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.
18Senate Resolution 510: Expressing the Sense of the Senate That the 93rd Anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933, Known as the "Holodomor", Should Serve as a Reminder of Repressive Soviet...
19Senate Resolution 511: Supporting the Goals and Principles of Transgender Day of Remembrance by Recognizing the Epidemic of Violence Toward Transgender People and Memorializing the Lives Lost This...
21Senate Resolution 513: Designating November 22, 2025, as National Adoption Day and November 2025 as National Adoption Month to Promote National Awareness of Adoption and the Children Awaiting...
24Senate Resolution 516: Ensuring That the Adoption and Foster Care System in the United States Is Child-Centered and Compassionate and That Young People Aging Out of Foster Care Are Provided With...
Fifty-five bills and ten resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 3227-3281, S.J. Res. 97, and S. Res. 510- 518.
Pages S8274-76
Measures Passed
Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment: By 51 yeas to 43 nays (Vote No. 623), Senate passed 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''.
Pages S8249-59
Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act
Senate passed S. 222, to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools that participate in the school lunch program to serve whole milk, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S8259-61
Steward Act
Senate passed S. 351, to establish a pilot grant program to improve recycling accessibility, to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out certain activities to collect and disseminate data on recycling and composting programs in the United States.
Pages S8395-98
Reuse Act
Senate passed S. 2110, to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to prepare a report on reuse and refill systems.
Pages S8398
Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. 2379, to amend the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to authorize the State Justice Institute to provide awards to certain organizations to establish a State judicial threat intelligence and resource center, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8398-99
Displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument
Senate passed H.J. Res. 133, requesting the Secretary of the Interior to authorize unique and one-time arrangements for displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument during the period beginning on December 31, 2025, and ending on January 5, 2026.
Page S8399
National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 513, designating November 22, 2025, as National Adoption Day and November 2025 as National Adoption Month to promote national awareness of adoption and the children awaiting families, celebrating children and families involved in adoption, and encouraging the people of the United States to secure safety, permanency, and well-being for all children.
Page S8399
American Diabetes Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 514, designating November 2025 as ``American Diabetes Month''.
Page S8399
Congratulating the Los Angeles Dodgers
Senate agreed to S. Res. 515, congratulating the Los Angeles Dodgers for winning the 2025 Major League Baseball World Series.
Page S8399
Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act
Senate passed S. 1318, to direct the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish a program to identify American-Jewish servicemembers buried in United States military cemeteries overseas under markers that incorrectly represent their religion and heritage.
Pages S8399-S8400
Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act
Committee on Veterans' Affairs was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 970, to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to periodically review the automatic maximum coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program and the Veterans' Group Life Insurance program, and the bill was then passed.
Page S8400
Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserves Tuition Fairness Act
Committee on Veterans' Affairs was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 983, to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disapprove courses of education offered by a public institution of higher learning that does not charge the in-State tuition rate to a veteran using certain educational assistance under title 10 of such Code, and the bill was then passed.
Page S8400
Veteran Fraud Reimbursement Act
Committee on Veterans' Affairs was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1912, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the repayment by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of benefits misused by a fiduciary, and the bill was then passed.
Page S8400
Delta State University 100 Years of Service
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 489, commending Delta State University in Cleveland, Mississippi, for 100 years of service to the State of Mississippi and the United States, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S8400
Measures Indefinitely Postponed
Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment: Senate indefinitely postponed 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''.
Page S8395
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the joint resolution be indefinitely postponed.
Page S8395
Authorizing Leadership to Make Appointments: Agreement
A unanimous- consent agreement was reached providing that, notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the Majority and Minority Leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
Page S8395
Pro Forma Sessions: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the Senate convene for pro forma sessions, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times: Friday, November 21, 2025, at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 1:45 p.m.; Friday, November 28, 2025, at 5:30 p.m.; and that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 28, 2025, it next convene at 3:00 p.m., on Monday, December 1, 2025.
Page S8400
Bragdon Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of David A. Bragdon, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Page S8265
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, November 20, 2025, a vote on cloture will occur at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, December 1, 2025.
Page S8265
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S8265
Freeman Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Lindsey Ann Freeman, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Page S8265
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of David A. Bragdon, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Page S8265
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S8265
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S8265
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motions to invoke cloture filed today ripen at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, December 1, 2025.
Page S8400
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: 3 Air Force nominations in the rank of general. 11 Army nominations in the rank of general. 2 Navy nominations in the rank of admiral. Routine lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force.
Pages S8265-66, S8400-01
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S8277-83
Record Votes
One record vote was taken today. (Total--623)
Page S8259
Adjournment
Senate convened at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 4:43 p.m., until 11 a.m. on Friday, November 21, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S8400.)
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: 69 of 155 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 130, which the clerk will report.
Mr. President, CNH announced its closure of their Burlington, IA, facility in June next year. This plant has been in Burlington since the 1950s and is a mainstay of the Greater Burlington area.
As a result of this closure, more than 200 workers will be losing their jobs. I have received pink slips before--twice in 1960 from Universal Hoist in Cedar Falls and another time in 1971 from Waterloo Register in Cedar Falls, IA. For these 200 workers and everybody else who gets a pink slip, it is a stressful time for families.
My office has been in communication with the local union, the United Auto Workers there. We have also talked to CNH to encourage future investment in Iowa and urged CNH to be sure to take care of their employees as the employees and the company part ways.
I always say if I could put two words on an Iowa license plate to describe our workers, it would be these two words: ``productivity'' and ``quality.''
I want the people of Burlington to know that I will keep fighting for their community in the Halls of Congress during this stressful time.
Mr. President, on another matter, in this Congress, many of my Democratic colleagues have alleged that President Trump nominates historically bad judicial nominees. Along this line, one member of the Judiciary Committee even described President Trump's judicial nominees as ``the most extreme and unqualified judicial nominees ever considered [in] the [U.S.] Senate.''
So are my Democratic colleagues right? Well, based on a recent study by professors at New York University and the University of Virginia, the answer is a resounding no. Their study considered objective and nonpartisan metrics to determine a judge's productivity, a judge's quality, and a judge's independence. The study then compared the results across the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the Obama administration.
According to the study, President Trump's judges ``dominate the field.'' In fact, the study found that the top 10 most productive judges were all Trump nominees. And, of course, productivity isn't the only metric where Trump-appointed judges outperformed.
Let's take judicial independence. After all, my Democratic colleagues frequently allege that President Trump only picks loyalists. Surely, this must be where President Biden and President Obama's nominees would surely shine and stand out. The answer is the same: No. Again, they don't stand out. Trump's nominees dominate the field. All of the 10 judges rated on independence were nominated by President Trump.
And that is not all. On the metric of partisanship--meaning whether judges voted in alignment with other judges nominated from the same party--
Mr. President, you heard the speeches. We all did. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, speaking to cheering crowds at rallies, he would say, inevitably: Murderers, rapists, terrorists, the criminally insane, sexual predators that came into this country illegally, we are going to remove them.
He made that promise over and over again. Well, in Chicago, IL, we have seen what those words have led to.
For almost 3 months, Chicago, in my home State of Illinois, has been under attack by President Trump since he launched what he calls Operation Midway Blitz.
During that time, chaos and terror have reigned supreme. This operation isn't just targeting the ``worst of the worst''--the rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, the criminally insane. That is what he promised. But American citizens--legal residents of the United States-- and immigrants who have built their lives and raised their families here and pose no threat to public safety have been the actual targets.
A court forced the administration to come clean on this: Just how many of these dangerous, worst-of-the-worst criminals are you arresting, deporting in the process of Operation Midway Blitz?
The administration finally released their numbers. Six hundred people have been arrested under Operation Midway Blitz: 600 terrorists, rapists, murderers, criminally insane--except that is not the truth at all.
During Operation Midway Blitz, 16 people out of the 600 actually had a criminal history that poses a high risk to public safety--3 percent, less than 3 percent of all of those arrested. What about the rest?
These violent raids by ICE agents aren't just targeting adults; they are targeting families. I want to tell you the story.
Two weeks ago, Raphael Veraza and his 1-year-old daughter Arianna-- both citizens of the United States--were enjoying a shopping day at Sam's Club. The little girl is barely 1 year old. Who would have thought that a simple father-daughter trip to Sam's would turn into a trauma that these two people will never ever forget? But the Verazas became a target for ICE for obvious reasons: He was shopping while being Hispanic. Enough said.
Listen to what happened to this dad and his daughter because of Operation Midway Blitz of this administration. Mr. Veraza and his family said they were in their car when they heard a helicopter and cars honking. With the uptick in raids in the Chicago area, Mr. Veraza knew those sounds signaled that ICE agents were nearby. To keep his family safe, he decided to leave.
Unfortunately, before this American citizen and his 1-year-old daughter could drive away, a masked agent--masked agent--pointed a pepper spray gun through the family's open car window and fired the weapon at close range. The pepper spray hit Mr. Veraza in the face, and his daughter also breathed it in.
Because of this violent, unprovoked action from ICE agents, both Arianna and Raphael were briefly hospitalized. He told reporters after the incidents happened:
Does this incident seem like a Federal immigration agent setting out to make America safer? Does this man look like a rapist, a murderer, a terrorist, criminally insane, worst of the worst? What was his crime? Being an American citizen shopping at a local Sam's Club? His only crime was he appeared to be Hispanic.
Pepper-spraying a 1-year-old little girl and her father during a shopping trip is shameful and outrageous. If it happened to any of us on my side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle and you heard about this family, your heart would go out to them.
This man was doing nothing wrong. Yet he was treated like a common criminal because he is Hispanic.
President Trump is turning Federal immigration officers into his own secret, masked police force. I see it every day in the city of Chicago as reported. He is violating the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to all of us, including the right to due process and the rule of law.
Let me be clear. The President and his administration's actions are not about politics, nor about public safety. It is time for all of us in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, to put politics aside, speak up, and condemn this growing threat to our democracy. If it happened in your hometown, you would be outraged, and you should be. It is happening in Chicago almost every day.
Mr. President, on a separate topic, America is facing a healthcare crisis that is unnecessary, and it is happening under this President's watch. Congressional Republicans spent the summer slashing more than $1 trillion from the Medicaid Program. This will threaten healthcare for 11 million people and jeopardize rural hospitals all across America. Smalltown hospitals--many of them will not survive.
Despite the President's promises, prescription drugs are still unaffordable, and Big Pharma continues to rip off American patients. And now, in just 6 short weeks, more than 20 million Americans will see their health insurance premiums double or even triple.
Imagine, if you will, when you take a look at what you paid last month for health insurance, that it is going to double on January 1 or worse. Tens of millions of Americans are terrified to look at their premium notices because Republicans have refused to extend the enhanced premium tax credits that made insurance affordable. In red States and blue States, for families, small business owners, farmers, and Americans nearing retirement, the peace of mind that health coverage brings will soon be out of reach.
With these tax credits set to expire, 4 million people will lose their insurance because their premiums will become unaffordable. They will be one sickness, one accident, one diagnosis away from absolute financial ruin or worse. Housing, utility, and grocery prices have gone through the roof already. Who can also afford to see their healthcare costs for their family double or triple? But President Trump and his billionaire buddies are out of touch. They don't have a clue what it is like to live paycheck to check and what the loss of health insurance means to a family.
As U.S. Senators, we can change that. We have the power to prevent these dramatic premium increases and avoid a healthcare catastrophe, but to use that power requires both courage and compromise.
As part of the agreement to reopen the government, which I voted for, the Republican leader promised to put a bill on the floor--one chosen by the Senate Democratic side--to extend the enhanced premium tax credits. So shortly after Thanksgiving, after we have enjoyed the holiday with our families, Senators will come back to Washington and make a fateful choice for American families across the Nation: Will we sit idly by while millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage, or do we sit down, Republicans and Democrats, and solve this problem?
Why were you sent here to the Senate? Each Senator has their own explanation. I believe I was sent here to make life better for the people who live in my State and this Nation.
Can we find common ground? Can we reach an agreement? Can we do something that really makes a difference in the lives of our constituents? If we do it, they will be absolutely mystified that what they believe to be an incompetent Congress could rise to the occasion. The answer to this question is going to be closely watched by millions of Americans.
With each monthly premium payment or skipped doctor's visit, patients will be reminded of what we here decided to do.
Wouldn't it be amazing to end this year and start a new one by doing the right thing for these people who are victims of legislative decisions?
I was on the floor of this Senate 15 years ago--it was one of the most important votes I cast, to create the Affordable Care Act. Do you remember what life was like before the Affordable Care Act? I can tell you a few highlights.
If you had a preexisting condition or even a hint of such a condition, you either couldn't get insurance or it was limited in its coverage to a ridiculous level. You also had a situation where most health insurance policies never covered mental health or addiction.
I remember what happened on the floor of the Senate when we debated this issue. Why wouldn't it be covered? Why wouldn't we take mental illness as an illness and not a curse and something that could be treatable?
Well, two Senators stood up and argued to do that. One of them was Paul Wellstone--he used to sit right back there--from Minnesota. He was a character. I loved him. We all did. He was a college professor who took a beat-up, old schoolbus and got elected to the Senate from Minnesota.
A member of his family had a mental illness, and Paul Wellstone argued that we ought to do everything we can to help them and, first and foremost, make sure basic health insurance policies must cover mental health and addiction.
He had an unlikely ally who used to sit in that seat there to my right--Pete Domenici from New Mexico. He had been in the Senate for quite a few years, a Republican Senator, highly respected. He was one of the leaders in the Senate and had a child born with a mental illness.
He teamed up with Wellstone. What an odd couple politically. They got it done, so that you couldn't buy a health insurance policy in this country that didn't cover mental illness and addiction.
