Housing for the 21st Century Act: Motion to Proceed
Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to the McCormack nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, today, U.S. and Iranian officials are holding talks in Geneva as America stands at the brink of another potential conflict in the Middle East.
Earlier this week, Senate leaders and I met with Secretary Rubio. Everyone is asking what the plan is with respect to Iran, and we are all looking for answers that the administration has refused to give.
The issues we discussed in our classified briefing were very serious, and the American people deserve to hear it directly from the President and his administration. The administration should come clean and tell the American people exactly what the goal is in Iran.
I have always said that confronting Iran and halting its nuclear ambition requires a strategy, clarity, and transparency. Thus far, we are getting none of that from the administration. The American people deserve answers.
Mr. President, on Epstein, the way Pam Bondi and the Justice Department handled the release of the Epstein files has all the stench of a coverup.
Yesterday, news outlets reported that several memos detailing a woman's accusation against the President from when she was a minor have been withheld from the public. We know
Pam Bondi does not have the right to pick and choose which Epstein files to release to the public. Protecting the President from embarrassment is not her job. The American people were promised the truth, and Pam Bondi's job is to give Americans full access to the truth.
What else is the administration keeping behind a lock and key? Is this incompetence, or is it a full-blown coverup? Pam Bondi owes the American people some answers.
Remember, the law Congress passed had very specific criteria for withholding the Epstein files: protect victims' identities, protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation, or avoid duplication. Protecting Donald Trump's image does not--does not--fit any of these buckets.
So I ask Pam Bondi: Whose side are you on, the victims or the perpetrators?
Mr. President, on the ``State of Delusion'' and Democrats' plan to lower costs, there has never been a State of the Union where the President spoke for so long but had so little substance, so little truth.
Tuesday night was 2 hours of Donald Trump's ``State of Delusion.'' He is in a bubble. He doesn't know what is going on with the American people. All he wants to do is stroke his own ego. Donald Trump told the country that everything is great, that costs are coming down, that manufacturing is up, that he is going to fix healthcare, and that we are going to win so much that we don't know what to do. That is what he said. It is amazing.
I ask very seriously: Who else in America feels this way, that we are winning so much we don't know what to do? Maybe billionaires, but that is it.
Today, I want to talk about a couple of things that Donald Trump didn't mention during his 2-hour ``State of Delusion.''
For one, Donald Trump didn't talk about how he will bring down the cost of living. Ground beef is up 11 percent. Coffee is up 14 percent. Rent is up. Thanks to Donald Trump's tariffs, American families are spending over $1,700 more this year--$1,700 out of the average working family's pocket. That is a heck of a lot of money when people are struggling to pay the bills.
Where is Donald Trump's plan to fix any of this? He said nothing.
In a moment, I will talk about what Democrats plan to do about this.
Donald Trump also talked about manufacturing, but he failed to mention that America is not creating manufacturing jobs. We are bleeding them.
So many lies--he says we are growing manufacturing jobs? Well, look at this chart.
These are the numbers of manufacturing jobs that were lost in the last year--in May, in June, in July, in August, in September, in October, in November, and in December. We lost in every month. We lost manufacturing jobs, and Donald Trump just lies about it.
This is the state of manufacturing in the United States. Manufacturing jobs are down by 100,000. We shed manufacturing jobs every single month--every single month--right after Trump's ``Liberation Day.'' Yet he lies about it. He just makes it up.
Donald Trump has this uncanny ability which misserves human beings and which particularly misserves Presidents. He thinks that by saying it is so, it is true and that everyone will just believe him. Well, his minions believe him, no matter what he says, but no one else. He talks past America.
Again, we lost manufacturing jobs, Donald Trump. We didn't gain them.
Trump also failed to speak about his plan to fix healthcare because he has none. Donald Trump claims he will always protect Medicare, but that is false. The CBO found that, thanks to Donald Trump's ``Big Ugly Bill,'' the Medicare trust fund will run out 12 years sooner than before. In other words, Donald Trump has accelerated Medicare's demise by more than a decade with one single bill which every Republican voted for in this Chamber but no Democrat because we knew the damage to healthcare he was doing.
Donald Trump also failed to mention anything about China. It is the second leading power in the world. The United States has lots of issues with China, but when was the last time a President of the United States avoided talking about America's biggest rival on the world stage during his State of the Union?
The way Donald Trump has handled China is an embarrassment. He has promised to be tough on China, but he is playing with them with kids' clothes, giving them critical American technology, and his tariffs have failed to win any meaningful concessions.
It doesn't have to be this way. Americans deserve better than a President and a Republican Party that think ``affordability'' is a made-up word. Later this morning, I will join my colleagues--Senators Cantwell, Lujan, Booker, and Welch--and experts from across the country to talk about how we lower food costs, how we make trips to the grocery store less painful for families, and how we fix the structural problems that keep prices high, like the consolidation of the food industry.
Today's roundtable is part of a larger Senate effort by Senate Democrats to, all year long, talk about how we will drive costs down, because we don't believe affordability is some kind of hoax. He called it a hoax. That was insulting to America. He seems to have fun insulting people. That is what it seemed like up there on the ``State of Delusion'' stage that he occupied. Affordability is the most real thing in the lives of the American people economically.
In the weeks and months ahead, we are going to go issue by issue, taking the time to dig in and roll out serious, practical battle plans to bring costs down. We started a month ago with housing, and I am proud of the work Democrats are doing to lower housing costs. We will soon take on energy and electricity. We will take on childcare, and we will take on healthcare.
Lowering costs will be Senate Democrats' North Star in 2026. Let me repeat that so America and our Republican colleagues hear it: Lowering costs will be Senate Democrats' North Star in 2026.
The conversations we have today about high food prices will lay the groundwork for real legislation so that, when Democrats have the majority, we can deliver real relief and bring down the cost of living.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority whip is recognized.
Mr. President, this week, President Trump called attention and paid tribute to families who lost loved ones--loved ones who were killed by illegal immigrant criminals. Now, these are known as Angel Families. On Monday, President Trump declared February 23 National Angel Family Day.
On Tuesday, during the State of the Union, when we were both there, the President honored a heartbroken Angel mother--a mother who was there in the audience from the State of Texas. It was her 16-year-old daughter, Lizbeth Medina, who was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant. Lizbeth's killer had a criminal background and should not have been in our country.
Just like Laken Riley, the nursing student who had been brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant, Lizbeth dreamed also of becoming a nurse. Think of all the lives that could have been helped and saved had hers not been stolen away.
Republicans are determined to ensure that no more families are forced to feel this sort of pain.
During his State of the Union Address, President Trump asked a single and powerful question. He said to the entire Chamber, everyone-- Republicans, Democrats, everyone there--he said: If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support.
He then presented the statement to the American people. This is the statement. He said:
So what happened? Republicans stood up and cheered, as they should and should every American citizen, for putting American citizens first. Not a single Democrat, that I saw, stood up. They sat on their hands. They sat in the Chamber. They refused to stand to the important statement of ``The first duty of the American Government is to protect American citizens--not illegal aliens.'' To me, that revealing moment said it all.
