Healthcare
Mr. President, the Democrat leader was just talking about healthcare, and obviously there has been a lot of conversation around that here in these past few weeks and months. In fact, the Democrats shut down the government for 43 days, the longest shutdown in history, allegedly, for healthcare; although, I think we all know that it was Trump derangement syndrome more than anything else that led to the government shutdown.
But I would just say because there is a--you know, sometimes you have to take a walk down memory lane to remind people that facts are stubborn things, and facts are stubborn things.
The Democrat leader implied Republicans are not interested in lowering healthcare costs and that somehow they are. The contrary is actually the truth.
If you look at what has happened since the ObamaCare exchanges went live over 10 years ago, healthcare premiums on the exchange have gone up, on average, 221 percent--a 221-percent increase in healthcare premiums in the
Now, you might ask, why is that? There are a lot of reasons behind it. When they put the law in place in the first place, it was flawed structurally. But then he referred to these so-called Biden COVID bonuses, which were the enhancements that the Democrats now want to lock into place.
Now, remember, this was done in 2021 with a Democrat majority, Democrat in the White House, under reconciliation. So there wasn't a single Republican who voted for these enhancements in the first place. But, remember, they were enhancements designed to be responsive to the pandemic.
They were COVID bonuses, only supposed to be temporary. And then, in 2022, they extended them again and set them up to expire at the end of this year. This is a problem of Democrats' making, pure and simple.
So to suggest for a moment that Republicans somehow aren't interested in lowering healthcare costs when, in fact, it is Democrat policies that have led to the runup, the rampant increase--221 percent increase in premiums since the exchanges went live over 10 years ago. You find me anything else in our economy that has seen that kind of an increase over that same time period, Mr. President. That is a staggering increase.
The Biden COVID bonuses that were enacted with all Democrat votes in 2021 and then extended again in 2022 and are set to expire at the end of this year were, again, designed to be a response to a COVID emergency which no longer exists.
So what has happened? They locked in the Biden COVID bonuses that are set to expire at the end of this year, and they expect Republicans now to bail them out. Well, frankly, Republicans are interested in things that will drive down and lower healthcare costs.
The other thing they did in 2022, which is sort of interesting, is that the base ObamaCare policies covered people up to 400 percent of the poverty level. Well, today, that is about, for a family of four, $128,000. So in the exchanges, you could get coverage, and if your healthcare insurance premiums hit a certain percentage of your income, anything above and beyond that was covered by a government subsidy. That is, in fact, the way it worked prior to 2021. The Biden COVID bonuses took that cap off. There is no cap--no cap. So now you have people making $500,000, $600,000 a year who are getting subsidies from the Federal Government to buy insurance.
The other thing they did is they did away with--there are what are called zero-dollar policies or zero-dollar premiums. In other words, there are people out there who pay nothing for coverage. Their coverage is entirely covered by the Federal Government through the subsidy.
Well, what that has done and because of the way the program is structured--they structured it--is to provide the subsidies directly to insurance companies. This is called, falsely, a premium tax credit. It is not a tax credit. A tax credit would be something that would lower tax liability dollar for dollar when you file your income taxes. This is a subsidy, a direct subsidy.
So you have literally millions of people--millions of people--who have no idea they are covered because they aren't paying anything for it, and the insurance companies are getting the payment. So the insurance companies are incentivized to go out and autoenroll all these people across the country. So what you have today are literally millions of people of the 23 to 24 million people who get their coverage in the exchanges--millions of those have no idea that they are even covered because the insurance company is getting the subsidy, autoenrolling them, which might explain why last year 40 percent of the people who get their insurance coverage through the exchanges didn't file a claim.
Now, you could say that maybe they are healthy; maybe they are younger. That is all partially true, but do you think 40 percent of the people in the exchanges didn't file a claim? I mean, think about that. That means there are literally millions of people out there--millions of people who don't know they have coverage, and the insurance companies are getting the payments and making bank at the expense of everybody else in this country. And those who are paying premiums are seeing those premiums go up, as I said, 221 percent since these exchanges went live 10 years ago.
So this is not something the Republicans--they blame the Republicans for the healthcare crisis. The healthcare crisis was created by Democrats with all Democrat votes in 2021 and then again in 2022, setting them up to expire at the end of this year and with no income limits and zero-dollar premiums and the subsidies going directly to the insurance companies instead of into the pockets of the American people.
Now, there is a better way to do this, but it is going to take cooperation from both sides to do that. It seems to me, at least, that what the Democrats would rather have than a solution is an issue. They want a political issue, and they want to blame Republicans. But you have to come back to the basic premise that facts are stubborn things.
These are the facts: In 2021, these Biden COVID bonuses went into effect. Lifted the cap, so there is no cap, so you can have unlimited amounts of income and still get coverage in the exchanges; zero-dollar premiums, so some people are paying nothing for their health insurance premiums; and insurance companies that are incentivized to autoenroll those very people. In many cases, those people have no idea they are covered. That is a pretty amazing contraption, if you will, and, some would argue, scam on behalf of the insurance companies in this country but certainly to the detriment of the American people, who do need more affordable coverage. They need to be able to afford healthcare along with the other things they buy on a daily basis. People need access to healthcare in this country, and they need affordability when it comes to healthcare in this country.