They didn't know at the time--none of us did--that we were going to face an opioid crisis and that addiction problems would not be confined to poor minorities but would touch many families who thought they were well beyond the reach of that scourge.
That provision was guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. The insurance companies did not want to include it in their policies. We forced them to do it. Now to walk away from that kind of protection is unthinkable.
There was also a provision which was basically practical. We said: If you have a family health insurance plan that covers your children, it will cover them until they reach the age of 26.
Why would we want to extend to age 26? Because during that period of time, your son or daughter will be finishing college, looking for their first job, maybe struggling to make student loan payments and trying to get off on their own, and we would give them a helping hand by allowing them to stay on mom and dad's health insurance plan. It is very simple, it is very logical, and it works. Are we going to give that away as part of the war against the Affordable Care Act? I certainly hope not.
We can make the Affordable Care Act better, that is for sure. There are things we can do to reduce the cost of healthcare in America. One of them is pretty obvious.
Ever turn on the television recently and not see an ad by a pharmaceutical company? I doubt it. Almost every minute, night and day, they are running ads trying to entice Americans to ask for expensive prescription drugs. It is one of the main drivers in the cost of healthcare going up in America.
How many countries allow the pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television like we do in the United States? Only one other country in the world allows that--New Zealand. New Zealand.
Why do pharmaceutical companies want to do that? They want to entice you to ask your doctor to prescribe a drug that may help you. It has reached a point where Americans across the board cannot only pronounce but can spell Xarelto. We have heard it so often, over and over again. To ask a doctor for that drug is not uncommon because it has been suggested to you three times a day, every day, for months.
The American Medical Association and others say this is wasteful. People should be prescribed drugs they actually need rather than those that just might help them in remote circumstances. Little things like that can make a difference.
Senator Chuck Grassley and I introduced a bill to stop direct consumer advertising on television. It actually passed the Senate a couple years ago. Let's go back and make this part of the future of healthcare in America after--after--we have restored the tax credits that families desperately need immediate help on.
There is no excuse. We are going to have a new year coming soon, just a few weeks away. Families look forward to it and the opportunity. Give them a better life for millions of Americans by giving them help with tax credits to pay for their health insurance premiums. That is the reality of where we are.
I am committed to this cause because I know that it really makes a difference. As I said before on the floor, at one point in my life, as a young father with a little daughter who had a medical issue, I had no health insurance. I felt helpless. I don't want that feeling to be spread across America because of our lack of ability to reach a compromise. We can and we must. Rising premiums affect constituents in my State, and they affect those in Texas, South Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, Kansas, and Wyoming.
I believe the basic elements of an agreement are achievable. If Republicans are serious about preventing catastrophic premium increases, let's get together and get it done as soon as we return from Thanksgiving. We don't need to hold healthcare hostage and add extreme issues on its conditions to passing. We shouldn't undermine a deal to meet political goals.
Let's do something right for the families of America. They will be just amazed that we did, as they should be.
Global issues, such as proposals by Senator Sanders of Vermont-- Medicare for All as an option to health insurance--are worth a debate. Proposals by Senator Cassidy of Louisiana to privatize health insurance are worth a debate, there is no question about it. Let us make that the second item on the agenda after--after--we provide tax credits to help families pay for these health insurance premiums.
We can't upend the entire healthcare system in America by January 1 of next year. Let's get the highest priority done right away before Christmas. We have an opportunity. We have a responsibility to help Americans afford their healthcare, and that starts with a bipartisan vote in the Senate.
I hope my Republican colleagues will not waste this opportunity, nor should the Democrats waste it either. We need to make a real and positive difference for the people in this country who are counting on us.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, on October 23, a genocidal militia called the Rapid Support Forces, also known as the RSF, entered the city of El Fasher in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Countless reports describe how they murdered men and boys and raped women and girls. Credible reports indicated that RSF fighters entered a maternity hospital and slaughtered 460 people--doctors, nurses, patients, and their loved ones.
They turned the city into a killing field, going house to house, rounding up people to torture and murder because of their ethnicity. RSF forces entered a shelter for displaced people near El Fasher University and raped at least 25 women at gunpoint.
Over 100,000 survivors have fled the city, making it out, trying to take the roads. But the RSF has targeted those who try to escape.
The massacre has been so brutal and so bloody we can see it from space. The Yale Humanitarian Research Lab has flagged satellite photos that appear to show incidents of mass killings, with dozens of unarmed people lying dead and sand stained with blood.
In late October, the same Yale lab was told that more than 10,000 people were killed in 3 days.
Human rights groups also report that hundreds of unaccompanied children, some carrying babies, have fled El Fasher to other Sudanese towns, seeking to escape the violence.
Sadly, we have seen this story before because the RSF have a horrible history and lineage. They are part of what is known as the Janjaweed militias, who committed genocide in Darfur 20 years ago, and they want to continue the Janjaweed's genocidal mission of eliminating other ethnic groups.
I do want to salute the journalists and human rights analysts who are working to expose these terrible truths, but it is up to us as to what we do with that truth. And the truth is this could have been prevented. We had warning, and we could have done more to stop it. And we can still do more now to stop the ongoing genocide.
El Fasher was under siege for 18 months. The civil war in Sudan has been raging for more than 2\1/2\ years. More than 150,000 people have died, and approximately 14 million have been displaced in Sudan, marking the largest and fastest displacement crisis in the world.
Earlier this year, at the beginning of his administration, Donald Trump gutted USAID and suddenly cut off our humanitarian aid to Sudan. More than a thousand soup kitchens closed overnight. While others have stepped up, the vacuum left by AID's departure means that even more innocent people are dying.
And even as we cut humanitarian aid for the victims of genocide, we have not effectively used our leverage and influence to end the war, because throughout this conflict, we, the United States, have continued to send weapons to the United Arab Emirates, the UAE, whom we know are arming the murderous RSF.
Report after report from the United Nations, human rights organizations, and journalists have provided evidence that the UAE is doing this. In fact, in January of this year, the Biden administration confirmed to me directly that the UAE was providing material support to the RSF, even though the UAE had assured the United States that it wasn't and that it wouldn't.
So this is not a question for debate, and, in fact, if the UAE is not supplying the RSF with weapons, then they should have no concerns about this legislation.
And around the same time that I heard from the Biden administration about the UAE supplying the RSF, the U.S. Government concluded what is clear from plain sight, that the RSF and their allied militias are committing genocide in Darfur.
According to the State Department's assessment, ``the RSF and allied militias have systematically murdered men and boys--even infants--on an ethnic basis, and deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of brutal sexual violence. Those same militias have targeted fleeing civilians, murdering innocent people escaping conflict, and prevented remaining civilians from accessing lifesaving supplies.'' End of quote from the State Department of the United States.
So we know this has been going on. We have known it for years. And the Trump administration has reiterated the finding by the Biden administration State Department that the RSF is engaged in genocide in Darfur.
We are not helpless. We are not innocent bystanders in the face of these unspeakable crimes. We have leverage. We just need the political will to use it.
And I should say, I recognize--we recognize--that the RSF is not the only party to this conflict in Sudan. The State Department has determined that the Sudanese Armed Forces, known as the SAF, have also committed atrocities throughout this war. And there are also other external actors fueling the war in Sudan, including countries like Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and others.
I commend the U.S. mediators who have been trying to bring peace to the region, both in the previous administration and now. But at the same time, we have got to recognize, after 2\1/2\ years and after all the bloodshed and the ongoing genocide, that talk is not enough; that we have to use at least the leverage we have and use our influence more effectively when it comes to the UAE and its army of the RSF.
I would gladly work with my colleagues across the aisle to say that the United States should not be supplying U.S. military assistance to any country that is fueling the ongoing war and genocide, but surely-- surely--we can agree that we should begin by not providing weapons to a country that is, in turn, fueling a genocide--what we have determined is a genocide in Darfur.
And I should say that Secretary Rubio, during his confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, was asked about this very issue, and here is what he said: We need to ``raise the fact that they''-- referring to the UAE--``are openly supporting an entity that is carrying out a genocide.'' That was Secretary Rubio, nominee.
But I asked the Secretary and I asked the President and I asked my colleagues: If we agree that there is a genocide going on and we agree that it is being committed by the RSF, shouldn't we agree that we should at least pause the transfer of weapons to the UAE, which is fueling the genocide in Darfur? And why haven't we done that?
Well, Donald Trump visited the UAE over the summer. Instead of demanding accountability for their role in the genocide in Darfur, he gave away the crown jewels of American AI, and many of our most sophisticated chips were promised to the UAE. In return, a UAE-backed firm gave the Trump family's newly launched stablecoin business a $2 billion boost.
And it was just days before President Trump visited the UAE that the administration green-lit the sale of $1.4 billion of arms to the UAE.
What about the genocide they were fueling in Darfur? Did he say anything about that? It doesn't seem that he raised those issues during his visit to the UAE. In fact, President Trump said just yesterday in a speech that Sudan was ``not on my charts'' until the Saudi Crown Prince brought it to his attention.
Really? Really, President Trump? This has been going on for 2\1/2\ years. You have been sending military assistance to the UAE that, in turn, is fueling the RSF's murderous rage in Darfur, and it just wasn't on the President's charts until yesterday. What was on his charts was all the corrupt deals that were going down in the UAE.
So here are the facts. The UAE is aiding and abetting a genocide in Darfur. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been providing highly sophisticated U.S. technology to the UAE, removed many of the safeguards that have been in place to prevent that technology from falling into China's hands, and shipping them advanced technology and deadly weapons, while a UAE state-owned company invested $2 billion in the Trump family's crypto scheme.
Now, earlier this year, in the summer, Senator Murphy and I, along with colleagues, filed a joint resolution of disapproval to try to stop those weapon sales to the UAE, sending a message--or trying to send a message--that the U.S. foreign policy could not be manipulated by corrupt bargains. Unfortunately, that effort failed.
If we want to stop the ongoing horrors in Sudan, we need to begin by applying our leverage and stop the UAE from funneling weapons to the RSF. That is why I have been working for years during this conflict with Congresswoman Sara Jacobs. We introduced the bill. It is called the Stand Up for Sudan Act. It would prohibit the United States from selling weapons to the UAE until the President certifies that the UAE is not arming the RSF. So if the UAE is really not doing this, they shouldn't have to worry about it because President Trump won't make that certification.
And I acknowledge that the UAE is an important partner to the United States. But that doesn't mean that even with partners, we shouldn't use our leverage to stop them from fueling a genocide.
I remember many days when Senator Rubio took to the floor of this Senate, and he talked about having an American foreign policy based on values and principles, on human rights, on self-determination. That has all gone out the window in this administration. It seems like a quaint thing, but it doesn't have to be a quaint thing in this body, in this Senate, where Senators can stand up for our values and
I am going to close with a story about an orphan boy in Sudan. He told the Norwegian Refugee Council and the New York Times that ``his parents and siblings were killed . . . in a strike as they tried to flee El Fasher: On a broken foot, he wandered alone to the northern gates of the city until others who were fleeing put him on a truck''--a truck to another city.
Then he told reporters:
That boy needs our help. Thousands of innocent people need our help, and for goodness' sake, we could take one small step to exercise just some of our influence to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and that is by adopting a resolution that Congresswoman Jacobs and I have put forward.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 935 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, I object. The United Arab Emirates is a close partner with whom we have vital cooperation on regional security, counterterrorism, and Middle East stability.
Five thousand American warfighters serve at Al Dhafra Air Base, and UAE has one of the largest U.S. Navy ports in the Middle East.
The UAE has used American-supplied military equipment to protect U.S. personnel from Iran and its proxies. The world is seeing the damage Iran-backed chaos can have. And while this administration showed Iran what ``peace through strength'' truly means with Operation Midnight Hammer, we cannot forget that Iran's goal is still chaos. They still chant, ``Death to America.'' After all, it was not but 6 months ago that Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones toward Israel and U.S. military personnel. And while their nuclear abilities have been cut off, Iran has again demonstrated reckless behavior to evade sanctions by illegally seizing a Marshal Islands-flagged oil tanker.
Applying a blanket ban on the export of U.S. defense articles to the UAE leaves our partners in the region unequipped to deter any act of aggression and sends a message of weakness to our adversaries, like Iran and its terrorist proxies. Meanwhile, it poses an unnecessary risk to U.S. personnel, our personnel in the Middle East.
Our allies in the region must have the weapons systems not only to defend themselves and our warfighters in the area but also to deter Iran's reckless destabilization efforts.
My heart does break for what is going on in Sudan, and, thankfully, this is the era of the peace President. As the President said the other day, ``We will work with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern partners to get these atrocities to end, while at the same time stabilizing Sudan.''
Working with our partners is key to a safer world, which is why my colleagues must reject this legislation and pursue a smarter, more strategic, and unified approach to ending the crisis in Sudan.
And for these reasons, I object to this legislation.
Mr. President, I was listening carefully to my colleague and, of course, she raises the question: If the UAE is telling us the truth when they say that they are not sending any of their weapons to the RSF to help fuel the genocide in Sudan, why do my colleagues protest so loudly against this measure?
It must mean that they don't believe the UAE when it is doing it because the pausing in the transfer and sale of U.S. weapons to the UAE in this legislation is predicated on a finding from the President that the UAE is, in fact, arming the RSF. So if their denials are true, then my colleagues should have nothing to worry about in terms of the impact of this legislation.
And, in fact, if they are lying to the United States, that should cause concern.
Now, I agree that the UAE is an important partner, and they have been an important partner in a variety of interests in the Middle East region, including countering Iran's malign influence there. But, colleagues, does that really mean that we should look the other way while they are supplying an entity that our own government has concluded is committing a genocide in Darfur?
