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.
24Senate Resolution 547: Expressing Unwavering Support for the United States-Japan Alliance in Response to Political, Economic and Military Pressure by the People's Republic of China
34Senate Resolution 557: Recognizing That Climate Change Portends a Cascade of Financial Market Collapses That Would Destabilize the National and Global Economies
35Senate Resolution 558: Recognizing That Climate Change-Driven Extreme Weather Events Are Increasing at the Same Time That the Government Is Dismantling Weather Monitoring and Alert Systems
37Senate Resolution 560: Recognizing That Mercury Pollution Can Cause Severe Health Problems, Including Permanent Brain Damage, Kidney Damage, and Birth Defects
42Senate Resolution 565: Recognizing That Facilities That Produce Renewable Electricity Are the Cheapest Power-Generating Facilities to Operate and Reliance on Fossil Fuel-Generating Facilities To...
43Senate Resolution 566: Recognizing That Care Provided by Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs Is Essential for Meeting the Health Care Needs of Veterans of the United States
44Senate Resolution 567: Expressing That Any Attempt by Foreign Entities to Censor or Penalize Constitutionally Protected Speech of United States Persons Shall Be Opposed
Forty-two bills and twenty-two resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 3516-3557, S.J. Res. 100, and S. Res. 547- 567.
Pages S8831-34
Measures Reported
S. Res. 526, withholding the pay of Senators if a Government shutdown occurs.
Page S8831
Measures Passed
ROTOR Act: Senate passed S. 2503, to require all aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In, to improve aviation safety, after withdrawing the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S8811-17
Cruz/Cantwell Amendment No. 4070, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S8817
Fiscal Year 2025 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization Act
Senate passed S. 2393, to authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2026 in St. Louis, Missouri.
Pages S8873-74
Caring for Veterans and Strengthening National Security Act
Committee on Veterans' Affairs was discharged from further consideration of S. 3436, to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the provision of certain services to veterans in the Freely Associated States, and the bill was then passed.
Page S8874
Recognizing VA Community Care
Committee on Veterans' Affairs was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 492, recognizing community care as an essential tool for meeting the health care needs of the veterans of the United States, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S8874
Essential Care Provided By the VA
Senate agreed to S. Res. 566, recognizing that care provided by employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs is essential for meeting the health care needs of veterans of the United States.
Page S8874
Enrollment Correction
Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 66, directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment of the bill S. 1071.
Page S8874
House Messages
National Defense Authorization Act: By 77 yeas to 20 nays (Vote No. 648), Senate concurred in the amendment of the House of Representatives to S. 1071, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and after taking action on the following motion and amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S8795-S8803
Withdrawn
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill, with Thune Amendment No. 3961 (to the House amendment to the bill), to change the enactment date.
Page S8803
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
Thune Amendment No. 3962 (to Amendment No. 3961), to change the enactment date, fell when Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill, with Thune Amendment No. 3961 (to the House amendment to the bill) was withdrawn.
Page S8803
Appointments
Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy: The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 9355(a), as amended by Public Law 118-159, appointed the following Senators to the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy: Senator Mullin (Appropriations), Senator Cramer. Board of Visitors of the U.S.
Page S8873
Air Force Academy
The Chair, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 9355(a), as amended by Public Law 118-159, appointed the following Senator to the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy: Senator Budd.
Page S8873
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 67 yeas to 30 nays (Vote No. EX. 650), Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Pages S8803-04, S8817-18
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 67 yeas to 30 nays (Vote No. 649), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Pages S8803-04
By 71 yeas to 29 nays (Vote No. EX. 652), Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2026.
Pages S8818-23
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 69 yeas to 27 nays (Vote No. EX. 651), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S8818
2 Air Force nominations in the rank of general. 3 Army nominations in the rank of general. 1 Marine Corps nomination in the rank of general. 1 Navy nomination in the rank of admiral. Routine lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force.
Pages S8823, S8874-76
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S8836-43
Record Votes
Six record votes were taken today. (Total--653)
Pages S8803-04, S8818, S8823
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 8:05 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 18, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S8875.)
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: 59 of 176 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, either today or tomorrow, we will confirm another nominations package, bringing the total number of the President's nominees confirmed this year to more than 400. That far exceeds the total confirmations of both President Trump's previous term and President Biden's.
It is an impressive number on its own, but it is particularly impressive when you consider the obstacles the Democrats have put up. I am not exaggerating when I say that President Trump's nominees have faced a historic level of obstruction from Senate Democrats.
When you look at this term, President Trump remains the only President on record not to have had a single civilian nomination confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote.
Let me repeat that. President Trump remains the only President on record not to have had a single civilian nomination confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote.
Democrats have required a rollcall vote on every single one of the President's nominations, an unprecedented level of obstruction in modern times.
Now, of course, Democrats would like you to believe that they have engaged in this historic level of obstruction because the President has put up, in the words of the Democrat leader, ``historically bad nominees.'' The only problem is a lot of these nominees have gotten Democrat votes on final passage. So either Democrats are voting for ``historically bad nominees'' or something else has been going on here. That something else looks a lot like petty partisanship.
It became abundantly clear, a while ago, that the real reason Democrats have been dragging out nominations for Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is nothing more than
Republicans, however, have not been daunted. We have just kept plowing through confirmations, racking up an impressive number of hours in session and a historic number of votes in the process.
In September, we took steps to restore Senate precedent on largely noncontroversial Presidential nominees to ensure that no other President has to face the kind of petty partisanship President Trump has encountered.
When the American people elect a President, they expect that President to be able to get his or her team in place. That doesn't mean that Senators should never oppose nominations, but it does mean the nominations should not be held up for purely partisan reasons. Or, in the words of the Democrat leader, just a few short years ago:
Democrats have engaged in a lot of partisan games this year, but Republicans have just kept doing our jobs. I am proud of just how much we accomplished on nominations, and I look forward to continuing to get the President's team in place in the new year.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, the Republican Party has delivered for the American people. We promised and delivered a country that is safer, stronger, and more prosperous. That is what we have seen in the last year.
Americans are now seeing more money in their pockets. Inflation is now under 3 percent. During the Biden years, it was at a 40-year high of 9 percent inflation.
This Christmas, gas prices are going to be the lowest that they have been, basically, in the last 5 years. In 38 States, including mine, Wyoming, we now have gasoline prices lower than $3 a gallon. That is because Americans are seeing the impact of Republicans who have unleashed American energy.
Our borders are now secured. Not a single illegal immigrant has been released into this country under this administration. Compare that with 10,000 illegal immigrants, every day, flooding across our southern border and bringing with them the drugs and the crime, as so many of them were released into the country and others were never captured.
What we see happening globally is the world's most successful companies are investing in America, and $10 trillion is coming to our shores. Record investment is driving job growth. It drives innovation and drives opportunity.
We passed a comprehensive economic plan called the working families tax cut law. It is the central part of our economic plan. I really want to thank Senator Mike Crapo, chairman of the Finance Committee, for his hard work on seeing this through.
Republicans cut taxes. Every single Democrat voted to raise taxes to the tune of $4 trillion. That would have impacted every working family in America. It would also have been the largest tax increase in American history.
So why is it that we want to cut taxes for American families? It is because you want more money in their pockets. You want waiters and barbers and bartenders to be able to keep up to $1,300 more in money that they wouldn't have in their pockets now but by what we passed, which is no tax on tips.
In my home State and in yours, nurses and firefighters and police officers and coal miners are going to see about a $1,400 increase in their take-home pay in their paychecks next year because of the no tax on overtime.
Seniors are going to see more money in their bank accounts, as well. There is a new $6,000 deduction on Social Security income. Senator Marsha Blackburn fought hard to make sure that deduction stayed in the bill.
Thanks to Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, Republicans modernized tax credits for childcare. That helps parents pay for childcare.
Thanks to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, new parents now get a $1,000 Trump account for every newborn child. Parents can use that to invest in their child's future. Also, parents get a bigger tax credit--$2,200 for every child.
America is now energy dominant once again. The working families' tax cuts unleashed American energy. It reopened Federal lands and waters for energy production.
This is a historic victory for Wyoming. Wyoming is America's energy breadbasket. We have world-class coal and world-class oil and natural gas, and this Republican bill helps American energy workers compete globally.
Republicans also rolled back punishing Biden regulations. Those regulations were burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming. By reining in Biden's heavy-handed bureaucrats, we have saved the American public $180 billion. That pencils out to over $2,000 in savings for each and every working family.
Republicans repealed 23 bad Biden regulations, and we used the Congressional Review Act to do it. That is a record as well.
We stopped California's electric vehicle mandate madness. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Markwayne Mullin, and Bernie Moreno, Americans are now back in the driver's seat.
My colleague and friend Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming led the repeal of the harmful Buffalo Resource Management Plan. That is really good news for Wyoming's energy producers. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming supplies about 45 percent of all the coal in the country.
Senate Republicans also cut wasteful Washington spending. We cut over $1 trillion in waste, fraud, and abuse as part of the working families tax cuts law.
We also passed the first standalone rescissions bill in over 30 years--a special thanks to Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri.
Taxpayers saved over $9 billion because we cut liberal projects. Let's look at some of them. One of those pet projects included net-zero cities in Mexico. Another cut out electric buses in Africa and taxpayer-funded classes on ``environmental racism.''
Additionally, Republicans created a $50 billion rural hospital fund. It is the single largest Federal investment in rural healthcare in American history.
Do you want to help patients with rare diseases find treatments? We were able to do that. We passed a bill that I introduced called the ORPHAN Cures Act. As a doctor in Wyoming, I saw the challenges that patients faced when they had few or no treatment options. That is why I fought to bring hope for millions of Americans living with rare diseases.
Republicans are also making our communities safer. We began this year by passing a bill from Senator Britt and from Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina. It is called the Laken Riley Act. It was the first bill that we passed this year and the first bill that President Trump signed into law. It mandates the detention of illegal immigrant criminals. Amendments from Senator Joni Ernst and Senator John Cornyn made it even stronger.
We also passed the HALT Fentanyl Act. It cracks down on deadly fentanyl trafficking. This is thanks to Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. They have done incredibly hard work and important work.
On top of that, the working families tax cuts made a historic $170 billion investment in border security. It finishes the wall. It hires more ICE and Border Patrol agents.
As we finish this year, Senate Republicans have confirmed a record number of President Trump's nominees. We began the year by confirming President Trump's Cabinet faster than any Senate in modern history. By week's end, President Trump will have 417 nominees confirmed by the Senate this year. That is far more than the 365 that Joe Biden had in his first year in office.
This historic record comes despite unprecedented obstruction from the Democrat minority. What have they done?
Well, basically, they have just tried to obstruct. They have spent the entire year on the side of higher taxes, on the side of illegal immigrant criminals, on the side of wasteful spending, and on the side of burdensome regulations. If Democrats had their way, Americans would face the largest tax increase in history. If Democrats had their way, illegal immigrants would get free healthcare. If Democrats had their way, the government would still be shut down.
Republicans are putting more money in people's pockets; we are delivering safer neighborhoods; and we are providing more opportunities. Republicans are going to continue to deliver the safety and the prosperity that the American people want and deserve.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Isaacman nomination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, after Mayor Mamdani was elected in New York City, the word ``affordability'' became all the buzz among the political classes and among the media as if this were something new. Obviously, affordability is not something new. It has, actually, always been the most important issue that voters and my constituents in Texas and Americans, generally, have felt was important because, of course, it deals with their quality of life and their standard of living. It has always been an important issue.
But, a year ago in November, the American people delivered a clear message that the Biden administration, which presided over 40-year high inflation, was taking the country in the wrong direction. President Trump received the electoral vote and the popular vote, and he won every swing State. Republicans secured majorities in both the House and the Senate.
This year, it has been up to the Republicans to course-correct. One of the most significant factors that has guided us is the need to address the burden of rising costs on everything: inputs into farming and ranching and the cost of commodities--food on the kitchen table. All of these are very real and important and urgent issues that we have tried to address, and there is more we can and should do.
But, under President Biden, the country experienced, as I said, historic levels of inflation not seen since Jimmy Carter was President of the United States. The cumulative inflation from the time President Biden took office until he left was 20.6 percent. Stated another way, everything cost more than 20 percent more from the time President Biden took office to the time he left. That is a huge cut in the standard of living and a huge increase in the cost of living for all Americans.
By the time he left the White House, a typical family in Texas, for example, would have to pay an additional $12,427 every year just to maintain the same standard of living that they had enjoyed when President Biden first took office. So that is like getting a $12,427 pay cut each year for the average Texas family.
Last November, when President Trump was reelected, 58 percent of Americans said they thought the country was on the wrong track. So it is no surprise that they voted for a new direction. Actually, I think two things helped President Trump the most. One was his pledge to secure the border, which he has done. Secondly, it was his pledge to deal with this issue of rising inflation and the increasing cost of living.
President Biden's policy, no doubt, contributed to the pain that families were and still are feeling in their paychecks.
Of course, it is one thing to identify a problem, but it is harder still to do something about it. There is, obviously, no silver bullet that can magically make inflation disappear. The Federal Reserve continues to struggle with this issue when they deal with the monetary policy, with what the interest rates are. The good news is the rate of inflation has gone down, but we still have the higher baseline sticking around from the Biden era. In other words, prices are rising more slowly, but they are still high.
The good news is that Republicans have taken important steps that will help ease the affordability crunch for all Americans, particularly when it comes time to file their taxes next year. The Working Families Tax Cuts Act was signed into law by President Trump on July 4. This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we have seen in a long, long time, and one of the challenges we have had in trying to explain it is there is so much in there that it is really hard to break it down into digestible pieces that folks can understand.
The truth is, this legislation will help Americans keep more of what they earn by lowering taxes across the board, and not a single Senate Democrat voted for it. Essentially, by voting against it, they voted for a $3,000 tax increase on most families back in Texas.
The Working Families Tax Cuts Act permanently increased the standard deduction to $15,750, including an annual adjustment for inflation. Without our legislation, the standard deduction would have dropped to $8,300 next year. This means that the 12 million Texas families who claim the standard deduction each year would have had to pay an additional $7,450 in taxes next spring without that legislation having passed. The lower rates from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from 2017 were set to expire at the end of this year, but the Working Families Tax Cuts bill made these lower rates permanent.
In addition to the increased standard deduction and lower rates across all income brackets, our legislation delivered targeted relief to those who were feeling squeezed the most. One of these groups is families with children. Those with small kids often have to choose between living on one income or incurring the increasingly high cost of childcare. If we hadn't passed the Working Families Tax Cuts bill, these families would have been slapped with a tax increase, with the child tax credit scheduled to decrease from $2,000 to $1,000. Our legislation prevented this from happening. We raised the child tax credit up to $2,200 and indexed it to inflation so that it will continue to go up year after year.
We also permanently strengthened the employer-provided childcare credit. This tax credit will incentivize businesses to provide childcare for their employees.
Of course, for some families, these credits seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of raising a family, but I hope these small steps are a step in the right direction toward making family life more affordable, which we must do.
Another area my colleagues and I have been discussing on both sides of the aisle, which is a real issue for most Texans, is the rising cost of healthcare.
Now, if you have only been listening to our Democratic colleagues, you would be forgiven for thinking Republicans have done nothing to address the cost of healthcare in this country. But that is not true.
In the working families tax cuts, we expanded access to health savings accounts, also known as HSAs. These savings accounts allow individuals to save pretax dollars and then use those funds to cover eligible medical expenses. These accounts are particularly useful in the case of a medical emergency when an unexpected bill arrives.
We expanded eligibility for these health savings accounts to individual bronze market and catastrophic plans starting in 2026. We also ensured that high-deductible health plans cover telehealth and other remote access or virtual healthcare services before the deductible kicks in, while remaining HSA-eligible.
I know we are all concerned about access to healthcare, and actually one of
Most places around the country are being served by broadband. Many people have access to the internet. Now we have provided the incentives and the reimbursement for more people to get access to healthcare through the internet using telehealth. Not every medical condition requires people to show up at a hospital or emergency room or a doctor's office. Many people can more conveniently, more inexpensively be served by accessing telehealth, and we made that more available.
Of course, there is a lot more work that needs to be done, and I look forward to working with all of our colleagues next year to continue to develop policy solutions that will lower costs for patients and families. But one of the things we should not and we must not and we will not do is expand the fraud-riddled ObamaCare enhanced subsidies that were provided during the Biden administration.
The Biden administration and Democrats at the time took the cap off of the subsidies for healthcare for people making well in excess of half a million dollars a year. That is crazy. We ought to be focused on the vulnerable, the people who need access to care, and not people who can afford to buy healthcare on their own.
In addition to medical bills, many families struggle to deal with their car payments. You have to have a way to get around. Not everybody has access to mass transportation.
Interest rates have remained high because of the historic levels of inflation during the Biden administration and the efforts by the Federal Reserve to combat that inflation through keeping interest rates high. But these interest rates mean that the monthly loan payments for cars have been higher and that buying a new car for most families is more expensive.
For those making less than $100,000 a year, the working families tax cuts introduced a new deduction that will ease this burden when it comes time to buy a new car. These individuals--those who make less than $100,000 a year--can now deduct up to $10,000 for interest paid on a new vehicle if that vehicle was made here in the United States.
This was a much needed course correction from President Biden's so- called Inflation Reduction Act--which did nothing to reduce inflation, by the way--which offered tax credits for electric vehicles that are produced with reliance on Chinese supply chains and, perversely, taxed low-income and working-class families in order to provide the subsidies for rich people who could buy electric vehicles. Just bizarre.
Instead of incentivizing the purchase of these exotic vehicles that undermine American manufacturing, Republicans are rightly delivering tax relief to the working middle class who are struggling just to make ends meet and, in this case, to afford a new car.
But that is not all. This legislation also delivered a historic win for the working class with no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. Many folks--me included--at some point in their adult lives end up working waiting tables or in some sort of service industry. So the idea now is that more folks working their way up the economic ladder can now enjoy no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, which will actually incentivize people to work more, which we need, without seeing their tax bill go up.