Now, I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: Democrats care more about illegal immigrant criminals. Every one of them on the other side of the aisle cares more about illegal immigrant criminals than they do about the safety and the security of the American people. That is wrong, Mr. President. That is not what our country is all about.
Mr. President, we are now 13 days into the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. It is another Democrat shutdown. They are the ones that shut it down--a shutdown against American safety and security. That is who those people are. That is what they believe in. That is why they would not stand, the other night, during the President's State of the Union Address, to support American citizens as opposed to illegal immigrant criminals.
But the Department of Homeland Security stands between illegal immigrant criminals and the American people, between terrorists and American citizens. And yet this is the very Department that the Democrats have decided to shut down.
We funded 96 percent of the Government through the usual approach that we do, the Appropriations Committee, and they refused that last 4 percent of Government because that is the 4 percent that deals with the Department of Homeland Security.
So today these heroes that protect American lives are working without pay. It is wrong. We are talking about TSA agents, Secret Services agents, the Coast Guard that patrols our coastal waters, our Nation's cyber security--260,000 people in all working without pay because the Democrats have shut down the Department of Homeland Security or, at least, refused to pay them. They are still working, but they are not getting paid because of the Democrats.
Funding the Department of Homeland Security is about protecting American citizens. That is the fundamental role of Government. It is not coddling illegal immigrant criminals, which is what the Democrats seem to want to do, especially criminals who brutally murder American citizens.
Republicans have offered fair terms to fully and immediately fund the Department of Homeland Security. What do the Democrats say? Well, they continue to make unreasonable and unserious demands. Democrats want the Department of Homeland Security to remain closed. It is very evident from their statements.
Democrats have submitted a laundry list of demands in order for the Government to fund the Department of Homeland Security. They demand harsh restrictions on cooperation between the Federal Government, State governments, and local officials.
Mr. President, you would want them all to work together. I mean, wouldn't it be better if we coordinated efforts at the State, local, and national levels? Of course.
Democrats are demanding an outright ban on immigration enforcement at so-called sensitive locations. So they have a list of sensitive locations. One, astonishingly--this is the first time this has ever appeared in any of their lists of demands, but it is now here--they want a sensitive location for protection of illegal immigrants to be polling places.
Why are illegal immigrants in polling places? It is illegal for them to vote.
That is who the Democrats are. That is who they are supporting. That is what they are trying to do--protect illegal immigrant criminals. Their demands are driven not by the protection and safety of the American people. It is for the protection and safety of illegal immigrants, and it is just flatout wrong. It flies in the face of who we are as American citizens.
The Democrat demands are driven not by the traditional Democrats of yesterday. Oh, no, they are driven by the extreme Democrats of today. And it is the extreme Democrats of today who have captured and are controlling today's Democrat Party. The Democrats of yesterday are gone. This is a party under the control of the radical left--a party that calls for defunding the police, a party that encourages defying the law, and a party that refuses to stand when they are asked to support the citizens of America.
The Democrats' demands are reckless, they are radical, and they are dangerous. The Democrats' demands compromise public safety. They fly in the face of the rule of law. They turn America into a sanctuary country. That is not what the American people want.
The danger is real. The cartels remain a serious and deadly threat. Just this week, in Mexico, they launched a violent new drug war. This violence started after the Mexican military, encouraged and assisted by the United States, eliminated one of Mexico's most powerful drug lords.
As the cartels spread chaos across Mexico, they also seek to harm law enforcement officers inside America--inside our own country. ABC News has now reported that the Mexican cartels have placed cash bounties on ICE and Border Patrol officers living and working here in America, cartels paying for damage--physical damage--of ICE and Border Patrol agents serving here at home.
They actually have a payment list. They offer $2,000 to dox an agent, including photos of the agent's family or details about the agent's family. They are paying $5,000 to $10,000 to kidnap or assault an enforcement officer, and $50,000 to murder a high-ranking official. That is what the Mexican cartels are up to these days, at a time that the Democrats here stand for the illegal immigrants but remain seated in terms of support for the American people.
So think about it. Criminal cartels in Mexico have put a price on the heads of our law enforcement officers here at home in America, and yet the pro-crime Democrats here in the U.S. Senate, as part of their list of demands, are demanding that ICE officers remove their masks in the face of such assaults, making it easier for the cartels to get what they want, to go after their families.
But Republicans are not at all going to accept these dangerous demands from the Democrats--demands that make our communities less safe and demands that put our enforcement officers at increased risk.
Republicans here in this body and across the country and most American citizens agree with President Trump: It is the No. 1 duty of any government--and certainly ours--to protect its citizens, not illegal aliens. And Republicans will stand every day for the safety and security of our Nation's citizens.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my office, Ms. Candice Humble. She is a member of my communications team. She is not responsible for anything I say.
I am losing her. She is not leaving government; she is going to work for the White House. Today is her last day, and I asked her to come down so that I could thank Candice publicly for all of her extraordinary work and for giving so much to the people in Louisiana and to the American people.
Mr. President, about 90 percent of my personal and political philosophy is, don't hurt someone unless they are trying to hurt you first, don't take other people's stuff, and leave me alone--let me live my life, exercising the free will and responsibility that God gave-- which leads me to my first topic: Iran.
I am not talking about the people of Iran. I am talking about the political and religious leadership of the Government of Iran. I am talking about the Ayatollah and his followers.
In America, we separate government from religion. Not in Iran, thanks to the Ayatollah. The government tells you what religion to practice. The government is the religion.
Now, everybody has the right to believe what they want. I will tell you what the Ayatollah believes. He is Muslim, but his strain of Islam says
Now, let me say again, the Ayatollah is entitled to believe what he wants. I was raised a Presbyterian. My parents founded two Presbyterian churches. When Becky and I got married, Becky was a Methodist, and I was a Presbyterian. We compromised: I became a Methodist. I am entitled to believe what I want. But the Ayatollah not only thinks that I am going to Hell because I don't agree with his religion; he wants to kill me. He wants to kill Americans and Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot. And he has acted on that. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer. I don't need to tell the Presiding Officer. He has acted on that, and that is not acceptable.
Now, a lot of the people in Iran--the good people in Iran--don't agree with the Ayatollah. If they disagree with him too loudly, he just kills them.
The Ayatollah--it has actually been the case for the last--I don't know--10, 15, 20 years--the Ayatollah has decided he wants a nuclear warhead. Why should we care? I hear from some of my fellow Americans all the time: Why do we need to be involved in Iran? Why should we care?
Well, No. 1, we are not trying to start a war in Iran; the President is trying to end a war in Iran. If the Ayatollah gets a nuclear weapon, he will use it. He could use it against America. He could use it against Israel. I don't know who he will use it against, and I hope I am wrong, but he will use it.
