than was promised. All across the country, States--Virginia, Hawaii, other States--struggle to make up that gap for themselves.
When we don't live up to our obligations at the Federal level, it strains the entire education budgets at the State and local level, hurting disabled students and also all other students.
Now, 20 years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of passing a number of bills related to helping people with disabilities. That included the ABLE Act, which was a bipartisan piece of legislation to help provide families with kids with disabilities with access to tax-advantaged accounts so that they can help those kids and better prepare for their futures.
I have had the great opportunity both in the House and the Senate to pass many other pieces of important legislation, but one of my greatest disappointments has been the fact that the Congress has never fully funded IDEA, never did what we promised we would do.
Way back in 2003, I introduced a bill to end the funding gap, to fully fund IDEA, to require that the funding be phased in over a period of time until the Federal Government met its responsibilities. I have introduced that legislation every Congress for the last 22 years.
I have watched as Democrats and Republicans from the Senate and the House go back to their States and to their districts and tell people that they really support IDEA and that they really want to make sure kids with disabilities have that education, that quality education. They say to families that we are all in to support IDEA. But too many, when they come back here to Washington, DC, and have to make real decisions as to where funds are allocated in the Federal budget, when they have to choose between kids with disabilities and another tax break for the ultrawealthy, somehow many have a way of forgetting what they told folks back at home.
You know, I introduced this bill again this Congress, and I am glad we have 39 Democratic Senators as cosponsors, and we may get more. We have zero--no Republican Senators as cosponsors. I hope that will change. I really hope it will change.
As I said at the outset, it was President Ford, a Republican President, who signed into law the IDEA 50 years ago this year. He signed that law. That law requires that the Federal Government provide that 40 percent, and we are at 12 percent today.
So I hope, on this 50th anniversary of the time the Senate passed it, our Republican colleagues will join us on this legislation because the consequences of failing to fund IDEA are visible all over the country. Expenses are only rising as more students struggle with disabilities.
The good news is that we are developing new techniques for screening our children and helping them succeed in school. Some of those techniques require more resources, not less. Yet we are continuing to fail to meet our responsibilities.
Today, because we don't fully fund the IDEA here at the Federal level, schools make IEPs for their students, but many cannot follow through on their own plans, those individual education plans. Deaf students are going to class without sign language interpreters. Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities are going without the one-on-one aides--the aides who help them learn and make sure they don't get physically hurt.
Underresourced special education staff burn out huge numbers, leaving tens of thousands of vacant positions. In classrooms all over America-- in each of our States--there is a child who is sitting at the back of the room, struggling to follow a lesson, falling further and further behind.
While that child is trying, the Congress is not doing its job. It would cost $38 billion for Congress to keep its promises to fund special education this year--$38 billion. That could be made up by the entire funding gap, three times over, that was included in the so- called Big Beautiful Bill--more tax cuts for very wealthy people. If you were to add up all of those tax cuts, it would be $132 billion only for the part of the population that was in the top 1 percent. So folks in the top 1 percent income category got $132 billion in tax cuts. That is three times what would be needed to simply fulfill our obligations under the IDEA this year.
The Trump administration chose tax cuts for the top 1 percent over the IDEA just like it chose to give away trillions of dollars to the very wealthy and pay for it, in part, by defunding programs that working families depend on, including healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP, and public education funding, while failing to fully fund the IDEA.
It actually gets worse because, since March, the Trump administration has fired half of the people at the Department of Education. Then, during the recent shutdown, the Trump administration attempted to fire the remaining staff--all of the remaining staff--at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Those are the people who implement the parts of the IDEA that we do fund. These are great American patriots, these Federal employees. Some of them are Marylanders, some of them are from Virginia, and some of them are from other parts of the country. They have experience in helping these kids, and they have knowledge that is very difficult to replace.
Fortunately, a Federal judge paused the firings of these individuals during the shutdown. The judge wrote that those attempted firings were nothing more than ``political retribution,'' and that judgment was reflected in the recent continuing resolution, at least through the end of January. Nevertheless, the Trump administration keeps looking for new ways to take resources away from our schools.
In fact, just yesterday--just yesterday--it announced the near total dismantling of what is left of the Education Department's advancing education programs. Secretary McMahon has said that her mission at the Department of Education is to shut down the Department of Education, to put out of business the Federal Department of Education. She claims that her objective is efficiency. She claims that kids won't be hurt. She, obviously, hasn't talked to the parents of kids all over the country, including the parents of kids with disabilities.
You know, she specifically said at a Senate Appropriations Committee, on June 3, that ``we are not cutting any of the IDEA funding.'' That claim covers up what is really happening here because, in September, the Department of Education and the administration cut 34 grants for special education, saying that they conflicted with the Trump administration's priorities. Their targets included teacher training, parent resource centers, and assistive technology for children with both hearing and vision loss. Somehow, helping those kids did not meet with the Trump administration's priorities.
Let me just say that what we are witnessing in realtime is an effort to gut the special education programs that exist today at the Department of Education. At the same time, we see a refusal to fully fund the IDEA program at levels promised by the Federal Government when it was first launched 50 years ago.
You know, there has always been a credibility gap since that first commitment was made 50 years ago. I have been standing on the floor-- first in the House and now in the Senate--and making remarks about the IDEA and the importance of closing this funding and credibility gap for over 20 years. We still haven't moved ahead.
Again, as I said, every Member of Congress, when they go back home from here, says they really want to support the IDEA. Now, it is time that people actually mean what they say and follow through because we are now at the 50th anniversary of the IDEA.
Some of the children I was hoping to help back in 2003, when I first introduced the full funding legislation, now have children of their own. Some of the children we promised to help in 1975--``we'' being the Congress back then--are now grandparents. We should not allow another generation to grow up under the shadow of our broken promises.
We passed the IDEA 50 years ago in the same spirit in which we signed the Declaration of Independence almost 250 years ago. In both cases, we made great and noble promises. We promised that all men and women were created equal and that the government would uphold that equality. But when it comes to funding education for kids with disabilities, that promise remains broken.
Judy Heumann, who is the mother of the disability rights movement, once wrote:
Something tipped 50 years ago, when the Senate, on this day, passed the IDEA bill. It has been a long, excruciating length of time since then. I hope that now, 50 years later, we will see another tipping point wherein Members of the House and Senate finally live up to the obligations that were made 50 years ago to really fully fund special education at the levels which we promised. We celebrated the passage of the IDEA 50 years ago. Let us commit ourselves to finally fulfilling that promise now.
With that, I am happy to yield the floor to the great Senator from Hawaii, who has been so focused on education generally and special education in particular, Senator Hirono.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for his passionate advocacy for IDEA. IDEA is a critical program of the U.S. Department of Education.
Let me tell you what is happening to the U.S. Department of Education under President Trump.
We have a regime--that is what I call the Trump administration. It is a regime hell-bent on dismantling the Federal Government. From withholding billions in Federal funding to conducting mass firings of Federal workers and shuttering critical Agencies with hardly any notice at all, to implementing countless, harmful Executive actions, the Trump regime has sown chaos, corruption, and cruelty from day one. It is no wonder that there are now over 300 lawsuits to stop Trump's illegal actions.
It is clear Trump doesn't give a rip about our government or the millions of Americans who rely on the services it provides. That includes the U.S. Department of Education, which does critical work to ensure our country's more than 50 million--50 million--public school students can get a quality education.
Instead of trying to strengthen the Department of Education's support for our Nation's public schools, Trump and his allies are trying to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education completely. This has always been part of
Education is foundational. It certainly was for me. As an immigrant, I came to this country not knowing any English. I didn't read or write English. It is the education system that this country afforded me that provided me the opportunities that resulted in my standing here, giving these remarks.
So, while we can all agree that there are ways we can improve our education system, we should also be able to agree that there is a role for the Federal Government in helping to ensure that all students--50 million--receive a quality education. For decades, the Department of Education has played that role of working to protect students against discrimination and ensure equal opportunities in our schools.
Of course, one of the ways it does this is by supporting students with disabilities. Signed into law in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, protects the rights of more than 7 million students with disabilities across the country--7 million. The IDEA helps to ensure these students receive free and appropriate public education that meets their needs. It also provides funding--yes, we need to fund the IDEA to the extent that is required--to help support these students and ensure the oversight of services for students with disabilities.
Before the IDEA was enacted, we did not have these kinds of Federal protections for students with disabilities. As a result, there was no way to ensure that students with disabilities were not denied access to education or were not neglected in our schools. As noted by my colleague from Maryland, many of these students didn't even get to go to school. They didn't have IDEA.
So, later this month, we will celebrate the 50th year of IDEA--the landmark law that has provided millions of young people with access to a free and appropriate public education.
Despite the success of the IDEA and programs like it, this regime is accelerating plans to dismantle the Department of Education and roll back the progress it has enabled by moving important programs to other Departments with no education expertise.
Recently, for example, Trump tried to take advantage of the shutdown to illegally fire hundreds more workers from the Education Department, including the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office for Civil Rights.