Employees and self-employed individuals can now deduct up to $25,000 in qualified tip income through 2028.
Next time you go to a restaurant or a bar, why don't you ask the waitstaff what they think about President Trump's no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. I have done that, and it is no surprise that they welcomed that with open arms.
Single filers can now deduct up to $12,500 on qualified overtime income. A lot of our law enforcement personnel and first responders work more than one job. They may work a side job in security or something like that. Now, if they choose to work overtime, they can now deduct up to $12,500 in qualified overtime income.
Now seniors can deduct an additional $6,000 on their Social Security benefits.
All of these enhanced deductions will ensure that those who are experiencing the brunt of the affordability burden will have a little more breathing room when tax day comes around next year.
The Biden administration created long-lasting harm with its profligate spending habits. It is wasteful Washington spending which drove inflation and prices high and inputs for everybody who makes anything in America or grows anything, for that matter.
So while we tackle the 40-year high inflation rate--and it is coming down, thankfully--these steps we have taken in the Working Families Tax Cut Act I think will help us nudge the economy where it matters most-- which is at the kitchen table--in the right direction and make life more affordable and the standard of living better for our constituents.
The working families tax cuts may seem abstract right now, but when it comes to next year, I think folks back home in Texas, Pennsylvania, California, and all around the country are going to welcome the good work that we did, together with President Trump, to pass the Working Families Tax Cuts Act because it will improve their standard of living and make life more affordable for them.
There is still more work to be done, but I believe Republicans have delivered an important first step toward making life more affordable for the people we represent.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, tonight, President Trump will address the Nation on what he claims is a speech on his supposed victories this year.
President Trump can say whatever he wants on camera, but the reality is for Americans across the country that costs are up, unemployment is rising, the holidays are more expensive and stressful than ever, and tariffs are taxing people to no end.
If Donald Trump had any shred of honesty and self-respect and self- insight, he would look into the camera tonight and say to the American people: I have failed you.
I mean, just last week, Donald Trump seriously suggested the one way families can lower costs is for parents to buy their kids fewer toys. What kind of Christmas is that? Donald Trump is like the Grinch--just with a lot more bronzer.
Now, today, Senate Democrats will hold a special caucus lunch to roll out a new initiative to lower costs for the American people and show precisely how Donald Trump and Republicans have made life far more expensive for Americans.
This morning, a report came out that Americans will pay 13 percent more on energy costs than they did last year. In part, why? Because Donald Trump and his obeisant Republicans cut out the cheapest way to get new power and new electrons on the grid--solar energy. They cut it out in obeisance to the oil industry. It was disgraceful.
That is what is wrong with this government--the corruption. The oil industry promises Donald Trump that Harold Hamm will raise him a ton of money, so Trump cuts out clean energy, and these guys went right along with it. The cost of groceries is up. Rent is up. Housing foreclosures are up. Healthcare is about to soar through the roof while Republicans refuse to do anything about it. John Thune said he doesn't want to extend the ACA tax credits at all. And Americans will pay the price.
Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies and the Republican Senators just don't get it. They don't understand what it is like to struggle to pay for groceries or struggle to keep a roof over your head. They don't know what it is like if your car breaks down and you don't have enough money to fix it and you wonder, how am I going to get to work?
Donald Trump, after all, calls affordability a hoax.
Well, if anything is a hoax, Donald Trump, it has been your promise to lower costs on day one.
The biggest hoax on affordability was Donald Trump's promise to lower costs on day one.
So, today, Democrats are going to come together to do precisely what Republicans refuse to do, fight on behalf
Senate Democrats will focus on these five issues like a laser. We will come back to them again and again and again, in the coming weeks, just like we came back to healthcare, over and over and over again, this fall. And the American people know who is on their side when it comes to healthcare costs.
Americans are tired of feeling like the cost of living is a constant crisis. Americans are tired of hearing Donald Trump call their struggles a hoax. Americans didn't sign up for higher grocery costs and more expensive healthcare, but that is what the Republicans and Donald Trump have given them in just 1 year in office.
So Democrats will show the American people another way forward, a way focused on lower costs, more prosperity, and an agenda focused on the working- and middle-class families of America--not the billionaires, not the special interests, not the huge lobbyists who seem to dictate what the Republicans do.
Mr. President, on the Coast Guard swastika, earlier this week, the U.S. Coast Guard enacted a policy downgrading the swastika from its list of recognized hate symbols.
Can you believe it? Can you believe it? The swastika is no longer a recognized hate symbol?
They did this just after the horrible shootings in Sydney and so many other shootings--anti-Semitic shootings--and activities that have been plaguing America.
The new policy of the Coast Guard is shameful. It is dangerous and another troubling instance of the Trump administration normalizing the threat of Nazism and White supremacy.
This policy has all the markings of a dog whistle. It is a ``stand back and stand by'' in the form of an office memo. Not 4 days ago, 15 Jews were slaughtered in cold blood--a beautiful picture of a little 10-year-old girl celebrating the first night of Hanukkah--and a day later, the Trump administration chose to soften its stance against Nazis and swastikas.
Can you believe it? Can it get any lower? Can it get any more insensitive? Can they be any more in a bubble than they are in?
And for the millions of American men and women who served in the Coast Guard, this is an insult to them. How about the Coast Guard members who served during World War II and fought that swastika? Why was this policy change even necessary at all? Why did the administration go out of its way to soften its policies against swastikas of all things?
Today, Republicans will attempt to confirm the Commandant of the Coast Guard by unanimous consent, before the end of the year. If he is to be the head of the Coast Guard, this new nominee must reverse this egregious policy, and I am asking him right now: Change that policy now.
Let's be very clear. If you are a Jew, if your family gave their lives to fight the Nazis in World War II, if you are a minority in any way, there is nothing, nothing potentially divisive about a swastika. It is just about the most unmistakable hate symbol in existence.
Now, this is part of an emerging pattern on the right. Young Republicans were texting about gas chambers. Trump officials were talking about having a Nazi streak. Tucker Carlson interviews Nick Fuentes, and Donald Trump refuses to condemn Fuentes. Yesterday, JD Vance took to social media to suggest that anti-Semitism only exists because of immigrants.
Where has he been? Does he know the history of anti-Semitism? What an ignorant statement from Vance. Sometimes you think he must know better, but he doesn't. He just plays along with the rightwing, sucks up to them.
And now, according to the Trump administration, swastikas no longer count as hate symbols within the Coast Guard. This is exactly why I introduced my resolution condemning Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and neo-Nazism. Neo-Nazism is no longer a fringe or theoretical threat. It is real. It is growing. It threatens our democracy, and every elected official must condemn it forcefully.
Mr. President, now, on healthcare, there is breaking news this morning--good news--that the discharge petition in the House got the necessary 218 signatures to move forward.
It shows that the demand by the American people for Congress--the House and the Senate--to extend the ACA premium tax credits is undeniable. Yet Republican leaders inside the House and the Senate are making it clear that they are opposed and will be responsible for healthcare costs rising through the roof.
Yesterday, Leader Thune admitted:
That is a clear admission of failure--a failure to govern, a failure to lower costs for the American people.
The damage has been done, no matter what happens, because, at this point, Republicans have made it impossible to prevent many Americans from paying more on their monthly premiums on January 1. And Republicans can't even say they tried to stop it.
House Republicans, meanwhile, are on the warpath to vote on a rightwing healthcare sham bill, one that doesn't extend the ACA credits a day, doesn't lower premiums, and does absolutely nothing to help people afford coverage.
So let's be very clear. There is only one reason--one reason-- Americans' premiums are going through the roof starting in just 14 days: It is because Republicans--Trump, the Republican Senate, the Republican House--chose for it to happen.
Mr. President, on Venezuela, yesterday, President Trump announced ``a total and complete'' blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela--another dangerous escalation with no clear plan whatsoever. Donald Trump has offered precisely zero explanations-- zero--to the American people for what he is trying to accomplish in the Caribbean.
Most Senate Republicans, meanwhile, appear to have no interest in doing any congressional oversight in a serious way of the administration's military buildup. We have had no serious public congressional hearings on the threat of military conflict off the coast of Venezuela, no public testimony from Defense officials on this issue.
Where are Senate Republicans? Where is the oversight?
The purpose of hearings is to challenge an administration when it may well be going off course, and they certainly seem to be going off course in Venezuela.
Donald Trump talks one way, then another. I have asked some of our leaders: Where is the limit to how far they will go? No answer. Could this be getting us into an endless war?
The American people fear that above most other things, maybe all things. That is why we need oversight, and the Senate Republicans are nowhere.
Meanwhile, the briefing we had, yesterday, with Secretary Rubio and Hegseth was utterly disappointing. The administration walked into the room totally empty-handed. They gave us no real answers about what the objective is in the Caribbean. Hegseth also refused to give Senators full access to the video of the September 2 strikes.
The same, same lack of transparency that is affecting the September 2 video is affecting our whole policy in the Caribbean and with Venezuela--no oversight, no plan, no discussion with either the Senate, the House, or the American people. That is what leads to trouble--big trouble.
Let's be very clear. Donald Trump does not have the authority to use military force to carry out his current plans in the Caribbean, without authorization from Congress. If Trump acts without congressional authorization, the Senate stands ready with a bipartisan resolution-- led by Senator Kaine, myself, Senators Paul and Schiff--preventing the unauthorized use of force.
Mr. President, finally, let's say good-bye to German Vazquez--a very special good-bye to one of the Senate's unsung heroes, German Vazquez, who will retire soon, after 28 incredible years of service.
The public may not know German, but every single Senator knows him. You see his face, and you smile. You
He has been wonderful to our staffs, as well--kind, steady, and generous in the way that matters every day in a place like this.
So, German, on behalf of all of us in the Senate, thank you, thank you, thank you. Godspeed on your next adventure, and we wish you and your family all the best.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, at the beginning of every year, the White House, on behalf of the President of the United States, and the Department of Defense come to Congress with a request. They come to Congress as a coequal branch of government to ask that we, Congress, authorize and appropriate the funding they need to defend our Nation and to protect our national interests on the world stage. And that request traditionally includes a justification and a rationale for the proposed plan.
For over 60 years, Congress has met its responsibilities, not by rubberstamping the Department of Defense's requests but by, yes, identifying areas of agreement, identifying and negotiating or saying no to areas of disagreement, and, ultimately, passing, on a bipartisan basis, what we refer to as the National Defense Authorization Act, the final product reflecting the priorities of both Congress and the White House for protecting our Nation. That is how it normally works.
But make no mistake, this year is anything but normal. What we have seen just 1 year into this second Trump administration is the destruction of eight decades of bipartisan foreign policy consensus and the destruction of postwar alliances that have kept Americans safe for generations.
And we have seen growing abuses of power meant to enrich Donald Trump and his allies. And as best as I can tell, the Trump doctrine in his second term is a transactional national security and foreign policy, not of values but to the highest bidder.
Under Trump, the United States has pulled away from NATO and grown closer to authoritarian dictators like Xi, Kim, and Putin, who Trump idolizes. He has engaged in repeated hostilities against our closest European democratic allies and cozied up to anyone who will shower him with gifts or praise or both.
He is enabling Russia's plans to carve up Ukraine, a catastrophic decision that will only encourage future aggression and pain for innocent civilians.
He has even threatened to forcibly annex Greenland from our ally Denmark.
And, earlier this month, the Trump administration released its new National Security Strategy.
And some folks may wonder: What is the National Security Strategy document?
It is a blueprint that provides strategic guidance for the administration. It sets priorities and articulates a vision for achieving them--or at least it should.
Trump's strategy rejects leading with democratic values in favor of making short-term, transactional alliances. It is a complete abandonment of the idea that democracies should stand together against authoritarian governments.
And while it is foolish and shortsighted, it is also not surprising to hear Defense Secretary Hegseth recently declare, at the Reagan Defense Forum, an end to what he calls ``idealistic utopianism,'' while calling for a renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere.
So what exactly does a renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere look like for the Trump administration?
So far it has meant bombing alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific, on shaky legal grounds--so shaky they won't release the legal opinion that they are using to try to justify it.
Now, just this week, we heard the White House Chief of Staff--the White House Chief of Staff--admit on the record that Donald Trump ``wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.''
Folks, the fact of the matter is, Congress has not declared war, nor has Congress authorized the use of military force in Latin America. Do you want to have that debate? Let's have that debate. Let's put that up for a vote if you agree, but that has not happened yet. And we know the American people overwhelmingly oppose a military campaign there as well.
But every week--it doesn't matter--Donald Trump keeps testing us to see just how much he can get away with, threatening now a land invasion of Venezuela and even seizing an oil tanker off its coast. Now, if this were solely about stopping drug traffickers, I don't think there would be disagreement or objection here to a law enforcement-based approach to do exactly that. Of course, we want to stop drug trafficking. But the Trump administration seemingly can't decide if it wants to be crime fighters or warmongers, and they have decided to use the U.S. military to bomb their way through the Caribbean either way.
And that is the larger point here. Donald Trump wants unchallenged use of the military to achieve his every whim and every grievance--even when it means violating our international norms, betraying our allies, and violating the Constitution. How is that going to make us any safer?
If we can't be trusted in Europe and if we are manufacturing conflicts in Central or South America, who would want to work with us in the future? And if the United States won't respect international law, why should we expect other countries to do so?
But somehow, even more shocking, is what is happening domestically. Donald Trump is politicizing our servicemembers both by word and by deed. He has diverted military resources away from numerous--numerous-- critical missions for his chaotic and violent mass deportation campaign. He has federalized and deployed National Guard troops in American cities against our own citizens in violation of the law.
That is why just last Friday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered National Guard troops off the streets of Los Angeles, ruling the deployment was unlawful. But that won't stop Trump from targeting States and cities led by Democratic Governors and mayors for speaking out against his power grabs.
Now, just imagine if President Biden would have federalized and deployed troops into Florida or Texas to combat gun violence. Republicans would be beside themselves. They would be apoplectic.
Finally, when six of our colleagues published a video reminding servicemembers of their oath to the Constitution of the United States and reminding servicemembers about their obligation to refuse unlawful orders, Trump called that ``seditious behavior, punishable by death.'' And he demanded that the FBI and top Defense officials investigate them and intimidate them.
This President is trying to corrupt the military for his own personal gain and to silence all opposition. He is pushing the legal limits of his authority.
But through all those unprecedented and dangerous decisions, what has been the response from the Republican majority in Congress--both the House and the Senate? ``Sir. Yes, sir.'' Maybe not quite, but their silence has equaled acquiescence. Congress, under this Republican majority, is nowhere near acting like the ``equal branch of government'' that it is.
Let's just look at the record from this past year. Congress, not just once but twice, failed to pass a War Powers Resolution and assert its constitutional authority in response to the escalating attacks in the Caribbean. In reaction to the controversial double-tap strike against survivors in the Caribbean, the Defense Department has refused to release videos so the American people can see for themselves what played out. And if it is too sensitive to release to the American public, then at least show it to all Members of the Senate, even if it is in a secure classified setting. But the Defense Department refuses to do even that.
Meanwhile, congressional committees have failed to conduct our oversight responsibility and to demand it from the administration. With each
And even with a majority party bending to his will, the Trump administration is still floating proposals to blow up the bipartisan Defense appropriations process altogether and pursue a party-line reconciliation bill instead.
Colleagues, this is the President doing everything he can to build unquestioned power over our military and a Republican Party that refuses to challenge him.
At a time when the Trump administration is abusing its power, destroying our standing in the world, deploying troops against our own people, the annual Defense authorization bill offers an important opportunity. It is an opportunity to hold this administration accountable, not just out of responsibility to our constituents but to the Constitution and to this coequal branch of government.
Mr. President, $900 billion is a lot to rubberstamp, and I refuse to hand this administration any more tools to enrich themselves and undermine our national security and our standing in the world. So for these reasons, I will be voting no on this year's NDAA and encourage all of you to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Myself for up to 10 minutes, Senator Wicker for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be the next NASA Administrator, but first, I want to make a few comments about the unbelievable weather events that are impacting the Pacific Northwest.
We have had, as many people have seen from national news, atmospheric rivers and unbelievable rain impacting many of our rivers in the western part of Washington--reaching record levels and above record levels and impacting flooding throughout the region.
We, obviously, had another weather event last night, and the last couple of days have had what some people described as 50 to 60 miles per hour winds that ultimately, in some places in the State, were recorded at 90 miles per hour winds. So, this morning, we are facing 350,000 people who are without power and a blizzard on the way.
And, while I think that some people think, well, it is a very mountainous area and you should probably have severe winter weather, not really in the history of our State. I think we have only had a few lowland blizzards in the whole history of our State. So the fact that now a blizzard is on the way, on top of the record flooding and the flooding events still predicted to come back to record cresting of many of our rivers, is making it a very challenging time for the State of Washington.
So we certainly appreciate all the first responders, all the law enforcement that are working in the community, all the work that the Governor's office is doing, all the work that we are--a partnership we are now getting from FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Homeland Security to try to address this as a national emergency and clearly to try to gather information about the direct economic impacts in hopes that we will get support for these issues.
We have had a border crossing, that that was closed and certainly is still closed to commercial traffic. We have one of our major highways, Highway 2, that the Governor has now announced will be closed for months, greatly impacting transportation and trade within our region. We have other routes across the Cascades duly impacted.
So I can say that there are some positive stories out of this, that coordination, that actually things that mitigated and adapted with a levee system to prevent some of the record amount of rain from doing even more damage have been successful. I am sure that we will all share this with our colleagues in the future, but right now, we need continued help and focus in the State of Washington, given these severe weather impacts. And again, I appreciate those Federal Agencies who are helping: FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. President, I support the Isaacman nomination. In fact, I supported him the first time he was nominated. He was not pushed through the Senate, not the usual path for somebody to be nominated, and then their nomination reversed, but then supported again by the President. But I do believe Mr. Isaacman is capable of successfully navigating the challenges facing the Agency.