Do you know what else will happen as soon as he gets a nuclear weapon? Saudi Arabia is going to get a nuclear weapon, and the UAE is going to get a nuclear weapon, and Japan is going to get a nuclear weapon, and South Korea, and I could go on and on and on. The more nuclear weapons you have in the world, the more likely you are to have a nuclear war.
But that is not the only thing the Ayatollah has done since he became the Ayatollah. He exports terrorism. He was the person behind Hamas and Hezbollah that have killed so many people throughout the world--not just in the Middle East but across the world--including but not limited to Americans. That is why we ought to care.
The Ayatollah also has conventional ballistic missiles and is building more as we speak. Now, those missiles can't reach America yet, but they are working on one. And they can sure reach our military bases in the Middle East, and they can sure reach Israel. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. That is why we should care.
Finally, the Ayatollah, if you disagree with him--and we have seen it happen on TV. We don't know how many people he has hung in the last 6 months. We don't know how many people he has tortured. I have seen estimates as high as 50,000.
So that is what this business with Iran is all about. We are not trying to be the world's policeman; we are trying to stop the Ayatollah from being the world's policeman. He is getting a lot of support from President Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin in Russia and Kim Jong Un in North Korea. So that is where we find ourselves trying to stop this war.
To the Ayatollah, I would say: Ayatollah, you are entitled to believe what you want. You can hate me. You can believe that. I know you hate me and what I stand for. You know how I sleep at night knowing that you hate me? With the fan on. That is your right. But you can't act on that belief. Put down the nuclear weapons. Put down the nuclear enrichment. Stop exporting terrorism through Hamas and Hezbollah. End your missile program. Stop killing and torturing your people.
That is all we want, and he is doing that as we speak. He is at war; we are trying to stop it.
I am not about to give the President any advice. He has intelligence that I don't have, and I respect the fact that he is being very deliberate and careful in making a decision. If we make a deal with Iran, let's make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn't trust this man if he were 3 days dead. I wouldn't trust him if he were 3 days dead. Anybody whose religion tells them that in order to be saved, they have to go kill hundreds of millions of people--you can believe it if you want, but as far as I am concerned, it is time to get a new religion.
That is what we are doing in Iran. Let me say it again. We are not trying to start a war. This war began a long time ago. We are trying to end it. Our President presiding today knows exactly what I talked about. He served honorably--at great physical, mental, and emotional expense--in the Middle East. That is what we are trying to stop.
Mr. President, topic No. 2: New Orleans. I love New Orleans. I am not from New Orleans. I used to live there. I met my wife there. I used to live uptown. I used to practice law in New Orleans. I taught a little while in law school in Baton Rouge, but my first teaching job was going to be in New Orleans before I moved to Baton Rouge. I love New Orleans--one of the most unique cities in the entire world.
So what I am about to say, I say from my heart with love and affection and as a former resident and frequent visitor. Here is my message to the political leadership in New Orleans: Get your act together. Get your act together.
I don't go to New Orleans that I don't hear from my people down there: We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing.
Let me tell you something. We spend a lot of money on affordable housing in America, billions every year--the American taxpayer. Not State money. Not local money. This is American taxpayer money. We take that money and send it to States and local governments to build affordable housing for people who can't afford a home, because the American people are so generous.
We do that through what are called housing agencies. Every State that I am aware of has a housing agency, and many local governments have a housing agency. The State housing agencies and the local housing agencies take the Federal money and use it--given to them out of the goodness of the American taxpayers' heart--to create affordable housing.
We have been doing that for years in New Orleans. There is a local housing authority. We call it HANO, the Housing Authority of New Orleans. It is run by a board of commissioners appointed by the mayor. Last year, I think we gave them $70 million. By ``we,'' I mean the American taxpayer. They have been around since 1937.
The Housing Authority of New Orleans has a spectacular and impressive record of graft, corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, theft. Do you think I am kidding? I came with receipts. It got so bad from 2006 to 2009 that Housing and Urban Development in 2009 had to take them over-- the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
From 2006 to 2009, the chief financial officer of HANO stole $900,000 of taxpayer money. A few years later, the guy running HANO's section 8 voucher department just took a voucher for himself and paid his own rent. The skillethead got caught. Boy, that really gave us confidence.
In 2007, the Feds had to step in and investigate--I think in some cases, they prosecuted--a vendor kickback scheme. In 2014, the director of the Housing Authority of New Orleans was investigated for giving out $1 million in no-bid contracts. Guess who they went to. The director's friends. An audit in 2010 found--our auditors couldn't find $7.2 million.
I could go on. I could give you a list as long as King Kong's elbow.
Now I am going to tell you about the most recent episode that has made me want to stick my head in the oven. We have a housing project in New Orleans called the Guste Homes complex. It is in a part of our city called Central City. It is pretty big. It is not particularly well run, but it is pretty big. It has a 12-story building that houses apartments, and I think they have some townhomes as well.
We provide housing--``we,'' once again, being the American taxpayer-- to the elderly and the disabled. They can live there.
And the Guste Homes complex--I call it Guste Homes--is run by HANO, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, the board of commissioners appointed by our mayor.
The Housing Authority of New Orleans has an administrator--and I am not denigrating her. I don't know anything about her. I am just telling you what is going on. But the board and the administrator of the Housing Authority of New Orleans don't run Guste. They are supposed to. They went and hired a management company to run Guste. And the management company, its overhead is about $8 million a year. I am not kidding you. That is money that doesn't go to provide housing to people; it goes into their pocket.
I was looking up one of their consultants. They hired a consultant--I don't think she works there anymore--a Mrs. Sherri--I am going to mispronounce this name--Sengsouvanna. Never met her. I do know that from 2003 to 2024, HANO gave her $660,000 as a consultant. I looked her up.
Here is the way she describes herself:
Six hundred and sixty grand to her as a consultant; isn't that special?
Well, now, the management company and HANO, they stopped paying the water bill for the people who live in the housing. They have run up a water bill for $1.5 million. They say they don't have the money, and the water company predictably says: Well, hey, we are going to have to cut off your water.
What are we going to do with these 310 folks--elderly, disabled--that the American taxpayer gave money to for their housing?
And now HANO is saying, you know, don't pay the water bill. The water bill is wrong.
I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I will tell you what else HANO was saying. HANO was saying the Guste project is a mess. Even though we have hired consultants out the wazoo and given them money, we have got a big vacancy rate--no kidding. They don't have running water. We have got a big vacancy, and there is too much deferred maintenance so we want to start over, and, by the way, we want the Federal Government to give us $60 million.
When donkeys fly.
Now, we have got a new mayor in New Orleans. I am delighted we got some new council people. They have got to do their job. I don't want to hear that we are not responsible for HANO. The mayor appoints them. Get rid of the thieves. Get rid of incompetence. Don't come back and ask for more money to fix your mistakes from the American taxpayer. The good people of New Orleans deserve that. They deserve better. Do better. The people living in this complex deserve better.