I would say there is a path forward here. It can't happen unless there are significant reforms because you can't have people who are making unlimited amounts of money being able to qualify for government subsidies in these exchanges. Nor should you have, in my view, people who pay absolutely nothing--not one dollar--for coverage getting coverage and insurance companies being incentivized, because they get a subsidy for doing it, to cover these very people who don't even know they are covered. That is a really, really bizarre business model. I mean, you couldn't make this stuff up.
Now the Democrats are saying: Oh, we created this, but it is your problem. Please, please fix it. If you don't, if you don't do something that will extend this program that has premiums that continue to go up like this for the American people, we will use it against you in a political campaign as a political issue.
That is the state of play right now, which is why we need a solution and a solution that brings us back to where the American people have options, where there are some sort of income limits, where there are people at least paying something for their coverage, where the insurance companies aren't being enriched at the expense of the American people, and where the American people have choices and options to get the plan they want that works for them and for their families. That is a business model that works. Competition, optionality, market forces, driving down prices, giving the American people more choices to buy the insurance they want at a price they can afford--that is a business model.
The business model we are operating under today was created by the Democrats, and now there is some expectation that somehow Republicans are supposed to come here and fix the problem they created.
Healthcare
Mr. President, many of us bring life experiences to the Senate Chamber, and it shapes our judgment on critical issues.
When I was first married, my wife and I were blessed with a beautiful little baby girl. I was going to law school here in Washington, DC. It turns out that our little girl had a serious, serious medical problem.
The difficulty I faced was the fact that I had no health insurance. I was a law student, and I ended up going to Children's Hospital here in Washington, DC, with my wife and our little baby girl and sitting in the charity ward, which basically was there for people who couldn't pay their medical bills and had no health insurance. We waited for the door to open and for our family name to be called out to meet, for the first time, the doctor who was going to treat my little girl.
I never felt more helpless in my life, as a father, to have that baby with that medical problem and to have no health insurance. I am sure that colored my judgment the rest of my life and my service of over 40 years in Congress.
I have always voted to give families a better chance of having health insurance. Having lived without it, I value it so much. It has been a major part of my feelings about healthcare and about the role of Congress.
And so then, 15 years ago, when President Obama, my former colleague from Illinois, was President of the United States and set out to achieve something that had never been done in the United States--to dramatically expand the coverage of health insurance to families that otherwise wouldn't qualify under the existing law or couldn't afford it--I worked hard to pass that bill. It took us a long time and a lot of effort.
I was whip of the Senate Democrats at that point, and I used to go to Harry Reid's office several times a day to talk about the next step in passing the Affordable Care Act.
The day finally came. I won't dwell on the minutia or the details of how we reached, but we did it. Unfortunately, throughout that process, we never--never--had one Republican vote of support, ever. We were fortunate to have 60 Democrats at the right moment politically to pass a bill in the U.S. Senate.
I was sorry that the Republicans didn't join us in this effort. They could have made a better bill out of it--I am sure of it--if they had joined us, but they decided not to.
And so, for the last 15 years, the Affordable Care Act has offered to millions of Americans health insurance coverage, which was unthinkable before it passed.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
There was a time when health insurance plans in the United States, before the Affordable Care Act, didn't cover mental health issues or addiction issues. You think to yourself, well, those are serious issues. They affect people's health. Why wouldn't they cover it? Because they are expensive, and they didn't want to.
But two Senators came out on the floor here--one a Democrat, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, and the other a Republican, Pete Domenici of New Mexico--and pushed to include as a requirement, in all health insurance plans, that they cover mental illness.
I supported that. My family, like most families, has a story to tell when it comes to mental illness, and I viewed it as an issue of health, not an issue of a curse that a person has to try to outlive. So we included it. Thank goodness we did. Not only did mental illness have health insurance coverage, but
The second thing, before the Affordable Care Act, if you had any history of any illness, coverage would be excluded for that illness when you got your health insurance plan. So most plans were worthless for people who came into the market looking for healthcare coverage if they had any history whatsoever. That was eliminated, and I am glad it was.
We also extended health insurance coverage for children of families to age 26. The belief was simple: When your child, your son or your daughter, graduates college and starts looking for a job, they may not have luck at the outset. They may not have a full-time job when they finally do find employment. And they probably, in those days, had no health insurance offered to them as part-time employees. So we let young people stay under their family health insurance plan until they reached the age of 26.
Those are the types of things that have been decried by many Republicans as socialism, too much government, too much regulation. But it meant that the health insurance market was actually worth something to families who otherwise were excluded from it or found it too expensive.
As I said, we passed that major legislation 15 years ago--roughly 15 years ago--at a time when not a single Republican would support it.
Now we are back into a period--and I listened closely to the Republican leader this morning--where we are asking: What are we going to do moving forward?
Here is the problem: For those people who had limited income, health insurance was beyond their reach. And so we offered a tax break--a tax credit--for people to help pay their health insurance premiums. Otherwise, they were too expensive. That health insurance tax credit helped millions of American families afford health insurance, and we moved forward.
But there came a time when the Republicans had a chance, with their own majority, to address the Affordable Care Act, and they started eliminating that health insurance credit.
As a consequence, many families--24 million, we believe, nationwide-- face the prospect that their health insurance premiums are going to be too high and increase dramatically, beyond their reach in family income.