I want to take a minute and thank Secretary Duffy for serving as an excellent steward of NASA during his tenure where we had an acting Administrator. I hope the experience is giving the Secretary an increased appreciation for the expertise and research capabilities that NASA brings to bear in developing technology to protect aviation safety and the competitiveness of our aeronautics sector.
That is clearly an important missing aspect of the FAA--having the best technology and the best understanding of how that technology impacts aviation safety. So I support more partnerships here. I also want to highlight a key decision that Secretary Duffy made that I believe is important to our national leadership in human space exploration.
In September, witnesses told the Commerce Committee that the SpaceX lunar lander would not be ready to put Americans back on the Moon, either in 2027 or 2028. This would almost certainly mean we would lose the race to the Moon to China, which was unacceptable. In response, Secretary Duffy directed NASA to reopen the competition for the Artemis lunar landing mission to ensure that a lander can be ready by the end of 2028, and I believe this was a correct decision, and I am pleased that our nominee Mr. Isaacman agrees.
I would also like to note that Secretary Duffy came to NASA in a particularly perilous time for the Agency, as evidenced in a whistleblower report that my office released in September. Before Secretary Duffy arrived, OMB Director Vought had been pushing NASA to implement dangerous cuts in the President's proposed budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, disregarding the law and the impacts on NASA's mission and safety.
As my colleagues know, the President's budget request called for cutting NASA's budget nearly a quarter, its workforce by nearly a third, and its science funding by half. Simply put, this is not the way we are going to win the race to the Moon or accomplish anything else enduring, for that matter.
Fortunately, I believe Mr. Isaacman recognizes that some of the most talented people in America work at NASA. I know the Presiding Officer agrees with this, and that we need to be investing in NASA's mission, not gutting them. During his nomination process, Mr. Isaacman emphasized the importance of developing a pipeline of future scientists, engineers, researchers, and astronauts to support the science and technology development and align with NASA's objectives. I strongly agree.
I look forward to working with Administrator Isaacman on the future STEM talent with both NASA and more broadly with the aerospace and innovation sector. Fair questions have been raised about Mr. Isaacman's Project Athena strategic plan, which was drafted in May and leaked to the press. I have asked Mr. Isaacman about this plan.
In response, he told me the plan was intended to be a proposed approach to collecting data and information from NASA and the space community, serving as a starting point in an in-depth conversation with NASA's management employees on how to ensure NASA remains the world's preeminent aerospace and technology organization.
Mr. Isaacman assured me that this plan was not part of a misguided effort to sell off capacities or slash the workforce or have reckless actions like DOGE had proposed earlier. He promised to share with us the results of the study and analysis with Congress and to engage in a dialog with the committee before doing any implementation. I take Mr. Isaacman at his word,
So, Mr. President, I know you are a huge supporter of Mr. Isaacman and have helped promote his renomination. We are here now with an important mission between this institution and what our national objectives are in going back to the Moon. I am optimistic that Mr. Isaacman will bring a steady hand and clear vision to NASA.
I hope we can partner together, all of us, to achieve this incredible thing for the American people. I know it is time for us to return to the Moon, and there is much at stake with international competition.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Mr. Isaacman on the floor.
Mr. President, every year, Congress considers the National Defense Authorization Act which has critical investments in our national defense, including in Maryland. In my State, tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians work at military installations and in the defense sector, driving innovation and research to advance our defense. The NDAA governs this work and provides essential support to our servicemembers and veterans.
But at this moment, we are at an inflection point in the United States. We are witnessing increasingly authoritarian actions by President Trump and his administration. The President is using tools of government to pressure and silence dissenting voices, terrorize communities, lead our Nation into conflict without congressional authority, and undermine institutions critical to our democracy.
As I noted during Senate consideration of the NDAA a few months ago, the President has played politics with our Nation's military and tried to use them to advance his authoritarian agenda, be it here at home or abroad. He has deployed the National Guard to the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Chicago and has attempted to deploy the National Guard to Portland. These deployments are a flagrant violation of U.S. law, including the Posse Comitatus Act, as noted in recent court decisions. Not only have these deployments created chaos in American cities and communities, they have also pulled the military away from its mission and expended funds meant to defend our Nation. Senator Warren and I, along with several other colleagues, put out a report that outlines how the Pentagon has diverted at least $2 billion from its core missions to support the President's mass deportation agenda.
The President's decision in DC and others cities to activate the National Guard without the recipient State Governor's or mayor's consent is why I offered an amendment to the Senate version of the NDAA to block the President from deploying the National Guard to a State, or the District of Columbia, if that State's Governor, or the DC Mayor, objects. Unfortunately, the effort failed, and this bill does not prevent the President's efforts to militarize American streets.
And abroad, Trump has resurrected a policy of a bygone era: the Trump version of the Monroe Doctrine, carrying out an illegal airstrike campaign against boats in international waters, which have been flagrant violations of both U.S. and international law, and can only be seen as extrajudicial killings amounting to state-sanctioned murder. Trump has pursued these actions not to stop ``narco-terrorists,'' as the administration claims, but as a pretext to start a regime change war in Venezuela. There is simply no evidence that these vessels posed an imminent threat, nor is there an active armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, making the President's acts flat out illegal. Trump's warmongering with Venezuela, including the recent declaration of a blockade on oil tankers from Venezuela is not about stopping drug traffickers. The real goal is regime change and to grab Venezuelan oil and gas reserves for the President's billionaire friends.
These escalating abuses demonstrate an administration increasingly willing to sidestep the law using military force. They also underscore my broader concern about unchecked increases in defense spending, despite the Pentagon's repeated audit failures, including in November 2024. From FY 2021 to FY 2025, defense authorizations rose from $740 billion to $895 billion, a 21 percent increase, and this bill would raise that to $900.6 billion, approximately $8 billion more than the President's budget request. That excludes the July 2025 reconciliation bill, which added over $150 billion in mandatory spending. We need to more carefully examine how our defense spending increases year after year, seemingly without fail, and demand the same accountability from the Department of Defense as from every other Agency.
In addition to these concerns, embedded within this legislation is a provision that walks back a key National Transportation Safety Board recommendation implemented in the wake of the deadly air collision between a commercial airplane and a U.S. Army helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA, specifically that military aircraft in the area broadcast their location to other aircraft using the most effective collision avoidance technology available. It also allows the military to waive their own requirements for usage of any collision avoidance technology in the DCA area. The inclusion of these provisions is unconscionable when families are still grieving, and the airspace congestion has not improved.
I also remain concerned by the Trump administration's actions to weaken the merit-based civil service across the Federal Government, including at the Department of Defense. One such action was a recently issued executive order that misuses national security exemptions, expanding them to cover two-thirds of the Federal workforce, including many civilian employees at DOD who have long been protected by collective bargaining. For decades, collective bargaining agreements at DOD have enhanced transparency and allowed employees to perform their work free from political interference. The Trump administration's move to limit these protections undermines employee trust and could harm the DOD's ability to maintain a skilled workforce. The bill before us strips out a House-passed bipartisan amendment to restore collective bargaining rights of DOD employees.
I appreciate that the NDAA process each year gives us the opportunity to conduct oversight, update our defense policy, and assert congressional prerogatives. This bill does include important provisions, including an increase in pay for servicemembers, investments in research, and reauthorization of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. It includes a provision I worked on to ensure continued public access to Greenbury Point near the Naval Academy and my efforts with Senator Kennedy to protect investors from foreign insider trading. And there are provisions that will assist in future oversight by requiring the Department of Defense to share more information with Congress.
But these are not ordinary times. We must go farther to stand up to an administration that is currently diverting the military to conduct local law enforcement operations. That is conducting unlawful military operations in service of regime change and threatening further actions, including troops on the ground.
Our military is meant to protect and defend our homeland and our citizens, not carry out actions against them. It must be governed by the rule of law, not undermine it. I am opposing the NDAA because we must do more to rein in these abuses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have passed this year's National Defense Authorization Act, and we are about to follow suit. This will be the 65th year in a row--the 65th consecutive year--that Congress has come together across the aisle and across two Chambers to send the President a bill designed to sustain and strengthen the national defense.
Everyone in this Senate played a role. I want to thank all 99 of my colleagues. First among them, I thank Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has been a steadfast partner. I also express my gratitude to the other distinguished members of the committee from both sides of the aisle who worked hard to shape this legislation.
In July, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the committee
Our September substitute amendment had 20 Republican, 20 Democrat, and 9 bipartisan amendments. The second managers' package was similarly bipartisan.
In October, we considered the NDAA amid stark partisan divide during the longest Federal shutdown in the history of our Republic. Nevertheless, during that shutdown, this body came together to pass this very important legislation. We debated amendments, and we improved on the bill, and we approved it. We passed the NDAA after 14 rollcall votes and 9 voice votes. For once, we did it in prime time, finishing around 9 p.m. It cleared this Chamber by a vote of 77 to 20. We sent a strong bill to the House of Representatives, and it had the clear backing of a huge majority of this body.
Now that negotiations between Chambers have concluded, we have a bill that provides for the common defense, as the Constitution requires. This NDAA helps us align the priorities of the U.S. military with the threats of today, and they are serious--serious threats from the People's Republic of China and the entire axis of aggressors that it leads and partners with. It makes warfighting a top priority of the Department, and it reinforces a culture of merit in the Armed Forces.
Servicemembers will receive a 3.8-percent pay raise. We expanded initiatives that will reinforce President Trump's recruiting surge, and we supercharged our efforts to rebuild the American defense industrial base.
Let me talk about that for a moment. This legislation reforms decades of bureaucratic inefficiency in the Pentagon's acquisition process. It contains numerous elements of my bill, the Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency in Defense Act, more easily known as the FORGED Act.
We are about to pass and the President will enthusiastically sign the most sweeping upgrades to DOD's business practices in 60 years. This is a monumental achievement.
The 21st century poses threats that will require the most creative and innovative defenses. Americans are already building the technology to meet those threats, and these reforms will help the Pentagon tap into that energetic innovation ecosystem.
Secretary Hegseth and his staff have been strong partners in these efforts as we seek to implement our shared peace through strength agenda with President Trump. Our reforms, plus our increased defense investments, will enable us to achieve that vision. Through this bill, we will continue revitalizing the defense industrial base--an absolute requirement during these dangerous times.
I am thankful to all of my colleagues for putting in the work to make this bill good for our servicemembers and for national security. It succeeds because it is driven by Members across this body.
I am, as I said, especially grateful to the ranking member, Jack Reed. He is himself a distinguished veteran, a patriot, a statesman, and a great partner in this work.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention the staunch partnership we have with our House counterparts: Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Adam Smith. That goes, too, for the many other committee chairs and ranking members who worked so hard all year to include crucial legislation in this National Defense Authorization Act.
Speaking of great partners, I want to specifically thank my soon-to- be-retired staff director John Keast. John has been with me for the better part of three decades now--since I first ran for Congress in 1994. He will be retiring from the Senate in January to return to Mississippi, where his family lives, and to pursue new opportunities.
This bill, this 65th NDAA in a row, would not have been possible without John Keast. His work ethic, his sound advice, and his partnership with his Democrat counterpart Liz King--all were essential. We could not have achieved this bill without his tireless leadership.
I want to thank him and the rest of my staff who have labored long days and nights and weekends--Saturdays and Sundays--to get this legislation done. They include Adam Barker, Kristina Belcourt, Jonathan Bowen, Leah Brewer, Levi Brunt, Luke Chaney, Glen Diehl, Cody Emerson, Marty Fromuth, Megan Galindo, Mike Gerhart, Anna Given, Meredith Gravatte, Madeline Guenther, Isaac Jalkanen, Lauren Johnson, Katie Karam, Greg Lilly, Eric Lofgren, Katie Magnus, Jonathan Moore, Katie Stanton, Sophie Schloegel, Mike Tokar, Eric Trager, Adam Trull, Mike Urena, Dave Vasquez, Christina Sandstedt--who has been give privileges of the floor this very day--Julia Wood, Terry Miller, Emily Yetter, Dan Hillenbrand, Beth Spivey, Brendan Gavin, Brad Patout, Rick Berger, and, as I said before, my adviser and personal friend John Keast.
That is a lot of names and a lot of effort and a lot of talent. That is just the members on my side of the aisle.
I thank them all, and I thank this Senate and our friends in the House for coming together in the spirit of patriotism and comity to get this very important quantum leap in our defense accomplished.
With that said, let's begin the vote and take the next step to rebuild America's national defense.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the motion to concur with the Senate amendment No. 3961.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion to concur with amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment No. 3962 falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur to House amendment to S. 1071.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. President, the American people understand to varying degrees but have a general understanding of the fact that the work we do here in the Senate is a combination of things.
Some of the things that we address are controversial. Some of them make the daily or evening news or the cover of the newspaper the next day. Those tend to be the things that are more controversial, things on which there might be sharp disagreements, sometimes sharply divided down partisan lines, reflected based on where one's desk sits in relation to the center aisle of this Chamber.
Other times, there might be controversy, but the controversy doesn't cut cleanly across party lines. We might have some Republicans and some Democrats on one side or the other.
In many instances--maybe not enough but, mercifully, there are many instances--there is not only not much controversy but no controversy at all.
There is a significant amount of legislation that passes through this Chamber every single year unanimously, without a single ``no'' vote. Some of this, to be sure, might recognize the naming of a post office or it might recognize--I don't know--``National Sofa Care Month,'' if there is such a thing. Others deal with discrete, local issues--issues that, while important to a select few people who live around, for example, a particular piece of land owned by the Federal Government and might be affected by the land management policy associated with that parcel, are very important to that local population but might be completely unknown not only to people on the other side of the country but even to people in other parts of that same State.
There is a fair amount of legislation that moves through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--a committee that I currently chair--that fits into each of these categories: controversial bills where there is a sharp Republican-Democratic divide; bills that have some controversy that cut across party lines; and, yes, mercifully, this other category of noncontroversial votes without a single substantive objection.
The American people understand that there will be opposition to a lot of pieces of legislation, but they also, justifiably, expect us to consider and pass bills on their merits. As to this category of bills that are important to some, unknown to most, and controversial to no one, well, they expect us to get those passed in a timely fashion.
I am trying to do this quickly, expeditiously, and to do it in the right way.
Now, I tried doing it the right way--the same way I am going to try today--back in May, on the 22nd of May. I tried to do it the right way again on July 29. I tried doing it the right way again, 2 weeks ago. This will be my fourth attempt to try to pass a small handful of extremely noncontroversial bills that already passed this Chamber unanimously, without a single ``no'' vote in the last Congress, at the end of last year, and that have moved forward from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--again, without opposition from either side of the aisle, from any Senator--earlier this year.
Each of these times, I have received an objection from the Democratic side of the aisle. At no point have I heard a single substantive objection to any of these bills in this category that I have tried to pass through this procedure--a procedure which is well-worn and which exists for exactly this circumstance. You know, across multiple committees--certainly within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--there is a lot of legislation that falls into that category.
We are told repeatedly that there are simply too many bills for the Senate to consider individually. This is often the case. And it is often the case, in particular, that for a bill that has no opposition, for a bill that is very important to a population of people within a particular State as to a discrete issue--it might be important or interesting to literally no one else in any other State or in other parts of the same State--we are told that these bloated bills that sometimes get combined, which are multiple pieces of legislation, sometimes amounting to thousands of pages at a time, can become a necessary evil to accommodate all of the small lands bills important to our States.
I am here to tell you that this is simply not the case. It certainly need not be the case here, and it isn't.
Now, had we moved these bills each time I have been on the floor this year, we certainly would have already been able to make significant progress in clearing the backlog, so that we could deal with this problem that many people cite as a reason we would need a massive, all- or-nothing, bloated, sewn-together lands package--take it or leave it, all or nothing.
If we really need the bills passed, why can't we start, at least, with the low-hanging fruit?
I have no delusions that this makes everything easy. It certainly doesn't, as there is a lot of this process that can be difficult. But we ought to start with the bills that are noncontroversial,
Why can't we move the bills that have already passed unanimously, that have already been vetted in committee this year and last year, and that passed on the Senate floor without a single ``no'' vote last year?
Why come down here and object, over and over again, to bills that are noncontroversial?
Well, sometimes this is the muscle memory that can start to evolve, that can start to take hold within this body. But it need not be this way; it ought not be this way, as it doesn't lead to good decisions. If this is how we treat the things that are noncontroversial, it is going to make the things where there is some debate, some opposition, some dissent more difficult and, as to the stuff that is sharply partisan, impossible.
If you have a bill that you know can't pass on its own, well then, what do you do?
Well, perhaps what you want to do is pair it with a bunch of other bills that are themselves noncontroversial, hoping that it won't get noticed or hoping that there will be enough other Senators who will say: I guess we have to take it or leave it; so let's let it all pass.
They might say: Are you really going to sink all of this important work just for one section of this much larger bill that you disagree with?
Well, look, taken to its logical conclusion and repeated, over and over again, and applied even to noncontroversial bills, this ends up being sort of extortive in its effect, and it doesn't produce a good outcome--not for people of either party, not for people of either legislative Chamber, and, certainly, not for the American people.
Just yesterday, we were able to do some things on the floor the right way. Senator Sullivan came to the floor and passed his bill to extend the deadline for Alaska Native Vietnam-era vets to claim the land allotments that they earned through their service. This was only after Democrats--including my friend and colleague the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich--had objected to it twice. But his bill--Senator Sullivan's legislation that I just mentioned--is now headed to the President's desk to be signed into law. Now, there is no reason that that success that we tasted, just yesterday afternoon, can't continue here with similarly situated, similarly noncontroversial, unanimously passed bills.
So, again, I have got four bills that I will be asking unanimous consent to pass here today. They include S. 1084, which is the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2025. This bill, sponsored by Senator Hoeven, passed last year with unanimous support and would authorize equal value exchanges to enable the State of North Dakota to manage its own State lands.
S. 1142 is the Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act. This bill, sponsored by Senator Padilla, passed last year and would make a minor boundary adjustment to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It is entirely noncontroversial.