I have had enough. I have just had enough. Fix it. And if you say: Well, New Orleans--I know, it is a sanctuary city and they have their political beliefs and, by God, they are entitled to them. That is America. You can believe what you want. OK. And they may disagree with the current administration in Washington. That is fine too. This is America, and that has really got nothing to do with this.
But you need to clean up your own act first. I don't know how. I can't tell you how to do it, but the American people gave at the office. I can't tell you how to do it. Maybe you are going to have to borrow the money. Maybe you are going to have to actually raise taxes on the people of New Orleans; I hope not. But at some point--at some point--the money has got to come from somewhere.
Get your act together before you come back to me or anybody else in Washington, going: You got $60 million dollars lying around? Not only can we not pay the water bill, we want to tear the whole thing down and build a new one and have somebody else pay for it.
Gag me with a spoon.
Anyway, I am going to miss Candice. Thank you for your good work, Candice.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, since we have a little time, I know we have got the vote coming up, and I am certainly not going to delay that. I like my life too much. But I want to spend a few minutes talking about the Department of Commerce.
I had this discussion the other day with our Secretary of Commerce Mr. Harry Lutnick, for whom I have great respect. One of the Agencies in the Department of Commerce is an Agency called the Census Bureau. And I know that sounds like they count people--and they do--but they have a multitude of responsibilities. One of their responsibilities is to define the poverty level in America, tell us who is poor.
According to the Census Bureau, if you are single in America and you make $16,000 or less, you are poor; you are below the poverty level. If you are a family of two and you make $20,000 or less, you are at or below the poverty level; a family of three, $27,000; family of four, $32,000.
We take that seriously in America. Other countries let you die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. It is one of the reasons we spend $1.4 trillion a year helping our neighbors who are poor. In our country, if you are hungry, we will feed you; if you are homeless, we will house you; if you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. That separates us from just about every other country in the world.
I have been all over this world. I know the Presiding Officer has too. In other countries, they will just let you die in a ditch. We don't do that in America. Mr. President, $1.4 trillion is how much we spend every year. That is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from Heaven--we thank Heaven for it--it came out of people's pockets.
If you go talk to the Census Bureau--I pointed this out to Secretary Lutnick--if you go ask the Census Bureau how many poor people we have in America, they will tell you 11 percent--1 out of 10 Americans. It has been that way since 1974. We have been spending $1.4 trillion a year, and the poverty level hasn't budged. Eleven percent, they will tell you, and they will shout it from the rooftops.
When they get a letter from another Agency saying ``We need some help to research how many poor people we have in America today,'' they will tell you ``Eleven percent. Eleven percent.'' They are lying. It is a bald-faced lie. Do you know why? Because they don't count--they refuse to count all of the public benefits the American people give to the poor. According to the Census Bureau, the only thing that counts is if you get cash from the Federal Government. We call that welfare. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. We have another program I think that pays cash; it is called WIC.
But according to the Census Bureau, that is the way you define if somebody is in poverty. You look at how much money they make, and on top of that, we consider cash transfer payments from the Federal Government, and when you do that, 11 percent are poor. What planet and what solar system did these people parachute in?
Do you know what they don't count? I will tell you what they don't count. They don't count earned income tax credits. If I make a low enough income myself--let's say I make $15,000 a year. I have to pay tax on that, file a tax return, but if I do, I get an income tax credit. It is called--it is refundable. That means the IRS sends me a check. The American people pay for that, but the Census Bureau says that doesn't count in determining the poor.
Do you know what else they don't count? They don't count food stamps. Huh? Real strong drugs is the only possible explanation for them to not even count food stamps.
Do you know what else they don't count? Housing subsidies, section 8 vouchers, getting to live in a place for free.
Do you know what else they don't count? Utility bill subsidies. They don't count Medicaid. They don't count free school meals.
Do you know why? Because if they counted it, do you know how many Americans would be living in poverty? One percent. And that is an actual fact.
I am going to give you an example. Let's suppose you are a mom with two kids, and you are poor. You work, and you make $11,000 a year, OK? In determining whether that mom is poor, the Census Bureau counts her income and counts any payments she gets, as I said, from welfare. But that mom with
Remember what I just talked about? The Census Bureau says: Oh, that doesn't matter; not real money.
That mom is going to get back $3,400 in a check in child tax credits. That mom is going to receive $9,200 in food stamps. That mom is going to receive $9,500--or at least she will be eligible to receive it--in housing subsidies. That mom is going to receive $900 in utility bill subsidies, $16,000 in Medicaid for her and her two children, and $31 a year for free school lunches at school for her two kids. Let's suppose that on top of that, she gets $6,600 a year in welfare payments.
Remember, the Census Bureau says that all this stuff doesn't count. The only thing that counts is that the lady works and makes $11,000 a year, and she gets $6,600 in welfare payments, so her income is only $17,600, and she is below the poverty line.
Wrong. You don't have to be Euclid to be able to figure out that if you add up the TANF money and the $11,000 that she earns and the refundable child tax credit and the refundable earned income tax credit and the food stamps and the housing subsidies and the utility bill subsidies and the Medicaid and the free school lunches that I have just talked about--do you know what her income is? It is $64,100 tax free. Yet the Census Bureau says she is below the poverty line.
Now, look, I am not here to begrudge this lady, this hypothetical person. I am going to say it again: The American people are the most generous people in the world. We help our neighbors. But the American people put up this money, and they ought to get credit. And when the Census Bureau, which has been telling us since 1974--they have been lying to us. They have been lying to us. They learned to lie over there before they learned to talk.
They need to redefine the poverty level in America and the definition of ``poverty.'' It is the Census Bureau's job, and that is what I talked to the good Secretary Howard Lutnick about. I talked to him in committee, and he said he would work on it. I thank him for that, and I am going to chase him like he stole Christmas until he does. I am going to chase him like he stole Christmas and Thanksgiving. He can do it with a rule or regulation. I have introduced a bill.
Again, the purpose of this is not to take any money away from anybody; the purpose of this is to tell the American people the truth-- that they are the most generous people in the world and they should be proud of that.
This mother, this poor mom of two--she is not just getting around $17,000 a year; she is getting almost $65,000 a year tax free, but the American people get no credit. And do you know why? Because there are so many people in the bureaucracy--they want us to think everybody is poor so they can go back and back and back to the taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary Lutnick, with all the respect I can muster, please fix this. Please fix this. And I am going to keep bringing it up until you do.
I will pass a bill if I can, but it is going to be kind of tough. The short way home here is to have the Secretary--I don't mean disrespect-- to have the Secretary do his job.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask that the scheduled rollcall begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025
Mr. President, I come to the floor with my friend and colleague from Nevada Senator Cortez Masto to seek unanimous consent to pass two noncontroversial bills as a bipartisan pair. The first is H.R. 2815. This is sponsored by Congressman Begich from Alaska. It is the identical companion to my Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act. And the second is H.R. 972, sponsored by Representative Dina Titus of Nevada. It is the identical companion to Senator Cortez Masto's Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act.