Surely, the UAE needs the United States for all sorts of things. They clearly want our AI technology, our semiconductor technology. In fact, as I described, they went to great lengths to essentially provide $2 billion for the President's family crypto schemes in order to get that American technology.
So this is not a situation where its either-or. We can continue a partnership with the UAE, which, again, says that they are not supplying the murderous RSF with weapons or we can choose just to look the other way.
And I will just close again with this. I remember Secretary Rubio-- and I hear so many of my colleagues take to the Senate floor--calling out human right abuses around the world.
It is always convenient to call out human rights abuses by our adversaries. We all talk about the awful things China does when it comes to the Uighurs. We talk about what Russia is doing in Ukraine and other places. But for some reason, we cannot find it in ourselves to say to a partner that we value our relationship with the UAE, but we are not going to stand by and supply you with weapons while you continue to provide weapons that are fueling a genocide in Darfur.
What happened to any semblance of a values-based American foreign policy? We can pursue our interests, and we can pursue our values. We don't always do it perfectly. But for goodness' sake, Senator Rubio talked about the importance of human rights; Secretary Rubio, apparently, has thrown that out the window along with the President of the United States.
I am very disappointed that our colleagues cannot join together in a bipartisan manner to just use a little American influence to try to stop a genocide in Darfur.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, earlier today, Donald Trump shared a post on Truth Social calling for Democratic Members of Congress to be hanged. He also posted a message that said:
Let's be crystal clear. The President of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it is deadly serious. We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state. Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely.
None of us should tolerate this kind of behavior. We all remember what January 6 was like. We lived through January 6. We have lived through the assassinations and attempted assassinations this year. We have Members whose families had to flee their homes.
When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.
Every Senator, every Representative, every American--regardless of party--should condemn this immediately and without qualification, because if we don't draw a line here, there is no line left to draw.
Who would have thought the President of the United States would be saying his opponents should be hanged? It is outrageous. No President has ever stooped as low as Donald Trump--none. He has made political violence a feature of his politics, and if we don't draw a line here, there is no line left to draw.
And, today, he crossed yet another line that no democracy can afford to
Mr. President, on affordability, in less than a year, Donald Trump has gone from promising to bring costs down ``on day one,'' as he said, to claiming that the word ``affordable'' is some kind of ``new word'' and even a ``con job.'' That is right. Donald Trump doesn't even want to see the word ``affordable'' on his teleprompter because it will send him into a tailspin.
Poor guy, he can't reduce prices. He doesn't care about prices, but he doesn't want to see the word because it will send him into a tailspin. If there was ever ostrich-like behavior, that was it.
Here is what he said yesterday at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum:
What the heck is Donald Trump talking about? Does he think ``affordable'' is some kind of new made-up fancy word? Doesn't he realize that working and middle-class Americans talk about affordability all the time: I can't afford this; I can't afford that.
Is he trying to hide the problem by denying the word?
Does he think that rising grocery prices, rising rent, rising healthcare are all some kind of lie invented by Democrats?
Does he think, if the word is abolished, that people will then automatically, magically, be able to afford all the things that they can't afford anymore?
When was the last time Donald Trump actually spoke to someone earning a middle-class income or someone who earned minimum wage?
If Donald Trump actually spent time talking to real people around the country, instead of bragging about ballrooms and jetting around the world in luxury, he would realize there is nothing made up about the affordability crisis.
These kinds of comments from Donald Trump give the game away. He has absolutely no conception of what everyday Americans are going through right now. He is on another planet.
It has gotten so bad that he doesn't even want to listen to people talk about rising costs.
Here is what he said just a few days after the recent election:
Well, he is going to hear about affordability from the American people, above all, because they can't afford a whole lot of stuff.
And when Donald Trump wants to know why his popularity is sinking, it is because of things like this.
The No. 1 crisis that the average American feels when they sit down and try to figure out how to pay bills is they can't afford them, and Donald Trump says he doesn't want to hear about affordability.
Do you hear that, America? Donald Trump doesn't even want to hear your worries about your high rent or high grocery costs. Don't even mention that they are ``affordable'' because that word sends him into a rage.
It is unbelievable. This President--unbelievable--he thinks that by saying you abolish a word, you abolish the problem.
And the magnitude of this problem is so large. Ask America, Trump: Is your healthcare too expensive?
They will say: Yes.
Are your groceries too expensive?
They will say: Yes.
Can you afford your healthcare?
They will say: No.
Can you afford your groceries? Can you afford the cost of electricity? Can you afford to buy a new car?
They will say: No.
And he doesn't want to hear about it.
He says extending the ACA premium tax credits, which would save people thousands a month, is nothing but a waste of time. This President is so out of touch with Americans, and, every day, more and more Americans are realizing how out of touch he is when he says things like this.
Mr. President, let me talk now about HSAs and the healthcare debate.
After Democrats pushed Republicans for months to fix ACA premiums, Americans are now about to fall off a healthcare cliff, and Donald Trump has no plans to fix it whatsoever.
Maybe he thinks healthcare is affordable for people. It isn't for most.
If Donald Trump were smart, he would have worked with Democrats at the drop of a hat to extend the ACA tax credits for at least another year. We offered him that. But, instead, he is telling Republicans to push half-baked ideas like health savings accounts and direct checks.
Let me say this very plainly. Donald Trump's Republican ideas about HSAs are nonstarters for Democrats because they are completely flawed and woefully insufficient for our Nation's healthcare problems. If Republicans push this flawed policy, they will go nowhere in the Senate.
First, neither HSAs nor a lump-sum check will do anything to help people afford insurance. If your insurance plan goes from $1,000 a month to $4,000, a one-time check isn't going to go very far. For cancer patients who pay thousands of dollars for lifesaving medications in one month, their HSAs will do nothing--nothing--to help them afford care.
Second, implementing changes this complex would be practically impossible before the end of the year. People are signing up for health insurance right now, and health savings accounts cannot be used to pay for premiums, period.
Third, Republicans talk about ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and have railed on insurance companies. But the Republican policies will do nothing--absolutely nothing--about either problem. So either Republicans don't understand how healthcare works or their complaints about fraud and abusive insurance companies are cynical and disingenuous.
That is why Democrats insist that one of the best things we can do right now is extend the ACA premium tax credits, because when people talk about costs, healthcare is near the top of the list of their worries, if not at the very top.
It is shameful that Donald Trump and Republicans have given up entirely on solving the healthcare premium crisis. When people's monthly payments spike next year, they will know it was Republicans that made it happen. And more than that, they will know Democrats are the ones who are fighting on their behalf to lower costs and rebuild the sunny American optimism our country desperately needs.
Finally, on anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism in America has reached a dangerous tipping point. Jewish Americans are facing threats, harassment, and violence at levels we have not seen in generations.
As I have said many times in this Chamber, anti-Semitism is the canary in the coal mine. Where there is anti-Semitism, there lurks White supremacy and other pernicious forms of hate.
Three days ago, the President of the United States declined to condemn Nick Fuentes' hateful views and defended Tucker Carlson's decision to give Fuentes a platform. The President was asked about his thoughts on the interview. He declined to condemn Nick Fuentes.
That is disgusting. For Donald Trump to excuse and protect the spread of Nick Fuentes' ideology confirms what many of us have long said: White supremacy and anti-Semitism are taking deep roots, unfortunately, within the Republican Party.
Just as we saw from the leaked texts of young Republicans, just as we saw from text messages of administration officials, the Nick Fuentes saga on the right reveals that anti-Semitism and White supremacy have been growing with disturbing currency within the rightwing and within the rightwing of the Republican Party.
But I know this is not true of everyone on the Republican side, especially not for many Republicans in this Chamber. Therefore, I will soon lead a resolution, here in the Senate, rejecting Nick Fuentes and his White supremacist views and condemning Carlson's platform of hate and condemning White supremacy whenever and wherever it occurs.
In the coming days, I will work to grow support for my resolution so the Senate can take a clear stand against hatred and anti-Semitism. I hope my
Calling out anti-Semitism should not be a partisan issue. In fact, when we refuse to condemn anti-Semitism, when we stay silent and fail to reject anti-Semitic rhetoric, when we normalize hateful figures spewing disgusting anti-Semitism, that is when anti-Semitism spreads throughout society like a poisonous wildfire.
Americans don't want to see that happen. So my resolution will give every Senator--every single Senator--a chance to make an important stand against hatred. The country must see us unite and fight this awful form of bigotry.
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, 2 months ago, I came to this floor to warn about the growing politicization of our intelligence community. I laid out in detail how this administration, led by Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, was dismantling the independence, integrity, and credibility of the very institutions we rely on to keep Americans safe.
I had hoped that by sounding that alarm early, the administration might reconsider its actions or at the very least slow its march toward turning our intelligence Agencies into instruments of political loyalty, but, instead, the situation has only grown more dangerous.
I want to say at the outset that this will not be the last time I come to the floor on this issue as we continue to see the unraveling of that independence. I intend to continue making these speeches for as long as it takes because the stakes for our national security are too high to let this pattern go unchallenged.
Since my remarks in September, we have seen not restraint but an escalation--an escalation--of political retaliation, of the hollowing out of expertise, and of the outright manipulation of intelligence. We are watching in real time an administration strip away the guardrails that have protected this country for generations.
I have had the distinct privilege of representing the people of Virginia in this body since 2009. In nearly 17 years, one of the most consequential responsibilities I have held has been that of serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee, first as a junior member and then, for the last 8 years, as chairman and vice chairman.
I always tell our new members that getting a seat on the committee is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you get access to things that no other Senators hear, and you see capabilities that would astonish even the most seasoned spy novel reader. But the other part of the edge is you get to see the full scope of threats facing the United States: daily reports about terrorist plots, cyber attacks, hostile foreign services targeting our citizens and institutions. Once you have seen that picture clearly, you don't sleep quite as soundly at night.
It is precisely because these threats are real, persistent, and in many cases growing that I am so deeply concerned about the Trump administration's reckless actions--actions that have left our country more vulnerable than at any point in recent memory.
Just last month, FBI Director Kash Patel testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FBI has experienced a 300-percent increase in terrorist cases opened this year alone, on top of a 30-percent increase in foreign espionage cases.
At the Senate's Intelligence Committee's annual threat assessment hearing, Director Gabbard reiterated that foreign terrorists remain intent on striking the United States and our citizens, that a large number of cyber and intelligence actors continue to target our critical infrastructure, and that these adversaries possess weapons capable of hitting U.S. territory and disabling vital U.S. systems.
Indeed, in an interview earlier this month, Director Gabbard repeated:
Whatever one thinks of the individuals delivering these messages, the assessments themselves leave no ambiguity of the dangers confronting the United States. Yet, in spite of these clear and present threats, the Trump administration has chosen a course of action that weakens our defenses and leaves Americans more vulnerable to the very risks its own officials have publicly described.
Since Inauguration Day, the President and his handpicked FBI Director--again, Kash Patel--have forced out thousands of experienced agents for reasons that appear more political than professional--for example, for refusing to acknowledge who actually won the 2020 election or FBI agents being thrown out for prosecuting the violent criminals who attacked the Capitol Police on January 6 or being pushed out for simply being friendly with someone critical of the President.
Alarming court filings suggest that even Director Patel has privately acknowledged that many of these actions may be illegal yet justified them by saying that his keeping his position depended on carrying them out.
The list of those purged reads like a who's who of the Bureau's most decorated public servants.
Those agents forced out include former Acting Director of the FBI Brian Driscoll, who rose through the FBI's ranks in some of its most elite units, including the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. In 2015, he supported U.S. Special Operations in rescuing an American humanitarian aid worker, Kayla Mueller, from ISIS. Special Agent Driscoll would later rise to the head of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group-- the FBI's elite team in charge of dealing with terrorists, child abductors, bomb threats, and hostage situations.
For his service, Agent Driscoll was awarded the FBI's Medal of Valor and Shield of Bravery, only to have Director Patel fire him because he would not purge agents whom the President deemed politically disloyal.
Other purged individuals include Bobby Wells, who joined the FBI shortly after 9/11 and spent decades in counterterrorism. He eventually became the head of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, leading efforts against al-Qaida, ISIS, and other global networks. Notably, he helped bring to justice the mastermind of the Kabul International Airport bombing that killed 13 American servicemembers--an accomplishment publicly touted by the President. Yet the President fired him shortly thereafter.
This list includes Michael Nordwall, who was the head of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, who led efforts to combat ransomware attacks, online fraud, and sophisticated cyber intrusions targeting critical U.S. infrastructure.
Further, the list includes Ryan Young, who was the head of the FBI's Intelligence Division, overseeing the collection and analysis of all intelligence on domestic and foreign threats, trying to make sure that field offices had the situational awareness to prevent attacks.
Other senior agents were forced out from dozens of FBI field offices nationwide--from Washington to Miami, to New Orleans, to Las Vegas and Seattle. Among those heads of FBI field offices forced out was Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, who was the lead investigator into the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, whose expertise was critical to understanding 9/11 and preventing further attacks.
Most recently being pushed out includes Steven Palmer, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and the third head of the FBI's elite Critical Incident Response Group.
In just 3 months--3 months--three separate heads were fired.
As head of the Critical Incident Response Group, Mr. Palmer led teams tasked with responding to terrorist attacks, mass shootings, hostage crises, high-risk national security incidents--work that required split-second decision making under extraordinary pressure. He was fired not for failing his duties, not for misconduct, and not for political disagreements about law enforcement; he was fired because the American people learned that Director
To make matters worse, recent reporting indicates that Patel now has also pulled agents off of an FBI SWAT team to provide a security detail for that very same girlfriend--an unprecedented use of some of our Nation's most elite units, ordinarily assigned to deal with terrorism, hostage situations, or mass shootings; thousands of FBI agents all forced out not because they failed to do their job but because they refused to bend the knee to partisan politics.