And that is exactly what is happening. Families across America who qualify for the Affordable Care Act health insurance tax credit are learning that their health insurance premiums are going up dramatically. I receive letters and contacts from people in Illinois, which I will put in the record in just a moment here.
But Senator Thune, who is a friend and the Republican leader of the Senate, came to the floor this morning and pointed to two areas he thinks needed to be changed in the Affordable Care Act. One is whether your income level should be taken into consideration for the tax credit, and I believe it should and he does, too, I think. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is what I understood him to say this morning. Secondly, that there are zero premium policies that are being taken advantage of by some unethical people.
I think those are two legitimate areas of debate. I want to offer, as a Democratic Senator, my good offices and personal effort to try to fix those two problems if it means we can come together and restore tax credits for families that otherwise cannot afford their health insurance premiums. We are going to have a chance to do it.
And it was Senator Thune who created that chance. He said the Democrats could offer a basic bill to improve the system, which I am sure we will. And I hope that the Republicans may offer amendments to it or may have their own approach that we can debate leading into it. The problem is, we have precious little time. It is supposed to be done before December 12, and that is only a few days away. Some of these changes are significant. We ought to take a little time to make sure we get them right.
I am just saying, as an offer--and I hope the American people follow this closely--this Democrat, and I am sure others as well on my side of the aisle, will sit down with Senator Thune to try to address the problems that he raised this morning. They are legitimate concerns. We may see them a little differently, but let's discuss it.
Let's do something we hardly ever do in the U.S. Senate anymore: Let's legislate. Let's do it on a bipartisan basis. They don't have 60 votes on their side of the aisle, nor do we. But if we come together, we can muster 60 votes for a good change and say to millions of Americans with health insurance premiums they can't afford that there is a way out of this.
Let us extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits with some changes, as suggested, but do it for a period of time that is reasonable and gives people peace of mind. If we are concerned about the cost of living and family budgets, for goodness' sake, it starts with healthcare. Health insurance premiums can be so high, people have no choice.
Honoring Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe
Mr. President, I would tell everyone just this--all those up in the Galleries, everybody--I am probably going to need your prayers to get through this, because we have had something happen in the small but great State of West Virginia that absolutely is tragic beyond belief.
I mean, look at these two young, beautiful people. We have lost Sarah, haven't we? And Andrew is just clinging for his life.
West Virginia is really hurting--really hurting. Our National Guard is really hurting but nowhere close--nowhere possibly close--to how these families are really hurting. So in every single way, I ask for your prayers.
Just think of the call that came right before Thanksgiving-- Thanksgiving, of all times of the year. Think about that call. Think about basically the senseless attack on America, but think about that call to these families and how bad bad really is.
You see, in my little State of West Virginia--I will just tell you this--the people are proud; the people are smart; the people are craftsmen; they are good people; they are loving people; they are neighbors. They are absolutely a people that are appreciative-- appreciative of all. It is amazing just how deeply appreciative they are when somebody does something that helps them in any way.
I have got to tell you this real quick. I had brown hair at one time, and I was really skinny. I grew up in the little town of Beckley, WV. I used to ride my bike absolutely from where we lived on a little dirt road, a little red dog road at the time--and ``red dog'' is something they just make out of, you know, coal piles that become slate and just got burnt, and they built a great road. With all that being said, I would ride my bike 8 miles across town to Little League practice. You see, I lived in Mayberry. That is all there is to it.
Now, think about our National Guard. You know, there is story after story.
I was able to be the Governor of the great State of West Virginia for 8 years, and I worked hand in hand with them. It was unbelievable what General Hoyer and General Crane and all the great people of the National Guard--they are phenomenal beyond all possible comparison. That is why
I have been right in the middle of the flood. And my family happens to own the Greenbrier Hotel, and it is a little place in West Virginia. But with all that being said, with the terrible flood that happened in 2016, we hunted bodies on the golf courses and found three bodies on the golf courses. We hunted for 6 weeks for a little 14-year old girl, Mykala Phillips, and we found her 5 miles downstream 6 weeks later.
I have been with the National Guard, and I have seen every single part of the National Guard and just how great--and I mean great--these people are. I think, though, just at this time, please, please keep your focus on these families.
Andrew is clinging to life and showing signs of goodness towards maybe coming out and coming through this, but life will be really, really tough, won't it?
And Sarah--20 years old, beautiful beyond belief, and gone. And why? Why? Why on Earth? Why?
You know, many of you may say this. You may say: Well, we don't agree with what the President has done.
And I would say to you just this. I would say to you: How many body bags--how many body bags do we have to have in our cities to do something?
What was he trying to do? What does he continue to try to do? He is trying every way in the world to give Mayberry back to us, to give us what we all deserve in every single way. He is trying with all in it.
My little town of Beckley, WV, now has turned into, in many ways, not a great place from the standpoint of crime. If you ask Jim Justice this, if you said to Jim Justice ``Well, you know, I will tell you what we have got. We have got three Canadian Mounted Police that can come to Beckley, WV, and can really make a difference, they can really help,'' who would turn that down? Who would say ``No, no, we don't want to do that. No, we don't want to do that because that is going to infringe on somebody'' or whatever it may be? Do you not realize that every day that goes by, it gets worse? We have got to do something.