These are important bills to those in Southeastern Alaska and in Nevada. It probably won't make headlines out of those two areas, but they are very significant and important bills. After more than five decades, the Cape Fox bill will finally complete the land entitlement for the Native Village of Saxman in Southeast Alaska. The Sloan Canyon bill will facilitate construction of a water pipeline in the Las
These are House-passed bills, OK, so they can go directly to the President's desk to be signed into law. I mentioned that they are both noncontroversial. Their pairing is also noncontroversial. And there are no objections on the merits, on the substance, to either one of them. Both have had full process in the Senate over the course of multiple Congresses. So if these look familiar, it is because we have seen them before.
Both these bills passed the Senate by unanimous consent at the end of 2024, so over a year ago. Our cloakrooms on both sides of the aisle hotlined them again 6 weeks ago, and so that is what brings us here today as we are still trying to move them.
We have kind of gotten to a really difficult and frustrating-- frustrating, as much as anything--time in our process. People are wondering, and they are asking me--those in the Ketchikan-Saxman area: What is the holdup here? If everybody is supportive of this, why is it taking so long and proving so hard for Congress to agree on things?
I don't have a good answer on that. I am not sure that there is one. But, again, we are trying to move noncontroversial bills through a process that requires support and consent on both ends of this building. And this end of the building has said yes, and things are getting stuck over on the other side. And rather than point fingers and call names, I want to unstick things. I want to have us know that we can move these bills that are important in our communities and in our regions and they don't get taken hostage, if you will, by the other body as they are trying to figure out how they gain leverage over something else here. That is not fair to the constituents that we represent. That is not fair to the lawmakers who are working very hard to try to advance their bills. So I appreciate the discussion that I have had with my colleagues here on the floor about a way, a process, a dialogue that needs to be had with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
So there are a few bills that we are looking at today specifically, but I think it goes to a bigger concern that needs to be addressed in a way that is going to work for other Members who are also trying to advance their bills into full passage by law.
So my commitment to my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle and on the Democrat side of the aisle is let's leave from here and let's make the calls to set up the sitdowns with our colleagues on the other side--in the other body--to talk about how we are going to move these in a way that is fair and does not penalize the Members, the communities. We need to do right by our own process, and I would just suggest that we need to be doing more than we are so that we are not in a situation where we are waiting months and months and months to be able to see these matters resolved.
Before I make any motion on these bills, I want to yield to Senator Cortez Masto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague from Alaska Senator Murkowski, to ask for the passage of both H.R. 2815 and H.R. 972. As the Presiding Officer has heard, they have already passed the House. There have been sets of hearings there, work to be done.
Let me talk a little bit about H.R. 972. This is the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Water Pipeline Act. This is the same bill that this Chamber already passed by unanimous consent last Congress. And, right now, almost 40 percent of Las Vegas residents and businesses depend on the South Valley Lateral pipeline. That is one single pipeline for nearly 3 million people. And that pipeline is 25 years old. Ten years from now, it will reach 95 percent capacity, and it won't be able to safely and reliably serve Las Vegans long term.
This bill that we are, hopefully, passing today will allow the Southern Nevada Water Authority to build a new pipeline that will improve the reliability and capacity of our existing water system and protect the water supply for nearly half of our Las Vegas residents and businesses.
And if you are from the West, water is the issue. My colleague from California knows this. This is why I appreciate the conversation we have had today.
Let me just say this. As a member of leadership in the Democratic caucus as well as a member of Energy and Natural Resources and the ranking member on the Public Lands Subcommittee, I couldn't agree more with not only the comments Senator Murkowski has made about our challenges in the work we need to do to pass several pieces of legislation, in both Houses, to the benefit of our constituents and my commitment to do just that.
I also understand and respect my colleague from California. We work so closely on so many issues, from water issues to land issues. I understand his frustration. I understand his concern that there is a lack of movement with some of these important bills that we all need to work on together. So I make a commitment to him to use whatever authority and power I have to get this unstuck, to make sure that we are working together to address his concerns, which are completely valid, and to move forward as quickly as we possibly can, whether that is requiring meetings amongst the--bicameral--with the House Members of jurisdiction, making sure that, as a Senate caucus, this is a priority, working with our Republican colleagues as well.
I really appreciate the Senator bringing this to everyone's attention in the way that he has, and I think it is important for us to continue to move forward together now to follow through and unstick a lot of the challenges that we are seeing with these lands bills and bills that we need to get passed in both Chambers.
So I thank the Senator, and I will yield to Senator Murkowski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, we speak about the frustrations. There is always room for frustration around here. But I share the many concerns of my friend from California. Three of my bills and ones that he also cares about and more that I have cosponsored are also pending over there. And so this is not just the three of us sharing that we need to find a path forward, but I think it is also an effort and a need to find a path forward, working with the House to move these bills forward.
In the meantime, here in the Senate, we need to keep doing our work, but we can't forget that we have the other body that we need to have a working relationship with, and passage of the bills requires just that.
So I think, today, we want to get focused on outcomes, pushing to pass the bills where we can, however we can, whether they start with an ``H.R.'' or an ``S,'' not caring about who gets the credit but just making sure we are advancing some laws here.
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 the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc: H.R. 2815, Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025 and H.R. 972, Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, colleagues, I have been down here many, many times and have spoken up in committee many, many times as we try to create a better way of ensuring that we, indeed, have a fair and bipartisan and bicameral approach to consideration and passage of public lands bills.
I certainly understand my colleagues' frustration with how the public lands process is currently playing out. I am glad that they are acknowledging I, too, share that frustration. But I also can't believe we can't create a scenario where the Senate completely cedes to the House the ability to pick and choose which public lands bills are allowed to be sent to the White House.
Regardless of who is in the majority, the process has historically been both bicameral and bipartisan, and we need to get back to that.
So as I said publicly, and as I have reminded in private, my objection to
My colleague from Alaska, not just as a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but her leadership on the Committee of Indian Affairs--not all public lands bills involve Indian Country, but many, indeed, do, including some of mine that have been in the pipeline--I appreciate her willingness to bring her authority and role in her caucus to bear in this effort and conversation.
My colleague from the State of Nevada, not just a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but a member of the leadership team on the Democratic side here in the Senate, I appreciate her willingness to bring her authority and power to bear in advancing this conversation.
So, for today, I shall not object on these two bills but reiterate my frustration and am glad to be joined by two additional colleagues in trying to push, again, leadership on both sides of the aisle, not just the Senate committees but the House committees, to establish a fair way forward for all Members and all of our proposals.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2815) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
The bill (H.R. 972) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I want to thank not only the Senator from California but my colleague Senator Cortez Masto from Nevada as we have worked through this.
Know that the Senator from California does have my commitment to try to address not only the matters that are on your specific docket today but, again, to try and find a better path forward for all the legislation that means so much to so many of us in our communities. And I thank you for the courtesy today.
Executive Calendar: Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter that will likely be before the body next week, a vote on my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to advance the proposition we shouldn't be at war against Iran without a vote of Congress.