As if these individuals were not enough, the truth is, the FBI, in recent months, has reassigned between 25 and 45 percent of its agents who handle counterterrorism, cyber, espionage, child sexual abuse, and other critical missions. What have they been reassigned to? Well, they have been reassigned to immigration, while our office hears regularly that they want to get back to the cases that they had been working on and instead are stuck on a detail where they do nothing.
As a matter of fact, data reveals a 33-percent decrease in hours spent on child exploitation cases this year compared to previous years.
Firing agents who investigate terrorists, foreign spies, cyber hackers, and child predators doesn't make America safer, especially when the President's own intelligence officials warn publicly and repeatedly of the many threats facing our Nation.
Just this summer, the ODNI issued a bulletin warning of al-Qaida and ISIS plots targeting the homeland. And just last month, the FBI disrupted ISIS terrorist plots in Michigan and New Jersey that might have been aimed at Halloween. I shudder to think what would have happened if the FBI had missed those plots, if the terrorists had semiautomatic rifles that suddenly let loose on kids trick-or-treating.
The FBI Agents Association, which represents over 90 percent of all active FBI agents, issued a sobering warning earlier this month that Director Patel ``disregarded the law and launched a campaign of erratic and arbitrary retribution'' and that his actions ``make the American public less safe.''
This is the FBI Agents Association. They don't make these kinds of comments. How far do you have to be pushed to basically say the current Director of the FBI is making America less safe?
But this political purge is not simply limited to the FBI. Since April, the National Security Agency--the Agency in charge of spying on communications of our adversaries--has been without a permanent Director or Deputy Director after President Trump fired Gen. Tim Haugh and his Deputy, Wendy Noble, at the behest of conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer; the same for the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose Director, Gen. Jeff Kruse, was fired after the DIA provided a fact-based assessment that contradicted the President's false televised claims that the United States had ``obliterated''--President Trump's words ``obliterated''--Iran's nuclear program.
The pattern of reckless firings has extended to nearly every corner of our national security enterprise: Hundreds of workers who were responsible for maintaining our country's nuclear weapons, fired; staff managing foreign assistance programs ranging from detention of ISIS terrorists in Syria to air defenses in Ukraine, fired; hundreds of analysts monitoring China and Russia, fired, including a 29-year veteran of the CIA who supported President Trump's Alaska summit with President Putin whose undercover identity was publicly and incompetently disclosed by DNI Tulsi Gabbard; more than one-third of CISA--the Agency established for the absolutely explicit purpose of protecting our critical infrastructure, water, power, and our elections to prevent those entities from being attacked by cyber tools--a third of that Agency, fired, even as major cyber attacks hit State and local governments in at least 44 States, including a massive ransomware attack on Nevada's online government systems in August, a ransomware attack in July on local government networks in St. Paul, MN, and a cyber attack on city systems in Mission, TX, in February--folks are slow to respond--a third of CISA, it is a relatively new Agency but has been making progress, all fired.
The irony is stark: Despite persistent efforts by China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries, the 2020 Presidential election was one of the most secure in history, thanks in large part due to steps taken during the Trump administration's first term to safeguard our critical infrastructure. Yet now, much of that hard-won protection has been dismantled, leaving Americans more vulnerable than ever.
Cyber Command--which under GEN Paul Nakasone disrupted the Russian troll farms in 2017--lacks a permanent Commander. The Foreign Influence Task Force, stood up by President Trump in his first term to share information with State and local partners about foreign interference in our elections, that task force has been completely disbanded. All the while, the administration's own intelligence reporting warns--and, again, I am going to go back to a quote:
That is what China is saying.
Russia:
The administration's own comments say these are threats we can't avoid. Yet you dismantle the foreign malign influence center, you fire a third of the people who are supposed to be responding to cyber attacks, you take FBI agents who were working on cyber and stick them on the immigration detail. This does not make America safer.
The truth is, the pattern is unmistakable: Political loyalty is now valued over competence, and the very institutions created to protect Americans are being dismantled right before our eyes.
We can no longer pretend that politics and national security are separate. Every day that we allow this purge to continue is a day we leave Americans more exposed in their homes, on the streets, and online.
The next attack will not wait for Congress to act. The next threat will not ask permission. And when it comes, the consequences will not be measured in polling numbers or election results; they will be measured in lives lost, infrastructure damaged, and national security compromised.
This is the moment to stand up to defend our intelligence Agencies; to protect those agents; to allow the intelligence community to speak truth to power, even when the power doesn't want to hear it; and, frankly, at the end of the day, to safeguard the American people. If we fail that and don't stand up for these men and women who have put their lives on the line, if we don't stand up for keeping classified information classified, if we don't stand up and say to those who undermine our infrastructure by cyber attacks, if we don't stand up for those terrorists planning, we will bear the cost later--a cost that could be catastrophic.
I think we are a better country than this. These men and women deserve our support, and, unfortunately so far, they have not gotten that support. We can and must do better.
Mr. President, as I said on this floor many times, the government shutdown had many victims: air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and many other public servants, and, of course, the American people themselves who were the most affected by this. Thankfully, the bill passed in this Chamber last week put that chaos behind us.
But that wasn't all that it did. In some small way, the difficult time proved that we can work together to do tangible things to reduce healthcare costs in this country. As a matter of fact, I worked on a bipartisan basis to introduce the SMART OTC Act, which became law as part of the government reopening. It was a good part of that reopening.
The bill aims to make lowering the cost of over-the-counter drugs more accessible to patients by eliminating the
But the shutdown is finally over. I want to thank my Republican colleagues and the Democrats who joined us to help end it. Unfortunately, 40 others chose a different path, and we wasted 43 days from focusing on issues like growing the economy and making things more affordable.
I have been in the Senate less than a year. I wasn't here when Congress passed ObamaCare or the Biden COVID subsidies that have been used to prop up the ACA exchanges. But I want to be part of the solution. I didn't create the problem, but I am here to be part of the solution. We owe it to the American people to honestly assess the problem before we cast a vote on it.
Healthcare costs are rising. The ACA exchange system is too expensive and too complicated, and it has failed to reduce the underlying cost of healthcare. It has failed. The truth is, healthcare inflation is the No. 1 driver of inflation in the 21st century.
Just look at this chart. It shows at the beginning of the century, all inflation and healthcare inflation were about the same. But if you look here around the time that ObamaCare was enacted and went into law, you see the disparity growing. Medical care, medical costs, healthcare costs began to spike and rise.
It was not a solution for healthcare costs and making healthcare more affordable. As a matter of fact, the ACA made care less affordable. And this problem will not be solved by pouring more taxpayer dollars into the coffers of big insurance companies, which has been the path of how ObamaCare has been operated since its enactment.
Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett once said of higher education financing:
That is the same that we can now say of the ``Unaffordable Care Act.''
But I believe there is a way forward on the issue that can protect families from punishing premium costs and cut costs driving inflation, and we can do so without putting another $350 billion on the national credit card for a program we know is dysfunctional.
If we want to lower the cost of care, we must deliver reforms that put patients in charge, and I believe we can earn bipartisan support with a straightforward and responsible framework focused on what I call the ``fraud, freeze, and fix'' approach--the ``fraud, freeze, and fix'' approach.
You do this paired with a short extension of the premium subsidies, and we can address the shortcomings of the ACA, lower healthcare costs, and provide the American people with something we can actually implement.
Now, I want to explain what I mean by fraud, freeze, and fix.
First of all, let's deal with fraud. The COVID-era zero-premium subsidies that were created created a cottage industry for abuse. Much of the explosion of fraudulent enrollees is attributable to zero-dollar premiums, which were created in 2021. These plans are fully subsidized by the taxpayers and have created incentives to enroll individuals without their knowledge.
This is how it works. Brokers are enrolling people who never asked for the coverage, one. Two, insurance companies get paid. Three, brokers get a commission. And, four, taxpayers get the bill.
There have been criminal convictions in many States across this country where this fraud is actually being perpetrated, and it needs to be fixed. Hard-working taxpayers have footed the bill for almost $35 billion to insurers who enrolled people who did not use the plan a single time. And we know why--because not all, but some of those people, were enrolled fraudulently.
Requiring everyone receiving a premium tax credit to pay a small amount--at least a small amount--toward their health insurance will help realign the incentives and reduce fraud. It won't be allowable if we construct the program like that. It will make certain that Americans cannot be enrolled in plans without their knowledge or consent. It is an important step if we want to move forward in helping to advance a solution.
The second part is the freeze part. We need to limit the subsidies to where they are right now so it doesn't become a growing burden for the American taxpayer.
The ACA required insurers to lower deductibles, copays, and out-of- pocket costs for enrollees making between 100 percent and 250 percent of the poverty line. However, in 2017, a Federal court ruled that the cost-sharing reduction payments violated the appropriations clause. But insurers are still required to lower the costs, but this results in artificially high premiums. Additionally, because the premium tax credits are calculated against the second lowest cost silver plan, silver loading also supercharged the Federal subsidy spending of this.
It created a system that got gamed, but we can fix it. If we appropriate the cost-sharing reductions, we can lower premiums by 10 to 20 percent, while also delivering savings to the taxpayer.
Freeze it and fix it. That is the freeze part, one of the ways that we cannot put America in a bigger burden and bury the cost to the taxpayers, and we can also lower premiums by saving money.
And then, finally, is the fix portion. This is the most important part because subsidies do not lower costs. They transfer the burden. The fix involves how we actually do reforms that lower the costs. There are several bipartisan healthcare initiatives that address lowering the price of healthcare for our constituents.
Many--``many'' may be an overstatement, but there are several bills right now that I know have bipartisan support that will lower costs that we can accomplish.
For example, price transparency is one of the most bipartisan ideas in this Chamber. It gives patients, employers, and small businesses the power to see what the prices are and then compare them and decide whether or not they can find a better deal for what they are paying. Transparency exposes inflated costs, sparks competition, and makes the other reforms that we are talking about actually work because we can price shop and we can find out whether or not we are being ripped off by what we are paying.
Another example that I know there is bipartisan support for is PBM reform. There has been a bipartisan appetite to lower the cost of prescription drugs by addressing the role that the middlemen play in increasing these costs: bipartisan PBM reform, something we know can reduce costs.
And 340B reform, where both Republicans and Democrats have raised concerns about the 340B program, which is no longer efficient or serving its intended goal of supporting patients and healthcare providers who serve vulnerable populations, like our rural communities.
These are just some of the reforms that have bipartisan support. The list goes on. You can easily find them. We need to do them. It will help drive down the actual costs of healthcare in this country.
Transparency, where I started with this, is a necessary step in the idea of an HSA expansion that President Trump has proposed, where we send money to consumers rather than to the insurance companies. You have to have transparency if you expect people to shop. This will achieve the intended goal of creating consumer choice, and it would protect families from premium shock, and it would protect the Federal budget.
There are two things we need to do: protect families from the inflationary costs that the ACA has created, but also protect the taxpayer.
We didn't get into this mess overnight, and we won't get out of it simply by writing bigger checks. If this debate ends with one side saying extend everything and the other side saying we oppose everything, nothing will get done, and we will have failed the American people.
But we have a chance. What I outlined right there, I know there is bipartisan support for. And there is more,
We have a chance right now to do better, help families afford coverage, pass bipartisan reforms to cut costs, and refuse to add another $350 billion to the national debt.
I am the newest Member of the U.S. Senate. I wasn't here when Congress created this problem, but these ideas are part of the solution. If anyone in this Chamber is willing to work together, let's go. It is time to do it. The time is now. The American people deserve nothing less. Let's get ready to get the job done. Time was wasted during the government shutdown. There is an urgent need to address these issues. Let's go.
Mr. President, I rise on the floor today to recognize one of the Sunshine State's best. On a Sunday morning in October, Officer Andrew Hinds was on regular patrol duty with the Riviera Police Department--Riviera Beach Police Department, they would correct me-- when he spotted smoke coming from a neighborhood.
He didn't think twice. He immediately rushed toward the smoke, where he found a truck fully engulfed in flames, just feet from a family's house, threatening to spread and consume that house.
Neighbors flagged him down and told him that people were still inside, including small children. Officer Hinds didn't hesitate. With fire consuming the truck and while suspecting the vehicle could explode at any moment, he quickly called dispatch, banged on the door to wake up the family, and quickly moved everyone out of the home to get them out of harm's way.
The family of four inside was asleep and unaware of the fire, and it is no doubt that Officer Hinds' quick reaction and calm under pressure saved their lives and their home.
I am so proud to honor this heroic act today on the U.S. Senate floor as one of the Nation's newest U.S. Senators with our ``Florida's Finest'' award.
Ever since I was Florida's attorney general, and now as our State's newest U.S. Senator, it has been important to me to continue to honor the extraordinary work of our selfless law enforcement officers that protect Floridians every day.
Our ``Florida's Finest'' award honors those Floridians and law enforcement officers who demonstrate selfless courage and go above and beyond in service to their fellow man.
Because of this officer's quick response and his own willingness to put others' safety ahead of his own safety, a tragedy was averted.
I am so grateful for Officer Hinds and all of Florida's amazing law enforcement officers who, on a daily basis, put service above self. They are all making our State--the great State of Florida--stronger and safer.
Thank you for allowing me this moment, Mr. President, to recognize this incredible law enforcement officer with our ``Florida's Finest'' award.
Mr. President, on the campus of Indiana University, a tablet placed on the floor of the student union pays tribute to the men and women who served in the Civil War.
Over 80 years ago, in March 1942, three young Hoosiers stood over that marker. They raised their right hands, and they joined those ranks.
When the oath began, they were college students in the last days of childhood. When it was complete, they were U.S. marines, the first to fight for their country. They joined a long line of American heroes, dating all the way back to the Revolutionary War.