Education Secretary McMahon--herself one of Trump's billionaire buddies--has made the preposterous claim that the shutdown proved the Education Department is unnecessary. This is the kind of unsubstantiated--I can hardly believe that she would consider this proof of any kind, but this is the kind of stuff that the Trump administration always claims. The regime makes these kinds of unsubstantiated claims on a regular basis to justify its ill-conceived and often illegal acts.
In reality, I had constituents reaching out to my office during the shutdown to share concerns about how furloughs of the Department of Education were impacting Hawaii's public schools and the students they serve, including the students with disabilities.
I heard from the mother of a 4-year-old boy who attends a title I school in Hawaii. She was concerned about how the mass firings of special education staff threatened the services her child received.
Every public school child who receives special education must have, as mentioned, an individualized education program, or IEP--a plan to help meet the unique needs of each student. But without the necessary trained staff to support oversight of these programs, there is no one to help guide teachers or schools in developing these plans and ensuring that they are implemented or followed.
As mentioned, just yesterday, Secretary McMahon released a detailed plan for reorganizing the Department of Education by moving dozens of programs and services to other Agencies that do not have the necessary staffing, funding, or expertise to oversee these programs. We can expect that she will try to move IDEA too.
I heard from a middle school teacher on Hawaii island who emphasized just how unrealistic Trump's plan is to move oversight of IDEA to another Agency outside of the Education Department. He rightly pointed out that other Agencies have ``no expertise in the complex education law that is I-D-E-A.''
Education specialists, officers, and analysts within the Office of Special Education programs are trained to best support IDEA. It is not as though you can just move this program to Homeland Security or Human Services and expect them to be able to provide the kind of support that IDEA requires. Moving this program would mean a loss of expertise that will not be rebuilt quickly, leaving our most vulnerable students to pay the price.
As another example of moving programs out of the Department of Education as part of the dismantling of the Department--I could not resist this example--President Trump proposes to move the student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration, which has neither the capacity nor the expertise needed to handle this massive program. The SBA is one of the smallest Federal Government Agencies. How is it supposed to handle a Department of Education program with over 40 million borrowers and over $1.5 trillion in loans? It can't.
Clearly, neither Trump nor Secretary McMahon see a Federal role in education because they are just moving programs without figuring out how these programs are even going to be continued. In fact, that is not their intention. Their intention is to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education, and they can't do that because only Congress can do that. So what do they come up with? These alternative ways to dismantle the Department.
Shouldn't supporting our public schools and our children's education be a national priority? I mean, obviously President Trump and Secretary McMahon don't think it is a national priority. Certainly, it is a national priority in other countries. Why? Because these other countries know, as I said earlier, that education is foundational and that an educated populous is an engaged populous.
By gutting staff and funding that students rely on and attempting to eliminate the Department altogether--a plan that will inevitably hurt our students, no question--this regime's actions make it abundantly clear that they don't want an engaged populous. One can't help but wonder why.
This regime is not committed to public education. They are not committed to public education. They don't see a Federal role for public education, and that is the long and short of it.
We can and must do better to support the education of 50-plus million children in our country.
Mr. President, I rise together with my colleagues from Maryland and Hawaii to celebrate 50 years of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I will not speak long because I have a separate matter that I will take up after this.
My colleagues did a good job, I think, of shining a spotlight on the challenges that exist with the IDEA at 50--the chronic underfunding of this program, the Federal Government not meeting the commitment that it made in 1975 to fund 40 percent of these extra costs for kids with disabilities, the firing of staff recently.
These are serious issues, but I want to spend my time more focused on the celebration of what these 50 years of the IDEA have done.
When it was originally passed 50 years ago this month, the bill was called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the EHA. It was renamed the ``IDEA'' in a reauthorization in 1990.
Guess what the vote was in Congress around the passage of this law that was signed by President Ford. In the Senate, the vote to pass this landmark civil rights and education law was 87 to 7, and in the House, the vote was 404 to 7. For a big, landmark civil rights and education law to pass with that kind of a margin is really near miraculous.
The reason that it passed so overwhelmingly was because society realized that we had been treating kids with disabilities in a very, very tragic and unforgiveable way.
Get this: In 1975, more than a million school-age children in this country were essentially locked out of public education because of the fact that they had a disability--either not being educated at all or being educated in institutions often far away from their homes and families, far away from their friends and neighbors, in a way that was not providing them adequate educational support.
So think about that million that has now grown to 7 million--nearly 1 in 7 students in our public school system receives special education services--what the trajectory of their lives was like before the IDEA passed and after the IDEA passed.
Students with a designated disability under the IDEA receive an individualized education plan so that their particular disability can be focused in a meaningful way to enable them to be all they can be. Isn't that what we want for all children? Let all children be all they can be.
It is not often noted, but it should be noted that many students who receive individualized education plans--the IEPs--only require special education services for a couple of years because even a couple of years of speech therapy or other kinds of special services is enough to get that student completely successful without additional services.
I know this from my own family, my own three kids who went through public schools, that sometimes the IEP and the services provided only need to be provided for a short period of time. Students who receive these services early in their educational careers often don't need them for more than a couple of preschool years or early grades, and then they are perfectly successful.
The IDEA works. It works. It works to enable these students who had been consigned to the shadows of life for generations to be able to achieve all that they can.
You know, one of the measures of success of the IDEA at 50 is this: As a mayor, public education was the biggest part of my city budget. As a Governor, it was the biggest part of my State budget. And, man, did I hear a lot of complaints from people about the IDEA. My educator said that Congress isn't funding it well enough. My educator said that the paperwork to do an IEP and then to assess its compliance is way too complicated. But I never had a single person, an educator or anyone else, say we should undo the IDEA.
For all of the challenges about underfunding, for all of the challenges about paperwork, there is uniform recognition in this country that the passage of the IDEA, the 50 years of a commitment by society that every child should be all they can be, is a good thing. Can we make it better? Of course, we can. But that bedrock promise that was made in 1975 is a good thing, and it has worked to enrich the lives now of tens of millions of people, to make them productive adults, just like any of us aspire to be. What a great thing to be able to celebrate.
That is why I join my colleagues today to celebrate what the 50 years have meant to the tens of millions of students who benefited from the IDEA and the commitment that we must do better.
I am very, very troubled by the underfunding and applaud my colleagues for focusing on that, but I am also very troubled by the actions of this administration to shed the staff who are needed to work with States and work with local governments to make sure that services are being appropriately provided.
I remember being on the HELP Committee during President Trump's first term and examining his nominee for Secretary of Education in the first term, Secretary DeVos. She was talking about letting the IDEA just be run by States, with no Federal role.
I remember questioning her at the hearing: Well, what about States that decide not to do it?
Because it is expensive, there would be some States, without Federal oversight, that would just decide they would rather not provide services, not fund services for students with disabilities.
I asked her the question: Do you think a parent of a child with a disability should just have to move to another State that is more compassionate?
No. We have a Federal, national commitment that a child born with a disability, whatever ZIP Code in this country they are born in, should be entitled to receive these basic services.
That promise is being threatened right now by the firings. That promise has always been threatened by the chronic underfunding.
So while I join with my colleagues in committing to continuing to work to improve it, I don't want this moment to be lost without acknowledging the tremendous good that has been done by this most bipartisan law to enrich the lives of tens of millions of children and their families.
With that, I yield the floor on this topic and would ask to continue on now a second matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent for the passage of S. Res. 473, and that is a resolution commemorating the seventh anniversary of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and calling for accountability for his murder.
This resolution is to honor the life and the absolutely gruesome death of the Washington Post journalist and Virginia resident Jamal Khashoggi.
For those who are not aware of Jamal Khashoggi's story, he dedicated his life to uncovering the truth. His work shed light on the repressive nature of the Saudi Arabian Government, and it exposed him to great personal danger. He fled Saudi Arabia in 2017, and his family found a home in Northern Virginia.
The Khashoggi story is now, unfortunately, too well known. On October 2, 2018, Mr. Khashoggi was brutally murdered by the Saudi Government agents at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkiye--murdered within a consulate, a place that is supposed to be a safe haven. His body, by all accounts of the United States and other intelligence, was dismembered by those Saudi agents within the consulate.
Mr. Khashoggi was not killed because he committed a crime. He was killed for speaking the truth as a journalist and shining a spotlight on the repressive nature of the Saudi Arabian Government. He was killed for standing up for the rights of his fellow Saudi Arabians.
Mr. Khashoggi's death is not a mystery. This is not a cold case waiting to be solved. We know exactly who is responsible for this killing.
The U.S. Government's Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as other U.S. intelligence Agencies, determined the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman, or MBS as he is often referred to, approved an official governmental operation in Istanbul to capture or kill Jamal Khashoggi.
As a result of that operation approved by MBS, Mr. Khashoggi was ambushed as he went to the consulate to get some paperwork regarding his marriage. He was strangled, killed and his body was dismembered, and then evidence of that crime was attempted to be destroyed.
Seven years later, there has been no accountability for the person most responsible for the horrifying murder, no real justice for Jamal Khashoggi, no justice for his family, no justice for the many others who have raised their voices in Saudi Arabia and who, for something as simple as tweeting, are being threatened with execution.