S. 1016 is the Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification Act. This bill, sponsored by Senator Wicker, is a minor but important boundary adjustment to the park, and it passed last year with unanimous support.
S. 603, sponsored by Senator Kaine, designates the George C. Marshall House in Virginia as an affiliated area within the National Park System. It is simply allowing them to be affiliated with the National Park Service. This bill also passed with unanimous support.
What do these bills have in common? Well, they are bipartisan. They all passed the body unanimously, without a single ``no'' vote in the last Congress. I have heard zero substantive objections on the merits to any single one of these bills.
I stand ready to work with any Member--Republican or Democrat--to move their bills off the floor, especially with regard to these noncontroversial bills.
We can get this done. We can work through this broken process. It need not be broken, especially as to this category of bills. This is the easy stuff. Let's not make the easy stuff hard, lest we incur the risk of making the harder stuff impossible.
So to that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, 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, as amended, if amended, where applicable, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: S. 1084, North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2025 from Senator Hoeven; S. 1142, the Scarper Ridge Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act from Senator Padilla; S. 1016, the Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification Act with a substitute amendment from Senator Wicker; and S. 603, to designate the General George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia from Senator King.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have said a number of times now, I am not willing to send Democratic bills to the House without an agreement to get them through the House and to the President's desk.
Just last week, we saw the House pass a Senate Republican bill without the Senate Democratic bill that it had been paired with. Both bills are bipartisan; both even have a budget score, and yet the Democratic bill sits with no plan to get it signed into law.
We need to pass bills over here in a way that ensures that both Republican and Democratic priorities and bills become law.
In addition, I do have substantive concerns with S. 1084. I was not the ranking member of the previous Congress, but it would give away public land without an equal value exchange or payment for conservation of other public land.
The public is simply left out of the equation. That is not something I can support, and I am certainly willing to work with the bill's sponsor on finding a path forward. But in its current form, I must object.
Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who has a genuine concern. It is a worthy concern, and it is a concern that I share in the sense that I want to make sure that both Democrats and Republicans serving in this body on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, when they submit these bills--particularly bills in this category that I described that have passed unanimously in this body--be given ample opportunity for consideration and passage over in the House of Representatives.
He is understandably concerned about the possibility of Republican and Democratic bills being sent over together, only to discover after the fact, that the Democratic bills would languish. I understand that concern. I am deeply sympathetic to it.
And it is because I share that concern--and not in spite of it--that I believe this is the way we ought to do things. This is the way we do things elsewhere in the Senate where we have got noncontroversial legislation. Let's move them forward. Now, we have moved them forward. You have seen pairings here; Democratic bills brought to the floor, not stitched together surgically in one legislative package but paper- clipped together in one stack so that we are presenting them for unanimous consent passage at the same time but not as part of the same legislation.
Why do we do this rather than the other way?
Understanding the legitimacy of his concerns, we want to make sure that bills in this category, in particular, receive fair consideration regardless of whether there is a Democrat or Republican sponsor of the bill.
No. 1, our House counterpart committee and others within the House of Representatives have told us that not only is this their preference-- that they would rather have them paper-clipped and not stitched together as one bill but sent over as separate bills--they
Not always, by the way, is a Democrat bill here a Democrat bill on the other side of the Capitol. Sometimes it switches. But regardless, even for the bills that are introduced by a Democrat here and a Democrat there, these bills are considered--and we have been told over and over again by those with responsibility over this, they have got a better chance of passing separately than they would if we start stitching them together.
In their view, as they have told me repeatedly, it will hinder--not expedite or facilitate--their chances of being passed if we surgically stitch them together in one bill.
There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that the laws of gravity don't always operate the same way here as they do on the other side of the Capitol. Sometimes a bill that can move through over here without a single objection might draw some opposition on the other side of the Capitol for reasons that can be difficult to predict.
In any event, there is a great safeguard in all of this in the way the House of Representatives passes this--and I think this is inherent in why it is that they want them as separate bills that can be paper- clipped together for purposes of getting it passed by unanimous consent over here--over there.
When they do it over there, they use a procedure in the House known as suspension of the rules. Under suspension of the rules, you have got to have 290 votes to pass it rather than a simple majority of 218 votes. That feature ends up replicating, to a significant degree, the effect of the cloture standard over here such that it has got to be bipartisan. So they can't afford to--and therefore don't on bills like this--favor Republican bills over Democrat bills.
Now, my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from New Mexico noted a moment ago that his concerns are already materializing and that they are neglecting Democrat bills in the House while preferencing Republican bills.
I don't see this. In fact, to the contrary. Within the last week, the House of Representatives has passed multiple bills--I believe it was three or four bills--introduced by Democrats; Democrat bills run through the suspension of the rules calendar passed this week.
They are not depreferencing them. And from what I have heard from multiple credible sources on the other side of the Capitol, this is because of the way the suspension of the rules practice works over there. They don't, in part, because they can't get these passed if they preference Republican bills and depreference Democrat bills in this respect.
Look, at the end of the day, we have to remember that a lot of what this Chamber does operates by means of unanimous consent, certainly in scheduling votes, scheduling just about anything. Heck, scheduling what time we are going to go to lunch or adjourn for the evening until the next day requires unanimous consent.
But a lot of legislation we pass gets done that way, too, and thank Heaven above that it can. If we can't do the easy stuff this way, the harder stuff becomes much more difficult. And the really tough stuff, the stuff that still needs to get done--things like permitting reform, for example, where on both sides of the aisle you have strong opinions, you have a strong desire overall to see that permitting reform gets accomplished, you have somewhat differing ideas on what must be in there and what must not be included--things like that that are very important to the public but that are by no means noncontroversial become far more difficult to impossible.
Let's get the easy stuff done. We did it yesterday afternoon. We can do it again. I will be back as I am determined to push these bills forward, Republican and Democrat. And if we tie them together surgically in one bill, it will impair their passage, Republican and Democratic alike. We don't need to do that here. We ought not. This is unfortunate, but I will be back soon.
Mr. President, I am sad to share that Norman Podhoretz, a towering figure of American letters and politics, passed away last night.
Not many men change the course of history. Those who do usually do it through their actions, like GEN Ulysses Grant's brilliant military campaigns in the Civil War. Fewer still do it with a combination of words and actions like Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps rarest of all are men like Norman Podhoretz, who changed history with mere words--and what words they were. Norman was not only the longtime legendary editor and soul of Commentary Magazine but also a prolific author of a dozen books, hundreds of essays, articles and columns and no telling how many speeches.
He could turn out 10,000 words of elegant, sparkling, cogent prose, seemingly, at a moment's notice while identifying for his readers the deeper meaning of the day's news. Norman was an original neoconservative and proud to be so.
These days, some historically illiterate podcasters and so-called influencers use the term ``neocon'' as an all-purpose slur for anything they don't like. But the neocons were just that, new conservatives, a collection of anticommunist liberals between World War II and the Vietnam war who were, as the saying goes, mugged by reality--in this case, the reality of the New Left's turn against America.
Norman followed this path and blazed it for others. Born in 1930 to working-class Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn, Norman later said the first Republican he met was in high school. Blessed with natural abilities and good teachers, Norman earned a scholarship to Columbia, while at his father's insistence, he also studied concurrently at the Jewish Theological Seminary and earned a degree in Hebrew literature.
After more studies at Cambridge and 2 years in the Army, he returned to New York and wrote for magazines such as The New Yorker and Partisan Review and ran in the liberal intellectual social circles of the times with the likes of Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg.
He also wrote for and worked at Commentary, a journal of Jewish thought which, at the time, fit well into those circles. He became editor-in-chief in 1960, on the eve of the disorder, chaos, and anti- Americanism that would be unleashed by the New Left that decade.
Norman said of the New Left in 1995.
Soon enough, Norman and Commentary defined this neoconservative movement, especially on foreign policy. They published famous path- setting essays, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick's ``Dictatorships and Double Standards'' and ``The United States in Opposition'' by Pat Moynihan.
No less a titan than Ronald Reagan called Norman a ``must-read'' for conservatives of all stripes.
Norman, Kirkpatrick, and other neocons both followed and led Reagan into the Presidency, helping to shape a strong and confident foreign policy of defending American interests and free peoples against the menace of Soviet Russia and anti-American insurgencies around the world.
Norman maintained a friendly dialogue with Reagan over the years and received a richly deserved Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush.
Norman turned over the reins of Commentary in 1995, but he never put down the pen. I am thankful he didn't because that was also the year I discovered the magazine and became a 30-year subscriber.
Norman and Commentary were there to chronicle the threat from militant Islam, communist China, and growing anti-Semitism and radicalism at home.
Thanks to great thinkers like Norman, I cannot claim to be a neoconservative. I was, if I could borrow the phrase, ``right from the beginning.'' Generations of young readers learned the easy way from Norman what he had learned the hard way, never flirting with liberalism in our youth.
As, in his own words, ``a filthy little slum child'' of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Norman was eternally grateful to America for welcoming his
A love affair with America--I think that is a very apt way to put it, something we should all try to emulate and instill in our kids and grandkids.
Norman's love affair with America, I suspect, was behind his dogged support for Donald Trump when so many of his old friends abandoned our party in 2016. But Norman saw President Trump's election as ``a kind of miracle.'' He believed that President Trump could, in his words, ``save us from the evil on the Left.''
Despite all their differences, with their shared love of America, their hatred of communism, their shared New York roots--indeed their shared Brooklyn-to-Manhattan journey--Norman and the President may not be quite the strange bedfellows they first appeared to be.
I am confident that Norman was pleased with the President's muscular defense of the American way of life upon his return to office and especially pleased that Norman lived to watch America join with Israel to devastate Iran's nuclear program on President Trump's watch.
One of the great benefits of my work as a Senator is the opportunity to cross paths with great men like Norman Podhoretz. After learning from his writing for so many years, I have had the occasion to meet him and share a modest correspondence. I can share that Norman may have receded from public writing in recent years, but he remained as witty, brilliant, and courageous as ever in his private correspondence.
Yet, as we all sometimes do when we reflect on our lives, Norman too acknowledged that he at times wondered ``what it all amounted to'' and sometimes feared the answer was ``not much.'' But nothing could be further from the truth, I assured him. For nearly 70 years, Norman informed, educated, persuaded, and succeeded with his words. He taught multiple generations not just to love our country but also why we should love it and how to defend it. His words reached to the U.S. Congress, the Oval Office, and into the councils of nations.
Without Norman and the little magazine he led, the course of history--the Reagan revolution and the Cold War in particular--might indeed have been very different.
I, therefore, join Norman's family not only in mourning the loss of this great man but also in celebrating the highly consequential life of a true American patriot.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor the life of Ella Cook, one of the victims in last weekend's horrific attack that killed two and left more wounded at Brown University.
Ella was a 19-year-old female and a sophomore at Brown. Her life was taken far too soon in a disgusting act of violence that leaves all of us searching for answers.
You know, moments like this remind all of us how short life really is and how important it is to take advantage of every moment. Ella certainly took advantage of every moment she had with us here on Earth.
She grew up in Mountain Brook, AL--a suburb of Birmingham--with two loving parents, Anna and Richard, and two siblings, Hooker and Mary Hamner.
Ella loved to play piano, dance, and travel. She was studying French at Brown University. She also loved kids and spent much of her time babysitting and serving in Sunday school. She believed her highest calling was to be a mom one day.
But the most important thing to know about Ella is that she was a devout Christian. She was very involved in her church, the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, and was loved by everyone there.
In her obituary, it says:
The reverend of Ella's church described her as ``an incredible, grounded, faithful, bright light'' who ``lifted up those around her.'' I can't think of a better legacy to leave behind than that.
She went off to college at Brown, where she was studying French, mathematics, economics, and was obviously very, very smart. She also was a patriot who loved this country, and she served as vice president of the College Republicans at Brown University. She was clearly a very courageous young lady, and I can't imagine that was an easy job on such a liberal campus as Brown. But Ella was resolute in her mission to speak the truth and to fight every day for Christian values that have made this country great.
The president of the College Republicans of America described Ella as being ``known for her bold, brave, and kind heart as she served her chapter and her fellow classmates.''
You know, the true measure of a life is not found in its length but its impact. And in the stories shared and the grief that is being expressed, it is clear that Ella left a lasting imprint on the people she touched. Alabama misses Ella, and we join her family and friends in grieving her loss.
You know, it certainly seems like this might have been a targeted attack. We will not rest until the deranged psychopath who did this is brought to justice. But that being said, may God bless the Cook family and give them peace and comfort in the midst of unspeakable tragedy. And may we honor Ella by carrying forward the values she lived by. Though her life was taken far too soon, we know she is in Heaven now, and we will make sure that Ella's legacy of patriotism and faith lives on here on Earth.
May God bless the Cook family, and may God bless Ella Cook.
Mr. President, we are quickly approaching the end of 2025, and this past year, particularly here in Congress, we have been met with a lot of challenges, chaos, as well as change. But there is one issue that unfortunately has not changed, and that is our ballooning national debt.
Throughout the year, I have repeatedly come to the Senate floor to pound the drum on this very serious issue. I have outlined the history of how we got to this point, and I have urged all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to join me in taking action to address our runaway debt before it is too late.
So as we end the year, I am back on the floor today to remind my colleagues of the dire financial situation we currently face and to focus specifically on the harmful consequences that it has on the everyday lives of hard-working Americans.
Let's first take a quick bird's eye view of the situation. At the start of 2025, our national debt sat at a staggering $36.2 trillion. Today, thanks in part to the irresponsible ``Big Ugly Bill'' that Republicans and President Trump passed this summer, that number has now ballooned by $2 trillion. Just 1 year later, our debt now sits at $38.4 trillion.
To put that number into perspective, when I was sworn into Congress back in January of 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion, so that means that in 16 years, our national debt has nearly quadrupled. Unfortunately, it is only getting worse.
I think I speak for most Americans when I say it is hard to even fathom that amount of money. And Americans might wonder what our debt actually means for them and for their personal finances. Well, the reality is that it isn't some abstract, made-up number; the national debt is a real-life burden that our country has to contend with. Ultimately, the brunt of that burden falls hardest on the people who are just fighting to make ends meet in this increasingly unaffordable economy.
So let's break it down. On one front, it is simply an issue of having fewer resources available to invest in American families. Because our debt has gotten so out of control, each year, Congress is having to use more and more of everyday tax dollars to pay down just the interest on that debt. We are not even paying off the debt itself; we are just paying down the interest. In fact, the interest alone that we pay annually on our debt now exceeds the amount we spend on every single Federal program except Social Security.
That means fewer of your tax dollars are being sent back to your community to invest in stronger roads, safer neighborhoods, and better schools. It means that less resources are available for programs that help Americans put food on the table, afford childcare, or gain new skills through workforce training initiatives.
Particularly as American families continue to face an affordability crisis--the prices just keep going up--this support is needed now more than ever. Failing to invest in those who need it most because our debt is bogging us down will only add fuel to that fire.
On another front, Americans have continued to experience high inflation this year that can be tied to this growing national debt. When inflation goes up, the Federal Reserve has to raise interest rates to combat those higher prices. As interest rates rise, so do Americans' largest expenses, from their car payments, to their home mortgage, to their student loans.
Essentially, the longer we go without addressing this national debt, the purchasing power of Americans' hard-earned money will shrink each and every day, and families will continue struggling to afford the cost of everyday life because, unlike the Federal Government, Americans actually have to live within their means and adhere to their household budget. But unfortunately, today, too many American households find themselves trapped in a cycle of debt and financial insecurity just to meet their bottom line. More and more we see this is the case, even when both parents are working and doing everything they can to give their children a better future.
This is an entirely different reality than what Donald Trump and his billionaire supporters live in. Instead of paying their fair share like most Americans, Republicans just wrote for President Trump and the richest Americans a more favorable Tax Code, making sure that they get to hold on to their wealth and watch it grow. And when the richest Americans still don't succeed, they are given the leeway to bail themselves out.
We don't have to look any further than our President, whose companies have filed for bankruptcy at least four times. Four times, filed for bankruptcy--the President of the United States. Yet he contributes less to servicing our national debt than teachers and firefighters and hard- working Americans who play by the rules each and every day. The average American isn't afforded that luxury.
As a result, our Federal deficit has grown, inflation remains high, and the American people are left with nothing but rising prices, stagnant wages, and bitter, bitter feelings about being left behind.
For too long, we have propped up the wealthy and forced middle-class Americans to pay the bill. It is unacceptable, and if we have any hope of getting our fiscal house in order, this needs to change.
Congress is about to wrap up for the year, but when we reconvene, our debt will still be there--the largest it has ever been. We just can't make this debt go away. Lawmakers are going to have to put policies and politics aside and come together to figure out a way to address this issue.
So, in 2026, I am going to keep sounding the alarm on our national debt, highlighting the everyday consequences, and delving into the ways in which we can finally take steps to put our country on more sound financial footing.
We all say that we care about addressing our growing debt--everybody here in this Chamber says it--but in 2026, let's actually put our money where our mouth is, and let's make it happen.
Mr. President, last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. I have been to the event a few times before. It is a beautiful setting. The library is such a great tribute to one of our greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan, who is known for his efforts to rebuild the military through peace through strength in the Reagan years that we often think about and talk so much about today.
The forum has been around for 12 years. This was the 12th annual event, and I have been able to attend the incredible event a few times early on in my time in the House, serving in the House of Representatives. It has been a few years since I have been there.
The event is filled with some of our Nation's top military leaders, Cabinet officials, administration officials--much of the leadership of the Pentagon. It is also a bipartisan event with a congressional delegation from both sides of the aisle. It also includes leaders and innovators in our national defense industry who join the event every year as well.
At this past forum, I participated in a panel discussion about recruitment and retention in our military. I was actually joined by a former Democrat colleague of mine in the House, Jimmy Panetta, a Democrat from California.
Coincidentally, his father, the former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, was sitting in the audience to hear his son and myself and the other members of the panel talk about this important subject.