On November 10, 1775, when America contemplated a difficult amphibious assault on the British supply hub in Nova Scotia, the Continental Congress called for the raising of a regiment to execute this difficult expedition.
It required a special breed of warrior, capable of fighting on land and sea. Just the type of men ``acquainted with maritime affairs,'' as the Continental Congress phrased it, were to be found at Tun Tavern, a brewhouse on Philadelphia's waterfront.
On the same day the colonial government passed its resolution, they commissioned Samuel Nicholas to raise this force. Not long after, he walked through the tavern's door and appointed its owner, Robert Mullan, chief recruiter. Together, with the lure of high adventure, mugs full of cold beer, and the call to defend their homes, they enlisted two battalions of men. These men were the first members of the U.S. Marine Corps.
So beginning on that day in Philadelphia, to countless days like the one on the campus of Indiana University, millions of men and women have answered their Nation's call. For 250 years, from the shores of Nassau to the walls of Abbey Gate, they have defended our flag, our way of life, and freedom's friends far from its shores. They have been asked and have often done the impossible.
Because of their daring, their relentlessness, and their ingenuity, the U.S. Marine Corps will always be synonymous with danger--danger to any foe that would threaten the American people. A history of vanquished foes can testify to this: Barbary pirates, whose strongholds Leathernecks marched across the African desert to conquer; British Redcoats mowed down during the Battle of New Orleans when marines formed the center of the city's defense under General Jackson; Mexican cadets, who watches as marines stormed the Halls of Montezuma and raised the stars and stripes over Chapultepec Castle; German soldiers driven from Belleau Wood by the greatly outnumbered 4th Marine Brigade; Japanese troops who bombarded marines as they landed on the black sands of Iwo Jima and then listened from their bunkers as the Americans cheered while six members of the 5th Marine Division planted their flag at the summit of Mount Suribachi; the al-Qaida insurgents killed and captured in Fallujah when the marines fought from street to street, house to house. These and countless other battles were won at terrible cost--tens of thousands of marines killed or wounded in action, widows and widowers, sons and daughters left behind.
The history of the Marine Corps is one of incredible heroism and great sacrifice, but to reduce the Marine Corps to only those virtues is, I believe, to understate its importance in American history. Marines are not simply warriors but, as Ronald Reagan once said, the ideal of ``soldierly virtue.''
On the wall of my office hangs my Mameluke, the curved saber a marine carries at his side. Its history began on the shores of Tripoli when that band of marines took the Libyan port city of Derna. For this victory, they were awarded a Mameluke from an Ottoman prince. Two decades later, it officially became part of a marine officer's dress uniform. Today, its use is largely ceremonial, but if used wisely, it becomes a tool with multiple purposes, like the marine who carries it.
You see, marines are not just taught the virtues that make men and women soldiers--courage under fire, physical strength--but they are also taught the virtues that make them good citizens once their service has ended.
This photograph captures the moment in 1942 when those three young Indiana University students swore the oath--an oath to defend their country. The lives of the men in it, on the battlefield and off of it, demonstrated what it means to be a U.S. marine. They were honorable.
Three years after the picture was snapped, the man at its center wandered around Okinawa. He was searching for souvenirs to send home. He was there as part of the American assault on the island, which was a precursor to attacks on the Japanese mainland.
``The death and destruction leave bad taste in my mouth,'' he wrote, ``and strike me deeply as the horrible part of the war.'' This from Lieutenant Colonel Maurice ``Pat'' David as he wrote his family in Nashville, IN. But his cause was just, he wrote. The bodies of old women and young girls murdered by the Imperial Japanese Army proved it.
He encouraged his parents not to worry about his safety, but months later, he was severely wounded, returned to the States, and later awarded a Purple Heart.
Through his service in the Corps, Lieutenant Colonel David attended law
Lieutenant Colonel David served his country with honor during his time in the Marine Corps, and he did the same for his community after the war concluded. He was elected a superior court judge, practiced law for nearly 20 years, and after retiring, he served as a senior judge. As a lawyer, he was dedicated to his clients. As a judge, he treated the attorneys before him thoughtfully, reasoning they were his clients as well.
When he died in 2016, it was after living a life defined by what he learned in the U.S. Marine Corps: integrity, devotion to justice, service of a cause greater than oneself.
These men were courageous too. In fact, the man to Lieutenant Colonel David's right in the photo was Leonard Alford of Garrett, IN. A year after he stood at the memorial plaque in Bloomington, Alford sat in a tent staring at the Pacific Ocean.
``I know you have been worried because you have not heard from me,'' he wrote to his parents from an island he was not at liberty to name.
He had earned a Silver Star leading the men of the 4th Marine Raider Battalion in the Battle of New Georgia as his men fought across the Solomon Islands. Afterwards, they were redesignated the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, and Alford was made company captain. Members of the original 4th Marine Regiment were lost on Bataan and Corregidor.
``We hope to be able to keep their good name,'' he shared with his family. Because of Captain Alford's courage, they did.
Two years later, when Captain Alford was awarded a second Silver Star, which was turned to Gold, it was awarded posthumously.
In the closing weeks of the Okinawa campaign, he led a charge towards one of the island's remaining Japanese strongholds. Under heavy fire, ignoring his safety, he steadied the marines, ensured their advance, and he sacrificed his life for the success of the campaign and the freedom of his country.
Oh, they were committed too. In fact, the last man in the photo was Cpl John Irwin Murray of Hartford City, IN. In the years after the photo was taken, John Murray remained on campus, drilling with Pershing Rifles.
After graduation, he trained on Parris Island. Corporal Murray spent 16 months on Guadalcanal and Guam. He then deployed to China with the 6th Marine Division.
After the war, he settled in California, where he married and raised a family and worked as an accountant and a teacher.
Unlike the two other marines in this photo, there is very little public information about Corporal Murray's life--occasional updates in the Indiana University alumni magazine on his time in the Marine Corps, his letters home from the Pacific lamenting how few other Hoosiers he met there. But you see, he lived a meaningful civilian life, without fanfare.
Commitment to duty doesn't demand glory or a long military career; it is about showing up when needed and then quietly contributing to society afterwards. Our service continues in the everyday work of building communities and supporting families.
Corporal Murray represents something essential about the Marine Corps. Most of us who serve will return to become good citizens, neighbors, and workers, carrying a sense of duty into ordinary life. That is not less important than the other two paths; it is an expression of the same commitment.
Whether on land, sea, or air, in war or peace, in service or after service, for 250 years, the U.S. Marine Corps has not just trained warriors but made citizens. There are no fiercer defenders of our freedom, no greater examples of the virtues that make our Republic function.
So as we celebrate this great anniversary throughout the month of November, we thank and salute the men in that photo and every member of the U.S. Marine Corps--always faithful--for their service and for their sacrifices. It is impossible to imagine America without the Marines.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask that we commence with the previously scheduled vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:
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, before I start talking today, I just want to pause for a moment to take a quick drink of the most nutritious, delicious drink known to humankind. So here is to healthy bones and here is to all the hard-working dairy farmers across Kansas and across America.
This summer, the Senate Agriculture Committee worked together to pass this legislation through the committee on a bipartisan basis. Special thanks to our chairman and to our ranking member for working on this with us.
This bill will allow for whole and reduced milk, as well as nutritionally equivalent nondairy options, to be served in schools. This corrects a decades-old policy made here in Congress that consequently created over 10 years of kids without having access to whole milk in schools and, indeed, created a whole generation of young Americans with weak bones.
Passing the Whole Milk for Health Kids Act through the Senate is a huge win for schools, for students, for parents, and for American dairy farmers. We are giving students more choices, schools more flexibility, and ensuring a brighter future for our farmers.
Whole milk delivers 13 essential nutrients and has enough fat content to help students absorb vitamins like A, D, E, and K. It is also packed with protein that helps keep the student full all the way through those long afternoon math classes and then on through gym and on through their sports activities, until they get home at night for dinner. Simply put, it is one of the healthiest--it is the healthiest--option in the cafeteria.
Bringing whole milk and nutritionally equivalent beverages to schools would help fight early onset osteoporosis, osteopenia, and other diet- related diseases by providing students with critical nutrients-- nutrients like calcium, potassium, and vitamin D--that we are all lacking today.
It strengthens bones. It helps your immune system. It builds healthy habits, and it tastes great.
As the grandson of a dairy farmer, as an OB-GYN for over 30 years, it may seem like I am a bit biased, but I assure you this legislation is a slam-dunk solution for our Nation.
Of course, there is always room to improve our public health, and I look forward to working with our colleagues who, I understand, also have a few thoughts on this legislation.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague the Senator from Kansas, and I wanted to join him in drinking a glass of whole milk. My only regret is it is not Vermont milk, but I have got to tell you the best milk is made in Vermont.
Thank you very much.
As the Senator was saying, this is a very serious thing in two ways. No. 1, we have to have good nutrition for our kids, and the Senator from Kansas has outlined why milk is so good.
Of course, I remember growing up and going to grammar school, and I looked forward to milk. We had milk breaks, and it made a difference to pay attention in those afternoon classes and to be active in your sports activities right after that.
The second reason is that the dairy farming industry is not so much an industry as it is a way of life, and in Vermont, the hardest working people we have are our dairy farmers. It is a hard, hard job, but it is one where families have done it from generation to generation.
There is enormous pride in being custodians of the landscape and caring for the animals and the herd, and in providing nutritious milk for the community. And there is a lot of pressure on our farmers. This whole milk bill is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary contribution that the dairy farmers in the State of Vermont make to the entire State of Vermont and that the dairy farmers in America make to all of America, including, of course, those wonderful dairy farmers in the great State of Kansas.
Now, on this bill, we have had incredible cooperation from our Senators, who have raised a very important concern: Some people are lactose intolerant. They can't drink milk. And the way the legislation was written--but, actually, because of something that went back to the Truman years--there is some suggestion that is a disability.
I want to thank Senator Alsobrooks, who is here, for bringing this to our attention, along with Senator Warnock, in working with us to try to get through this so that there is no question about this being a ``disability.'' This is about folks who can drink milk having access to milk, and it is about honoring our dairy farmers for the work that they do.
I am really happy to be here with my colleague. I understand Senator Alsobrooks may have some questions, and I will yield to her for that purpose.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Welch and Senator Marshall and my colleagues who are here today and all the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their bipartisan work on this legislation.
This legislation rightfully provides more options for parents, students, and teachers, which will benefit our children and their families. Specifically, this legislation will allow schools to provide whole milk, but it also makes it easier for parents to request that their child be provided with a milk alternative, if their child suffers from lactose intolerance.
I do, however, remain concerned about the continued classification of lactose intolerance as a disability. I want to be clear that this issue predates the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, and the bill does not create this problem.
Lactose intolerance of some degree affects more than 50 percent of the population. The classification of lactose intolerance as a disability can cause confusion for parents, who would not refer to their lactose intolerant child as having a disability, especially given the high prevalence of lactose intolerance. So they may not realize that they can write a letter asking for their child's school to provide a milk alternative, and it creates an undue stigma.
I want to thank my colleagues and their teams for their receptiveness to my concerns.
I especially want to say thank you so much to Senator Welch and also to Senator Marshall, and for the discussions that we and our teams have had around them.
After those discussions, I understand why my colleagues prefer not to use the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act as the vehicle to address these concerns, and therefore, I agreed to lift my hold on the bill in exchange for a commitment from my colleagues to work with me to find an appropriate legislative solution to address this longstanding problem.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues and the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their work on this bill that ensures that schools will provide healthy milk and milk alternative options for our children.
I look forward to working with you to further support the children and families in all of our States.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Alsobrooks, as usual she is right, and there are two points. One is we want to make certain that the parents have the ability, on behalf of their children, to choose an alternative that is best for their kids. So this is not about forcing people to drink milk or depriving parents of the responsibility and power they have to make certain that their kids are healthy. So thank you so much, Senator Alsobrooks, for that.
And then, secondly, the lactose intolerance point the Senator makes is valid, and that is why I am enthusiastically looking forward to working with her, so we make certain there is no stigma associated with a person who is lactose intolerant.
So thank you so much for your cooperation on this, Senator, and you have my commitment to work with you to try to resolve what is an anomaly and shouldn't be there.
Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in emphasizing the importance of whole milk in a healthy school lunch and taking Senate action to ensure a balanced diet for school-age children.
I rise today in support of S. 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act. This legislation, as we discussed, would allow for schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to, once again, offer whole and reduced-fat milk while also expanding the options for nutritious nondairy beverages.
The good news is, this legislation has support in the Senate and was unanimously reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this year. My main message today is to thank Senators Marshall and Welch along
I also appreciate the interest of my colleagues who want to ensure these changes support their constituents, and I look forward to continuing work to secure that result.
I also want to thank Senator Alsobrooks for engaging in a very constructive way regarding the bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with her to try and figure out how we can go forward and deal with the comments that she has made or concerns that she has made. I was on the school board for 7 years, and these things are important. Labels are very, very important, so we appreciate you.
I am proud to share a commitment also with her in supporting school meals and to lead the committee in making commonsense updates to strengthen children's capabilities in and out of the classroom. I look forward to continuing our work in the Senate to make sure perspectives and concerns of constituents from Maryland are considered.
Finally, I want to recognize Paul Bleiberg, whose tireless advocacy on behalf of the American dairy farmers helped to ensure this important legislation progressed through the U.S. Senate. I look forward to moving this bill across the finish line in the Senate, and I am hopeful our colleagues in the House can build on this momentum.
Again, thank you, guys, so much for all of your work, your collaboration. This is how this place ought to work, and you are a great example of that.