Instead, the leader who approved the operation to kill Jamal Khashoggi, the man who is proud to oppress his own people, MBS, is being celebrated today at our White House. MBS was welcomed with a black-tie dinner. He is being offered F-35 fighter jets--one of the crowned jewels of our security apparatus over the open objections of our ally Israel and potentially in violation of the law. He is being offered extremely high-tech computer chips and other valuable U.S. technology. He is being offered a major mutual defense agreement.
It is, frankly, outrageous to me that the President of the United States would assert that American servicemembers should put their lives on the line to defend the oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia.
Yesterday, when President Trump was asked by a reporter from ABC
And then our President threatened ABC's broadcast license because the reporter had the audacity to ask him a question he didn't like.
I have said it many times, and I am going say it again: Standing with this regime with no accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is not ``America First.'' It is not consistent with our values as a world- leading democracy.
I was very vocal in my frustration about this matter not only during President Trump's first term but also during President Biden's term. When President Biden visited Saudi Arabia in 2022 and fist-bumped with MBS, I was vocal in my dissatisfaction.
I was vocal in my disappointment over this effort when the Biden administration's State Department sided with MBS in his efforts to gain sovereign immunity in the United States to avoid accountability for this murder. I was frustrated when Biden administration Middle East policy officials left the White House in January of 2025 and in short order, started signing lucrative contracts with the Saudi Government.
And I continue to be appalled as the families of senior Trump administration officials--Kushner family, Witkoff family, and President Donald J. Trump's own children--signed major deals with the Saudi regime in cryptocurrency or real estate development.
Just a few days ago, on November 15, the New York Times reported that the Trump organization was in talks to bring Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia's largest government-owned real estate development.
I have huge questions, as I think many Americans do, about whether the intertwining of cryptocurrency or real estate deals is behind the President's casual reference to ``things happen'' to whitewash and excuse the assassination and dismembering of a Washington Post journalist who lived in my State.
When the Saudi-backed LIV golf tour made overtures about maybe acquiring the PGA in 2023, there was bipartisan outrage about that. But I have heard little outrage from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding MBS's visit.
Is the PGA more important, more worth raising concerns about than the transfer of F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia?
Shouldn't we ask: What is the Trump administration's priority? Is it democracy? Is it human rights? Is it national security? Or is it real estate or cryptocurrency deals that benefit family members of those in the administration?
Why is the administration willing to move so far to accommodate this regime, this individual, that our own intelligence Agencies have said is responsible for the murder of a Washington Post journalist who lives in my Commonwealth?
What is the United States getting from offering MBS all of this? Or is the United States getting anything? Is it instead individuals are getting their pockets filled at the expense of our Democratic human rights values?
Standing with Saudi Arabia against the interest of the American people, against our national security, against our human rights proclamations, against the security of our ally Israel, and against the freedom of the press right here at home is unconscionable.
Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 473; 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.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to make a few observations about this resolution.
First of all, this couldn't come at a more inappropriate time. I think my good friend knows that there is a very large delegation from Saudi Arabia visiting Washington, DC, right now. They are a long, long- term ally of the United States going back almost 100 years. We have had a long relationship with them.
Certainly, nothing I am saying here is to denigrate the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That happened. There is absolutely no question about it. But nothing that--this resolution will do nothing to achieve accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi more than has already accrued.
When Jamal Khashoggi was killed in 2019, President Trump and the administration conducted a thorough investigation into his death and determined that 17 Saudi nationals were responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's death, and they were subsequently sanctioned.
In addition, the Saudis themselves took action. President Trump also understands--and we should all understand--that the United States needs stable and invested security partners in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has played an increasingly important role over the last 100 years and an even more important role recently as we have had diplomacy, economic growth, and especially regional security in the Middle East.
Justice and accountability for the past are important, but with a thorough investigation complete and the responsible individuals held accountable, we can look to a better and brighter future for the United States-Saudi relationship.
With all of this in mind and the fact that, at this time and place, this resolution is not in the best interest of the United States, I object.
Mr. President, I rise to speak on the CRA related to the Environmental Protection Agency, now better known as the ``Polluter Protection Agency,'' trying to unwind methane rules.
So there are three things I would like to say about methane: We all know that it is a pollutant. We all know that it is dangerous. It is even explosive. And yet the fossil fuel industry insists on leaking it in enormous quantities. And for years, they have falsely reported to the EPA how much their leakage was, but it is a lot, and it makes a big difference, particularly on the climate side because methane is a super pollutant in the short run--in the first, say, 20, 25 years. So it is really important to stop leakage of this dangerous substance.
And there is no value to the leakage. This is just laziness and sloppiness and bad corporate behavior. It is not like there is a methane leakage association that wants to see more methane in the atmosphere. It is just waste and sloppiness, bad corporate behavior.
This body keeps rolling over to those folks. One of the first things that we did was to undo the methane fee so that the leakers didn't have to pay anything for their leakage. Now, we had agreed on that, working with the fossil fuel industry through Senator Manchin, who was their representative in these negotiations. And what we settled on was that only the worst polluters would be subject to the fee; only the ones who couldn't even meet their industry's standards, only they would have to pay.
Second, the revenues from the fee would go back to the industry to pay for fixing the mess they were creating.
And third, we front-loaded it so they got nearly a billion dollars upfront.
What did they do? Took the money and called on their Republican friends here in the Senate to undo the fee. It was a complete bait-and- switch.
Now we are here on changes to the methane rules and the effort by EPA to delay those changes. This adds the additional insult to being a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
I tell my colleagues: If you continue to sanction these procedural violations of regulatory Agencies, don't think we are going to forget that when the shoe is on the other foot. This set of extensions of the methane rules was done regulatorily, without something called notice and opportunity to be heard--``notice and comment'' is the technical term under the APA.
It is a basic provision of the APA that you have to go notice and comment. If you don't want to do notice and comment--as EPA did not in this case--you have got to show good cause. And what courts have said good cause
Look at some of the things that EPA has done. They claim that the industry needed time to adopt technologies which had, in fact, already been widely adopted--flatout lie from EPA.
They said that compliance deadlines were too close. Well, many of them actually had already been in effect. So that can't be the real reason.
And then they delayed the Super Emitter Program for the worst methane leakers, but it had already been up and running for months. So there was nothing new happening. There was no emergency.
So if you all--my colleagues on the Republican side--if this is the way you want regulatory Agencies to behave in a Democrat administration, keep this up because this is flatout rule-breaking by the EPA.
The last thing is, it is kind of pointless because we are going to catch your leakers. You can give them anything you want. You can continue to roll back methane fees; you can continue to roll back methane rules, but we are going to catch the leakers who are telling you to do this stuff.
We are going to catch them because satellite technology can now detect the plumes of methane that they emit, and they can really detect the big ones. They can source it down to a very narrow point of origin.
UCLA just opened up a website where you can go and see a summary of the satellite data: what landfills, what oil facilities, what are the big leak points so the local communities can take action against the irresponsible members of the fossil fuel industry who are leaking enormous amounts of methane.
So you may have clawed back the methane fee and bailed out the worst performers in the industry and you may have violated the APA to postpone these other rules, including rules against super emitters, but at the end of the day, you are not going to get away with the methane leakage.
You are going to be caught. It is going to be visible on satellite. There is going to be every opportunity for naming and shaming and enforcement, and we are going to end up getting this right. So it would be better if you just didn't put us through this, if you behaved properly for the Senate, if you let the methane fees stand, and if you didn't allow EPA to break the rules to give polluters yet another break from this polluter-friendly EPA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, today's vote will determine how much methane polluters are allowed to belch into the air. It will determine how many asthma attacks Americans suffer. It will determine how many Americans will die because we relaxed the standards on how much methane oil and gas companies are allowed to leak into the air that we breathe.
On July 31 of this year, the EPA decided to delay the enforcement of the Agency's own standards of methane pollution from oil and gas companies. For those who aren't aware, methane is a superpollutant. When it comes to making our air dirtier and contributing to climate change, it is 80 times worse than carbon dioxide.
EPA itself estimates that their new rule or, more accurately, their new license to pollute will pump 3.8 million tons of methane into our air--about the same amount as if we put 66 million more cars on the road.
It is really staggering when you think of it. By the EPA's new rule-- the rule that we are right now, through my resolution, trying to repeal--EPA has decided to allow the same amount of pollution as 66 million cars. That is one hell of a rule. That is one hell of a gift to polluters. That is also really bad news for people who breathe; that is, all of us.
The decision by the EPA to put forward this polluter-friendly rule is perfectly emblematic of the administration's approach to our environment and the Environmental Protection Agency's hostility to rules protecting the environment. We are going to have to rebrand the EPA, if it keeps this up, to be the ``Environmental Polluting Agency.''
So how did we get here? It begins during the Biden administration when an EPA that was concerned about our air quality standards moved to significantly reduce methane emissions from new and existing oil and gas operations under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA didn't just put out new standards and say ``good luck''; the Agency used $1.55 billion in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to help companies get into compliance with these new methane pollution standards. Having made that investment, this action by the Trump EPA makes even less sense.