The panel got me thinking, though, as we close out 2025, about how far we have come in just 1 year on this subject--recruitment and retention in the military. As we close out 2025, I can think of many big wins that have come out of the Trump administration but none as significant as what President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth have done to repair the recruitment crisis that took place on Joe Biden's watch. This unbelievable accomplishment doesn't get as much attention as it deserves, and that is why I wanted to come down to the floor today and talk about that incredible success story and share with you some of what I talked about in that panel a little over a week ago.
When I served in the House of Representatives before I got to the Senate, I chaired the Military Personnel Subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee, so I saw up close how bad things got under Joe Biden--especially at the Pentagon and in our military.
When Joe Biden was President, he presided over the worst recruitment crisis in the over 50 years of an All-Volunteer Force of our military. In 2022, the Army set a goal to recruit 60,000 new soldiers but only managed to recruit 45,000. That is 15,000 soldiers short. The same thing happened again the following year, in 2023, when the Army was again 15,000 soldiers short of its 65,000 soldier recruitment goal.
When you add up the recruitment losses under Joe Biden, between 2021 and 2025, the Army shrank by 40,000 soldiers due to a lack of new recruits--that is as much as 4 divisions of troops in the U.S. Army.
The same story, Mr. President, happened to the Navy, which I know is important to you, and it is important to me. In 2023, the Navy was 7,500 short of its goal to recruit 37,000 new sailors. In 2024, it was nearly 5,000 short of its goal to recruit over 40,000 new sailors. So between 2021 and 2025, the Navy shrank by 16,000 sailors, which is about 3 aircraft carriers' worth of U.S. sailors.
That is how bad the recruitment crisis got on Joe Biden's watch.
How did this happen? I think this is an important context in history when we evaluate where we are today. It is clear to everyone that the Biden administration treated the military as a political experiment. I don't think, Mr. President, we have seen the military politicized in a way that it was under the 4 years that Joe Biden was President ever before in American history.
The Biden Pentagon dropped physical fitness standards to promote equity and supported woke DEI initiatives throughout the armed services.
As a side note, by the way, the marines were the only good news on recruitment during those 4 years because the Marine Corps never dropped their standards.
You had former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who immediately, after Joe Biden was sworn into office, ordered a 60-day stand-down to ``combat extremism'' in the military. They spent nearly 6 million man- hours militarywide on that stand-down. Those are hours, Mr. President, that could have been spent on training our troops to combat our biggest enemy, our biggest threat--that being China--or, I would contend to you, those 6 million man-hours could have been spent
Then you had Gen. CQ Brown, who at the time was the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, who issued racial quotas for the U.S. Air Force. You had Joe Biden's Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth arguing that it was a bad thing that more than 80 percent of our recruits come from military families. Think about that for a minute. She said there was ``a risk of developing a warrior caste'' in America. When the Secretary of the Army should have been trying to boost recruitment, she insulted patriotic Americans who are inspired by their parents to serve and suggested that the Army didn't want them. It is no wonder that we had a recruitment crisis in the U.S. Army.
Mr. President, when you combine all of these factors, it is no wonder that the military under Joe Biden failed to meet its recruitment numbers.
Simply put, fewer young Americans wanted to serve because they stopped believing in the mission.
I often think back to an article from the Wall Street Journal that I read back in 2023. It had a poll that showed that patriotism among Americans, especially young Americans, had plummeted to historic lows.
Again, in 2023, Joe Biden is the President; the aftermath of what happened in Afghanistan; all of this other foolish experimentation; the politicization of our military.
According to that poll, only 38 percent of Americans in 2023 said that patriotism was very important to them. That is down from 70 percent in the 1990s.
To this day, this story astonishes me. I would love to see an update from the Wall Street Journal on that poll to show what those patriotism numbers look like today.
Mr. President, I know you know this: You can't build a military without patriots. You can't ask young men and women to put their lives on the line when the culture tells you that the country isn't worth fighting and dying for. You can't expect the next generation of Americans to raise their right hand--Mr. President, like you did, like I did, like so many of our colleagues did in the U.S. Senate--to protect this Nation when so few believe that America is the greatest country in the history of the world.
Something else that I think about is how the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan played a huge part in the shortage in military recruitment under Joe Biden as well. Americans saw 13 brave servicemembers killed at Abbey Gate, including a Hoosier, and American guns and vehicles were abandoned to the Taliban on that embarrassing and disastrous and deadly day. It didn't exactly inspire people to serve. Young Americans asked themselves ``Who wants to be part of that type of military?'' and they said ``Not me.''
Mr. President, the good news, though--and I want to get to the good news because this is really good news. The good news is that this has all been fixed in a really short period of time. President Trump changed everything. In fact, it changed immediately on election day just a little over a year ago. Military leaders testify to the fact that military recruitment increased dramatically the day that Donald Trump won the election. The Army met its 2025 recruitment numbers 4 months early. The Army reached its retention goals for the whole year in just 6 months. Navy recruitment hit a 20-year record.
How did all of this happen? President Trump and Secretary Hegseth inspired young people to serve again because President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are restoring our military's strength and greatness. They cut away the woke DEI initiatives throughout the Department of War and focused on what really matters to our military--patriotism, a sense of mission, and lethality.
Under Joe Biden, young Americans saw the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Today, they see a military that puts America first--taking out narcoterrorist drug boats before they can bring deadly drugs into our country.
Seventy-one percent of Americans say they support these strikes on these drug boats. When you ask young men and women if that is the type of military they want to be part of--one that is stopping drugs from flooding into America and killing our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our friends--you get an overwhelming yes.
When America is strong, when America is competent, when America wins, our young people want to be a part of that. They want to serve.
Patriotism isn't dead; it was just dormant during those 4 years, waiting for leadership that America can believe in, like what we have in the White House today in Donald Trump.
Secretary of War Hegseth is doing an extraordinary job. He is the exact leader at the Department that we need to restore the focus on lethality after 4 disastrous years under Joe Biden when the focus was on anything but that. He has brought back the warrior ethos to our military and has worked hard to ensure that America's military can meet tomorrow's challenges. Our enemies have been put on notice under Pete Hegseth's leadership at the Department of War.
Mr. President, the path forward is clear: We must continue supporting this administration's efforts to restore our military and make our military as great as it can be again.
Our All-Volunteer military depends on Americans who choose to serve, and Americans will choose to serve when they believe in the mission, trust their leaders, and take pride in this great country. President Trump is giving them that, and America is stronger for it. That is some great news, Mr. President.
As we close out 2025, there are so many things to talk about, but this accomplishment in and of itself--what President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have done to restore recruitment, save our military-- is really good news, and I wanted to come to the floor and talk about it as we close out this year, on the eve of going home for this Christmas break.
Mr. President, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year. I am looking forward to a lot more good news like this to come in 2026.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. President, we heard so much over the weekend from Tennesseans who were reaching out, just so saddened by the series of truly devastating attacks we saw in Syria. Two of our National Guard members from Iowa lost their lives. Indeed, we know that right now, President Trump and Senators Grassley and Ernst are out at Dover to meet with those families. These are two that were killed by an ISIS gunman.
At Brown University, a gunman shot and killed two students that were in a session as they prepared for exams right there on the college campus. One of those was a young woman from Alabama who was vice president of the college Republican Club; another was an aspiring neurosurgeon. These are two young people who had very bright and promising futures in front of them.
In Australia, two terrorists opened fire on a Hanukkah celebration. They murdered 15 people, including a 10-year old girl and a Holocaust survivor.
We know that anti-Semitism is a sickness. It is spreading across the globe, and world leaders must do more to protect their Jewish communities.
Our Nation's prayers remain with all of these victims and with their families and those that experience these tragedies.
We can all be grateful that, in Donald J. Trump, we have a President who is committed to serving that justice when it is needed. Terrorism will not have the last word.
And we have seen how the FBI has worked to thwart these plots that are taking place here in our country. They announced, on Monday, that agents had thwarted a New Year's Eve terror plot that was planned for Los Angeles by a pro-Palestine extremist group. The four suspects are now in Federal custody, and we know they will face the full force of the law.
God bless the men and women in Federal law enforcement and in our armed services who are really working around the clock to restore safety and security here in our country.
Under President Trump, we have seen that national security has become a
You can look at the southern border. In a matter of months, President Trump completely fixed the Biden border crisis. The President was right when he said we didn't need more laws. We just needed a new President, one who would enforce the laws.
In October, there were just over 11,000 apprehensions at the southern border. The same month last year, in 2024, there were over 100,000 encounters at the border, and that was under the Biden border policy. Now, even the year before that, there were 240,000 encounters. Think about that: from 240,000 down to 100,000, down to 11,000. And what changed was the fact that we had a President who was enforcing the law.
Now, also in my wonderful State of Tennessee, Memphis saw the highest crime rate per capita in 2024. But since September, the administration's Memphis Safe Task Force has made more than 4,200 arrests, including hundreds of warrant arrests for domestic violence, aggravated assault; and dozens more for narcotics, sexual assault, and homicide. They also have located more than 120 missing children and have recovered 970 illegal firearms and 560 stolen vehicles.
With President Trump and AG Bondi and Kash Patel, and the commitment that they have made to Memphis, this is what you are seeing. Criminals are being apprehended, and the citizens in Memphis feel safe to go out and about. The crime rate has been cut in half. President Trump is replicating the success we are seeing in Memphis. He is replicating this all across the country, whether it is here in Washington, DC, or in Oregon and in other areas.
And around the globe, President Trump has restored peace through strength, after years of weakness from the Biden administration. We have to note, when we talk about globally, what he has done--ending eight wars, making the world a safer place not only for Americans but for so many.
Across the government, President Trump has also rooted out woke programs that abused taxpayer dollars under the previous administration. And we saw a lot of corruption in our institutions. With these programs, the Biden administration pushed a radical anti- American agenda, and now, with the Trump administration, we are restoring common sense and putting the American citizens first.
On the economy, the President's pro-growth and pro-worker agenda is already delivering. Since its peak under Biden, inflation is down 67 percent. Of course, we all remember, under Biden, it was at a 40-year high. And now that has come down 67 percent, and it will continue to come down.
The trade deficit is shrinking. Our Nation is bringing in trillions of dollars in new investments, and this is going to create new factories, jobs, and opportunities.
Mr. President, we are so pleased that some of those jobs are coming into Tennessee. Some of those investments are coming into our State.
And the President has focused on making American energy dominant once again. We were pleased to see that, in his first few days in office, he eliminated a lot of the Green New Deal. And because of that, the national average for a gallon of gas is at its lowest price since March of 2021.
He has also signed Executive orders to support nuclear energy, including speeding up approvals for new reactors and strengthening fuel supply chains. And more than any other State, Tennessee is best positioned to lead our Nation's nuclear renaissance, especially with the work that is being done at the Oak Ridge National Lab and at our universities. I will remind my colleagues that our nuclear energy industry had its birth at the Oak Ridge National Lab, in Tennessee.
We also have the Clinch River site, which should soon be home to the Nation's first small modular reactor. And taking advantage of this opportunity, the Tennessee Valley Authority has got to step up, and they have to lead the way.
This week, the Senate is set to confirm four of the President's nominees to serve on TVA's Board of Directors and ensure that Tennessee and our Nation do lead in nuclear energy.
Supporting all of these accomplishments is the One Big Beautiful Bill, or the working families tax cut bill. This is something that was signed into law on Independence Day. And in that legislation was the largest tax cut in history, of $4 trillion, including no tax on tips and overtime and Social Security, a provision I have worked to achieve for years; historic funding to finish the border wall; $50 billion to support rural health; permitting reforms to make it easier to build in America again; a generational investment in our military; and I could go on and on.
And in the last year, this administration, with President Trump and Republicans, has been hard at work to make certain that we address the cost of living, that we address safety in our Nation and around the globe, and to improve the quality of life in a stronger, freer, and safer country than ever before.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask this body to pass legislation requiring the Department of Defense to show Congress and the American people the September 2 video of strikes that killed two survivors on a shipwrecked vessel after the administration's first strike disabled the craft. The American people deserve to see this video and to witness what is being done in their name.
The administration has proudly published the footage of countless other strikes, including the first one from the very same day, believing it could do so without compromising any sources or methods used by our military or intelligence services. This followup footage should be no different.
Since the beginning of this campaign of unauthorized strikes against boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, there has been one key feature from this administration: an eagerness to push out the videos of these attacks.
We first learned about these strikes when video of an attack was published by the President of the United States, who posted the video of it on his social media. That was video of the first strike on September 2.
In the strikes since--strikes that have killed nearly 100 people in the last few months--the attacks have been announced to the world by the President and the Secretary of Defense, posting videos of them on their social media.
Last week, we saw the administration distribute lengthy footage of the seizure of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
So why not release the video of the second strike that the administration ordered on September 2? Why is the administration hiding it behind closed doors, sharing it with only a small handful of Members, and leaving the rest of Congress and the country in the dark? What is it about the killing of these two survivors that the administration is unwilling to let the people see?
The legality of the entire campaign of striking these boats and killing those onboard, rather than interdicting and arresting them, has been called into serious question. An attack on shipwrecked sailors is expressly prohibited by the laws of war.
The rationale for hiding this video seems far less about any nebulous claim of the need to protect sources or methods, and far more about protecting the administration from accountability and oversight that the American people demand.
This legislation is simple: Make this video available--first, in full, without edits, to all Members of Congress. Then, if there is any legitimate basis to be concerned with the revelation of some source, method, modus operandi, or technology that isn't already apparent with the eager release of all the other videos, make it public with proper redaction.
Surely, the same people who scrub and declassify every other video the Pentagon has publicly posted can be enlisted to do the same for this one.
Or is the so-called ``most transparent administration in history'' afraid of what this video would show? Would it show a clear violation of the laws of war, which use the killing of shipwrecked combatants as the textbook definition of an illegal use of force?
The truth on this is going to come out. We know that it will. Let it be
I should make clear: None of these strikes is lawful because these targets are not combatants. There is no imminent threat of invasion, and there is no legal authorization in the United States or international law for the use of military force for drug interdiction alone.
We have condemned campaigns of extrajudicial killings in other countries that have done so to allegedly combat the drug trade--like the Philippines under Duterte--and we must not engage in that conduct here.
But the second strike on September 2 compounds the illegality. It flies directly in the face of laws and values to underpin the U.S. military.
So I ask my colleagues to support this bill. Allow this legislation to pass and ensure that we are not hiding information from the American people. After all, the President of the United States said he was fine with releasing the footage. ``Whatever they have,'' he said, ``we'd certainly release. No problem.''
It is time we hold the President to his promise to be transparent with the American people. Our servicemembers and their families deserve nothing less.
Right now, we have a massive military force in the region. We have killed almost 100 people. We are beginning a blockade of a country with which we are not at war and with which the American people do not want us to go to war--not over regime change, as despicable as the Maduro regime is. The American people do not want to go to war over regime change, which is apparently the real objective here.
We should pass a War Powers Resolution to make clear that Congress does not support a military campaign that may draw us into another endless war or destabilize the region. And we can start by releasing the video of one deadly strike already undertaken, but the evidence of which has been withheld from the American people.
I urge passage of this bill.
As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk to require the release of video strikes conducted on September 2, 2025, against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Southern Command; that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The junior Senator from California knows good and well what ``classifications'' mean because he had 15 years on the House Intelligence Committee until his clearance was pulled in 2023. He understands classifications. He understands when certain things can be exposed and certain things cannot because of the sensitivity of them.
He also understands that committees of jurisdiction are privileged with the correct clearance to be able to watch this video because the junior Senator from California stated that himself. It has been shown to not a partisan but a bipartisan group of individuals who do have the accurate oversight and clearances to watch it.
Now, what is this really about? Politics? Maybe.
During the junior Senator's time on the House Intelligence Committee, then-President Obama had 500 strikes on terrorist organizations. Let's keep in mind that we are striking terrorist organizations, and no one is denying that. There are 24 cartels that are being deemed terrorist organizations that are poisoning our streets, that are killing our families, that are killing our friends, that are affecting all of our homes and all of our streets in all of our States all across the country--in fact, to the tune that there have been more people killed in 2024 by drug overdoses--the sum of 10,000 more individuals--than we lost in U.S. personnel during the entire Vietnam war. If that is not an attack on us, I don't know. If that is not a terrorist organization that is truly poisoning our streets, then I don't know.
During the time that the junior Senator from California sat on Intel, not one time did he ever ask for the release of the same videos from the Obama administration that killed 3,700 individuals, including U.S. citizens.
Now, if you think there would be transparency, that would need to be released. We would want to see the videos at least on the U.S. citizens who were killed in this manner, not these narcoboats that are poisoning our streets. But that really isn't what this is about, and the junior Senator from California knows that. This is all about politics. That is what this is about.
Why are we protecting the ones who are poisoning our streets? Shouldn't we be trying to protect the ones who are on our streets?
I don't think it is crazy to think that we would want to be proactive about going after narcoboats. I, for sure, want to. I have zero issue with this. I have been able to be briefed. I know the junior Senator was recently briefed; he is just upset that he may not have the clearances to watch the videos anymore.
But there is sensitive material, and it was clearly explained why it can't be released.
Of all the people in this Chamber, the junior Senator from California knows that when it is in certain classifications, there is a reason for that.
Mr. President, first, as my colleague served on the Intelligence Committee when I chaired the committee, he should well know that Members of Congress actually don't hold clearances that can be revoked; we either serve on certain committees or we don't.
But more to the point, in listening to my colleague address this motion to release the video to the American people, I have heard very little of the basis for an objection to releasing this video except some nebulous claim that somehow this footage must be classified.
I would pose this question to my colleagues: Do you recognize that this video has already been partly displayed to the American people? The administration was all too proud to show the first part of this same video, the first attack on this ship, to the American people. There was no objection, obviously, to classification or to source of method. They showed that to the whole world. They just didn't show all of us the rest of that video; that is, they only showed the footage of the first strike. What they withheld was the footage of the killing of the survivors of the strike.
So, to make the claim here without basis that, well, somehow the continuation of that footage is confidential but that the beginning of that footage showing the first attack can be released without injury to sources or methods--it just doesn't pass the smell test.