I would say: If this isn't the answer, then you fix it because we want to be Mayberry. We deserve to be Mayberry.
Last thing I would say is just this: America, please listen to me and listen now. What in the world has happened to us? What in the world has happened to us? Is the next thing you don't have enough dead bolts or locks on the front door of your house or your back door? Are we going to absolutely lock our bedrooms when we go to bed at night? because we will put locks on that too.
America, something is really wrong, and we have to really do something about it.
From the standpoint of Congress, are we dysfunctional? You are dad gum right in a lot of ways. I haven't been here very long, but I see absolutely the food fight going on all the time and the respect level almost nonexistent. That is bad.
We should absolutely respect one another, and we should look at each other's views and opinions and honor them, and we don't. And vote after vote after vote after vote, 59--51, 49. It is not good. It is not good, America, and it is not a game.
You see, at the end of the rainbow on every single thing we do here, there is a name. Today, the names are Sarah and Andrew.
America, please let's not gloss over. Let's absolutely let them have the opportunity to be a change--a change of who we are. Think about what they have given. Think about how many are hurting.
Absolutely first and foremost, again, I ask for your prayers for these great, great, great young people and their unbelievable families. God bless each and every one of them.
God bless this great Nation. And let's do something about it. Absolutely, let's let them change America. Don't forget them. Don't forget them no matter what you do. Don't ever forget them.
I yield the floor.
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026: Motion to Proceed
Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 136, H.R. 4016.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, Juan Orlando Hernandez is the former President of Honduras, a country I lived in when I worked with Jesuit missionaries in 1980 and 1981. In a landmark criminal prosecution, he was convicted by a jury in an American Federal court of a massive conspiracy to traffic more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States while he was President of this very poor country.
Trial testimony included a witness who quoted Hernandez saying that he wanted to ``shove drugs right up the noses of the gringos and they're never even going to know it.''
The case against Hernandez began when Donald Trump's Department of Justice prosecuted his brother Tony in 2019. During that trial and the subsequent trial of the former Honduran President in 2024, evidence showed that President Hernandez led a conspiracy to distribute cocaine in the United States, engaged in serious firearms offenses, and collected millions of dollars in bribes from some of the most dangerous criminals in the world, including Joaquin ``El Chapo'' Guzman of the Sinaloa Cartel. These actions coincided with a spike in violent crime in Honduras, rendering it, for a time, the most dangerous nation on Earth, forcing many Hondurans to leave their country, some coming to the United States.
The jury that heard the 3-week-long case against the disgraced former President convicted him on multiple offenses. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
Last Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, President Trump announced that he would pardon this notorious narcotrafficking kingpin after just 1 year of serving his 45-year sentence in a Federal penitentiary in West Virginia. Hernandez was released from prison yesterday.
The unconscionable Hernandez pardon followed another Trump pardon of another notorious narcotrafficker. On January 21, 2025, the day after President Trump's inauguration, he pardoned Ross Ulbricht. Ulbricht was convicted in a Federal court after a 4-week jury trial in 2015 of seven serious charges stemming from his operation of a criminal enterprise known as Silk Road. Silk Road, for those not familiar, was an underground online marketplace where drug dealers and other criminals conducted more than $200 million in illegal drug trade and other unlawful activities. Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison by an American jury.
President Trump is claiming to be taking action to stop the flow of narcotics into the United States. Yet these two outrageous pardons show that he is willing to excuse and free the worst narcotraffickers in the world. How does this protect Americans from the flow of narcotics entering our country?
As someone who knows this region very well because of my time spent living there and my subsequent work in this body as chairman and ranking member of the America subcommittee of Senate Foreign Relations, I can tell you that the decision with respect to ex-President Hernandez will severely tarnish our reputation with our regional friends and allies. Pardoning him sends a message of impunity to those involved in drug trafficking, violent crime, and corruption, which are often clear causes of irregular migration to the United States.
Why pardon a crook who successfully ``shoved'' 400 tons of cocaine right up the ``noses of the gringos''? Why pardon a criminal who established the largest underground illegal drug market in the world? How come President Trump is willing to ignore the American juries who looked at the overwhelming evidence against these narcotraffickers and convicted them?
It is hard to see any reason for these pardons except that Hernandez and Ulbricht are megarich. Their bank accounts are stuffed with millions from illegal activities, which gives them the means and the motive to pump large sums of money into downtown DC to get out of jail.
It is true that a President has expansive pardon authorities. But it is also true that American politicians have been successfully prosecuted for selling pardons. I can't say for sure what is going on here, but the pardon of Hernandez is so bizarre, so counter to the President's stated priorities, that it is difficult for me to fathom any reason why this would happen, other than that someone in the administration was benefiting from it. None of it makes any logical sense.
I hope that our justice system is up to the task of finding the real story behind these pardons, especially since President Trump has a track record of pardoning those who have contributed to him.
Drug kingpins who become rich by profiting off the addictions of everyday Americans shouldn't be allowed to get away scot-free, and Federal officials who facilitate the pardon of these individuals have to be held to account.
Now, the pardon of disgraced former President Hernandez and Russ Ulbricht also raises serious questions about the Trump administration's ongoing war against boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and the threatened war against Venezuela. The President and his Secretary of Defense claim that these actions, taken without congressional authorization, are designed to stop narcotics flows into the United States.