Before and during the formulation of EPA's methane standards in the last administration, several prominent oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Occidental, Pioneer, and Devon, acknowledged the need for Federal standards for methane emissions. That is because leaking methane isn't profitable for companies. It is certainly not good PR.
Methane, in fact, is a commodity that can be sold by these companies. Leaked methane represents billions of dollars in lost profits for the oil and gas industry because methane is the main ingredient in natural gas.
By halting our Nation's methane standards, the Trump EPA will help the worst polluters--those who don't want to bother to control methane leaks and who therefore waste the very same energy resources that the Trump administration claims it wants to produce.
What is more, companies already know how to stop methane leaks, and both the private and public sector have gotten really good at detecting leaks with advanced technologies, like satellite imagery.
I am very proud that California has been a national leader in using satellite imagery to protect the environment. In the face of Federal environmental retreat, California launched its own satellite in March of this year to help detect and to help stop methane leaks. Just this year, California has used that methane-tracking satellite to close 10 large methane leaks. I congratulate Governor Newsom for his innovative leadership on this.
Many companies don't just acknowledge there should be a standard, they are already complying with the new standard and have been for almost an entire year.
To summarize, the Biden EPA promulgates new limits on methane emissions. It provides $1\1/2\ billion for companies to adapt to the new rules. Many major oil companies do adapt, and now the Trump administration wants to repeal these rules and let the oil and gas industry go back to polluting like they did in the not so good old days. It makes no sense. It makes no sense--that is, unless your real agenda is to attack climate science, to give industry free rein to pollute our air, and to pay back an industry that President Trump promised to reward if they gave $1 billion to his Presidential campaign.
EPA concluded 16 years ago that the Agency legally had no choice but to regulate greenhouse gas pollution because this pollution endangers the public health and welfare of the American people. Let me say that again. EPA's own scientists closed the case on this 16 years ago, but this administration is obsessed with reversing the progress we have made and taking the country backwards.
This isn't just about greenhouse pollution, which fuels wildfires, supercharges hurricanes, floods communities, and kills crops that feed us; cancer-causing benzene and volatile chemical compounds that form smog and choke our air are emitted alongside leaked methane pollution.
If we all vote today for this resolution and restore EPA's smart methane standards, then we will be voting to avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and to prevent premature deaths of Americans across the country.
In addition to all the health and environmental concerns with the rule we are trying to repeal today, President Trump and Administrator Zeldin's EPA also failed to issue this rule in compliance with the law. EPA, as Senator Whitehouse made clear, neglected to solicit public comments and decided to move directly to a final rule, violating both the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Clearly,
This isn't good policymaking; this is extreme ideological obsession, with dire consequences for the health and welfare of the American people.
So this measure today will put every Member of this body on record about how much methane we want released into the air, but it is also, I think, worth noting that my Republican colleagues have used the Congressional Review Act against Democratic States, like my home State of California, when they repealed our State's clean air rules. My Republican colleagues have used the CRA even when the Parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office said they could not legally do so, and my Republican colleagues have used the CRA against Agency actions that have never been targeted before.
It is worth noting that we on the Democratic side are going to be making a list of a lot of the Agency actions of this administration because there will come a time when we are back in the majority, and when that time comes, we will be advocating forcefully for the interests of communities all across the country, and we will not hesitate to use the CRA in the same way that our Republican colleagues are now using it. But instead of making America pollute again, we will make our air clean again, and we will make our water clean again.
I urge Senators to vote yes and to continue the fight against dangerous and wasteful emissions of methane into our air.
The leader is on his way, and he will be here shortly.
I want to thank Senator Schiff and Ranking Member Whitehouse for leading the charge on such an important resolution.
Around the country, people's gas and electric bills are skyrocketing. More and more Americans are looking for every penny they can find to pay the bills, especially with the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays around the corner.
As families are trying to save, Donald Trump is making it easier for gas companies to waste--that is, waste as much natural gas as they want--by delaying an important rule that reduces leaks and waste from natural gas facilities.
Can we have some order please.
Extracting natural gas costs money, and the more natural gas is wasted, the more consumers end up paying. That means it gets even more expensive to heat your home during the winter. It means more stress for families trying to make ends meet.
It is bad enough that the Republicans cut off all clean energy. That is going to cause people's electric prices to go through the roof. But now this is even worse--insult to injury to the American consumer.
So the bottom line is simple: Americans are falling behind on their energy bills, and Donald Trump and Republicans are doing the bidding of the natural gas and oil lobby to drive up energy costs, destroying good-paying American jobs in the process.
That wasted natural gas is poisonous to our communities. It leaks out into our neighborhoods, causing asthma, lung cancer, heart problems, even reproductive issues. So Democrats have acted to reduce methane leaks and waste, saving consumers money and making our communities healthy. That is a win-win.
But Trump and Republicans, again--America, when your electric bill goes up, talk to your Senator, if they are Republican, about why they are cutting wind, cutting solar, and letting oil companies waste valuable methane.
They are doing it all, and it is going to hurt the American consumer.
I urge strongly that we support this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "Extension of Deadlines In...
Madam President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my office Mr. Nick Ayers.
Every time I look at or read an article about the One Big Beautiful Bill, I am shocked--though that sounds pejorative, maybe ``impressed'' is the right word--at its breadth. It is such an expansive piece of legislation.
On the airplane flying back from our last break, I sat down with some of my notes and just made a quick list off the top of my head of some of the things that we did in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I hate to read to people, but I will just read you from my notes--and I won't even read all of them--but this is what we did in the One Big Beautiful Bill.
We extended the 2017 tax cuts. We saved $1.3 trillion for the American people. We made them permanent. We cut taxes on tips. We cut taxes on overtime. We cut taxes on Social Security. We provided deductions for car loans. We increased the standard deduction. We continued the 20 percent income deduction for LLCs. We repealed the IRS reporting requirements for gig workers. Nobody ever talks about that. That was huge.
We passed school choice tax credits--first time Congress has ever done something like that. We enhanced 529 education savings accounts. We provided full expensing for research and development.
I mean, I could keep going here.
We reformed Medicaid. We ended Federal payments for abortion and gender surgery and sex change operations through Medicaid.
I could go on for 20 more minutes. It is just an extraordinary piece of legislation.
My only regret with respect to the bill is that we did it without Democratic votes. We did it with all Republican votes. I wish that hadn't been the case. I wish we had been able to convince some of our Democratic colleagues to join with us.
The obvious question while I make my statement is: How did you do that? How did you get past the filibuster? It takes 60 votes. You don't have to be an astrophysicist to know that about the U.S. Senate.
Well, as you know, Madam President, we did it under reconciliation.
Under reconciliation, only a majority vote is required--60 votes aren't required. You can do it with a majority vote. That is how we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill.
That is how President Biden passed much of his legislation. Reconciliation, as we know, is a creature of the Budget Control Act. I think of reconciliation as sort of a minibudget. That is a gross exaggeration and oversimplification, but I think of it as a minibudget.
Madam President, could we ask for order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I ask the Senators, please take your conversations off the floor.
Madam President, I think of reconciliation as more of a minibudget. Now, that is an oversimplification and exaggeration, and we can't do everything in reconciliation, but we can do a lot--we can do a lot.
We passed the reconciliation bill on July 1, about 5 months ago. And something that even members of the media are not aware of is we have the authority before the midterm elections to do two more reconciliation bills.
The first one that we did--we can do two more--the first of three potential reconciliation bills we passed 5 months ago.
You know, you can do a lot in 5 months. Five months around here is a long time ago. In 5 months, you can learn a language. You have to work at it every day. In 5 months, you can learn how to play a musical instrument. In 5 months, you can write a book. In 5 months, you can start a small business.
In 5 months, during World War II, the United States defeated the Japanese in the Guadalcanal invasion. In 5 months, the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon after he escaped from Elba. In 5 months, a baby goes from gurgling and crying to saying mama and dada.
Five months is a long time.
How have we used that 5 months? Now, I am not putting anybody down. I want to say that. I am not criticizing any of my colleagues. I love my colleagues. I don't hate anybody. I love every one of my colleagues. And I am labor; I am not management.
But one of the reasons I came to the floor is to suggest to all of my colleagues--both my Democratic friends and my Republican friends--that time is wasting. The President has been pounding us. He has been criticizing us like we stole Christmas--like we stole Thanksgiving--for not getting rid of the filibuster.
Why does he want to get rid of the filibuster? Because he thinks we can pass a bill with 51 votes. We can already pass a bill with 51 votes. We just did it with the One Big Beautiful Bill, and we can do two more.
So why have we sat around for 5 months and not started on the second reconciliation bill? I just don't get it. I don't get it. I mean, in my opinion--and really I am not--I am just making an observation--to me, it is a 12-piece bucket of stupid not to do another reconciliation bill and to waste 5 months before we even start on a second reconciliation bill, assuming that we get started tomorrow.
I mean, humans are supposed to have evolved as a species. Why wouldn't we not do a second reconciliation bill? Think of what we could do. I mean, moms and dads all across America tonight are going to lie down to sleep, and they won't be able to.
What are they worried about? Well, they are worried about the cost of housing for one thing. They are worried about the cost of home insurance. They are worried about the cost of flood insurance. They are worried about the cost of health insurance.