Mr. President, before we wrap up this Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, I just want to go back over a couple things as well. Senator Welch, it is always a pleasure to work with you. Whether we are trying to connect high-speed internet or give milk to schools, it is always a joy. I appreciate your hard work and greatly appreciate your staff and my staff as well. I think our staff never gets enough credit. They did all the heavy lifting--the chairman and ranking member, of course, and their staff, and the Ag Committee's staff as well.
Senator Alsobrooks, thank you so much for coming down this morning and educating me on this disability issue as well. And I see the Senator from New Mexico Mr. Lujan is here as well and is also engaged in this effort, and we appreciate his support and many, many, many others.
So a big thanks. This has been a multiyear process for my staff, a personal goal. I was raised on whole milk. I didn't know there was anything except whole milk, and I always wondered why all of a sudden our youth weren't drinking any milk.
And just many of us prefer the taste of it, and guess what, nutritionally, I think it has some really great qualities as well.
Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 111, S. 222.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 222), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I am here to speak about the urgent need for the Trump administration to release $4 billion in LIHEAP funding. LIHEAP, as you know, is the low-income plan. It is absolutely critical that that money be distributed to the States so the States can distribute it to the citizens who need it. We are in the cold weather season and getting money out after the cold weather season does not help keep people warm.
LIHEAP funding enjoys broad support, and that is because, in the Presiding Officer's State and in mine, folks in the winter who are on the margins financially, literally, can't get by unless they have access to this funding.
So here we are, the heating season is upon us, and the LIHEAP funding is stuck and not being distributed.
This is an absolute responsibility of the Trump administration, and there is no--no--excuse for withholding the funding. It just means that people who are cold are going to be cold and terrified, and they have no confidence about their ability to stay warm.
It is getting cold in Vermont. You know, most families who use LIHEAP funding, they make about 150 percent of the poverty level, that is about $23,000 a year. You know, the cost of home heating fuel is between 3 and 4 bucks a gallon, right now. That help is essential.
In Vermont, around 26,000 people rely on LIHEAP to afford heat. And by the way, for folks in the warm weather
Now, Secretary Kennedy has a legal responsibility to disburse the current LIHEAP funding, and it is illegal for him to withhold those funds as well as really pretty cruel.
The reality is that this summer we in Congress came together, on a bipartisan basis, to increase and to pass the $4 billion in funding for the program. And, again, I emphasize, it is not a red State, blue State deal. It is not a Republican, Democratic deal. It is a person who is in a home, doesn't have money, and is cold. That is what it is about.
So I am calling on President Trump and Secretary Kennedy to stop stalling and to act with alacrity and release the LIHEAP funding for the benefit of the people in the State of Vermont and in every State in this country who depend on it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, last week, Republicans in Congress passed a government funding bill that denies affordable healthcare to millions of Americans. But what most people don't know is that they also voted to provide millions of dollars to a few Republican Senators in a blatant, taxpayer-funded cash grab.
Here is what happened. In the process of passing government funding legislation, Senate Republicans airdropped a provision into the bill at the last minute. This provision allows eight Republican Senators to collect millions of dollars from the U.S. Government, when what the Department of Justice did was to lawfully subpoena those phone records during a grand jury investigation. But now these eight Senators can sue the government for at least half a million dollars for each individual instance of a lawful access to those phone records. That means that each Senator could actually pocket millions of dollars, and that money would be paid from your hard-earned tax dollars--and that is even though the law was followed by the government at the time.
Frankly, this is just outrageous to me. This is at the exact same time as 22 million Americans could see their health insurance premiums skyrocket because Republicans refuse to extend the ACA tax credits. This is at the exact same time as millions of seniors and veterans and families are learning that they will lose their SNAP food assistance altogether because of President Trump's ``Big Bad Bill.'' It is at the exact same time as families across my home State of New Mexico and across America are wondering how they will put Thanksgiving food on the table or how they will put presents under the tree in a month, how they will fuel their car to get to the job that is in jeopardy now because of President Trump's cancellation of Federal grants, exorbitant tariff taxes, and overall recklessness.
But instead of fixing all of that, instead of tackling the affordability crisis in this country, instead of blocking President Trump's tariffs and undoing his war on American jobs, instead of fighting to protect the 41 million people whose SNAP benefits were in jeopardy during Trump's shutdown, Republicans made time to insert this payoff. It is unprecedented in American history.
Let's put it another way. Everyday people are struggling. While one TikTok account called Dollar Tree Dinners--an account that teaches low- income folks how to make filling meals from Dollar Tree ingredients-- has over 3 million followers, U.S. Senators could receive over $3 million from your wallet.
There are no existing records of Congress creating a taxpayer-funded cash pipeline for Senators to sue the government for doing its job. That is probably because it is so patently wrong.
Even House Speaker Mike Johnson agrees with me, and when Speaker Johnson and I agree something is bad, you know it is really, really bad.
As ranking member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, where this provision was inserted, I can tell you that the process to include it was not normal. It was not in our markup. Normally, we have the opportunity to review new language, provide edits, and negotiate. None of that happened. This was slipped in at the eleventh hour, and now the American people are expected to pony up.
I am furious that the Senate majority leader chose to airdrop this provision into that bill in particular with zero negotiation with the subcommittee that actually oversees this work. It is why this week, I introduced a bill with U.S. Senator Mark Kelly to shut down this taxpayer-funded payoff. We must reverse this last-minute giveaway that lets a few Senators pocket millions of dollars of taxpayer money while millions of Americans are revisiting their budgets to figure out how to make it to the end of the month.
Like my Anti-Cash Grab Act, H.R. 6019 will eliminate the retroactive $500,000-per-instance cash claims for Senators. It will block millions in taxpayer-funded kickbacks to politicians. And it still keeps the door open for legitimate reforms to notification requirements without any of the self-enriching loopholes.
Now, I disagree with the title of H.R. 6019, but I agree on the substance, and that is what matters here.
The truth is that a country where a sitting elected official can get half a million dollars or more in one go while people around the country see their monthly costs rise by hundreds or thousands of dollars--that is a country that is not serving the people. This is not the America I know, and it is not the America we should be.
This is a test. This is a test of whether Congress works for hard- working families across America or for DC insiders. It is, to put it clearly, a test of our accountability, our transparency, and most of all, our integrity. I know which side I am on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6019, which was received from the House and is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to a lot of stuff being said, but let's just start with sort of the facts.
You said this was a lawful subpoena. What did I do wrong? What did I do to allow the government to seize my personal phone and my official phone when I was Senate Judiciary chairman? What did I do?
There was an order issued that said if I was notified of this breach of my privacy, I am likely to intimidate witnesses or destroy evidence. Based on what?
There are 10 of us involved here. What did we do to justify having Jack Smith issue a subpoena for the phone records of a branch of government--the Senate--where all of us had to decide whether or not to certify the election?
So, no, it wasn't lawful. You have determined it was. You don't get to decide; a court does. We are not going to let the Democratic Party decide my fate; we are going to let a judge decide my fate. But I have to get in court and prove my case.
To the majority leader, was this provision socialized with the minority leader?
OK. So this wasn't Republicans doing this; this was people in
What happened in the Senate? There is a statute right on point that governs data to be released by the Sergeant at Arms, and it says in that statute: Notwithstanding a judicial order, data from the Senate cannot be released by subpoena or even a judicial order without the body being notified because of the separation of powers issue.
That statute was violated, and there is no remedy. What are we trying to do to make sure this doesn't happen again to me or you? The reason I think Senator Schumer went with Senator Thune is they are worried about the body here.
We have a contract with Verizon--the Senate does--that requires us to be notified if any Senator's phone records are requested or any member working for the body.
There were 197 subpoenas issued in Arctic Frost. There are 430 Republican groups--Turning Point USA, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Attorney Generals Association, the Conservative Partnership Institute, Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller--400- some groups that were targeted.
What was going on here? What was Jack Smith up to? What was he trying to do? I think what he was trying to do is use lawfare against Donald Trump. Within 3 days of saying ``I am running again for President in 2022 for the 2024 cycle,'' Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. Within 8 or 9 months, 91 charges were levied against President Trump in New York, Manhattan; Atlanta; Washington, DC; and the bluest of blue.
I wound up getting subpoenaed by Fani Willis in Fulton County and spent $1.2 million going to that grand jury, having to testify what I did as Judiciary chairman.
If you will remember, on January 6, I was actually here. I think I did my part to make sure we certified the election. I voted to certify everything.
So what is going on here? Nobody actually knows.
And to the two leaders of the body, thank you for making sure we are going to do something to protect the Senate not only from what happened to us but what could happen to anybody in the future.
This is really outrageous. You want to use that word. I am really outraged that my private cell phone and my official phone were subpoenaed without cause, that a judge would suggest that I would destroy evidence or tamper with witnesses if I were told about what was going on. I am sure the other Senators--Hagerty, Hawley, Sullivan, Tuberville, Johnson, Scott, Lummis, Blackburn, Ted Cruz, at least one staff member, the Speaker of the House. Now we know Kevin McCarthy-- they asked for his phone records the day he was sworn in as Speaker, and AT&T apparently gave them to them.
What is going on here? What did we do? This is why we need to go to court and have our day in court, and the burden will be on me that I was wrong. But there is no doubt, if you were the jury, I would have no chance. You have already judged what we are doing. You made a political statement.
So you are not the person to judge. I am not the person to judge. It is the judge.
All of us who were wronged need to have a remedy to that wrong, and we are creating a chance to go to court for what happened to us and in a fashion to make sure it never happens again. This was coordinated with people in the Senate in power. This wasn't an attempt to enrich anybody. It was an attempt to deter that what was wrong, in my view, never happens again.
I am willing to work with my colleagues about the $500,000. I am going to sue. I want to let you know. I am going to sue Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith. I am going to sue Verizon. It will be a hell of a lot more than $500,000.
This is twice that this has happened to me. I was hauled into court in Atlanta for no good reason. I spent a million dollars. And the crime is being friends of Trump, being supporters of Trump. This was an abuse of the law. This was weaponization of the law.
It is just not me. I am going to open up the ability to other people who had their phone records subpoenaed--I think, unfairly--at least, a chance to make that case. There are 197 subpoenas with 400 groups. I am going to create a statute that anybody that was in this situation could make a claim. They will have to prove the claim.
We are not going to shut this down. We are not going to act like it is OK when it is not. We are not going to say it is legal because you are a Democrat and I am a Republican. We are going to have a judge determine whether or not it was legal. I don't think it was legal at all because I know me. I have done nothing wrong here. I wasn't conspiring with anybody to overturn the election. I did my part to make sure 2020 ended the way it should have.
So to my majority leader, thank you for working with Senator Schumer. And to Senator Schumer, thanks for trying to work together to protect the body. We will be working together to find a resolution that may be more accommodating. But as for the idea that I am backing off and I am going to let this go, you can forget that.
It is just not me. It is not about me and what happened to me alone. It is about how this happened to any of us, and it should never happen to any of us again. You have to have a reason to do what they did that I can't fathom.
This is a separate branch of government. Do you really want the Department of Justice coming after U.S. Senators' phone records when there is no warrant involved, when there is no alleged crime involved?
You are just fishing around. This is what we are talking about. That scares me. It offends me. And I am going to do something about it.
So I object. I think this provision can be changed in a way to be more acceptable to people, but we need to open up the courts to people like me and others that had our rights violated, I believe. But it will be up to the judge.
What we are trying to do is remedy a wrong. I think that is why Senator Schumer and the committees of jurisdiction understood why we needed to create an avenue.
It is me today. It could be you tomorrow. If you are at home, if they could do this to a U.S. Senator, what could they do to you? Maybe the Department of Justice doesn't like your post, doesn't like your political activity. They want to shut you down and find out who you have been talking to. This is scary stuff.
To Senator Thune, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side to find a way to make this section more acceptable, but I am not backing off. I am not going to accept repeal because we need a way forward.
To my friends in the House, you need to start worrying about your Members. The former Speaker and two Members I know of had their phone records spied upon. So we have our work to do to clean this mess up in a way to provide remedies to those who may have been harmed, but not just sweep it under the rug.
Arctic Frost will not be swept under the rug. I will not go quietly. I will keep pushing back on behalf of myself and others in like situations.
Majority leader, I think you have a proposal here.
Mr. President, let me just reiterate what the Senator from South Carolina said, and that is that this measure that we passed does, indeed, give important protections to Members. I think it is an important defense of the separation of powers. It protects Democrats, and it protects Republicans, alike, from a weaponized Department of Justice that is pursuing political enemies.
The measure was never meant to enrich Senators. It has always been true, under our rules, that Members wouldn't keep damages they recover under this measure.
I would hope that we can work together to pass a resolution to reflect what has always been true and what I have been saying all along, and that is that this measure is about accountability and not profit.
Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of this resolution at desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. President, what this would simply do is it would preserve the important elements of this, which I think are critical to the protection of the article
That was the case before, but this would clarify that. And it seems to me, at least, if you want to address the concern that has been raised by the Senator from New Mexico about Senators trying to get hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the Justice Department and the Federal Government--taxpayers--this would address that by simply saying anything that is awarded--a settlement that is awarded under this statute--would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury. But it would preserve the important protections that are in place under the statute when it comes to Members' personal information.
I happen to think--and that was what animated this--that individual Senators, Members of the article I branch of our government, should not be subject to a weaponized Department of Justice or prosecutors who go around the law. So this strengthens the law and ensures that, in the future, that doesn't happen.
It is, in my view, again, something that protects this institution, something that protects individual Senators. The unanimous consent request that I am offering here would clarify, in the form of a resolution, that it would apply to the Senate.
By the way, this only applies to the Senate. Frankly, there is a good argument that, if I am a Member of the House of Representatives, I would want the same protections included here. That wasn't the case. When we drafted this, it was in response to a statute that covered the Senate only. So this specifically applies to Senators.