Is that the real story?
Even before we get to the question of what is motivating the President to kill unknown civilians on boats and threaten to start a costly war of choice with Venezuela, the serious legal questions about these military actions continue to multiply. The U.S. military began to strike boats in the Caribbean and Pacific on September 2. So far, the United States has engaged in more than 20 known strikes, killing at least 83 people. The first strike happened on a boat in the Caribbean on September 2, based on public reporting.
We now know--we now know--that the initial strike killed most on board, but two survivors were left clinging to wreckage in the water. The U.S. Defense Department rules about war make plain that it is illegal to kill wounded survivors under these circumstances. International law commands the same. Those surviving cannot be wantonly slaughtered. Yet acting pursuant to an alleged order from the Secretary of Defense to ``kill everybody,'' U.S. Special Forces returned to kill the two survivors and hid the fact from Congress and the American public for more than 2 months until enterprising journalists broke the story last week.
On September 10, I led a letter with 25 Senate colleagues directly to the President asking basic questions about the military strikes. We saw no evidence that those on board the boats were combatants or narcotraffickers. We asked for the legal rationale justifying such military action without congressional approval. We inquired why the military was striking boats to kill all on board without interdicting the traffic and using the arrest of the civilians and the seizure of drugs to build criminal cases against drug kingpins. We have not yet received sufficient answers to these basic questions.
The Armed Services Committee held a single classified briefing with administration officials on October 1. As a member of the committee, I attended the briefing. I am not allowed to discuss the facts that I learned in that briefing, but I can say the following: The briefing did not provide us with the legal rationale justifying the strikes. The briefers did not provide us with concrete information about the identity of the individuals killed or the groups targeted with the strikes. The briefers would provide no information about the policy for determining when boats would be attacked rather than interdicted.
Eventually, after weeks and weeks of pressure, the administration finally allowed Senators to read in the SCIF a classified legal rationale it prepared to justify these military actions. By the time Senators--charged with overseeing military operations and providing the budget for national defense--were allowed to review the legal rationale, the strikes had been underway for nearly 2 months.
I reviewed the legal rationale, but because the administration continues to call it classified, I am not allowed to disclose its contents. But I can say the following: The legal rationale is weak. It misinterprets and misuses historical materials regarding the Constitution's allocation of war powers. Its analysis of the domestic law allowing Presidential action is flimsy and would essentially repeal the careful language used in the Constitution and further
I can also say this. Nothing in the rationale that Senators can read in a classified setting would allow any military action against the nation of Venezuela. The dangerous nature of the administration's legal rationale and strategy are magnified by a series of events that have happened in the last 3 months. Before the strikes even began, public reporting has it that the senior Judge Advocate General, the chief legal officer in SOUTHCOM, raised serious concerns about the legality of these strikes in August.
On October 1, when the Department of Defense briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee about these strikes, they neglected to bring any uniformed officers or personnel from SOUTHCOM to the briefing. This fact was an immediate red flag and tipoff that there was deep division within the ranks about the legality of this current military operation.
On October 16, the military struck a vessel and recovered two survivors. The survivors were then returned to their homes in Colombia and Ecuador and released.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If they were narcotraffickers, why weren't they arrested and prosecuted? If they weren't narcotraffickers, was a mistake made? Were mistakes made in the other strikes? Were they innocent of wrongdoing? Was the case against them so flimsy that it wouldn't stand up in a court and that is why they were not arrested but instead released in their home countries?
The administration's refusal to share any information about who has been killed, paired with the lack of prosecution of these two individuals, raises serious concerns over exactly who is being killed and why.
In mid-October, SOUTHCOM Commander, Admiral Holsey, announced his premature retirement from the military. A posting to be head of SOUTHCOM would normally go for 3 years. Admiral Holsey was confirmed less than a year ago, and he announced he was prematurely retiring at the peak of his career--a three-star admiral being given command of this important COCOM. Reporting suggests that the retirement followed tense argument between Admiral Holsey, Secretary Hegseth, and Chairman Dan Caine over the legality of these military strikes.
At around the same time, the Pentagon announced that the operational responsibility for the military strikes was being transferred from SOUTHCOM--where their chief legal officer and apparently their Commander had raised questions about the legality of killing civilians on open seas--the responsibility was being transferred from SOUTHCOM to the Special Operations Command. My read of this shift, together with the other evidence about the JAG opinion in SOUTHCOM and the premature retirement of the SOUTHCOM Commander, is that it signifies a deep concern within the Pentagon leadership over the legality of the ongoing military action.
On November 11, we learned that one of our closest allies, the United Kingdom, was restricting traditional information-sharing with the United States in the SOUTHCOM area due to its concerns about the legality of the U.S. military actions. The UK has fought alongside us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world, but they are not participating in intelligence-sharing on this particular American military mission.
Just last week, we learned that the first strike left survivors who were then killed on orders from Secretary Hegseth. The United States has, in the past, prosecuted such actions as war crimes, beginning with the Nuremberg trials and heading forward into the current era.
Over the weekend, President Trump announced that he was closing Venezuelan airspace. Where is his authority to close the airspace over a sovereign nation? Did the Pentagon even know that he would announce such a policy via his social media account? Do we even know whether the airspace has been closed or whether any flights are still occurring?