We all know that.
They are worried about the cost of living. Now, I think President Trump has done a good job on inflation. At one point under President Biden, we experienced 9 percent inflation. We have got it down to 3 percent, and I think that is extraordinary.
But the American people don't understand--nor can they be expected to understand because they are too busy earning a living--they don't know the difference between deflation and disinflation.
What we have experienced is disinflation. When we went from 9 percent to 3 percent, all that meant was that prices were going up at 9 percent. Now they are only going up at 3 percent.
They are still going up.
What the American people are interested in is deflation, getting the high prices that we have as a result of the policies of President Biden's administration, getting those prices down, not stopping them from growing as quickly--getting them down. And the American people are worried about it.
And again, I applaud President Trump and his economic team for doing as well as they have, but we have got more work to do.
And reconciliation, assuming it could survive the parameters of the Budget Control Act, we could address rules and regulations. We spend almost $2 trillion a year--we, I say ``we,'' the business community does. It spends almost $2 trillion a year complying with Federal rules and regulations. They pass that cost on.
Why do you think goods and services cost more today? In large part, in substantial part, it is the result of rules and regulations. Through a reconciliation bill, we could pass measures to get the cost of those goods and services down and actually reduce those prices by getting a little government off the backs of businesspeople.
We could do all those things through reconciliation.
And so, the first reason I came to the floor tonight is to say to my colleagues: Pretty please, with sugar on top--I will even add a cherry, I will even throw in a coupon for a personal pan pizza--please, let's do another reconciliation bill.
And when I say ``we,'' I am saying the Republican majority. Let's invite our Democratic colleagues to join with us--and I hope after inviting them, I sincerely hope they will take us up on it.
But if they don't--and they don't have to; it is a free country--it only takes a majority to pass the reconciliation bill. And after we do the second one, we can do a third one before the midterms.
If we do not take advantage of this opportunity to lower the cost of living for the American people through reconciliation when we only need 51 votes to do it, it is legislative malpractice. It is legislative malpractice. It is dumb as a bowl of noodles.
So that is my plea to my colleagues tonight. I am not saying we have done nothing for 5 months. We have done a lot of other things in 5 months, but we haven't done anything to lower the cost of living for the American people, and we can't look back. We have lost 5 months, but we should get started tomorrow.
Madam President, the second topic I want to talk about--gosh, I wish I started with this first. I hate to end with a negative note, but the second thing I want to talk about makes me want to stick my head in the oven.
British Broadcasting Corporation, we have all heard of it--BBC. It is the United Kingdom's version of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The BBC is the United Kingdom's state-owned, state-paid- for, state broadcast corporation. I think they call it ``Beeb.'' I think that is the slang term for the British Broadcasting Corporation.
And everybody in the United Kingdom pays for it. You know, we were paying--the American people were paying a lot for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting before we stopped the subsidies. The American people were paying about $500 million a year. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, they were pikers compared to the BBC.
In the United Kingdom, every citizen, whether they watch BBC or not, every citizen has to pay $230 a year--everybody. It doesn't matter whether you watch the BBC or not. You may just have nothing but streaming services. You still have got to pay $230 a year to the BBC.
They collect billions of dollars a year. Somewhere here in this mess I have got the exact figure. I think it is something like $4 billion a year. Our national broadcasting programs were just pikers compared to theirs.
And they have tentacles like an octopus.
I mean, the BBC is everywhere, not just in the United Kingdom. It is omnipresent.
I was doing some research today. I mean, they broadcast four entertainment-oriented television channels. They broadcast two children's channels. They broadcast Parliament. They have local language channels in Scotland and Wales. They have a domestic 24-hour news channel. And these folks are everywhere. They run dozens of radio stations. They operate their own video and audio streaming services.
I mean, I could go on and on and on. Why am I mentioning that? Well, the BBC is a big deal. They reach a lot of people--millions and millions of people--not just in the United Kingdom but across the world. It is important that they be fair, and it is important that they be balanced, and it is important that they be accurate. And they are not, and it has been a problem for a long time.
Five or six years ago, at the suggestion of Parliament, which was very upset with the BBC's bias, they hired a consultant--a smart gentleman--and he did a report on how to improve the BBC and make it fairer. It was a huge report. Here is just part of it right here. This isn't even all of it. This is just some of it right here.
He spent hours and spent a lot of money preparing this report. He sent it to the BBC. Do you know what the BBC did? Nothing. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They just continued on doing what they always do, sucking on their teeth, publishing whatever they want.
And nothing would have happened except that the report issued by the consultant leaked. Somebody leaked it to a newspaper in the United Kingdom, the Telegraph, and they published it. And the whole world got to see what the BBC's own consultant had found.
I will give you a couple of examples.
We all remember January 6. President Trump gave a speech. We have all seen it. It was a long speech. It was about an hour, maybe longer.
A week before the last Presidential election in America, the BBC did a documentary on President Trump. And do you know what they did? They took his hour-plus-long speech, and they took two snippets from that speech--one snippet at the beginning and one snippet at the end.
The excerpts that the BBC took were 50 minutes apart. So they took them totally out of context, and they spliced those two excerpts together to make it look like one speech. And they had the President of the United States calling, making a direct plea, for violence. The way the BBC edited the President's speech, he was telling the people at his speech to march on the Capitol and invade it.
Well, that is not what his speech said.
Now, reasonable people can disagree all they want to, but no reasonable person can listen to the President's speech and conclude that he told people to go out and riot and break into the Capitol.
But the BBC took these two snippets and put them together. I defy you to listen to it. They pulled it down now, but it is on the internet. It sounds like the President is telling his supporters: Go to the Capitol and raise fresh hell and invade it and hurt people.
And then you know what they did on top of that? After they edited the President's speech--he didn't say what they said he said. They showed a clip of the Proud Boys--we all know who the Proud Boys are--marching on the Capitol, as if the Proud Boys were acting in response--in direct response--to the President's speech that the BBC edited.
One problem, the footage that they aired of the Proud Boys, it didn't happen after the President's speech. It happened--the footage of the Proud Boys marching along was way before he ever gave the speech. And they packaged this junk together and ran it on television.
And this consultant called them out, and the BBC ignored it.
Do you know what else the consultant found? The consultant found that one of their news--he pointed out that a reporter on one of the BBC News channels reported this to the world. I am going to quote this news reporter from the BBC:
This is a reporter for the BBC. The President of the United States never said that. He never said it. They just made it up. They were either lying or they need to put down the crack pipe.
Another reporter for World News America, which is part of the BBC, reported, and I quote again, that Trump ``appeared to suggest that Liz Cheney should face a firing squad for her stance on foreign policy.''
They attributed that to the President. He never said that. The consultant for the BBC sent this report to the BBC and said: What planet are you living on? You are supposed to be a news reporter. You can't just go make news up.
The consultant's report for the BBC also talked about the BBC's coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. And the consultant pointed out that the reporting by the BBC was heavily, heavily biased in favor of Hamas. It wasn't balanced. It wasn't presenting two points of view. It was heavily weighted in favor of Hamas.
For example, in February, the BBC produced a documentary on Gaza, and it was narrated by a young man, a 13-year-old man. What the BBC forgot to tell its audience is that the 13-year-old's dad was a Hamas senior official.
Balanced reporting? Gag me with a spoon.
In June of that same year--you probably read about this--the BBC broadcast a live music performance featuring calls for the deaths of Israeli soldiers. The consultant pointed this out to the BBC. They totally ignored him.
The consultant also pointed this out. He said: Your coverage, BBC, of transgender issues is controlled--it is completely biased, and it is controlled by a certain group within BBC. And that group within BBC is a group of reporters called the LGBTQ Desk. They are reporters within the newsroom. They have their own--their own--what is the term I am looking for? Their own caucus. It is called the LGBTQ caucus--these reporters.
And the consultant said: Look, your own reporters, the members of the LGBTQ caucus, are not reporting anything contrary about transgenderism to what you say. You are not being balanced. In fact, the United Kingdom--Great Britain--they have outlawed transgender surgery and transgender treatments for minors. The BBC never bothered to mention that.
Now, look, you might be thinking: You know, what is the big deal? This is another country.
But it is not all right. We may not be brothers and sisters, but we are certainly first cousins with the United Kingdom, and the BBC broadcasts worldwide. And this is simply not right when the good people of our cousin country are having to pay 200 bucks a year.
Now, President Trump has said he is going to sue the BBC. Do you know what? I hope he does. I hope he does.
This is a disgrace, and it is why I said that it makes me want to stick my head in an oven.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I am coming down to the Senate floor for the second time in about a month to try to pass a really important bill for some really heroic constituents of mine, Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans, and I am going to explain this bill a little bit.
Hopefully, the Senate is going to work well, because when I tried to pass this a month ago, Senator Padilla said: Hey, I am going to object, but if you work with us on some bills that you can move in a pairing, then we will pass this.
So I have done that, and I will talk about that. I am actually going to try to pass two bills.