This is going to come out. It is just a question of how long we have to fight to make this available to the American people.
But if the administration is proud of this, if the administration is proud of what it is doing in the name of the American people, it should be proud to show this video to the American people. And we should hold the President, who said: Whatever they have, we would certainly release; no problem--we should hold the President to that commitment.
Mr. President, in January of this year, tragedy struck just a few miles from here when an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Sixty-seven souls were tragically lost in an instant.
After the crash, it quickly became evident that there were commonsense changes that would immediately enhance aviation safety.
The Army helicopter, flying along the Potomac River, had deliberately chosen not to broadcast its location to other aircraft or to air traffic control
We have since learned from the National Transportation Safety Board that the military was routinely flying by its own set of rules, particularly around Reagan National, which meant that there had been numerous near misses before this deadly crash. In fact, just last Friday, an Air Force tanker was flying without using ADS-B and nearly collided into a JetBlue plane headed to New York despite the justifiable public outrage over what happened at DCA. Clearly, the Pentagon's behavior needed to change.
In July, I, alongside eight of my Republican colleagues, introduced the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform--or ROTOR-- Act. After several weeks negotiating a bipartisan agreement with the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Maria Cantwell, the committee passed the ROTOR Act unanimously.
Here is what the ROTOR Act does:
No. 1, it tightens the rules for military aircraft so air traffic control and other pilots have a better idea of nearby planes and helicopters.
No. 2, it requires all aircraft, civilian and military, to equip and receive ADS-B signals.
No. 3, it directs the FAA to comprehensively evaluate the safety of airspaces around airports across the country so that no other airspace has the same risk of collisions that DCA did.
No. 4, it improves aviation safety information sharing between the FAA and the military. No longer will there be silos of safety data.
These improvements will save lives.
Earlier this week, the families of the DCA crash victims joined Senator Cantwell and me at a press conference to highlight how the NDAA had a provision moving backwards on safety and to call for the passage of the ROTOR Act.
Two of those family members, Amy Hunter and Laura Augendre, are in the Gallery today. I am happy that they are here to witness the Senate passing the ROTOR Act, along with the language removing the offending NDAA provision. Senator Cantwell, Senator Moran, and I have made significant progress with our Senate colleagues, and we have reached an agreement that will allow the Senate to pass this bill unanimously today.
I am also pleased to report that the ROTOR Act now has the explicit backing of the White House on this revised product. The White House is committed to helping us work with our House colleagues to see that the ROTOR Act passes in that Chamber. We still have a few small outstanding issues, but I am optimistic that we are going to get this done and signed into law as soon as next month.
Before turning it over to my colleagues, I want to note two things.
One, I want to say thank you to Senator Cantwell for her partnership. She and I have worked hand in hand on this. I am grateful for the trust we have with each other and for the work ethic displayed by Senator Cantwell and by her staff, who have worked very hard on this matter.
I also want to say that this bill will be a fitting way to honor the lives of those lost nearly 1 year ago over the Potomac River.
The goal of the victims' families is to ensure that no one else endures a similar, avoidable, completely unnecessary tragedy.
Mr. President, I rise to support the gentleman's future request here and to say that the bipartisan ROTOR Act, the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform bill represents a major step forward for aviation safety.
Not even 1 year ago, 67 people lost their lives when a Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 over the Potomac, and it was one of the deadliest aviation disasters in history. I do thank the families who are represented in the gallery today for their steadfast support. This is an important step to honor the memory of their loved ones.
I want to thank Senator Cruz for his bipartisanship in reaching this agreement. He and I worked together on legislation we had originally introduced called the Safe Operations of Shared Airspace Act and, working with him, achieved a date certain for when these requirements had to be met. We came together to craft that bill because safety is not a partisan issue, and this bill reflects it. Most of all, I want to thank the families for their steadfast pursuit of the right answers. Even in unimaginable grief, they refused to let their loved ones be forgotten.
When the NDAA language became public that rolled back postcrash safety measures that the FAA, NTSB, and the military had agreed to, the families spoke up. They stood at a press conference with Senator Cruz and me. They made phone calls. They demanded better, and today, we are closer to delivering on that and what they have asked for.
The ROTOR Act ends the exemption for planes to be in the airspace without a broadcast signal--that includes the military, so no more flying in the dark. And what is most important, it strikes the deadly language that is in the NDAA bill that just passed here that had widened that loophole. The Senate passed the NDAA with that provision in it, but this bill repeals it, and we hope that our House colleagues will take it up very expeditiously, and I thank the chairman for working with the White House and the House to try to get that commitment from them.
But just as we have said, we have no idea how this language got in the bill in the first place. I won't be surprised if somebody tries to stop us again. But we will be ready, along with the families, along with our colleague Senator Moran, to fight for this.
This bill requires broadcast technology in aircraft operating in busy airspace. It gives pilots situational awareness and real-time alerts. And NTSB Chairwoman Homendy and her predecessors have been recommending this for over 15 years. So we want to thank her for her leadership.
It also mandates comprehensive safety reviews for all airports across the United States, military and civilian aircraft where they share the same skies. So not just here, but places like San Diego, Tampa, and Norfolk, and it requires the FAA to establish an office dedicated to FAA-DOD coordination. That is really important. It requires a memorandum of understanding with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard to share safety data, and it directs the Army inspector general to audit pilot training, maintenance protocols and the compliance.
This bill represents real progress. I want to thank the chairman, Chairman Cruz, for working with all of us on the committee to get this legislation where it is today, passing the U.S. Senate with a firm commitment for aviation safety.
We will work with our House colleagues to continue to strengthen this. We will work with our House colleagues in the future. But passing this bill today may not be the final step, but it is a huge step forward in getting this legislation to the President's desk.
Mr. President, I now yield to Senator Moran, who has been a critical leader in fighting to pass the ROTOR Act and to ensure we have accountability and that we do not repeat the tragic mistakes that led to that horrific accident.
Mr. President, Senator Cruz, the Senator from Texas, and Senator Cantwell, the Senator from Washington State, thank you very much for the opportunity to join with you today and throughout a long process since January 29, earlier this year.
That flight--Flight 5342--originated in Wichita, KS, and, as we know, on January 29, it collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter, and it changed the way we look at air safety every moment since then.
I appreciate the leadership of my two colleagues on the full committee, as well as Senator Duckworth, my colleague on the Subcommittee on Aviation, to make certain that we take all the steps necessary and to make certain for the families who remind us today, and almost every day since January 29, about the importance of making the skies of the United States safe for those who fly today and in the future.
There are numerous--numerous--circumstances that led to this horrific incident, and NTSB's critical investigation into this collision is continuing. While NTSB's final recommendations have not yet been released, the Chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, took the unprecedented step of publicly stating that the National Defense Authorization Act does not adequately address the safety concerns surrounding the mixed airspace at DCA.
And while the NDAA is critical to bolstering our defense capabilities, I have major concerns with the portion of the bill that is being fixed by the efforts today, here on the Senate floor, with this unanimous consent request.
After numerous conversations with my colleagues Senator Cruz and Senator Cantwell, we secured an agreement from the Senate leadership-- and I thank that Senate leadership, Senator Thune--for an amended version of the ROTOR Act that would be quickly brought to the Senate floor for consideration to reinstate and advance critical standards of safety for commercial and military aviation.
We are doing that right now.
The ROTOR Act closes the loopholes that have been described by my colleagues and strengthens ADS-B requirements for commercial and military aircraft, among many other things.
It requires safety reviews of DCA, and it requires better coordination between the FAA and DOD. I commend the FAA Administrator for his commitment, and particularly Secretary Duffy, for their combined commitment to air safety.
In fact, when we conclude this effort here on the Senate floor, our committee is in session. Our subcommittee is in session with Administrator Bedford, the FAA Administrator, to review what other steps are being taken across the country for safe airspace at every airport.
We are bringing technology to bear that has only been talked about in the past and is now being accomplished. Our aviation system is fragile, and over the last year, Congress has passed significant legislation investing in that airspace to increase the safety and to make sure that all who fly can be and are safe and feel safe.
Now is not the time to take any steps backward, and that is what we were worried and concerned about that the NDAA provision does.
While Congress works to ensure in law the safety of our airspace, our DOT and FAA leaders are committed to abide by current safety standards, maintaining that safety at the DCA airspace.
As both have said, more work can be done, but it is a pretty good day to be taking the steps we are taking and knowing that more is to come in honor of those who perished, on January 29, from Kansas, across the country, and around the world.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 269, S. 2503.
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 was reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Cruz-Cantwell substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 4070), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The bill (S. 2503), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, congratulations, again, to my colleagues. Thank you to the U.S. Senate and its leadership for seeing that a version of the ROTOR Act was passed by unanimous consent.
Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Mr. Jared Isaacman to serve as NASA Administrator, a critical position whose leadership will help determine the success of America's ambitious scientific and exploratory goals in space science.
The next NASA Administrator will be tasked with leading the United States and all of humanity to places humans have never ventured, but they will face equally great challenges here on Earth, leading a workforce that has faced a year of upheaval and navigating an administration that has grounded progress rather than fostered it.
Last Spring, President Trump requested a $6 billion cut to NASA, the largest cut in the Agency's history, with cancellation of more than 40 missions and cuts to others, including some already in the final pre- launch stages, such as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Then, only a few months later, the administration worked to push out as many scientists and engineers as possible through their resignation program, resulting in thousands of experienced and dedicated workers leaving the government, often as a result of fear and uncertainty around the future of their jobs. Some of these top scientists were recruited to research labs and universities in other nations, further eroding America's competitive edge. Now, 11 months since the inauguration, the workers remaining at NASA are simply looking for the stability and opportunity to do their world-leading work. The next administrator must bring a greater respect for and commitment to the NASA workforce.
In addition to their attacks on the workforce, vital earth science missions have faced cancellation because the Trump administration dislikes that they provide us with information about our changing climate. There has been bipartisan pushback to this direction for the Agency coupled with bipartisan support for providing NASA the resources they need to conduct their operations. Despite this resistance, the tension between the branches of government remains, and the next administrator will have a vital role to play in standing up for the Agency.
Maryland is the cornerstone of innovation in space science, centered around the crown jewel of American space science, the Goddard Space Flight Center, the Space Science Telescope Institute, AURA, and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, alongside contractors and small businesses who support their essential work. Wallops Space Flight Center is just over the border in Virgina, but many of its employees and contractors call Maryland home. Space research and technology are a critical and productive part of Maryland's economy, and in turn, these entities are critical to the United States' broader space goals.
When President Trump attempted to cut NASA's fiscal year 2026 budget by an unprecedented amount, he did not target all parts of NASA equally. NASA Science was singled out for a 46-percent reduction in overall budget, which would disproportionately impact Goddard. The next Administrator will need to be ready to fight not just for individual parts of the Agency or flashy programs, but for the entire mission. If NASA seeks to take us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars, it will be cutting-edge science that takes us there and that path runs through Maryland.
I have had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Isaacman twice and watch both of his confirmation hearings, and I appreciate his willingness to engage on Maryland and national priorities for NASA's mission. During both my meetings with Mr. Isaacman, he relayed his belief in the importance of the NASA Science mission and the work done at the Goddard Space Flight Center. At the same time, however, I was alarmed to read Mr. Isaacman's Project Athena, his proposed plan for the Agency that suggested that NASA science should be a service to the commercial industry, rather than continuing to serve the public. I was further discouraged by his proposed plan to move certain mission control operations away from Goddard and to mark other Goddard facilities for possible ``deletion.'' The next NASA Administrator will need to approach the highly technical work and the people who perform it with respect and understanding for how their contribution fits into our larger goals.
I expect Mr. Isaacman's nomination to be confirmed, and it is my sincere hope that he means it when he says that he intends to prioritize and foster the cutting-edge research and science done by NASA, rather than cut it. I intend to work with him and the entire Agency through my role as Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science--CJS--Appropriations Subcommittee to support and provide critical oversight over the important work of NASA in Maryland, across the country, and around the world.
Mr. Isaacman's actions on the job, not his words during the confirmation
Mr. President, I rise further today in support of the nomination Jared Issacman to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. That is the vote that is now ensuing, just a few minutes later than scheduled.
Last week, for a second time, the Commerce Committee favorably reported Mr. Isaacman's nomination with bipartisan support.
Now, as NASA takes on some of the most significant tests in its nearly 70-year history, including the beating of China and other adversaries back to the Moon and positioning America for historic deep- space exploration, the Agency needs a permanent, Senate-confirmed leader.
As chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Space and the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, I serve in both roles, as an authorizer of legislation and the appropriator for NASA.
I have worked with my colleagues and with previous administrations to provide the Agency with clear direction and the resources needed to achieve NASA's noble goals.
I trust that if he is confirmed, Mr. Isaacman will be a reliable partner in continuing that legacy.
Over the course of his nomination, I have had several opportunities to speak at length with Mr. Isaacman about his qualifications for this role, his assessment of NASA's current circumstances, and his vision to lead the Agency into the future. I am confident that he will provide the leadership that NASA needs to sustain and advance America's leadership in space.
NASA's mission is not solely the domain of space. Just a couple of weeks ago, at Mr. Isaacman's confirmation, I had the chance to discuss with him the critical importance to many Kansans, including those in agriculture, of NASA's Earth Science Division for supporting Kansas agriculture producers. I was pleased that Mr. Isaacman shares my view that NASA must remain steadfast in its commitment to science.
I want to thank Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy for his leadership of the Agency as Acting Administrator over the past several months.
Confirming, now, Mr. Isaacman as the next permanent Administrator for NASA will equip our space Agency for success. I will be voting yes on Mr. Isaacman's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action for the Isaacman nomination and any nominations confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2026, shall be brought to a close?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2026.
As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 3082 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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. And prior to any further ruling by the chair, if I might make a comment--I withdraw so I might be able to make a comment, and then I will resubmit it.
Mr. President, I rise today to move for unanimous consent on the American Shores Protection Act, and this would codify President Trump's 2020 moratorium on drilling off Florida's Gulf of America and Atlantic coasts.
Florida has worked with President Trump for years to keep these operations off our pristine coast and not just for a sunny day to enjoy the gulf but because our coasts are a vital component of our State's economic success. In fact, Florida's beaches alone generate more than $127.7 billion a year in tourism spending and support more than 2.1 million related jobs.
However, these great resources are vulnerable to risks posed by new offshore drilling.
We all saw the devastating harm caused by the Deepwater Horizon oilspill in 2010. That disaster wiped billions of dollars from Florida's industries and caused horrific damage to our environment and coastal communities. Places like Panama City Beach, Pensacola, and Destin all saw dramatic drops in tourist revenues that summer, following the catastrophe. Even places like Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Miami Beach suffered a decline in visitors after the oilspill.
Our coasts also play an important role in securing our Nation. The Gulf Test Range, a big part of the Department of War's training to ensure mission readiness, is supported by multiple military bases in Florida's Panhandle. More than 50,000 jobs in the Panhandle depend directly on operations at military facilities in this area. Eglin Air Force Base, in Okaloosa County, alone employs 20,000 people and provides the country with $11 billion in economic impact every year.
If there were new offshore drilling in the Gulf Test Range, these activities that support national security would have to be reduced, meaning job cuts in an area that depends heavily on military activities.
As a fifth generation Floridian, preserving our State's natural beauty is deeply important to me and all Floridians and the millions that call the Sunshine State home, as well as those who come to visit and vacation. It is my mission to protect our State's coastline, from Pensacola Beach, where the Blue Angels fly, to Duval Street in Key West; from the iconic South Beach in Miami to Fernandina in the very tip of Northeast Florida, all for our next generation.
I appreciate my colleague's support as we work together to ensure oil drilling stays off our beaches and we pass the American Shores Protection Act.
And if I may defer to my fellow Senator from Florida, Senator Rick Scott.
Mr. President, I want to first thank my colleague from Florida, Senator Moody. I am proud to work together with her to protect Florida's shores, which is very, very, very important to Floridians.
As Floridians, we know that our beaches and coastal waters are vital to the State's economy, environment, tourism, and military community. I have worked for years, both as Florida's Governor and U.S. Senator, to keep oil drilling off our coast. We do not want oil drilling on our coast.
In 2018, I was proud to work with President Trump, during his first term, to extend the moratorium on oil drilling off Florida's coasts through 2032, and I have fought to codify this action since I got to the Senate.
Florida's shorelines are not only an iconic and pristine part of the State's environment; they also generate jobs in the area and support billions in tourism revenue.
Florida's beaches alone contribute more than $127 billion per year to the State's economy, just in tourism spending. People come from all over the world to enjoy our beaches. And 2.1 million jobs held by Floridians are tourism-related jobs.
Our coasts are also a critical national security point for military training with the Gulf Test Range. Anybody that has done testing, if you have served along the Panhandle, you know how important the military training is on the testing there for the Gulf Test Range. This range is an essential part of the Department of War's military training and is supported by several military communities along Florida's Panhandle.
It is the largest multidomain military training complex in the country, where our Armed Forces can conduct advanced military testing, training, and evaluation of air and weapons systems. There is no place in the world like being able to test and train off the coast of Florida.
The administration is right. We need to unleash America's energy, including American oil, but we can do that without sacrificing America's most important military training ground or hurting Florida's economy or shoreline.
I recently wrote a letter that was signed by the entire bipartisan Florida delegation--it is led by Senator Moody and me--urging President Trump to continue his commitment to keeping Florida's coast off the table for oil drilling and uphold his moratorium.
Along with Senator Moody, I will always fight to keep oil drilling off of Florida's coast to support our economy, our environment, and our Nation's military readiness.
I look forward to continuing to work closely with the President, Senator Moody, and all our colleagues on this important issue.
I yield back to my colleague from Florida, Senator Moody.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Florida.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 3082 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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.