And this resolution that I am offering here and asking unanimous consent for would clarify--make crystal clear--that any damages awarded as a result of claims brought under this statute would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury and not be allowed for an individual Member to take advantage of.
Just to be clear, no personal enrichment, accountability, and, I think, protection for the article I branch of our government, which, in my view, based on what we saw and what we are seeing as the facts continue to come in from the Arctic Frost investigation, there was clearly a violation of the law and a law that needs to be strengthened and clarified so protections are in place for future Members of the U.S. Senate.
Again, I would argue, someday, probably, Members of the House would want that same protection.
So that is my request, Mr. President; that the resolution be agreed to--the resolution at the desk makes that clear--and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening objection or debate.
The remedy to a statutory change that is in statute is not a resolution. It is to fix the statute.
I think we should work with our colleagues in the House to address the underlying issue of protecting Members without the outrageous damage provisions that were retroactively put into this statute.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of legislation to strike the provision in the Federal funding package that would give a windfall to a handful of Republican Senators who the Biden administration investigated in connection with Trump's effort to try to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021. This provision would give those Senators $500,000 for every phone call appearing on a call log, adding up to a corrupt giveaway of hundreds of millions or possibly even billions of taxpayer dollars. One of my colleagues has already bragged about his plans to sue the Federal Government to secure himself a payday.
How did we get here? My staff unearthed this secret provision shortly after the government funding bill was released. The brazenness of this corruption kind of takes your breath away. I immediately blew the whistle about this awful misuse of taxpayer money and alerted the press. Once the public learned of the heist, they were outraged and Members of Congress couldn't distance themselves from it fast enough.
Now, I am outraged over the corrupt Republican payoff, but I completely agree that it is important to notify Senators who have been surveilled by the government. Every American should have the right to be told, eventually, if the government spies on them, which is why I have authored the bipartisan Government Surveillance Transparency Act to do just that.
Notifying Congress when Federal, State, or Local government Agencies spy on it is essential to protecting the separation of powers and our Constitution. The fact is that right now, the FBI, any State attorney general, or even a local sheriff, can obtain the phone records of every Member of Congress, and we would never find out. This poses a major threat to the separation of powers. That is why I have called for Senators to be notified about surveillance in response to overreach by Trump in the past. Once Senator Heinrich's bill passes, I am committed to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the threat of surveillance by the executive branch.
It is deeply regrettable that my colleagues took a well-intentioned protection against government surveillance and wrapped it in an unacceptable giveaway of Americans' tax dollars to Republican Senators. I am committed to scrapping this provision and passing real protections against government overreach, not just for U.S. Senators, but for every single American.
Mr. President, I am just so disappointed that the UC request from my colleague from New Mexico was rejected--was objected to--by Republicans here on the floor of the Senate.
The fact that we are here trying to fix a terrible wrong that occurred last week is simply outrageous. While Senate Democrats were fighting to lower healthcare costs and trying to provide some financial relief for families who are seeing their costs skyrocket across the board, the Senate Republicans snuck in--and this is literally true-- they snuck in, in the dark of night, a provision, at the last minute, that would allow them to basically line their pockets.
This provision would allow a very select group of Republican Senators--let's be clear. This is to seek at least a half million dollars. It could go into the millions of dollars.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind Senators of rule XIX, paragraph 2, that provides that no Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly, by any form or words, impute to another Senator or other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy of being a Senator.
This is what happened. Let's be clear. What the law does is that a group of folks can get over half a million dollars for records that were obtained. They were obtained as part of a legitimate criminal investigation.
It is unconscionable, at a time when families across the country are feeling the squeeze and struggling to make ends meet, that such a self- serving, retroactive provision was included in legislation to fund the government.
Let's be clear. No citizen of the United States gets this. No House Member gets this. This is just about Senators.
It has all the appearances, certainly, of a cash grab. And if the American taxpayers who are going to have to foot this bill--let's be clear. No Senator should get special treatment or a special payday for legally obtained records. I want to stress that part. These records were obtained through a standard legal process as part of a legitimate criminal investigation related to January 6, involving authorized subpoenas of those Senators' potential involvement.
I have heard this described as partisan, political targeting. But unlike
Mr. President, you know that is the law. That is the process. You go and get a subpoena. You have to go before a court. You have to present evidence, and the court looks at that evidence and then makes a decision. And the court approved it.
It is completely legal because it was relevant to their investigation of the President's attempt to overturn election results and to stay in power illegally. We can't forget that. We can't whitewash that. We cannot let attempts to spin this into some sort of partisan targeting against certain individuals.
First off, it sets a very dangerous precedent that could chill any effort to conduct legitimate investigations of criminal wrongdoing by Members of this body or anywhere else down the line. We surely should not put the American people in the position of being, basically, a slush fund for a few individuals interested in making a whole lot of money and having the taxpayers foot the bill.
I want to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt about how this provision was put into the bill. Today, they had a chance to do the right thing. They had a chance to repeal it and say: Yes, this is bad. That is the way we ensure that no Senator gets special treatment, and we can get back to doing the work to better serve our constituents.
So I hope we can fix this wrong. Our friends across the Capitol here, in the House, voted unanimously--every Republican and every Member of the Democratic caucus. We came together.
Do you want to see bipartisanship in Washington? Everybody says: Gosh, I wish this body could come together in a bipartisan way.
We saw it in the House today. They said that this provision is terrible. They said it was outrageous, and they said it was a cash grab--and they did it unanimously. We could have done it unanimously here today. We could have fixed this.
Again, I don't know how it got in there. I am sure there was nothing nefarious. I am not saying there was anything nefarious. But it got in there. It clearly is wrong. Anybody who looks at the face of it knows it is wrong. That is why the House voted unanimously, and that is why I hope at some point we can do the right thing and fix this.
Mr. President, I would simply respond by saying again, in clarifying this question of personal enrichment, I am not sure exactly what that is predicated on. Clearly, the attempt being made here was to give standing to Members whose personal, private information was collected by a prosecutor who went around the law.
The law requires notification when a U.S. Senator's personal information is acquired. What happened was that the prosecutor threatened legal action if the carriers that were collecting this data on individual Senators provided the notice that was required under the law. The prosecutor clearly went around the law.
I just believe, for the future protection not only of this institution but of individual U.S. Senators, it is going to be critical that we codify some of these protections in ways that aren't currently covered in the law.
As I said before, if there is some question about the monetary judgment that might come or of the damages that might be awarded, this is what we are attempting to clarify right now, and that is that no individual Member--and frankly, that is already true under our rules, but this would further clarify that.
But if the Senator from New Mexico is interested in amending or modifying this in some fashion that preserves or retains the protections on an individual Member's data--which, frankly, again, as I said before, I think is a really important protection not just for this U.S. Senate but for U.S. Senators in the future--I think there is a willingness to be able to address that.
But I think, again, the suggestion that this is a bunch of U.S. Senators who are trying to figure out a way to enrich themselves at taxpayers' expense just is completely, completely unfounded and is inconsistent with the facts.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 472.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of David A. Bragdon, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 473.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Lindsey Ann Freeman, of North Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Mr. President, I am here for my, oh, I guess umpteenth ``Time to Wake Up'' speech.
This one comes upon my return from Brazil, where I was the entirety of the United States of America governmental presence at the COP. That was it. Just me. Nobody else went. And not only did nobody else go-- this is not important to anybody really outside the Senate--but for my codel, my congressional delegation trip of one, the State Department, under President Trump, refused to facilitate my trip.
I think this is the first time where the Senate, the legislative body, has been told by the Executive branch: We are not going to facilitate a codel because we don't like what you are doing. I don't think that has ever happened before, and whatever your views are on whatever issue, I would caution that this is a gate we need to close shut because if the Executive branch of government can start telling the Members of the Senate what codels they can and
Here is my badge from the event, which the State Department refused to facilitate. So I was there as an observer of the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment, not the State Department. That is how we had to get around them.
So that is kind of a first, not mattering much, except that it is yet another executive-legislative tradition blown up by the arrogance of the Trump administration, their insistence that everything has to be their way.
But it is also a signal that this is how crazy they are on climate issues, how completely off base they are.
So I went down to Brazil--because that is where the rest of the world was gathering--to discuss the climate crisis. In the facility where we were, the kind of main intersection where the two big aisleways crossed was occupied by China, at one of the key corners, with a huge delegation, a very big pavilion, lots of activity and crowding, and all of the different countries that were there seeing the leadership of China--our rival.
No pavilion for the United States, nothing to be seen, nobody. Across the way, Saudis, not exactly the best friends of climate solutions.
So that was the environment that I went down to, and what I wanted to do was convey four messages.
Message one was: Donald Trump on climate does not represent the United States of America. He just doesn't. He represents the big donors who gathered at Mar-a-Lago, whom he asked for a billion dollars, and who gave him hundreds of millions of dollars in return for his promise to do whatever they wanted. It is that corrupt promise that explains Trump's behavior, not that he is representing the United States of America.
I thought this cartoon made a pretty good image of what is going on in the Trump White House.
And we know that he doesn't represent America because we can do things like test public opinion and polls. And I have a recent one here that asks about some of the sensible solutions to the climate change problem, to all the pollution spewing. Here is one: Carbon pollution limits on big companies.
Obviously, Trump would do everything he possibly could to prevent carbon pollution limits because his big fossil fuel donors wouldn't like that, and he is in tow to them. So zero chance that Trump would support that. But how about the American people? Mr. President, 12 percent opposed, 72 percent support. There is a 60-point margin among the American public on putting a pollution limit, a carbon pollution limit on big companies--72 to 12. That is where the American people are, not in the pockets of Big Oil.
Here is another one: Impose a fee on big polluters. It shouldn't be pollute for free. If you are polluting something, whether it is your neighbor's yard with your waste, your trash, throwing it over the fence or whether it is the river that you are dumping effluent into and ruining things for people downstream or whether it is our common atmosphere, if you pollute, you should pay for the cost of fixing it.
Better still, you should pay enough that you don't pollute in the first place and the neighbor's yard isn't a wreck of your trash and the river isn't dirty downstream and the atmosphere is safe.
Impose a fee on big polluters. Seventy-four percent of Americans liked that, 10 percent opposed. These are massive numbers in our line of work, in which we are always testing public opinion. And this is without much political pressure behind those ideas. This is just the American public in its natural state saying: Yes, by a better-than-60- point margin, we want to impose a fee on big polluters. We want carbon pollution limits on big companies. That is where America is.
Trump is in the pockets of the big polluters. So that was message one.
Message two was: We have got to put that price on carbon, the one that the American people want, because that is the only way we have remaining to climate safety. We have driven by all the other exits on the highway. We are now left with that. And that was my second point. We absolutely have to have what is called carbon pricing, a fee, a penalty, whatever you call it, for pollution.
This is part of a review from work that the Potsdam Institute did. They looked at 1,200 climate scenarios that over the years have been presented to the IPCC, 1,200. Of those 1,200, there are 11 left--11 out of 1,200--11 left that put us on a pathway to climate safety to get us back below the 1.5 degrees centigrade safety margin--maybe safety margin. But that is a conventional one, so I will stick with it, even though it is not a guarantee.
Every single one of them puts a price on carbon. No price on carbon, we fail. Other stuff that helps with climate, that may cause the airplane to crash higher up the mountain, but the only thing that gets the airplane safely across the mountain is putting a price on carbon. Twenty years ago, we probably had other alternatives.
Now, we absolutely must put a price on carbon. And so I, when I met with the Europeans and the Brits and the Australians, said to them: You have our last lifeboat. Don't let Trump sink it for his fossil fuel donors. What is the last lifeboat? It is called the carbon border adjustment mechanism. It is a global price on carbon that comes from tariffs. It is already law in the European Union, and it is about to go into effect next year.
Behind the European Union is the United Kingdom. Under a conservative government, the United Kingdom decided to join the CBAM. They are in the process of aligning their internal carbon prices, and they are in the process of figuring out how they are going to charge their own tariffs.
So you have the EU economy, and then soon, I hope, the UK economy joining, sending a global price signal that, if you are putting in goods that are more carbon intensive than ours, we are going to charge you for that. You cannot pollute and export for free any longer. This is a version of the ``can't pollute for free'' rule.
Pollute for free, by the way, is wrong--not just morally but as a matter of economics. You can go back to the most conservative economist, Milton Friedman, and he will say: Yes, if your product causes harm, if it pollutes, that is what economists call a negative externality. And the cost of that negative externality needs to be in the price of the product or else it is a subsidy, and it should be treated as a subsidy.
The subsidy for fossil fuel, just in the United States, is $700 billion every year. That is how much harm it causes. That is the value to the industry of ``pollute for free'' as their business model.
So the CBAM is beginning to put a price on pollution by causing a border tariff. To impose that price is really, really important.
These are those 11 remaining scenarios. Every single one crosses over 1.5; every single one requires, probably, direct-air capture to get the excess carbon dioxide and other pollutants out of the atmosphere and then bring it back down to safety--assuming no tipping point in here makes it irrecoverable.
So the way that I described it is that our last lifeboat to climate safety is the CBAM. It gets stronger if the UK joins. It gets stronger if the Australians join. They are looking at it as well. That makes it a sturdier lifeboat for all of us.
But we have to do it. It is not a guarantee of climate safety. But sinking that lifeboat is a guarantee of failure for us, for the next generation of young people, for their children and their grandchildren. We are done if we don't protect and, ideally, expand the CBAM.
So I urge all the countries participating in that: Stand by your guns. There is going to be a corrupt fossil fuel-driven attack on this. You can count on it. And be ready. Lock arms. Link up. Prepare yourself for the onslaught, and do not let yourself be cowed. Do not let yourself be stampeded.