I see that the senior Senator from New Mexico is on the floor, which doesn't bode well for the passage of this bill, which is disappointing, and I am going to get to why it is disappointing. It is remarkable that this bill would be blocked, again, by Democrats. But let me give you a little bit about the background.
So Alaska Native people in my State serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country--what I refer to as special patriotism. You go into Alaska Native villages, you ask how many veterans are there, and almost everybody raises their hand. It is remarkable. It is patriotic. It is incredible. If the rest of the country were like Alaska Native people in terms of service to our military, we would have a better America.
They underwent an incredible injustice because so many Alaska Natives went to Vietnam to serve in the war when a lot of Americans--let's face it--were avoiding service in Vietnam. So these great men and women went to serve their country in Vietnam. When they got drafted, they would say: Hey, it is my time. My dad fought in World War II. My uncle fought in Korea. I am just going.
So they all went. And what happened--every Alaska Native had the ability to get, under a 1906 law, a Native allotment. You could go and say: Hey, I grew up in this area. I hunted and fished here. I want to get 160 acres for an allotment.
The Federal Government would say: Here, you get that allotment.
That was in the law.
When these guys were over serving in Vietnam, Congress changed that law. It is complicated, but they passed what was called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act--a very important bill--and it extinguished the ability for Alaska Natives to get their Native allotment.
Well, guess what. A lot of these guys and a few women were overseas serving their country in Vietnam. They didn't know. There was no internet, no cellphones, right? So they got home. They weren't treated well because they were Vietnam vets. Let's face that. They weren't treated well because there is still a lot of discrimination with regard to Native people, indigenous people. And then they were told: Oh, by the way, that Native allotment that you wanted? Sorry. When you were fighting for your country, we passed a law saying you can't get it anymore.
Well, look, I thought that was a huge injustice, so I worked on a bill during President Trump's first term to say: Now, wait a minute, if you were overseas serving your country, and you missed your ability to apply for a Native allotment, you should get your ability to do that.
That law passed. I was in the Oval Office when the President of the United States signed it. He said: This is an injustice. I am going to fix this for the Alaska Native Vietnam vets.
I mean, what is more bipartisan than that? Why would you come down to the Senate floor and block this bill?
So anyway, when Secretary Haaland, Secretary of the Interior--when she went through her confirmation process, I talked to her about a number of things. She was a Congresswoman at the time. I said: The No. 1 issue I care about more than anything--more than oil and gas, more than resource development--the No. 1 issue I care about that you need to commit to me, Congresswoman Deb Haaland, is to rapidly implement this bill, OK? These are Vietnam vets. A lot of them are dying, OK? Make this a priority.
I met with her twice, and she committed to me twice to do that. Guess what. Secretary Haaland did not keep her commitment at all. As a matter of fact, one of the first things she did when she got into office, the Secretary of the Interior under Joe Biden, she delayed implementation of this bill for 2 years, just put a moratorium on it.
I was like, whoa, you certainly lied to me there, Madam Secretary. OK. Two years. She just did nothing.
Overall, the program is a 5-year program. She shamefully did 40 allotments in 4 years. Forty Alaska Native Vietnam vets got this. There are 2,000--over 2,000 who are eligible. They just didn't do it because they didn't want people to get land--even Alaska Native Vietnam veterans.
So anyway, this bill has a 5-year window. It expires in December. All I am trying to do is extend it for 5 more years. That is it. This is a one-sentence bill. It changes the words ``5 years'' to ``10 years.''
Guess what. Last year in December, I came down to the Senate floor, and I passed this unanimously. It passed. So the Senate passed it last year. The House has already passed it. If this bill passes tonight, it is going to go to the President, and he is going to sign it.
Why would anyone block this?
So I tried to do this a month ago, and Senator Padilla was on the floor, and he said: Hey, I am going to block it because we kind of don't think it is fair if we just get one Republican bill over the goal line.
So he and I talked on the floor and said: Let us work with you, Dan, because we know this is important to you. We know this is important to your heroic constituents. Let us work with you. If you pair this with a Democrat bill that is important, we will work to pass it.
So Senator Padilla objected when I tried to pass it last time. Democrats even suggested to me what bill to pair it with. It is called H.R. 1034 or S. 909. It is the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act. It is a pretty good bill. It is a land exchange. This is Senator Gallego's bill.
So the Democrats told me: If you can pair your bill for Vietnam vets with the Gallego bill, H.R. 1034, then that is fair because we are moving a Democrat bill and we are moving a Republican bill. They are paired together. By the way, they are both ready to go to be signed by the President. That would be fair.
So my team worked really hard to clear all the Republican holds on the Senator Gallego bill. We worked on it for the last 3 or 4 weeks. There were a number of holds, and I went to my Republican colleagues: Hey, guys, can you lift the hold, right? This is a pretty good bill from Senator Gallego. It is important to him in Arizona, and this is really important to me.
I explained the Alaska Native Vietnam vet bill. So we lifted the holds. Republicans cleared the hotline.
So that is what has happened.
Now, I guess, unless he is here to talk about how he supports my bill--so 2 hours ago, we thought this was going to clear. Gallego's bill. Sullivan's bill. Good for Arizona, Democrats. Good for Alaska Native Vietnam vets. We get a call an hour ago saying: Nope, the Dems are going to move the goalpost, and they are going to object.
Why? I am really looking forward to hearing from my good friend from New Mexico on why they are going to object, but I am pretty sure I know why. He is going to tell me: Hey, we want to move more bills.
Well, wait. You guys just told me 2 weeks ago: Pair the Gallego bill with the Alaska Native Vietnam vet bill, and we will pass it.
Normally, the Senate works on trust, right? So I did that. But I guess now the Democrats are going to move the goalpost, and they want to leverage--leverage--Alaska Native Vietnam vets, heroes, to get more stuff. I don't know. I want to hear from Senator Heinrich.
You know, the Dems are starting to get really good--it is a pattern-- at leveraging really good Americans--air traffic controllers for the last 40 days--to get other stuff. Now it looks like they are going to leverage Alaska Native Vietnam vets who got hosed by their own government. All they want is to get their allotment that they missed the opportunity to get when they were serving their country in Vietnam. Like, how hard is that?
So, again, we have two good bills right now. One is a Dem bill, and one is a Republican bill. If we pass the H.R. bill, they are going to go right to the President's desk.
Now, the other objection I heard from my Democratic colleagues is that, well, they don't want to pass House bills. So I am like, all right. Well, if you don't want to pass House bills, let's pass the Sullivan Senate
Again, I am down here on the floor trying to help Senator Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona. He is a marine. I like marines. He has a good bill here. It seems like it is going to help his constituents. So I am ready to go.
All right. If you guys want to object to the House bill, I get that. We are objecting--some of our Senators are objecting to House bills even though those go right to the President's desk. We will move forward on the Senate bill. Now, that means it will have to go back over to the House, so it won't get signed by the President right away. So I am ready to do that too.
I just want to help the people I represent, and these are very special people. If any of you or Senator Heinrich met some of these Alaska Native Vietnam vets, you would cry when you hear their stories. So heroic. And all I am trying to do is help them. And we got this done.
By the way, the program expires in December. The program that I got done with President Trump's signature on it expires in a month. Secretary Haaland slow-walked it. I got it passed last year to extend it, and now my Democrat colleagues are going to slow-walk it. It is going to expire next month.
I came here a month ago. They told me: All right, Dan. We know it is important to you. Go pair it.
They said: Go pair Gallego's bill with this, and we will sign off on it.
I got all the Republicans to sign off on my bill and Gallego's, and just an hour ago: Nope. We are going to leverage these Vietnam vets against you, Dan Sullivan, to get more.
Now, look, the Senator from New Mexico is probably going to say: Hey, I want to move more bills.
All right. I will help you move more bills. You just saw I worked Gallego's bill. But these two bills are ready to go to the President's desk--a Democrat bill which is a pretty good bill for Arizona and a Republican bill which is a really good bill for my constituents, heroic constituents.
So I am going to try, and maybe Senator Heinrich is going to get up and say: Gosh darn it, Dan Sullivan. This is a great bill, and I just want to come here and speak out on behalf of it.
You know, a lot of the Democrats talk about indigenous people, people of color, how much they care about minority communities. When it comes to my State, these guys target Alaska Natives. I have seen it my whole career. I mean, geez, the minority leader--the guy goes after Alaska Natives like they are some kind of criminals. It is outrageous.
This is a bill for indigenous people of America, and all the Democrats: Oh, we care about--no, you don't. If you did--maybe Senator Heinrich tonight is going to talk about how much he cares about indigenous people in Alaska. I have seen him talk about it before. If he does, then he should prove it right now.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: H.R. 410, the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act of 2025, and H.R. 1043, the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I rise today to object on behalf of my colleague from California Senator Padilla and my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee does have a long tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation when it comes to passing very local and oftentimes very parochial land bills. Typically, this is negotiated in a package rather than the piecemeal approach that we are seeing today--for many reasons but in part because we have literally hundreds of bills within our committee's jurisdiction that need action, including the ones that my colleague is talking about today, with most representing very important local priorities in our States.
Unfortunately, attempting to pass individual bills through unanimous consent in this manner tends to favor one party or one Chamber's priorities and is often ineffective at actually getting legislation signed into law.