I want to take a few minutes today to put this in a context that we may all be discussing a little more next week. I believe very strongly that a war with Iran today is both unnecessary and dangerous. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about why we are at this moment right now where President Trump, as recently as Tuesday night at the State of the Union, is suggesting that we may possibly need to be at war with the Nation of Iran.
The history of relations between the United States and Iran from the beginning of the 20th century to now is very, very tragic. The United States and Iran were generally allies from the turn of the 1900s until the early 1950s.
In the middle of World War II, at the Tehran Conference, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Leader Stalin basically devised what would be the boundaries of the current-day Iran. That has essentially stuck.
Iran's prehistory was very complicated, and the United States earned really good--significant good will from the Iranian people, from the Iranian Government being involved in that discussion.
We continued being seen as a real ally of Iran. In the early 1950s, after having had essentially a dictatorship or monarchy, Iran elected a popular Prime Minister. The British Government was worried about that government--the Iranian Government's efforts to potentially nationalize British oil assets.
So the British Government tried to talk the United States into a military action to topple the Government of Iran. The United States refused and convinced Britain not to do it. But later in 1953, the United States and Britain together arranged--and these are basic facts, no supposition, no opinion here--the United States and Britain joined in an effort to foment a coup d'etat that toppled the popularly elected Government of Iran and installed Reza Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran over the objections of the Iranian people.
We did that. Britain did that.
The United States then funded the training of a secret police operation in Iran, the SAVAK, that between 1953 and 1979 perpetrated gross human rights abuses against the Iranian people.
This is a history that is not that well known to Americans, but a history that is very well known to Iranians.
That dictatorship and the human rights abuses perpetrated by the SAVAK and the Pahlavi regime eventually led to an uprising in Iran in 1979, and Ayatollah Khomeini, another opposition leader, toppled the Pahlavi regime and took control of the Iranian Government.
Most Americans remember that Iranian protestors stormed the U.S. Embassy, took 52 hostages in that Embassy, and held them for 440-plus days. It was not as a result of the change in regime, but there was an additional fact.
After the regime changed, the Shah of Iran sought to come to the United States for refuge and medical treatment. The State Department urged President Carter not to allow it on the grounds they were trying to at least maintain some positive future relationship with the Iranian Government, but the United States allowed the Shah of Iran to come into the United States for medical treatment and care, and that led Iranian protestors to attack the American Embassy.
That was a horrible, unlawful act, and the hostages held for 440 days were treated very, very badly. But that then led to a series of back- and-forths between the United States and Iran.
The United States, in the 1980s, funded Iraq in an 8-year war against Iran that cost hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. The United States supplied military assets to Iraq, to Saddam Hussein, to carry out war against Iran. We transferred military assets, including chemical weapons, to Saddam Hussein that were used against the Iranian population.
The Iranian population grew to have a deep distrust and fear and even hatred of the United States because of this toppling of the Prime Minister through U.S. funding of a war against Iran.
During this Iran-Iraq war, the USS Vincennes, a Navy ship, accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner in the region, killing more than 250 Iranian civilians. It was an accident, but Iran didn't believe it was an accident because they knew that the United States was funding Iraq in the war against it, and they viewed that attack on their civilian aircraft as something they could not countenance.
As this was happening, then-Iran-funded Shia militias and terrorist groups bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in the early 1980s as the Iran-Iraq war was going on and the United States was funding the war against Iran. This back-and-forth started to escalate.
Later, as you all know, the United States invaded Iran's two neighbors--to the west, Iraq; to the east, Afghanistan--and put U.S. troops all around Iran in its neighborhood. Iran interpreted those invasions as a piece of the toppling of their government and the downing of the commercial aircraft and the funding of the Iraq war.
And so, by the time we get into the 2000s, the depth of enmity between the United States and Iran was so intense, the Iranian regime chants ``Death to America'' because of this history. And we were friends just 60 or 70 years ago. We took a fundamental turn in the relationship and opened the path for a potential new chapter in United States-Iranian relationships when, during the Obama administration, the United States, European allies and China and Russia joined together to negotiate with Iran to curb their nuclear program.
I wrote a piece of legislation, the Iran Nuclear Review Act, that led to a
The diplomatic treaty, on the first page, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, had this declaration: Iran reaffirms it will never seek to purchase, acquire, or develop a nuclear weapon.
And the agreement contained other provisions limiting for many years Iranian centrifuge production, Iranian enhancement of uranium. It compelled significant inspections of the Iranian facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This deal was a solid deal that, for the first time in 60 years, actually had us around the table with a party that had grown to be an enemy, together with other allies but also adversaries, like Russia and China, to control Iran's nuclear program.
Many of you know that in President Trump's first term, over the objection and advice of his first Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his first Secretary of Defense James Mattis, told President Trump: Please maintain the JCPOA. Please maintain the agreement that curtails Iran's nuclear program and use U.S. sanctions against other Iranian behavior; bad actions in the region, human rights violations, development of missile programs. The JCPOA allowed the United States and other nations to use sanctions to punish Iran for nonnuclear activity.
President Trump's team told him keep the deal in place and use the sanctions against some of these other bad behaviors.
Contrary to the advice of these seasoned foreign policy professionals, seasoned defense professionals, Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA, and the United States walked away from it, even though our allies said it was working, even though China and Russia said it was working, and even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said that it was working.
The consequences of abandoning that deal were very obvious at the time. If the United States walked away from a deal that was working, so would Iran. And so they began again to enhance the enrichment of uranium. They began again to produce centrifuges. They ceased allowing the intrusive inspections that had been a component of the JCPOA.
But that wasn't the only effect of President Trump abandoning the deal. The parties around the table--our allies who had worked with us on it--couldn't believe that the United States was walking away from diplomacy. It weakened trust with our allies, and maybe more importantly, we had China and Russia--two of our great adversaries today--at the table with us to make sure there was not a nuclear Iran. And by walking away from the deal, we further poisoned relationships with those nations that now pose such challenge to the United States.
There was an additional consequence. We were in the middle of negotiating with North Korea about limits to their nuclear program. As soon as they saw the United States abandon a deal that was working, they stopped negotiating with us over limits to their nuclear program.
Why would we do a deal with the United States if the United States will back out of it? And there has been no real and meaningful progress about the denuclearization of North Korea since the United States decided to pull the plug on the JCPOA.
So here is where we are today. We have an armada around Iran. The President has said multiple times--and when he says it, you have to believe it because he bombed Iran in the summer--that he is potentially on the verge of going to war with Iran.
What does it mean to have the armada? Let me use a Virginia example. The USS Ford carrier is now positioned near Iran to be used in the case of an attack.
Carrier deployments--and the USS Ford deploys out of Virginia, thousands of sailors--carrier deployments last about 7 months. The carrier was in the Middle East. President Trump ordered the Ford to go to the Caribbean--to be a show of force around Venezuela before it steamed to the Caribbean. Now the President has ordered the Ford back to the Middle East.