Most recently--most recently--our Secretary of Defense, who likes to cosplay by giving himself the fake title ``Secretary of War,'' posted an image on Twitter of Franklin the turtle firing missiles at narcoterrorists.
Pete Hegseth's social media account:
This is the Secretary of Defense, folks, of the greatest Nation on Earth, and to him, this thing is just a big joke.
Think about that. America's Secretary of Defense has enough time on his hands that he and his minions get to come up with cartoon memes to make light of the fact that the United States is killing people in international waters. He is spending his time and energy thinking about cartoons rather than keeping us safe.
I just have to ask this. I was intrigued at this particular detail. There is a great Biblical phrase that says, ``From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.'' So something that you are feeling inside tends to come outside of your mouth even if it is somewhat unintentional.
Why Franklin? I mean, if you are going to do a cartoon--like, Franklin is a Canadian cartoon. Why not Scooby-Doo or Peanuts or, you know, Snoopy? I mean, why Franklin? Of all the cartoon figures that Pete Hegseth could spend time imaging into an AI-generated cartoon making fun of killing narco--why Franklin?
Well, I don't know the answer to that. Secretary Hegseth does. But I have an intuition. Check and see the name of the Special Forces commander whom Secretary Hegseth is now trying to blame for the second strike killing struggling civilians in international waters.
This is no way to wage war. This is no way to wage war.
Orders of dubious legality offered by civilian leaders of questionable judgment are leading to dozens of anonymous deaths, division within the U.S. military, and tension with our allies. The administration's actions are risking the careers of officers and troops, many having served for decades with great distinction, who face the life-and-death question of whether to obey a superior or follow the law--follow the clear law.
All this is occurring with an administration hell-bent on hiding from Congress and the American public the actual facts, strategy, and legal justification for its actions. America is not supposed to be at war based on a Presidential say-so.
Abraham Lincoln said it well when he was a Member of Congress in 1848:
No one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.
It is past time for Congress to reclaim its role in the decision on whether to initiate war. The Framers in 1787 wouldn't allow George Washington to make these decisions on his own. We shouldn't allow our current President--a man perfectly comfortable pardoning a convicted criminal who boasted about shoving drugs up the gringos' noses--to make such a decision on his own.
It is time for Congress to reassert the role that was handed to us in a sacred way in the Constitution in 1787 and exercise oversight over this mushrooming military operation in the Americas.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, it is a shame that we don't have more of an opportunity to pass more bills, particularly bills that are not controversial. This is an opportunity that we should take to pass noncontroversial bills every time we get the chance.
We have four bills coming out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can, and I believe we
And yet, sadly, I am anticipating an objection today when I offer those up for passage. So why am I anticipating an objection? Well, I am looking forward to hearing from my colleague--my friend and colleague from New Mexico--Senator Heinrich, on what objections he might have to a bill from Senator Hawley that would designate America's National Churchill Museum in Missouri as a national historic landmark. I am looking forward to hearing from him what problems he might have with Senator Padilla's uncontroversial bill to adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I am looking forward to hearing what changes he would propose to Senator Husted's bill, which simply adjusts the boundaries of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, or what he thinks would be harmed by passing a bill from Senator Gillibrand and Minority Leader Schumer, his own colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that would establish the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park.
All the bills that I am offering have passed out of this body and did, in fact, pass out of this body last year with unanimous support-- not just bipartisan but unanimous support. All are locally supported. All should be passed today.
And I fear they might not be, and I am really looking forward to why--looking forward to hearing why my colleague might want to stop these--because if there are real substantive objections to these bills, to any of them, bring them forward. I will be the first to work with him or others who may have concerns on those. Perhaps, then, we can work to improve the bill and resolve what concerns might exist around it to get it to a place where everyone is happy with it and where we could get something done for the American people.
After all, this is the business of law making. But I don't think we are likely to hear substantive objections today, based on what I have heard. I don't anticipate that my friend and colleague Senator Heinrich will offer substantive objections or changes that he wants made to these particular bills. I hope I am wrong.
But if he doesn't have any problems with the substance of the bills, then why not let them pass? Well, there is a tendency sometimes exhibited in the Senate, and I have seen it done by people of both political parties and by Members at different ends of the political continuum, from time to time. When Members want leverage, sometimes, they will reach for whatever is popular, in some cases even what is uncontroversial.
During the shutdown, we saw a parallel use of the technique with some using air traffic controllers, TSA officers, and Coast Guard families as pressure points because the public trusted those people and needs the services that they routinely and uniquely perform.
And, sometimes, Members--again, of both political parties and of every political persuasion--will sometimes use popular bills the same way. In other words, they will oppose popular, noncontroversial bills not because they are controversial or unpopular but because they are uncontroversial and popular. They are blocked because their broad support makes them useful cargo for a lands package or another aggregated legislative vehicle packed with measures that might not withstand scrutiny under the light of day if they were considered on their own or even when paired with a small handful of other bills.
Instead of moving bills off the floor one by one or two by two in a transparent, bipartisan process, some would prefer a really big omnibus package, often prepared by staff behind closed doors, where only a few Senators and no members of the public are participating or even allowed to participate. Then Members are told to take it or leave it in its entirety--up or down, binary choice, no other option, no amendments, no adequate time for debate. Simply, take it all or leave it all, even the uncontroversial and the popular.