Senator Padilla, Senator Bennet, and I are happy to sit down with my colleague from Alaska and with the chairman to make sure that both our Chambers--both our parties' priorities can be put together in a way that we see them reach the finish line. Therefore, in support of my colleague from California and my colleague from Colorado, I must object at this time.
Mr. President, I am disappointed in this. Now, I was trying to pass the H.R. bills from the House because those bills have already passed--the Gallego bill, the Sullivan bill, the lands transfer bill for Arizona, the Alaska Native Vietnam vets bill for my brave Alaska Native veterans. I was informed--and you heard it from the Senator from New Mexico--that maybe they don't want to pass House bills. He kind of said that. He did mention that he is objecting because he doesn't want to favor one party over the other. That argument is irrelevant because I am passing a Democrat bill and a Republican bill. So this is even stephen when it comes to the parties.
I am very surprised that he is objecting on behalf of Senator Padilla because, when Senator Padilla objected to my bill a month ago, he literally said: Hey, Dan, work with us. Pair it with the Democrat bill. Then Senator Padilla's team even suggested which Democrat bill to pair it with, which was the Gallego bill, which I am trying to pass right now.
So, as to what my colleague from New Mexico just said, none of it makes sense unless people are going back on their word, which is a little bit frustrating because the Senate operates on trust here. Maybe it is because my colleague doesn't like a House bill.
So what I am going to try and do now--again, for Senator Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona, and for me, a Republican from Alaska--is try and pass by unanimous consent the Senate version of these bills. What I did--because I told the other side that I would do it--is I told Senator Gallego and Senator Padilla that I will clear Senator Gallego's bill; that I will clear it on the Republican side. It took a lot of work, but we got that done. So let's see if we can pass the Senate version of these bills.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: Senator Gallego's bill, S. 909; the La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act; and my bill, S. 785, the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act.
Mr. President, I am just going to end by saying I am very disappointed. I tried to do this a month ago. This bill of mine is really for some great heroes in America, and the program is going to expire in a month. This bill passed unanimously in December. My colleague from New Mexico came down and talked in process terms about why he is objecting. It is a little hard to understand, but I actually think there is probably something else going on here as I have been around this place long enough.
This is a chart that I have called the last frontier lockup. It lists the 70 Executive orders and Executive actions all throughout the State of Alaska to lock up my State--70 Executive orders and Executive actions issued by the Biden administration to shut down Alaska, to stop getting access to Federal lands in Alaska, to stop any kind of resource development in Alaska--and 1 of those 70 was to delay and stop the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act
This is what my Democrat colleagues do. This is what they do to Alaska. They have groups--far-left groups--that tell them, when they get in power, to shut down Alaska.
But wait a minute. We have bills that help Alaska Native indigenous people.
They are like: Hey, we don't care about them. Shut down Alaska. Shut down indigenous people's opportunities.
I saw, for 4 years with the Biden administration, this whole area of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which is meant for oil and gas development--that they shut down the whole thing, OK? Guess who wanted that to be open. All the indigenous leaders of the North Slope: the Tribe, the Alaska Native Corporations, the Borough Leadership. They came down here eight times to DC--eight times--to try to meet with the Secretary of the Interior, saying: Don't lock up my lands. Don't lock up my lands. She never met with them. She never met with them.
My colleague from New Mexico has been the leader in locking up Alaska. I mean, I have come down to the floor and raised a little bit of heck on all of the actions he has taken to lock up my State.
So, look, the Democrats really don't want anyone, including heroic Alaska Native Vietnam vets, to have access to land even though that is the law. It is really, really ironic that they always say they want to help indigenous people, but in my State, their actions are very different, and this is a great example of what they are doing.
You know, it is really ironic, too, that during the 4 years of the Biden administration, when this was going on, it was ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico. New Mexico, with the Secretary of the Interior's help, increased oil production from 1 million barrels to 2 million barrels a day on Federal lands. Yet the Senator from New Mexico and the Secretary of the Interior and Joe Biden said: We are going to shut this place down.
Now they are saying: We are going to make sure the Native Vietnam vets--they have had a real injustice. We fixed it under law. Then it was delayed by the Biden administration's Secretary of the Interior.
All I am trying to do is get a two-word change so this program can continue. These guys are dying every day, these great heroes. I came to the floor a month ago and tried to get it done.
The Democrat Senator said: Do this, Dan.
I did it.
Do this, Dan.
I did it.
Pair it with the Democrat bill.
I did it. It was ready to go.
Then, an hour ago, they said: Nope. We are going to block it again.
It is an outrage--it is an outrage--and it is not because of process. It is because they want to keep my State shut down. I see it every time here, and it is wrong. It is wrong.
I will keep working. If you guys want to pass more bills, I will keep trying, but I am starting to lose a little trust. A month ago, I was on the floor, and you guys told me what to do to move this. I did it and none of you kept your word and that is not how this place operates.
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, today I pay tribute to a remarkable business and civic leader from my home State who passed away peacefully at age 99 surrounded by his beloved family members.
A World War II veteran, William C. Knapp is an American patriot who piloted landing craft amidst kamikaze attacks during the Battle of Okinawa in the Pacific Theater, one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. A member of the ``Greatest Generation,'' he enlisted in the U.S. Navy at age 17, a bold decision that underscored how he would pursue entrepreneurial endeavors for the rest of his life, fueled by humble beginnings, his own ``gut check,'' and strong farm kid work ethic.
Bill's zest for life was shaped by his wartime experience, surviving fierce fighting during the largest amphibian landing of the Pacific theater with heavy death tolls on both sides. The experience left an indelible imprint in his mind and on his heart, compelling him time and again to pay it forward for his fellow veterans. Two decades ago, Bill donated land for the Iowa Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter, providing sacred ground for tens of thousands of burials for Iowa veterans. On Friday, November 21, Bill will be laid to rest with full military honors among other Iowa hometown heroes on the land he donated to honor veterans for generations to come.
Bill's donation of prime real estate is but one example of his generosity and commitment to share his blessings and make a difference. A decades-long philanthropist, Bill underwrote the cost of a Central Iowa Honor Flight to ensure aging Iowa veterans were able to travel to Washington, DC, to see the World War II Memorial built for their service and sacrifice.
Bill leaves behind an iconic footprint on Iowa's landscape, from the skyline of Des Moines to the celebrated Iowa State Fair. With his business acumen and leadership prowess, Bill founded Knapp Properties and scaled Iowa Realty into a financial juggernaut that fueled transformative projects in our State capital.
Although Bill and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, we are both Iowa farm kids who worked hard to make Iowa a better place to live, build a business, raise a family and earn a good living. Partisanship didn't spoil our mutual love for Iowa or stop us from working to improve the lives and livelihoods of our neighbors. I am flattered he even supported me a time or two over the course of my political career.
Bill and I shared a special fondness for the Iowa State Fair. He kept up a larger-than-life tradition every year and parked a big camper at the State fairgrounds for all 10 days, hosting people in the political realm and meeting with Iowans from across the State. As always, his generosity followed his heart. Over the years, he opened his wallet generously and spearheaded fundraising efforts to help make our state fair among the very best in the Nation. Bill contributed to many charitable organizations and institutions, from childcare centers to affordable housing and human services, as well as impactful contributions to Drake University in Des Moines.
Good leaders tend to dream big and those who surround themselves with the best and brightest are able to turn those dreams into reality. Bill was one of those rare people in this world who never met a stranger. From the hotel valet to the electrician to those who helped run his businesses, Bill's kindness, optimism, and work ethic inspired others to ``make things happen'' and be like Bill, no matter which rung of the economic ladder you occupied. His lifetime of service and good works was recognized in 2011 when Bill was presented with the Iowa Award, becoming the 21st person to receive our State's highest citizen honor.
Barbara and I share our condolences to Bill's wife Susan and members of the Knapp family. For nearly a century, Bill led a full life, lived with virtue and purpose. May his memory be a blessing, and may his loved ones take comfort that his legacy will endure for generations yet to come.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
I rise today to recognize the recent visit to America of the spiritual leader of the world's second largest Christian Church, His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. His All-Holiness has been a leader in the causes of religious liberty, religious tolerance and international peace.
According to the record of Greek Orthodox history, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the 269th direct descendent of the Apostle Andrew. He has committed his life to fostering a greater understanding among God's people.
After several meetings in Washington where he met with the President in the Oval Office and professional leaders in the Capitol, His All- Holiness' work was recently recognized for the prestigious Templeton Prize for his leadership in fostering our understandings of humanity's relationship with the natural world.
It was an honor to welcome this internationally noted religious leader to our great country.
Mr. President, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has championed religious freedom for the Orthodox Christian community. His All Holiness is the spiritual leader and the Primus inter Pares of Orthodox Christianity and is the longest serving Archbishop of Constantinople in history. Through theological dialogues and international peace conferences, the Ecumenical Patriarch has sought to reconcile Christian churches and advance greater cooperation and understanding between Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
Since his election in 1991, the Ecumenical Patriarch has worked tirelessly to unite Orthodox Christians with the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, and other Christian sects. He helped to rebuild the once-persecuted Orthodox church after the Iron Curtain fell, supporting peace-building efforts to diffuse conflict in the region.