A normal deployment for a carrier is 7 months. This is a deployment that is now going to be 11 months long. Our sailors who thought they were going to be home seeing their families for Christmas--it is now going to take 11 months. It will be the longest deployment of any carrier since the Vietnam war, and our sailors are just ready to be home.
The problems with the Ford are almost ones that I don't want to talk about on the floor. Many of the toilets on the Ford are inoperable. These are the kinds of things that happen during a deployment, and that is why you limit a deployment to certain months. You get the ship back in port, and you fix it up. The Ford is in tough shape right now and needs to come back to port so that the sailors can see their families, but also the quality of life and morale on the Ford are in dramatic decline.
So we are at a precipice, with U.S. military troops arrayed around Iran.
I just want to say this: War is unnecessary, and war is dangerous. Then I will conclude.
War is unnecessary.
The President says we may need to go against Iran to stop their nuclear program. We had stopped it through diplomacy. Do we really prefer war to diplomacy? And President Trump, in the bombing of Iran in the summer--you will remember he said we had obliterated the Iranian nuclear program. Well, if that was true 6 months ago, there is no need for us to invade Iran now to stop their nuclear ambitions.
The President said we may need to go to war against Iran to protect the protesters. There are protesters against dictatorial governments all over the world. Are we going to put our sons and daughters in harm's way against those nations to protect protesters?
I have to say I don't really accept that the President is that worried about Iranian protesters. Why not? The President is currently deporting people to Iran--Iranians who were in the United States who do not have appropriate immigration status, even Iranian Christians, even Iranian dissidents who would be subject to persecution if they were returned to Iran. President Trump has now sent more than 100 of them back to Iran. If he really cared about the rights of Iranians and how they would be treated by their government, he wouldn't be doing that.
Finally, the President has said Iran has ballistic missiles. They do, but the U.S. overmatch to Iran's military is so dramatic that any effort by the Iranians to use missiles--and there has been no evidence that that is their intent against the United States unless we use missiles against them--we would obliterate that capacity in an instant were they to use it.
War is unnecessary.
War is dangerous. War is dangerous for U.S. troops.
We have put troops all around Iran, all around its borders in Lebanon, in Israel, in Syria, in Iraq. We not only have troops, we have consulates, for example, in Erbil, in the Kurdish section of northern Iraq.
U.S. assets are everywhere. We can do a great job of protecting an awful lot of territory, but it would not be hard for even an overmatched nation like Iran, if they are attacked, to reach out and do harm to the U.S. troops or U.S. consulates or U.S. civilians. And for what?
This is dangerous to U.S. troops, and I say this as a father of a U.S. marine and representing a State that is one of the most military States in the Nation.
War is dangerous to the region.
When the United States has believed it could change regimes before in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, what has it gotten us? What has it gotten us? Has it created a more stable region? Hardly. Hardly.
To think that we could go in at the barrel of a gun and invade a nation and guarantee that lives lost or injured in that would be worth it because we would be producing something would be making a prediction about the Middle East that has not been borne out by events in the last 25 years.
War is dangerous to broader diplomacy.
We had the nations of the world, both our friends in Europe and China and Russia, around the table, and we broke a diplomatic deal, and it would suggest that we are preferring war to diplomacy. Why would nations want to engage in diplomacy with us if they can't trust the United States to stick to our word?
Finally, war is dangerous to the U.S. economy.
An invasion of Iran would immediately lead to dramatic increases in the price of oil. American citizens, Virginians, are already laboring under costs that are too high for energy, for health, for groceries, for building supplies. The last thing we need is an unnecessary war that will drive energy prices even higher.
War also risks inciting other dictators.
If the United States can decide, well, we are going to invade a sovereign nation because we want to do it, what is our ability to stand and justly criticize Vladimir Putin and Russia for invading Ukraine? What argument can we have to China to suggest that they shouldn't incur upon and invade Taiwan?
The United States should uphold a moral standard so that we can look others in the eye and say: You should uphold a moral standard.
We would badly degrade our ability to prevent dictators from invading other sovereign nations if we are to get into a war with Iran.
Look, Iran is not a good guy. Iran is a bad guy. Iran punishes protesters. Iran is engaged in all kinds of activity in the region-- funding terrorist groups in Syria, in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen. They are doing that. They are doing that at the expense of their own people.
Iran engages in activities far away from the Middle East. They have had to remove their Ambassadors from nations as far-flung as Morocco and Australia because of activities that are designed in those countries to destabilize them. Iran funded a bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina a couple decades ago, and they still haven't been held to account.
So they are not a good guy; they are a bad guy. But are they worth wasting U.S. lives, U.S. money, U.S. credibility over? Let's use other tools, like sanctions, and not use our own kids' lives to deal with this threat.
I will conclude and just say this: My time as Governor from 2006 to 2010 coincided with the mass deployment of Virginians into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Governor of Virginia, I had an authority over members of the Virginia National Guard. The Virginia National Guard deployed in the thousands to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I went to the deployments, and I went to the homecomings, and I went to the wakes, and I went to the funerals.
Some of these are too emotional for me to describe on the floor, but in an odd way, one of the most emotional was the day that I went to the Virginia War Memorial to watch a homecoming. U.S. troops coming out of Afghanistan had landed in a base in New Jersey, and they had hopped on a bus to come back to Virginia to reunite with their families. They exited the bus. They got in formation, and their commander announced that this National Guard unit was now returned all present and accounted for.
I knew that commander. He had been a Richmond police officer, and he was deployed with his unit. I saw in his face that for that entire 6- month deployment, he labored under the incredible strain of wanting to be able to say those words at the end of the deployment--``all present and accounted for.''
I saw him say those words, and I saw the care and the tension and the fear melt away. It made me think of the other homecomings I had been to where the commander couldn't say those words, and it made me think about them and what they had labored under.
I made a vow when I came to this body that I would do everything in my power to fight tooth and nail against sending our sons and daughters into unnecessary wars. I am on the Armed Services Committee. I voted for war authorizations. If we need to go to war to defend this country, then those who have signed up to do that, knowing that that might be a possibility, they are ready to serve us to defend the Nation. But an optional war at the whim of a President--ordering troops here and there around the globe as if they are a palace guard--for no articulated rationale puts our kids at risk in a completely unacceptable way.
We will have a vote next week on something that I believe is just bedrock constitutional law. We shouldn't be at war without a vote of Congress. We shouldn't be at war with Iran unless Members of this body have the guts to have a debate and vote and put their thumbprint on it and say: This is in the national interest.
No shortcuts. No end runs around Congress. No end runs around debate in front of the American people and laying out the stakes for them.
I can't believe that Virginia, one of the most military States in the country, is so different than other parts of this Nation. I can't believe that this Nation is itching for another war in the Middle East. Haven't we learned something from a quarter of a century of war in the Middle East? I hope we have.
I hope my colleagues will join me next week in suggesting no war unless we vote to authorize it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
State of the Union Address
Mr. President, before we leave for the weekend, I wanted to take a moment and just come down to the floor and give the President a lot of credit for a great State of the Union speech on Tuesday night.