Now, this puts many of us--particularly, those of us from public lands States, like Utah, where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land--in a difficult position. In States like mine, almost every action requires some sort of ``Mother, may I'' from the Federal Government.
This is not a process that can continue, at least not one that can continue without causing a lot of other problems. So as chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I have set out to change that. I have set out to--at least with regard to noncontroversial bills that have passed the Senate in the last year, unanimously, it is a good place to start--where there is consensus, because there is consensus.
My aim is to build on the progress from last year, when this body passed out 41 bills, and to that end, I have suggested that we start by passing the bills, at least a few of them, paired Republican and Democrat bills at the same time--bills that passed the Senate unanimously last year, including bills that the ranking member himself agreed to less than a year ago.
And, again, if there is a policy objection, then let's hear it. I am more than willing to work with you to address whatever substantive objections there might be.
But these bills should pass in the light of day, where every Member-- Republican or Democrat or Independent--could be part of the process.
This has been going on, back and forth, in one way or another for a few months. In May, I came to the floor and asked unanimous consent to pass two Republican bills alongside two Democrat bills, both of which, like the bills that are at issue today, passed the Senate unanimously last year. Now, this drew an objection from the other side of the aisle.
And in July I came to the floor again and offered to work with the ranking member on these bills. I offered two additional Republican and two Democrat bills that passed out of this body last year, also with unanimous support, and it drew the same objection.
Now, as always, I have offered to work with the ranking member and the minority if they have any substantive concerns on any of these bills, and I make that offer again now. But as you may see in just a moment--as I suspect we will see; I can't tell the future--I haven't heard any substantive policy concerns with them.
Now, a small minority of Members who want to block bills--including bills supported by, introduced by, sponsored by Members of their own caucus--just because they want them in a broader package isn't going to cut it.
Now, 2 weeks ago, you had the junior Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, who came to the floor and asked consent to pass his bill to give Alaska Native Vietnam veterans the land they earned and have long been owed. At the request of Senator Padilla and the ranking member, Senator Sullivan paired his bill with the bill from Senator Gallego, keeping it bipartisan.
However, to the surprise of Senator Sullivan and the Native Vietnam veterans who were relying on the legislation, this, too, drew the aforementioned objection, moving the goalpost again.
That process isn't defensible. It is not sustainable. It is not going to work. It is not going to work for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that I have heard from our counterparts in the House of Representatives--including in a conversation as recently as just a couple of hours ago with Chairman Westerman, my committee chairman counterpart on the House of Representatives side--that this is problematic. They want them to come over not as a big, sewn-together package but as bills, even if passed while paired over here. They will also be paired over there.
Sometimes, the concern is raised: Well, then Democrat bills will suffer and atrophy over there, while Republican bills are prioritized and passed to the exclusion of the Democrat bills.
This is not true. In fact, because these bills are passed as a matter of course--routinely passed--under suspension of the rules on the House side--and I believe suspension of the rules requires a super majority, about 290 votes--these always end up getting paired together. You end up with Democrat-Republican balance as they submit them on the floor.
So, today, I will again ask the minority to work with me to pass both Republican and Democrat bills--bills that, yet again, are noncontroversial and have passed this body unanimously within the last year.
These four bills are just the start. I have a list of 19 bills that Republicans are prepared to pass today. My staff has shared the list with the ranking member's staff. In fact, we did so weeks ago. And yet we continue to hear talk of an objection today.
I am willing to commit to working with my colleagues on the lands bills they wish to pass, with the understanding that, as we bring them to the floor to try to pass them by unanimous consent, we will continue to pair them so that there is balance.
So, please, let's work together. We can do this. This isn't hard.
There is a lot in the legislative process that is difficult. The last thing we ought to be doing is making the areas where we do agree, where there is unanimity, to make that, too, part of the unresolvable conundrum of bills.
And another thing happens. If we do this, it tends to slow down the process. Last year, there was an effort to try to sew a bunch of these together for some sort of year-end lands package. One thing led to another, and we got to the end of the year, which was the end of the Congress, and as the list got bigger, it got more and more difficult to sustain it. Whereas, if we go a little bit at a time, pair a few Republican bills and Democrat bills, bring them forward, pass them by unanimous consent, little by little, throughout the 2-year Congress, we are much more likely to be able to achieve passage, not just in the House but also here. That is a recipe for success.
But when we box stuff that has been passed unanimously, where there is no substantive policy objection, it is not the best way to serve those who elected us.
Our country faces huge challenges. And in many of those challenges, public policy consensus can be difficult--not impossible--to achieve but much more difficult than it is with these bills, these unanimously passed bills from just last year.
We have health prices that are soaring. Our national debt is out of control. How can we come together as a legislative body to tackle these more vexing issues if we can't even agree to something as unanimously supported, as totally noncontroversial, as a proposal to adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Dayton Aviation Heritage National and Historical Park?
The American people deserve a government that tells them what it is doing and why. The American people deserve bills that succeed or fail on their own merit in a digestible format. They do not deserve a process in which someone can slip a controversial idea past the public without debate by smuggling it into a much broader package, consisting mostly, but not entirely, of completely uncontroversial bills? This Chamber should reject that approach. If nothing else, then, because it has failed. It brought us to failure in the last Congress at the end of last year, just as it will end in failure if we try to do that again.