Reserving the right to object, this legislation has not been through regular order. It has not received a legislative hearing, and it hasn't been marked up. And it hasn't been reported by the committee of jurisdiction. As a result, there has been no opportunity, with all of those stops along the legislative pathway having been skipped--there has been no opportunity--for Members of this body, for members of the Trump administration, for the two principal involved Agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior, known as BOEM and BSEE, to provide their feedback or offer testimony on the implications of this legislation.
Now, look, the Senate's committee process exists, and it exists for a reason. It exists for exactly these sets of reasons. While it might have slightly different implications depending on the committee involved and depending on the type of legislation, there are reasons why these things are there, and almost regardless of which committee is affected, you can normally benefit from this. And, in fact, it is normally quite hazardous to just bypass all of this, because that is how we legislate, without making sure that we have gone through all the necessary steps.
This process that has evolved over the last, roughly, two and a half centuries allows legislation to be examined in a transparent and a deliberative
Before legislation is advanced to the floor, it should be vetted through that process so that the Senate can fully understand and appreciate its scope, its effect, its legal posture, and whatever unintended or intended consequences the legislation might have.
I have made it clear, from the beginning, that I am willing to work with the Senator from Florida. In fact, I have offered to place it on the agenda for the next subcommittee hearing within the Energy Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That would provide the Trump administration with the opportunity to weigh in with its views and allow us to hear analysis from BOEM and BSEE and any other Agencies that are affected--consistent with how the committee has considered other legislation within its jurisdiction this year, and consistent with the way it has always done it in the 15 years I have been a U.S. Senator.
As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I have consistently stated that bills within the committee's jurisdiction should proceed through regular order. That process positions bills for successful consideration on the floor, consideration by the House, and, ultimately, enactment into law.
Skipping that process allows a bill to jump ahead of others that have followed the rules and respected the committee system.
So my objection today is not based on the merits of the underlying policy. It is based on the process. But the process is important to getting the policy right. That is why we don't skip it. That is why, in the absence of a compelling, overwhelming, urgent reason, we don't just ignore it, and I can't and won't ignore it here.
The Senate should not abandon its regular order by advancing legislation that has not been considered by the committee of jurisdiction.
I look forward to working with my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from Florida to consider her bill in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in a transparent matter.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague for taking the time to come down here today. I will note that he spent a lot of time talking about the long bureaucratic process; that this must go through every single step; and that we must get the policy right and going through the things that might take years, as we have seen happen in the Senate. It is what the American people are tired of, and I did not come here as the newest U.S. Senator to do business as usual. In fact, do you see where my desk is? It is on the very last row, almost to the edge of the Senate, because I am one of the newest Senators. We need to do things different. We need to get things done.
In respect to the pristine beaches of Florida, we have to act with a sense of urgency. As far as getting policy right, this simply codifies President Trump's 2020 moratorium on drilling off Florida's Gulf of America and Atlantic coasts. This policy has been negotiated and talked about, and it is already in a moratorium. This would simply codify that.
I so appreciate my colleague offering to set this on the agenda, and I appreciate that. I hope my other Senate colleagues recognize the urgency to get this done. I can't think of anything more top of mind for Floridians right now.
I am proud to be here, along with my colleague Senator Scott, to fight for Floridians and fight for Florida's livelihood, our pristine natural resources.
Mr. President, I respect and deeply appreciate my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from Florida. And I respect and admire her great devotion to protecting her State, its pristine beaches, and the many qualities that it enjoys. People from all over the United States of America and all over the world love going to Florida. No one wants to take that away.
I, nonetheless, take umbrage--great umbrage in fact--to a couple of characterizations to which I must now respond. First, as to what she characterizes as the ``long bureaucratic process,'' this process is itself quite short, especially in comparison to an actual bureaucratic process, which it is not. Make no mistake, this is not a bureau; this is not bureaucratic process; this is a legislative process. It is a legislative process that has endured for hundreds of years in this country, and it may not be perfect, but it is the best one we have got. It existed for many hundreds of years before that in our mother country, before we became our own country. There are reasons why these things develop. To call it a long bureaucratic process is neither fair nor accurate, and it misapprehends the nature of the legislative task, including the legislative task before us at this very moment.
Now, with regard to the suggestion that by not passing this today-- not passing it after leapfrogging over about 10 legislative steps that are essential to that process--we are somehow threatening Florida's pristine beaches and waters, this is simply not true. That couldn't be more untrue.
Let's remember what happened in 2020. President Trump issued a moratorium. That moratorium stays in place until 2032. Absent some other action taken pursuant to that, the status quo is to protect them.
What she is trying to do is to protect against President Trump doing anything consistent with his authority, consistent with that 2020 order. She is trying to tie his hands to prevent him from even figuring out what is there, to figure out whether there is a cost-benefit analysis on any of that.
Now, sure, the Senate can consider that from time to time. And perhaps after the legislative process--not the bureaucratic process. That is something different. That doesn't exist here. Nor is this simply a delay for the sake of delay. I pride myself in running the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and bringing forth these hearings as expeditiously as possible, and I have offered to put it on the next appropriate subcommittee hearing.
Now, if a mere delay of a few weeks or a few months, where it takes that time, isn't acceptable, I would like to know why. We have yet to hear a single reason, a single argument as to the parade of horribles of what could happen if we don't, as she would do here, tie President Trump's hands and bind further legislatively beyond what he has already bound himself to through his own 2020 Executive order.
So this is in place. It will remain in place. And there has yet to be a single reason articulated as to why we should treat this as an emergency. There is nobody going down there to drill right now. We still have got the Agencies that are looking at it. The least we can do in consideration of President Trump, his administration, and the affected Agencies, including those that I have mentioned earlier today--most particularly BOEM--is to hear them out first. In the absence of a compelling reason to leapfrog all of that, I must and will continue to object.
Mr. President, I am here today to ask the Senate to pass a bill that helps kids with cancer--the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act.
Now, very seldom do I actually read remarks. I typically like to just simply speak about it. But I think this is so important that I am actually going to read the remarks that are in front of me because I think it is important for people to know what we are doing, why we are doing it, and who she was--the advocate--and to understand why we are here today.
Mikaela, whom the bill is named after, was a 16-year-old girl from Colorado. As a father of six, this is kind of personal to me, so this is why it is so passionate to me, too, because my son currently--while he doesn't have a cancer like this, we have been going to
In July of 2020, Mikaela was diagnosed with a rare pediatric cancer. She spent nearly 6 years traveling across the country for treatments while also coming to Capitol Hill to advocate for children with cancer. But unfortunately, she tragically passed away October 29 of this year-- advocating literally almost every day of her life.
Mikaela was a fighter. She fought so other children could have an opportunity, that one day, the devastating diagnosis that she received would someday be curable for other kids.
Some things that come across your desk in Congress just make sense, and this is one of them. This bill has 33 cosponsors in the Senate, and they are bipartisan, from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans.
We worked hard to get this bill passed for over a year, and it passed the House by voice. Not one single person objected to this. Why? Because why wouldn't you want to allow kids, our kids, an opportunity to simply have the same opportunity as adults do with cancer? It is called pediatric cancer. Give kids a chance. Why wouldn't we want to do that?
It is hard to explain why we wouldn't want to do that, but yet I understand the Senator from Vermont intends to object to the Senate doing this. I think it is wrong. I think it is dead wrong.
To think that someone is willing to hold hostage a child who is fighting for their life, who simply wants to have an opportunity to try an experimental drug that may extend their life 1 week, 1 day, or may even cure it, and you are willing to take that away from the family because you have other priorities, because you want to hold it hostage so you can try to do something with community healthcare centers?
I support community healthcare centers. I want them. They are important to rural Oklahoma. But there is a time and place for everything, and to hold this bill hostage because of it is not right. You are stealing from a family an opportunity to spend maybe an extra minute or an extra day or maybe a lifetime with a loved one.
I don't know how you argue this. I don't know how you can possibly stand up here with a straight face and say that it is OK; it is just politics. This isn't just politics. We are playing with people's lives. This isn't politics. This is more than just politics.
But I will tell you, if this is objected to and we can't find a path forward here today, I can promise you I will not stop fighting on this. It won't happen. We are going to rinse and repeat and continue to go down this path until we give the families with these rare diseases an opportunity to live because that is what this is about.
I recognize my friend from New Hampshire who may have some comments about this too.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Mullin for yielding.
I support the motion to send this bipartisan package that you are speaking about to the President.
Obviously, the provisions that Senator Mullin, my friend from Oklahoma, is discussing are incredibly important. There are other provisions in this bill, too, that have bipartisan support.
This bill would cut costs for prescription drugs through a bipartisan provision that I worked on with Senator Paul to speed up getting generic drugs to market.
Now, I understand Senator Sanders' perspective about wanting to attach to this package increased funding for our country's community health centers. They are incredibly important, lifesaving resources to millions of Americans. So as we are talking about saving lives here, we have to recognize the role that community health centers play in that.
They provide vital services in our communities, and I fully support passing this funding increase for them through the House and the Senate as soon as possible. But as I understand it, the House will not act to do so at this time.
So as disappointed as I am that the House isn't ready to support increased funding for community health centers, I also believe that it is important to take action on this package now to help address pediatric cancer and lower prescription drug costs, so I am disappointed that this bill will not move forward today.
Having said that, I hope we can come together and find a way to continue to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to get this package over the finish line next month.
Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Mullin's legislation, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act.
Mr. President, I am a doctor, and people become desperate because of their illness, and they want just one more chance for themselves, their child, whomever.
The folks who are most desperate are the parents for their child, and we all know that, because if someone dies when they are 70, it can be tragic, but they have lived 70 good years, and when someone dies when she is 6, she is denied 76 more years. It is the desperation of these families that kind of cries out for this piece of legislation. They want this passed.
The goal of this legislation is to get cures for pediatric cancer to the patient more quickly.
Now, we have been working on this for several years--Democrats and Republicans--trying to make it so that those families, their desperate pleas are actually heard. And just as the Senator from Oklahoma noted, the legislation was recently renamed to the honorable legacy of Mikaela Naylon, who spent her final days advocating for better pediatric drug research.
The irony here is that the objection is going to come out of a genuine concern that people achieve healthcare, a concern I share for increased funding, for funding to be extended for community health centers. I share that concern.
But there is no one way to treat the ills, literally the ills of the United States of America. And to think that we can do it all at once, it is just not true.
But also to say that you are not going to give a chance for children to have a cure for cancer if you don't get what you want, is just not true. It is selfish. It is tragic. These parents are desperate for this act.
Now, this will expand the research and drug development for these pediatric illnesses, and I commit as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that I will work to pass community health center legislation. I will work to have it well funded. I will not let it sit on the back burner never getting done. There is a commitment from the chairman to work with my Democratic colleague to get it passed this year. If that is the only barrier between offering these children hope, I ask that that not be a barrier.
I, too, want to say I support community health centers. As I said, they are very important in rural communities, very important in my hometown of Westville. In fact, it is the only healthcare that is available. I don't want them to be harmed; I want them to be well funded, but that is a separate conversation we can have.
The chairman just said he will work to get it passed next year. Now, there is no reason to hold our kids hostage anymore.
So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1262, which was received from the House; further, 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.
Mr. President, let me be very clear: In the midst of a broken and dysfunctional healthcare system, we must do everything that we can to find new cures and treatments for pediatric cancer, and I strongly support that effort, period.
I think we can all imagine the kind of heartbreak that parents go through
Sadly, that enormously important legislation was torpedoed, as some of you will recall, by a series of tweets by Elon Musk. And Republicans became frightened, and they gave up on that bipartisan legislation.
As the current ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I believe that we must revive that bipartisan agreement that was worked on month after month after month by Democrats and Republicans.
Therefore, in a minute, I will be making a unanimous consent request to include this bipartisan healthcare package, again, an agreement that was supported by the leadership of the House and the Senate as an amendment to the Give Kids a Chance Act, and I hope very much that my Republican colleague will support that amendment, and we can go forward together.
And let me very briefly describe what my amendment would do, which I hope my Republican friends will support. And I say this at a time, as all people know, not only that our healthcare system is broken but our primary healthcare system is especially broken. Tens of millions of Americans today cannot get to a doctor when they need to. And there are estimates--you talk about people dying, there are estimates that tens of thousands of people die in the United States of America because they are sick, and they can't afford to get to a doctor when they should. And that is why community health centers are so very important and provide healthcare today, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling to over 30 million Americans.
All we are doing here is asking my Republican colleagues to support the bipartisan agreement we had last year, which would increase funding for community health centers by $340 million.
In fact, according to the Commonwealth Fund, health centers today are facing a disastrous situation. In fact, they face losses of nearly $42 billion in revenue over the next 5 years. So community health centers are a lifeline. They are the way the low-income, working-class people in rural America, urban America, get the healthcare they need, and we are seeing them under enormous financial strain.
Just this past year, we had a health center site in Vermont and I understand two in New Hampshire that were forced to shut down because of lack of funding.
What do you think happens when people can't get to a doctor? You know what happens when they are sick? They die. This is happening all over America. We all know that primary care is critical for children. In fact, in detecting cancer early, saving lives, how do you think children with cancer, how do we learn about it? They go to a doctor. They don't go to a doctor, we don't find out about it.
Researchers at the Emory University School of Medicine and the University of Chicago found that having access to primary care in childhood has been shown to lower the rate of death in blood cancer by over 10 percent.
It is vital that we begin to increase funding for community health centers. If Republicans agree with it, if Democrats agree with it, let us do it, let us do it right now.
Further, the amendment would extend mandatory funding for the National Health Service Corps for 2026. Guess what. In the richest country in the history of the world, we don't have enough doctors; we don't have enough nurses; we don't have enough dentists.
And what that actual health service corps does is forgive medical debt to those professionals who practice in underserved areas where they are desperately needed. Let's do it.
Further, this amendment would extend mandatory funding for the Teaching Health Center Program through September 29, 2029, on an annualized rate that reaches $300 million. Teaching health centers are extraordinarily important because they allow medical school graduates to do their residencies in community health centers, not just in large urban hospitals.
Finally, this amendment would provide $200 million a year for the Special Diabetes Programs, which are so very important. Again, this is not a radical amendment. I am not coming here saying let's do something we have not talked about. I am not talking about passing Medicare For All here. I am talking about doing what the Republicans and Democrats agreed to a year ago but was torpedoed by some tweets from Elon Musk.
Therefore, I ask that the request be modified, that my amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. President, you know everything that the Senator from Vermont has railed about is why I think he supported the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. ObamaCare. I thought it was supposed to fix all this stuff that he wrote about, and we figured out it hasn't. It has wrecked the system. It is unaffordable for the American people. Yet it was the Democrats that sold us or sold the American people on it--not us, not Republicans, sold the American people on it.
It has been disastrous. And so now he wants to hold kids that are dying of rare diseases and pediatric cancer, wants to hold them hostage, to now try to push his agenda further and not go through the committee of jurisdiction but hold the kids hostage--the kids.
Everything the Senator from Vermont just talked about was political. I am talking about lives. I am talking about giving kids a chance to live an extra day or a lifetime. That is what I am talking about.
This has nothing to do with politics. Nothing. Nothing I am talking about has to do with politics. This has to do with kids. Yet the Senator from Vermont wants to make it about politics. You know, this time of the year at Christmas we talk about grinches, all the time, right? They go in, and they steal the kids' gifts. By the end of the show, their hearts grow bigger and they give the gifts back and they allow kids to be excited about Christmas morning.
What has happened right here in front of us, the grinch is stealing kids' lives, and they are stealing hope from the families, hope from the families that might have an opportunity just to try for a political agenda.
And I hope to God that every single family that is going through this will hold the Senator from Vermont accountable, and the State of Vermont will hold him accountable, too, because he is playing with kids' lives. He is literally killing kids in front of us because of his political movement, and it is ridiculous.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. And I remind Senators that in the course of debate not to disparage other Senators' motives or character.
The Senator from Oklahoma says that I am talking about politics. Well, if talking about politics means that millions of children have the right to see a doctor, I guess I am talking about politics.
If talking about politics means that kids can get dental care when their teeth are rotting in their mouth or get mental health counseling, I guess I am talking about politics.
So, once again, this important piece of legislation, I support, but I also support passing the bipartisan piece of legislation that was worked on last year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the en bloc nominations, provided under the provisions of S. Res. 532, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 47.
The motion is agreed to.
Cloture having been invoked pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 532, the nominations listed therein are pending en bloc.
With respect to the Weaver nomination, under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about money--money, money, money--people's money.
Like the Presiding Officer, I have learned a few things in life. I want to mention two. No. 1, money does not buy happiness. No. 2, poverty does not buy a damned thing, and that is the theme of my few minutes as I talk today.
This is about people's money, and it has to do with unredeemed, uncashed savings bonds.
Now, the Presiding Officer knows what I mean when I talk about a bond. Usually, when we are talking on the Senate floor, we are talking about Treasury bonds or Treasury bills or Treasury notes. I want to talk about a different kind of bond today. It is the same principle but a different animal. It is called a savings bond.
Savings bonds used to be very, very popular in America, particularly in the last century, particularly during World War II. They are less popular today because there are so many other ways to earn interest on your money, although many people still believe in savings bonds. I do. It is a great way to invest your money.
What am I talking about when I say a savings bond as opposed to a Treasury bond? Well, let's take the example of one particular savings bond. It is called an EE U.S. savings bond.
A savings bond is just a loan to the Federal Government. Suppose I have $1,000, and I want to loan it to the Federal Government because the Federal Government will pay me interest. I could go to the Federal Government and say: I am going to loan you $1,000.
The Federal Government would say: Thank you very much. Here is your EE U.S. savings bond.
This is how it would work: The Federal Government would guarantee me that after 20 years, my $1,000 would double. So I would hand them-- ``them'' meaning the government--$1,000, and 20 years from now, I would get back $2,000.
If I didn't really need my money after 20 years, I could let the government keep it--loan it to the government, if you will--for another 10 years, and they would continue paying me interest.
Now, there are two things you need to note about what I just talked about, this EE savings bond.