It was my eighth State of the Union speech. I spent 8 years in the House, and this was now the second State of the Union speech I have heard as a U.S. Senator for Indiana.
It was truly the best State of the Union speech that I have ever heard. And it was especially special for me to have my younger brother--10 years younger than I--Bradley Banks, from Columbia City, up in the Gallery in the House to watch the State of the Union speech. He, too, loves President Trump and what he stands for, and to have him be my special guest was a special moment for me and for him to experience a great speech as well.
As President Trump said 2 nights ago, the state of the Union is strong, and that is thanks to President Trump and his great leadership. It has been incredible to see what a difference just 1 year makes and what a difference President Trump has made in this first year of his second term, especially after 4 disastrous years with President Joe Biden in the White House.
President Trump listed a number of reasons why the state of the Union is strong, but just to name a few of those reasons and give President Trump a lot of credit: Because of him, our border is completely secure. What a night-and-day difference that is from what it was just a little over a year ago when President Trump came back into office. Inflation is at its lowest level in more than 5 years, thanks to President Trump. Gas prices are down below $2.30 in most States. Incomes are rising again. The stock market has set 53 alltime record highs since President Trump's election in 2024. Fentanyl moving into our country is down 56 percent. The murder rate has had its single largest decline in American history. And America is respected on the world stage, perhaps unlike ever before, because of President Trump's incredible leadership.
As President Trump said at the State of the Union, our country is winning again. I loved hearing that from him. It made me so proud to be a U.S. Senator serving with President Trump in the White House once again.
And while President Trump was celebrating our country, while he was saying that we have ``achieved a transformation like no one has ever seen before and a turnaround for the ages,'' Republicans stood to applaud while Democrats sat in their seats. It was really shocking to see Democrats refusing to stand up and cheer for American greatness. It was shocking to me. I couldn't believe it.
While President Trump asked Congress to stand up and show support if they agreed that ``the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens--not illegal aliens,'' the Democrats sat in their seats. They refused to stand up and cheer and stand with President Trump with all of us on the Republican side and agree to that simple statement. None of them agreed--not a single one of them. Not a single Democrat in the House Chamber, House Members or Senators on the
I will never forget that moment, standing and agreeing with President Trump and clapping and cheering in agreement with him that it is our fundamental duty--the first duty that we have in this government--to put our own citizens over those who come here illegally.
Democrats would rather be spectators to America's demise than champions of American greatness. That is what it told me when I saw them sitting in their seats and all of us standing in agreement and cheering for American greatness and what makes this country great as expressed by President Trump.
President Trump urged Congress to pass the Delilah Law, which I introduced in the Senate yesterday. What the bill does is it keeps our roads safe from illegal immigrant truckdrivers. Delilah, a beautiful 7- year-old girl, up in the audience, in the Gallery, with her dad--when she was 5 years old, she was hit by an illegal immigrant driving a semitruck and seriously injured. She has made a remarkable recovery but is still injured to this day. When President Trump called on us to pass the Delilah Law to stop illegals from driving on our roads and driving a semitruck with a trailer, when he called on us to pass a simple, commonsense bill to take CDLs away from illegal immigrants, Democrats once again refused to stand up and acknowledge that that is the right thing to do, that that will save lives in our country by getting illegals out of semitrucks.
They couldn't stand and applaud for a lot of other things either. The President of the United States, in his speech, talked about lowering prescription drug prices. Republicans stood in agreement with him, and Democrats sat on their hands. The President talked about no taxes on tips, a big part of our signature ``tax cuts for working families'' bill that we passed last year.
I can remember distinctly on the campaign trail Democrats talking about no taxes on tips, and then every one of them voted against it. And when President Trump championed it in his State of the Union speech, Republicans stood in agreement and Democrats sat on their hands.
The President talked about passing the largest tax cut in American history for working class families, like yours and mine, a tax cut that is significant.
In Indiana right now, by the way, early tax returns for Hoosiers, a 10.9-percent increase in those tax returns from a year before. That is real. That is significant money in the pockets of hard-working Hoosier families, people who go to factories every day or work in hourly wage jobs, the real hard-working men and women that make my State and this country great.
When President Trump talked about that and how significant that is, Republicans stood in agreement and cheered for it, and Democrats sat on their hands.
The President talked about banning radical transgender operations-- again, common sense. Republicans stood in agreement and cheered in support of President Trump's commonsense policies to protect our kids; Democrats sat on their hands.
He talked about so many other issues. It was one issue after another that puts the American people, the American workers, American families first and in a better position. Republicans stood in agreement; Democrats sat on their hands.
As a son of a retired factory worker--my dad worked at Dana Corporation in Fort Wayne. He made axles. He got up early every morning. Sometimes he worked the third shift, all night long. He belonged to a union. He was a hard-working, union man all of his working life at the factory and put food on the table, provided for our family.
As a son of a factory worker and the grandson of a union coal miner who was an FDR Democrat, right--I mean, my grandpa, my family, they thought the Democrat Party represented the working man.
It is clear to me now that this is not my grandpa's Democrat Party.
My brother Bradley who works for the Columbia City Street Department, gets up every morning. He happens to have a CDL. He drives the snowplow. He works hard to keep our small hometown in northeast Indiana clean and the streets taken care of.
He doesn't wake up like you and I do every day and think about politics and what is going on in Washington, DC. He wakes up every day and thinks about working hard to provide for his family.
When he sat up in that Gallery on Tuesday night and watched this historic State of the Union speech--the longest State of the Union speech ever, but the best State of the Union speech that I have ever seen--he couldn't believe it.
He had a view from the Gallery watching this speech, watching the President talk about how great our country is, putting people like him in a better position to take care of his family, and the Democrats sat on their hands. They couldn't even cheer on the greatness of America and the good things that are happening in this country.
It is clear to me that the Democrats just can't handle the truth. They can't handle the truth that 250 years after this Nation's founding, we have so much to be proud of. We are proud of the gold medal U.S. Olympic hockey team who brought golden glory back to the United States 46 years after the ``Miracle on Ice.''
We are proud of our heroic soldiers like CW5 Eric Slover and the 100- year-old Navy fighter pilot CAPT Royce Williams, who both received the Congressional Medal of Honor during the State of the Union speech. What a great moment for us to experience on the floor of the House on Tuesday night.
We are proud that the greatest Nation in the history of the world will celebrate its 250th birthday in just a few months. The state of our Union is strong because President Trump is putting Americans first.
Mr. President, 250 years after a small group of brave men founded the greatest Nation on Earth, the United States remains the best and strongest country ever. We are still a nation of builders, warriors, and champions; and thanks to President Trump, we are stronger than we have ever been before.
That is worth getting out of your seat and standing and applauding and cheering and being in support of. I thought the President of the United States gave an incredible State of the Union speech. It was great. It made me very proud to be an American, and I am grateful for his leadership.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