We have been told--we have been reminded by our counterparts in the House of Representatives as recently as a few hours ago--it will also contribute to failure over there. We can do better. This is a start. This won't solve all of our problems or resolve all of our disagreements, but it will bring this one to a close because there is no disagreement here.
At the end of the day--this should end today but only if we insist bills be able to stand on their own two feet and that we are willing to bring them forward one by one, two by two, with Democrat and Republican balance.
To that end, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider these bills be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: S. 650, America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act from Senator Hawley; S. 432, Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historic Park Establishment Act from Senator Gillibrand; S. 2434, to amend the Dayton Aviation Preservation Act from Senator Husted; and S. 1142, Golden Gate National Recreation Area from Senator Padilla.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Reserving the right to object, what we have in front of us are four bills, two Democrat and two Republican.
My concern remains the same as it was, literally, 11 months ago; that passing bills one by one does not guarantee their final passage or being signed into law or that important local priorities from Democratic States will be honored along with those from Republican States.
As the chair said, I do not have substantive policy concerns with these particular bills, but we passed a set of bills as a test like this over the summer, and we have seen no action from the House. And continuing to pass individual bills in this manner, when we have so many stacked up in committee, will be unproductive until our House colleagues work with us on a path to get bills actually signed into law.
We need a way to ensure that Member priorities, transparently-- regardless of size, political party, or State--have a way to be considered and actually become law. This current process is not working.
I remain committed to working with the chair to find a solution that ensures the priorities of both Chambers and both parties can be met.
In the meantime, I do have a proposal for the chair. I would like to take these four bills and pass them together under a single bill number. This is not a large, ominous package. These have all been vetted.
Each bill in this set has been supported by the Republican caucus and the chair, and it remains two Democratic priorities and two Republican priorities. But by combining these bills together under one bill number, it helps to ensure that none of the priorities are left behind on the cutting-room floor and all have an equal pathway to becoming law.
Therefore, I would ask that the Senator modify his request and, instead, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which combines the text of the aforementioned four bills and is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
The Senator from Utah.
Reserving the right to object.
Look, the package just proposed by Senator Heinrich harkens back to a time when a Senate sometimes did those things. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't. More recently, it doesn't work. More recently--as recently as a year ago--it proved not to work right here in the Senate and has proven not to work over in the House.
My friend and colleague insists that this process isn't working. It is not working only because of this particular objection. It is not working here only because of these specific pairings--pairings suggested to us by the ranking members' own staff a matter of weeks ago.
It is not just that he has voted for these within the last year, 11 months ago; these specific pairings were suggested by his own team to mine. I don't understand why this means that we should put them all together.
Now, let's take it at face value. We received word that this was happening just a few hours ago. Just a few hours ago, we got the bill that, to my knowledge, hasn't been read yet. Let's assume for a second all that this does is to put the exact text in each of those four bills into one large bill introduced in Senator Heinrich's name, then brought to the floor. I struggle to understand why that is acceptable, but passing them in one fell swoop, in one unanimous consent request on the floor of the Senate, is objectionable to him.
We heard a moment ago an argument that I foreshadowed a moment ago-- the argument that somehow this would result in Democratic bills in the other Chamber being neglected while Republican bills were expedited. Were this a concern that were borne out, in fact, it would be a reasonable and legitimate
We have been told it will cause problems and likely signal doom. The two bills, when we sewed them all together in one package, that is not how they like to do it over there and, in many cases, not how our Members want to do it here--from our own colleagues today, some of whom are affected by these bills who are concerned about what this practice will do to them.
So, look, we tried to do this. We paired these according to suggestions made by the ranking member's own staff. We requested a meeting with him in September. We were rebuffed, declined. We remain ready to meet at any time to discuss how we can do them. I am simply trying to move bills that have been sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats in a fair and balanced fashion, in a way that everyone can understand in the Member-driven process for which this body was built and rather uniquely designed.
Yet my colleague, the ranking member, continues to object. It makes me wonder what the end is here. If the end is passing good legislation, legislation that we can all agree on, then why not pass these now? It isn't always possible to present bills like this. It is not on every issue, which is not lost on any of us, but on most issues we don't have unanimity. We pass a lot by unanimous consent, but not everything can pass that way.
These bills, individually, are uncontroversial here, and they are in the House. But they become controversial the minute someone insists that they be sewn together in one package where you have to vote for all of them or none of them in order to get them through. That kind of practice--used by Members of both parties at times in the past with varying degrees of success but less success more recently--is a type of extortion for bills imposed on the bills that have no opposition and that have no substantive objections. There is no legitimate reason to not pass these here today.
I can't, in good conscience, let that process continue. I will work with any Member, Republican or Democrat, including the ranking member, to move noncontroversial bills and get them across the finish line for our constituents. I will be happy to do it with packages like these that are fair and balanced between the two parties.
It is not an objection that is rooted in anything about these bills. It is just a vehicle by which they are presented. But if we have to sew them all together in one package, that is not going to work. It is not going to work here. It is not going to work on the other side of this building.
So I will continue to come to the floor and try to move these, particularly these noncontroversial bills that have passed unanimously within the last year. We will be back to do this.
On this basis for the reasons articulated, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification has been heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from New Mexico.
I object to the original request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