No. 1, unlike a regular corporate bond, when I loan that $1,000 to the Federal Government and get back an EE U.S. savings bond, I don't get periodic interest payments. The interest accrues and it compounds. When I give the government $1,000, I don't get quarterly interest payments, but at the end of the 20 years, I get back $2,000. Roughly, in today's market, I am making about 2.7 percent a year, but it is very, very safe. If you believe in the sovereignty of the Federal Government--our Federal Government being part of the wealthiest country in all of human history--then it is a pretty safe investment.
The other thing you need to note about the savings bond, in addition to the fact that they don't pay me periodic interest--I get all my interest
But not everybody redeems their bonds. A lot of people don't--more people than you would imagine. Life comes at us pretty fast. You know, you buy a savings bond or maybe your grandparents or your parents buy you a bond when you are young. You grow up, you get married, you have kids, and you get a job and then you change jobs. You move around the country. A lot of people forget those savings bonds. They still own the savings bonds, but they just forget to redeem them, so the government just has an interest-free loan.
Here is what I am driving at: Right now, over in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, there are 100 million unredeemed savings bonds. It is money that belongs to the American people. It is no longer earning interest. There are 100 million savings bonds. There are only 340 million people in America, so it is a little less than a third of the people in America--although I realize some may be deceased--who have one of these savings bonds, where the Federal Government owes them money, but the money is just sitting there, and the Federal Government is using it, and they are not paying people interest.
The total amount of these unredeemed savings bonds is $36.27 billion.
And that $36 billion has been there a long, long time because people have either died or they have forgotten that they have these unredeemed savings bonds.
Now, this is very uncool.
A few years ago, back in 2023, I introduced a bill which actually passed; I got it passed. It said to the Federal Government, specifically, the U.S. Department of the Treasury: You have got to give this money back. You have got the names of people on these bonds. In many cases, you have the addresses. In a lot of cases, you have the serial numbers.
Why are you just sitting on this $36 billion, these 100 million bonds? Why don't you contact people and give them their money?
And they said: Kennedy, you don't understand. First of all, they said, our records are a mess. Some of these bonds go back--I don't know--75 years before there were computers. The Treasury Department said to me: The records are not digitized. We would have to comb through boxes and boxes and boxes to get names and addresses, and it is just--it is just a lot of trouble.
I said: Well, I feel your pain, but you still ought to return the money to people.
So here is what I am going to do: I am going to introduce a bill--and I did, and I passed it--that says the Federal Government has got to return this money to the people to whom it is owed. In that bill, I provided money for the U.S. Department of the Treasury to digitize those records, to go out and hire a consultant to go through all the records and put them in the database so they can be easily searched.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has done that. I want to thank them. Hasn't been the easiest thing I have ever done. I worked with Secretary Mnuchin first and then Secretary Yellen and now Secretary Bessent and all of the good women and men who work for them. But we finally have gotten it done.
Here is what we are ready to do. We are ready to turn the names and addresses and serial numbers over to the treasurer of every State--in Louisiana, in West Virginia, and every other State. We are going to give them the names and addresses and serial numbers so they can contact people in their State and say: The Federal Government has your money, and we want to get it back to you.
Why are we doing it that way through the States instead of just telling the U.S. Department of the Treasury to start calling people up? Well, because the States are very experienced.
Every State has what is called an Unclaimed Property Program. What is an Unclaimed Property Program? Well, every State has a law that says if a business--usually, it is a business, not always--but if a business has your money and it can't find you, that business can't keep it.
At the end of a certain period of time--usually 3 to 4 years--that business has got to turn that money over to the State--it is called unclaimed property--and the State has got to help give it back to people.
What am I talking about? Let's say a utility deposit--happens all the time. People move into an apartment. They post a utility deposit with the electricity company. They move. They forget to get their deposit back.
Apartment deposit works the same way. Tax refunds. Stocks. Maybe you own a stock, and it is being held by your brokerage company and you move and you don't leave a forwarding address or the forwarding address expires. That security company can't--that brokerage can't just keep that stock. That brokerage turns that stock over to the State treasurer of every State, and it is their job to return it to people.
Let me tell you something, the States do a marvelous job. You can go to every single State right now--just Google it--and find the State's unclaimed property program, and you can go spend a few minutes. You put in your name. You can put in your parent's name. You can put in your friend's name. You can put in the name of the town in which you were raised and find people who are owed unclaimed property. The treasurers do a great job of getting it back.
They not only have websites, but they advertise--and toll free numbers. They just do a wonderful job of getting money back to people. When I was State treasurer of Louisiana, I was in charge of Louisiana's Unclaimed Property Program, and I was there for 17 years. I think I returned $400, $500 million to the people of Louisiana. I had a whole unclaimed property section, men and women who would contact people all day long, and we had a very sophisticated database.
So that is why the U.S. Department of the Treasury, under my legislation, is not going to give this money back itself. It is going to return--or give the information to the treasurer of every State, and the treasurer of every State is going to be in charge of contacting people.
We have gone through this. We have been working on it. I passed the bill in 2023, I think, but we worked on it for 2 years prior to that. But we are almost home. What now we have to do is get the State treasurers to sign an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
All the State treasurers have to do is sign an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to cooperate. The Treasury will send them the names, and we can start returning this money to people.
I am going to be sending another letter out in short order to all the State treasurers asking them to go ahead and sign that user agreement with the Treasury Department so we can start getting this money back to people.
It is free money. And remember, there are 100 million bonds, 340 million people in America, $36 billion that is owed to the American people that the Federal Government has just been sitting on that hasn't been returned. And now we are going to start doing it, if I can just get our State treasurers to turn in these user agreements. Some of them have but others have not yet. You may not get a check for Christmas, but if you hurry up, you can get a check in January or February so you can pay some bills.
Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague from Louisiana.
The United States is on the brink of a war, a war of regime change in Venezuela. President Trump has amassed an armada of U.S. warships, fighter planes, and Special Forces off the coast of Venezuela.
Around 15,000 military personnel are in the region, and that includes Special Forces, marines, and specialized units. Reports indicate that 13 warships are operating in the Caribbean right now, and that includes the USS Gerald Ford carrier group and several amphibious assault ships. And more than 100 advanced aircraft have been deployed and are being deployed. That includes F-35s from the Vermont Air National Guard.
The President has also deployed combat rescue units, the types of specialists that can rescue pilots who are down in hostile territory. And the President himself has said that the attack could come very soon.
So the question is, Why are our warships, a carrier group, and support assets in the Caribbean? They are not there for drug interdiction. The reason they are there is obvious, and it is even acknowledged.
President Trump wants Maduro gone. He wants regime change. The President has said himself that Maduro's days ``are numbered.''
His Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, said that the President ``wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle, and people way smarter than me on that say that he will.''
When Secretary Rubio was asked a few weeks ago if the Venezuelan Government should be concerned about the massive military buildup in the Caribbean he said that ``they don't have a government. There's an illegitimate regime that's basically a narcotrafficking organization that's empowered itself.''
All of us revile Maduro. He is a tyrant. He has tortured and jailed political opponents. His policies have bankrupted his very wealthy country, driving millions of Venezuelans to flee their homes.
Yet we face two questions: First, should the United States go to war for the purpose of changing a regime we despise?
Second, can the President--any President--through his unilateral actions, plunge our country into a war for the purpose of changing regimes and do that without coming to this Congress for approval under the War Powers Act?
We have had experience with wars to change regimes we despise. The Iraq war was sold confidently by its promoters as a simple operation. Our troops would be welcomed as liberators. We remember that, and we know how that ended. True, it only took weeks for America's superior firepower to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.
But that was only the beginning. The war in Iraq unleashed decades of instability, ushering in revolutionary, violent, Islamic insurgencies across the region. And, of course, the war in Afghanistan took only a handful of Special Forces troops and targeted airstrikes to lead to the quick fall of the Taliban regime. But it also dragged our country and many of our allies into our longest war, fighting a 20-year insurgency.
In each case, it was easy to topple the regime, but what followed was tremendously terrible for our soldiers and our taxpayers. Those wars cost the United States and our allies the lives of 10,000 of our brave soldiers. It cost us trillions of dollars, and we are still paying for that.
The Executive has two obligations, and the Congress must demand compliance. First, the administration owes us transparency.
In the buildup of our military presence, the administration has ordered the extrajudicial killings of nearly 100 civilians in international waters. That they were alleged drug dealers or drug couriers does not give the President the authority to direct the military to attack.
The administration has provided absolutely no information to Congress about these attacks, who was killed, or the basis of the attacks; nor has it released the video of the recent attack in which survivors were killed in a second strike; nor has the administration made public the classified legal opinion upon which it relies to justify its actions.
Members of Congress, including me, have had an opportunity to read that opinion, which I found woefully unconvincing. But since it was classified, I can't discuss it. My view, release that opinion to the American people. My view, release that video to the American people.
Second, as the President masses our forces for a war, as he and his associates have explicitly stated, it is one in which their goal would be the elimination of the Maduro regime. The President refuses to come to Congress and seek congressional approval for a military action, as is required under the War Powers Act.
All of us--all of us as elected Members of the U.S. Senate--have vested in us under the Constitution, article I, the responsibility and exclusive authority to declare war. Let us all accept our duty and demand that the Executive be transparent, be accountable, and comply with the provisions of the War Powers Act and come to Congress for our approval of the military action that is clearly underway.
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, had I been present for the rollcall vote No. 648, on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1071, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, my vote would have been in the affirmative.
My absence is due to my attendance at the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base to receive the remains of the two Iowa National Guard servicemembers who were killed in Syria this past week. I appreciate the opportunity to record my position.
Had I been present for the rollcall vote No. 651, on the motion to invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, my vote would have been in the affirmative.
My absence is due to my attendance at the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base to receive the remains of the two Iowa National Guard servicemembers who were killed in Syria this past week. I appreciate the opportunity to record my position.
Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues
The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the Explanatory Statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 be printed into the record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Report on Secure Mobile Communications Systems Used To Transmit
Protection of Classified Information Related to Budget Functions
Evaluation of Training Data Pertaining to Artificial Intelligence
Terrorist Watchlist and Transnational Organized Crime Watchlist
Mr. President, I was prepared to come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent to pass H.R. 5100, a bill to temporarily extend the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs until September 30, 2026.
However, because Senator Ernst is unavailable to state her objection to the bill, I have decided not to call for unanimous consent at this time.
I want to express my condolences to Senator Ernst, a combat veteran who served in the Iowa National Guard, for the tragedy in Syria that killed two and injured three Iowa National Guard members.
The bill I would have brought to the floor today would have re-opened the SBIR and STTR programs, which have been shut down now for more than 70 days. The bill was unanimously passed by the House, led by the Republican chairs of the House Small Business Committee and House Science Committee.
Since the SBIR and STTR programs closed their doors, I have heard from hundreds of small businesses across the country that are being forced to lay off employees, cease critical research, and may soon have to close their doors for good. Passing H.R. 5100 is not just a matter of policy; it is about whether small innovative companies can survive. This is the only real path that will immediately reopen this program while we continue to negotiate. Each day the program is shut down, the further behind our innovation economy falls.
The fate of this program lies in the hands of six negotiators: the chair and ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, the chair and ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, and the chair and ranking member of the House Science
I am disappointed that these programs have been forced to shut down, ending funding for the most cutting-edge technologies being developed by our most nimble allies, small businesses. I am disappointed that a company in Pennsylvania may have to cease scaling their patented brake technology due to the lapse in the programs. I am disappointed that a company in Virginia producing the next generation of energy technologies is being forced to put their research on hold until these programs are re-opened. And I am disappointed that a company in Texas must put its progress towards unlocking unprecedented spacecraft maneuvering for our Agencies on hold.
Just because we are unable to come to a long-term solution today does not mean we should decimate a critical part of our innovation ecosystem by keeping these programs closed. In May, I introduced a 52-page bill with my long-term vision for the programs. I want to provide small businesses with the certainty they deserve by making the programs permanent, ensuring we do not watch the clock hit zero like this again.
I want to increase how much Agencies are required to allocate for these programs to maximize our innovation potential. I want to strengthen our commercialization efforts through allowing direct to phase II authority for all Agencies, as well as better data collection, better training, and specifically designated commercialization officers. I want to increase the number of new entrants by reauthorizing and codifying new programs that aim to reach underserved populations. And, like all of my colleagues, I want to make sure that our technology never falls into the hands of our adversaries.
That is why I want to continue the bipartisan foreign due diligence program enacted in 2022, which has already successfully identified and mitigated foreign risk in its short period of implementation. If it were just up to me, I would want my bill to pass tomorrow. However, I understand that is not possible. That is why I have joined the four House negotiators in supporting a temporary extension while we figure out the long-term path forward that not only preserves our innovation ecosystem but supercharges it.
As a long-time champion of the SBIR and STTR programs, I will continue to fight to protect the innovation ecosystem and the small businesses that support it.
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California, PUBLIC, Lands Act. This comprehensive bill would permanently protect over 900,000 acres of public lands and promote restoration on another 871,000 acres throughout northwest California, the central coast, and Los Angeles County. This bill includes protections for nearly 600,000 acres of new and proposed wilderness and nearly 700 miles of new wild and scenic rivers.
This legislation would preserve our public lands for the benefit of current and future generations and help protect California communities from impacts of the climate crisis. The PUBLIC Lands Act is grounded in the best conservation principles: it expands access to the outdoors for all, addresses disparities in access to nature, supports locally led efforts, and is based in science.
In northwest California, this bill would designate new wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, special management areas, and forest and watershed restoration areas. Importantly, it would increase wildfire resiliency in northwest California, where the impacts of the climate crisis have resulted in more frequent and severe wildfires.
Along the central coast, the bill would designate nearly 250,000 acres of public land in the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument as wilderness and study the feasibility of creating a 400-mile long condor national recreation trail, stretching from Los Angeles to Monterey County. The designations in the bill would protect the abundant biodiversity that make the central coast so special.
In Los Angeles County, this bill would designate nearly 30,000 acres of new wilderness, helping provide permanent protections so that future generations can enjoy the limited wild and untouched spaces in Southern California.
The bill would also provide outdoor recreation opportunities for park-poor communities. This bill enjoys the support of hundreds of local municipalities and elected officials, community groups, businesses, and local outfitters. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process spanning decades.
I want to highlight that this legislation protects existing water rights, property rights, and land-use authorities. The bill also does not create any new public lands, rather, it protects existing public lands through wilderness designations in order to keep these lands as pristine as possible.
The science is increasingly clear that we must conserve 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 as part of ongoing efforts to solve the climate crisis, protect nature, and save America's wildlife. I am proud that the State of California has made significant strides to achieve this goal, and I am determined to do my part to protect our public lands and waters at the Federal level.
I would like to thank my colleagues and conservation champions, Representatives Jared Huffman, Salud Carbajal, and Judy Chu, for championing these bills in the House. I also want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill and working toward our shared goal of promoting restoration, recreation, and conservation throughout California. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the PUBLIC Lands Act as quickly as possible.
S. 3543. A bill to amend the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 to modify the description of interest for purposes of certain distributions of antidumping duties and countervailing duties and to authorize a special distribution of those amounts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California, PUBLIC, Lands Act. This comprehensive bill would permanently protect over 900,000 acres of public lands and promote restoration on another 871,000 acres throughout northwest California, the central coast, and Los Angeles County. This bill includes protections for nearly 600,000 acres of new and proposed wilderness and nearly 700 miles of new wild and scenic rivers.
This legislation would preserve our public lands for the benefit of current and future generations and help protect California communities from impacts of the climate crisis. The PUBLIC Lands Act is grounded in the best conservation principles: it expands access to the outdoors for all, addresses disparities in access to nature, supports locally led efforts, and is based in science.
In northwest California, this bill would designate new wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, special management areas, and forest and watershed restoration areas. Importantly, it would increase wildfire resiliency in northwest California, where the impacts of the climate crisis have resulted in more frequent and severe wildfires.
Along the central coast, the bill would designate nearly 250,000 acres of public land in the Los Padres National Forest and Carrizo Plain National Monument as wilderness and study the feasibility of creating a 400-mile long condor national recreation trail, stretching from Los Angeles to Monterey County. The designations in the bill would protect the abundant biodiversity that make the central coast so special.
In Los Angeles County, this bill would designate nearly 30,000 acres of new wilderness, helping provide permanent protections so that future generations can enjoy the limited wild and untouched spaces in Southern California.
The bill would also provide outdoor recreation opportunities for park-poor communities. This bill enjoys the support of hundreds of local municipalities and elected officials, community groups, businesses, and local outfitters. It is the product of significant public engagement in the legislative process spanning decades.
I want to highlight that this legislation protects existing water rights, property rights, and land-use authorities. The bill also does not create any new public lands, rather, it protects existing public lands through wilderness designations in order to keep these lands as pristine as possible.
The science is increasingly clear that we must conserve 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 as part of ongoing efforts to solve the climate crisis, protect nature, and save America's wildlife. I am proud that the State of California has made significant strides to achieve this goal, and I am determined to do my part to protect our public lands and waters at the Federal level.
I would like to thank my colleagues and conservation champions, Representatives Jared Huffman, Salud Carbajal, and Judy Chu, for championing these bills in the House. I also want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill and working toward our shared goal of promoting restoration, recreation, and conservation throughout California. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the PUBLIC Lands Act as quickly as possible.
Mr. President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10 a.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cristina Sandstedt, a Coast Guard fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges until December 19, 2025.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. 2393) 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 Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3436 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.
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. 3436) 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 Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration and the Senate immediately proceed to S. Res. 492.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 492), was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of November 10, 2025, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Recognizing That Care Provided by Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs Is Essential for Meeting the Health Care Needs of Veterans of the United States
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. 566) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion 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 concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 66) was agreed to.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 581, Calendar Nos. 602 through 607, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk, with the exception of PN89; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, morning business be closed, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the en bloc nominations provided for under the provisions of Executive Calendar No. 4, S. Res. 532, postcloture, and that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate resume legislative session to execute the order of December 10 in relation to S.J. Res. 82, and the Senate vote on passage, and upon disposition of S.J. Res. 82, the Senate resume executive session; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