He has also been a leading figure in meetings to bring together the Abrahamic Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. He has initiated dialogues with Muslim leaders, visiting countries that no other Christian hierarch has ever visited. Through these discussions, he has built more credibility and opportunities to build bridges between the faiths.
Additionally, the ``Green Patriarch's'' work on the environment is significant. His award of the Templeton Prize shows his commitment to environmental protection, an award that has been received by other luminaries like Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela.
I ask that you join me, and the residents of Maryland in congratulating His All Holiness for receiving the Templeton Prize. I am so grateful for the impacts the Ecumenical Patriarch has had on both the Orthodox Christian community and all Marylanders.
It is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize and congratulate Dr. Bruce Siegel on his retirement after an extraordinary career as a visionary leader whose four decades of service in public health, hospital administration, and health policy have left an indelible mark on our Nation's healthcare system. Bruce has spent his entire career advocating on behalf of our Nation's most at-risk populations and the providers that care for them. For the past 14 years, he has led America's Essential Hospitals, formerly the National Association of Public Hospitals, championing the cause of mission- driven safety net hospitals that serve communities facing the greatest social and financial barriers to care.
Dr. Siegel's tenure has been defined by bold and effective advocacy. He led efforts to preserve the 340B Drug Pricing Program, secured $15 billion in targeted safety-net hospital funding during the COVID-19 pandemic, and fought to close Medicaid payment gaps. He was instrumental in stopping harmful cuts to Medicaid disproportionate share hospital funding and oversaw the association's successful rebranding in 2013. Perhaps most notably, Dr. Siegel spearheaded a national campaign to incorporate social risk factors into Federal value-based purchasing programs, an unprecedented step toward recognizing and addressing health disparities in policy and practice.
Dr. Siegel's medical career began after graduating from the Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell University and reflects a deep commitment to public service and health equity. From his early days as New Jersey's Commissioner of Health to his leadership of NYC Health + Hospitals and Tampa General Hospital and later as a professor and director at George Washington University, Dr. Siegel has consistently worked to improve care for the most vulnerable among us, performing pioneering research into healthcare quality, healthcare disparities, and the safety net. He has had a significant and positive impact on our healthcare system, and his contributions will be sorely missed. As he prepares to retire at the end of 2025, I thank Dr. Siegel for his tireless dedication and visionary leadership. His legacy will continue to inspire future generations of healthcare advocates and public servants.
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns regarding the hemp provisions in this bill. I voted against the motion to table Paul amendment No. 3941. I strongly support protecting kids and ensuring they do not have access to harmful products. The provisions in the funding bill, however, did not strike the right balance and would have put small businesses and jobs in my State at risk. I believe efforts by Congress to regulate hemp products should account for States like Minnesota that already have strong regulations in place rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Moving forward, we should protect our kids and support our small businesses.
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the legislation that was recently signed into law to fund the Federal Government through January 30, 2026. Like many of my colleagues and people across the country, I wanted the shutdown to end. I also believe the legislation to reopen the government should have included provisions to lower escalating healthcare costs. Lowering costs overall, from healthcare to groceries to electricity, is the top priority for Minnesotans and for me. The Nation is facing a healthcare crisis that will raise costs and threaten access to healthcare for many Minnesotans if Congress does not act.
If the President and congressional Republicans do not extend the healthcare tax credits, the health insurance premiums of millions of Americans will double next year. This premium increase will be felt by many, including families, small businesses and their employees, and people living in rural communities. I am committed to lowering healthcare costs and will do everything I can to get this done. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate Gary Sadlemyer on his retirement after nearly five decades of distinguished service to Nebraska broadcasting and to the people of our State.
For generations, Nebraskans have begun their mornings with Gary's familiar voice on KFAB. From Husker sports to national news, Gary has been a trusted source of information, candor, and good humor. His quick wit, steady presence, and unwavering commitment to keeping listeners informed have made him a beloved figure across Nebraska. I am grateful for the many conversations we have shared over the years, and I can say from personal experience that he always kept me sharp, engaged, and ready to answer to the people we both serve.
Gary's career is one of remarkable longevity and impact. He first walked into the KFAB studio nearly 49 years ago, fulfilling a childhood dream he had carried with him since growing up in Minnesota. Over the decades, he served Nebraska listeners as a program director, the longtime anchor of ``KFAB's Morning News,'' and the first live daily talk show host in the station's century-long history. A generation of Husker fans also came to know his voice from his years on the Nebraska football broadcasts between 1980 and 1995.
In recognition of his extraordinary contributions to journalism and public discourse, Gary was inducted into the Nebraska Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame in 2011. His leadership helped shape KFAB into one of the State's most respected sources of news and commentary, offering Nebraskans a venue to debate issues, engage in civic life, and stay informed on matters both local and national.
I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Gary on his extraordinary career and sincere thanks for his decades of service to our communities. He has informed us, challenged us, and, on many mornings, inspired us. Nebraska will miss hearing him each day, but we are grateful for everything he has given to our State and wish him the very best in the years ahead.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize five pioneering Californians who this year were awarded Nobel Prizes for their groundbreaking advancements in medicine, physics, and chemistry.
Just last month, the Nobel Foundation announced the annual recipients of their world-renowned awards, recognizing those who ``conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.'' In 2025, a record-breaking number of them came from one public university system: the University of California. Today, it is my honor to recognize each of California's five Nobel laureates for their achievements.
Frederick J. Ramsdell, an alumnus of the University of California, San Diego, and the University of California, Los Angeles, was one of three scientists awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research to better understand and protect the human immune system. Dr. Ramsdell's research will help develop effective therapeutic strategies for those fighting cancer, autoimmune diseases, and in need of organ transplants, ultimately working to improve their quality of life and save lives.
Professor Emeritus John Clarke of the University of California, Berkeley, along with Professor Emeritus John M. Martinis and Professor Michel H. Devoret--both of the University of California, Santa Barbara--were all awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their groundbreaking research in quantum computing. Their work will advance evolving technologies in everything from drug discovery to agriculture to cybersecurity and beyond. As UC President James Miliken has said, their work has truly ``opened the door to the next generation of quantum technologies.''
Finally, Professor Omar M. Yaghi of the University of California, Berkeley, was one of three researchers awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for ``the development of metal-organic frameworks'' that could be used to help scientists do everything from ``harvest water from desert air'' to ``capture carbon dioxide'' to ``store toxic gases or catalyse chemical reactions.''
Together, each of these Nobel Prize awards represents not only a body of work from some of the greatest scientific minds in the world, but the product of intentional, meaningful Federal investments in our Nation's academic and research centers. Federal research grants, combined with the intellect and innovation of our Nation's top researchers, once again has produced long-lasting and life-changing contributions not only for California and our country, but for all of humanity.
For their outstanding achievements and in recognition of the University of California's new world record for Nobel Prizes awarded in a single year, it is my honor to recognize each of this year's Nobel laureates.
Congratulations, once again--you have made California and our country proud.
Mr. President, today we celebrate a beloved national tradition of lighting the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree, known as ``the People's Tree.''
This year marks a historic first for Nevada: The tree comes from our own Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, the largest National Forest in the lower 48 States. Affectionately named ``Silver Belle,'' this 53- foot red fir was harvested from the Carson Ranger District in northern Nevada. Over the last several months, Nevadans from across the State came together to make the thousands of ornaments that adorn the tree, bringing this year's theme, ``Starry Skies to Neon Lights: the Spirit of the Silver State,'' to the Capitol.
This year's tree lighter is Grady Armstrong, a fourth grader from Virginia City, NV, whose winning essay captured all that the Silver State has to offer, from our national forests and public lands to our ghost towns and dark skies. Grady's love for Nevada is clear, and I am proud to have him here to light the tree.
Silver Belle began its journey to Washington, DC, in Carson City, on November 1, at the Nevada Day Parade as the Great State celebrated its 161st year of statehood. Over the course of nearly 3,000 miles, Silver Belle traveled from Nevada, making stops in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland bringing thousands of Americans together and sharing the Spirit of the Silver State with communities along the way. I want to thank the dedicated team at the U.S. Forest Service, the trucking crew from Knight-Swift Transportation for safely bringing Silver Belle to Washington, DC, Southwest Airlines for helping deliver thousands of handmade ornaments crafted by Nevadans, and every partner who made this possible.
Nevada's public lands and forests sustain our communities, strengthen our economy, and inspire great pride in our State's natural beauty. As we celebrate this holiday season, this beautiful
Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)
Mr. President, I have 17 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10:15 a.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 3:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed business meeting.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3426 and the papers with respect to H.R. 3426 be returned to the House of Representatives at their request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 228, S. 2741.
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 Environment and Public Works, with an amendment, as follows:
(The part of the bill intended to be stricken is in boldfaced brackets, and the part of the bill intended to be inserted is in italic.)
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be 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 was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2741), as amended, 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 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. 2878) 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 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. 3022) 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 now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 507, S. Res. 508, S. Res. 509.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 20; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 130, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