So that was point two. Point three was: We have trouble coming. I call it the great climate insurance collapse. It is widely warned of. It is on its way. As I went around the COP, I handed out this little folder wherever I could, which lists just some of the climate economic catastrophe warnings that are out there:
This is Fed Chair Powell. He is on my sheet right here: In 10 or 15 years, there
Why is that? Because in those regions of the country you won't be able to get home insurance. And if you can't get home insurance on your property, if it has become uninsurable, no mortgage.
So what he is really saying here is whole regions of the United States are going to become so climate risky that they are uninsurable and, therefore, unmortgageable, and that is why, in those regions of the country, you will not be able to get a mortgage.
Think for a minute about what the economy looks like in an entire region of the country in which nobody can get a mortgage any longer.
Where is this likely to hit first? I will tell you a region that is headed for this fast is Florida. In Florida, the insurance market is already trembling, propped up, perhaps even fake. And if it loses that insurance market and Florida is a region in which nobody can get a mortgage any longer, well, that may be fine for Palm Beach billionaires who are swapping mansions with their extra money, but for a working person who has to get a mortgage to afford a house or for a working person who has a house on which he or she is paying a mortgage and now they need to sell it and they can't find a buyer because the buyer can't get a mortgage to buy the house because the house can't get insurance--the property is uninsurable.
That is how that cascade works. It goes from climate risk to uninsurability, to mortgage collapse, to property values collapse, to recession. That is what the chief economist for Freddie Mac predicted.
This guy, Fed Chair Powell, is not green at all. He is lousy on climate, but he is good on finance, and he sees this coming.
Freddie Mac is not a green organization. It is a mortgage company. So when its chief economist says we are headed for a 2008-style economic recession because there won't be mortgages because you can't get insurance so property values will fall so there will be that recession, you are hearing that from the finance community, not from environmentalists.
We go on. The Economist magazine, in an article entitled ``The Next Housing Disaster''--there is its cover; it was about a year ago-- predicted $25 trillion as the size of the hit to the global real estate market from this climate risk to insurance meltdown, to no mortgages, to property values collapse cascade--$25 trillion.
``Climate change, in short,'' it said, ``could prompt the next global property collapse.''
The president of Aon, one of the biggest insurance companies in the country, testified before the Senate Budget Committee:
What does ``systemic'' mean?
What does ``systemic'' mean? Systemic is the scariest word in the economic lexicon. Systemic means that when things go bad, it is not contained to the place where the things went bad.
The 2008 recession was systemic, meaning that you didn't have to have a bad mortgage or you didn't have to be one of the financiers who crookedly packaged the bad mortgages to get clobbered. The damage was so deep in that part of the financial system that it cascaded out across the entire economy, and everybody got hurt. Car dealers, Realtors, small businesses, people who lost their jobs got hurt in 2008 because it was systemic.
Now you have got the CEO of one of America's biggest insurance entities warning us about this systemic risk.
Here is an even bigger insurance company, the biggest one in the world, Allianz, put one of its board members out to warn that if we get past the 1.5 degrees here and if you get up to 3 degrees, what happens at 3 degrees? Which, by the way, is very much what we are headed for right now. What happens at 3 degrees? Here is what he says:
By the way, the Allianz guy said the same thing about regions that Jay Powell did, that whole regions are becoming uninsurable.
The Financial Stability Board is the board that looks at the world's banking system. They have put out a warning saying, ``buckle up'' to the world's banks because if the climate risk to insurance collapse, to mortgage market failure, to property value crash transpires, the banks' balance sheets collapses. Its collateral value is gone. Its loan-to- value ratio makes it insolvent. And now you have a bank crash laid over the underlying great climate insurance collapse.
That is not from me. That is not from the League of Conservation Voters. That is not from the Sierra Club. That is from the international Financial Stability Board.
So that was the second message: Look out. This is about to get deadly serious, and people at the top of the finance profession are warning about it.
I will close with Bob Litterman. He was the chief risk management officer for Goldman Sachs, right? Goldman Sachs ain't green--except green with money. And he was their chief risk management officer. Here is what he told the Senate Budget Committee:
Like the Financial Stability Board said.
So I pointed out that this risk was looming, and we need to pay attention to it. This isn't about polar bears any longer. This isn't about green jobs any longer. This is a serious warning about a potential collapse in not just the United States but the global financial system. Remember The Economist magazine said that $25 trillion hit was coming to global real estate markets. That is what this article said.
So how do we prevent that? Well, one thing, as I said already, is you have to put a price on carbon. If it is free to pollute, you are going to get more polluting. There is no excuse for an industry polluting for free. There just isn't. It is morally wrong, economically wrong, environmentally wrong. It is wrong by the rules which your mom taught you--to clean up after your damn self.
But when it is $700 billion every year of harm that you are getting away with for free, that gives you a big reason as an industry to try to fake and lie and pressure your way through it. Now, you don't want to be caught doing that by your own name. You don't want it to be ExxonMobil that is doing all of this in its own name, so you have set up a whole scheme. But for $700 billion a year, you can spend a lot of money on setting up your whole scheme.
And sure enough, here is an image I have used on the Senate floor before. This is a web of all, not all, a significant number of the big front groups that the fossil fuel industry has propped up and funds to propagate its climate denial fraud operation--pretend that this isn't real, pretend that the scientists are just kidding or that they are making it up--and its dark money political corruption operation, which shovels billions of dollars into our politics to make sure that people obediently deny climate change in return for the money that keeps them in office.
So my final point in Brazil was, if we want to win this, we not only have to get the policy right, we have to tell the story right.
This is a story with a villain in it, just like a children's story that has a troll or a witch or an ogre or a dragon. You don't want to tell that story without the troll or the witch or the ogre or the dragon. First of all, it gets to be a really boring story, and second of all, it ain't the right story.
What we have is a situation in which we are in this peril that I described. We are in this peril because the fossil fuel industry has propped up this whole array of phony front groups to spread climate disinformation, stuff that just isn't true.
By the way, they don't care that it is not true. That is the point. So they
On the money side, we are into multiple billions of dollars that are poured into this building from fossil fuel industry coffers through all these phony-baloney front groups. I make fun of their names. I made up one: Rhode Islanders for Peace and Puppies and Prosperity--with nothing but a mail drop behind it. But behind the mail drop, creepy billionaires are shoveling in the money so people will ignore this problem for just another year, just another 2 years, just long enough to make a few more billion dollars in profit.
So that was my message.
Trump ain't us on this. Trump is the mouthpiece of the fossil fuel industry. The American public hasn't gone anywhere on this. He has just gone off on a fossil fuel-funded excursion.
If we don't protect the CBAM and put a price on carbon, there is no way out of this mess. We are totally toast, and we are going to see the looming edge of being totally toast coming through our insurance markets. It is already happening in Florida. Watch it. It is there.
I did a poll in Texas. Ninety-two percent of Texans are concerned about their homeowners insurance. Everybody talks about affordability here. They are concerned about their homeowners insurance affordability. They are more concerned about that than healthcare. They are more concerned about that than groceries. This is a top-of-mind concern because of wildfires, flooding, hail exploding the Texas homeowners insurance market.
Sixty-three percent say they are very concerned--very concerned. Sixty-six percent in oil patch Texas, in red Texas, in a State where zero effort has been made to connect the dots, understand that climate change links to extreme weather that is driving their homeowners insurance crisis--66 percent already get that. They are just being ignored because the fossil fuel industry can out-fog horn them with its propaganda and outspend them with its sluice gates open of dark money corrupting our politics.
That takes us to the last point, which is, yes, there is a villain in the story, and we need to put a spotlight on that villain and make them own the harm they are so dishonestly creating.
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, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3253. A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to extend the interest rate limitation on debt entered into during military service to debt incurred during military service to consolidate or refinance student loans incurred before military service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3267. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage of blood-based dementia screening tests; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention ASAP Act. This bill would require the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover FDA-approved blood-based biomarker tests for Alzheimer's disease, expanding access to earlier and more accurate diagnoses for millions of Americans.
Alzheimer's disease is one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. It currently affects more than 7 million Americans, including an estimated 29,000 individuals in Maine. That number is expected to increase in the coming years as our population ages.
Alzheimer's is also the most expensive disease in America. The cost of caring for people with Alzheimer's and other dementia was an estimated $360 billion in 2024. Total costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion by 2050 unless we take meaningful action.
Early diagnosis of this disease is critical. It allows patients and their families to better plan for the future, access care and support services, and take advantage of available treatments that are most effective in the early stages. Yet far too many individuals remain undiagnosed until their symptoms become severe.
I have had the privilege of meeting with Mainers from the Alzheimer's Association year after year when they come to Washington. One story stands out to me as an example of the importance of early diagnosis. Ten years ago, Ralph Carmona was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment resulting from Alzheimer's disease. Because he was diagnosed in the very early stages of disease, Ralph was able to participate in a clinical trial for Leqembi. Leqembi is one of the first disease- modifying therapies approved by the FDA for early treatment of Alzheimer's. Ralph credits this drug with significantly slowing his symptoms. He has even run a marathon since his initial diagnosis.
Recent scientific advances have led to the development of blood-based biomarker tests that can detect Alzheimer's with increasing accuracy. These tests are far less invasive and significantly more affordable than current diagnostic methods, such as PET scans or spinal taps. Earlier this year, FDA approved the first blood test for clinical use. This approval will greatly increase the ability of primary care physicians to diagnose the disease in its very early stages while symptoms are still mild and potentially treatable. The only current treatments available for Alzheimer's disease are approved for patients in the early stages of disease.
An important next step is for CMS to cover this breakthrough. I pushed CMS to cover Leqembi and other early-stage disease-modifying therapies. If the FDA approves a treatment an innovative blood test such as this one, there is no reason why CMS should refuse to cover it.
The ASAP Act would address this gap by requiring CMS to cover FDA- approved blood tests for Alzheimer's once they are deemed safe and effective. The bill also supports the continued development and evaluation of screening practices that reflect the latest in medical science.
As the founder and cochair of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, I have long believed that we must do more to detect Alzheimer's early and expand access to innovations in diagnosis and treatment. I want to thank the Alzheimer's Association for its continued advocacy and for developing this important legislation. Their partnership and dedication to improving the lives of those affected by Alzheimer's have been invaluable.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage of this bill.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention ASAP Act. This bill would require the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover FDA-approved blood-based biomarker tests for Alzheimer's disease, expanding access to earlier and more accurate diagnoses for millions of Americans.
Alzheimer's disease is one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. It currently affects more than 7 million Americans, including an estimated 29,000 individuals in Maine. That number is expected to increase in the coming years as our population ages.
Alzheimer's is also the most expensive disease in America. The cost of caring for people with Alzheimer's and other dementia was an estimated $360 billion in 2024. Total costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion by 2050 unless we take meaningful action.
Early diagnosis of this disease is critical. It allows patients and their families to better plan for the future, access care and support services, and take advantage of available treatments that are most effective in the early stages. Yet far too many individuals remain undiagnosed until their symptoms become severe.
I have had the privilege of meeting with Mainers from the Alzheimer's Association year after year when they come to Washington. One story stands out to me as an example of the importance of early diagnosis. Ten years ago, Ralph Carmona was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment resulting from Alzheimer's disease. Because he was diagnosed in the very early stages of disease, Ralph was able to participate in a clinical trial for Leqembi. Leqembi is one of the first disease- modifying therapies approved by the FDA for early treatment of Alzheimer's. Ralph credits this drug with significantly slowing his symptoms. He has even run a marathon since his initial diagnosis.
Recent scientific advances have led to the development of blood-based biomarker tests that can detect Alzheimer's with increasing accuracy. These tests are far less invasive and significantly more affordable than current diagnostic methods, such as PET scans or spinal taps. Earlier this year, FDA approved the first blood test for clinical use. This approval will greatly increase the ability of primary care physicians to diagnose the disease in its very early stages while symptoms are still mild and potentially treatable. The only current treatments available for Alzheimer's disease are approved for patients in the early stages of disease.
An important next step is for CMS to cover this breakthrough. I pushed CMS to cover Leqembi and other early-stage disease-modifying therapies. If the FDA approves a treatment an innovative blood test such as this one, there is no reason why CMS should refuse to cover it.
The ASAP Act would address this gap by requiring CMS to cover FDA- approved blood tests for Alzheimer's once they are deemed safe and effective. The bill also supports the continued development and evaluation of screening practices that reflect the latest in medical science.
As the founder and cochair of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, I have long believed that we must do more to detect Alzheimer's early and expand access to innovations in diagnosis and treatment. I want to thank the Alzheimer's Association for its continued advocacy and for developing this important legislation. Their partnership and dedication to improving the lives of those affected by Alzheimer's have been invaluable.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage of this bill.
Mr. President, I have six 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 Thursday, November 20, 2025, at 1:45 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2025, at 9 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2025, immediately following the business meeting, to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 20, 2025, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to Commissions, committees, Boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. 2110) 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 Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2379 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
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. 2379) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Requesting the Secretary of the Interior to Authorize Unique and One- Time Arrangements for Displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument During the Period Beginning on December 31...
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution 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 joint resolution (H.J. Res. 133) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
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. 513, S. Res. 514, and S. Res. 515.
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 (S. Res. 513, S. Res. 514, and S. Res. 515) were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 1318) 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 (H.R. 970) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 983 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
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 (H.R. 983) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1912 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
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 (H.R. 1912) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 489, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 489) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of November 6, 2025, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn and then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times: Friday, November 21, at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, November 25, at 1:45 p.m.; Friday, November 28, at 5:30 p.m.; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 28, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, December 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed today ripen at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
