Housing for the 21st Century Act: Motion to Proceed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed H.R. 6644, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, my Democrat colleagues are at it again. They are on their second shutdown in 6 months, and in a few short days, a lot of government workers will be missing part of their paychecks again thanks to Senate Democrats.
Well, let's just briefly review the 2026 fiscal year.
At the start of the fiscal year, which is October 1 for the Federal Government, Democrats shut down the entire government for a staggering 43 days--the longest government shutdown in history--and by the time a handful of Democrat Senators agreed to end the shutdown, air travel was in chaos, essential programs had been affected, and many government employees had turned to loans, credit cards, and food banks to make ends meet, but even the worst government shutdown in history wasn't enough for Senate Democrats.
Fast-forward now to January of this year. Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress had agreed on a final Department of Homeland Security spending bill that included deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as $20 million for body cameras for ICE officers. But Democrats decided that wasn't enough, so Republicans and the White House agreed to reopen negotiations. Knowing that negotiation takes time, we suggested a temporary funding extension for several weeks, but Democrats insisted on no more than 2 weeks. When 2 weeks, predictably, wasn't enough, especially since Democrats were in no hurry to put together a legislative proposal, Democrats shut down the entire Department, and now, a whole lot of Department of Homeland Security employees are starting to miss pay thanks to Senate Democrats. That includes TSA agents--the people tasked with the safety of air travel in this country--as well as Coast Guard civilian employees, members of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who do so much--I might add--essential disaster response work here at home, and many others.
Let's be very clear. This isn't a principled stand by Democrats against Republicans who refuse to negotiate. That is not the case. The White House has not only made a lot of reforms to ICE procedures on its own, it has shown a clear willingness to legislate reforms and has made more than one substantial offer to Democrats. Democrats could have recognized this and
Of course, the White House isn't going to sign off on every Democrat demand--no side gets everything it wants in negotiations--but Democrats could be on the verge of having substantial reforms signed into law if they were at all serious about actually implementing solutions, but they are not. They are interested in politics, not policy, and a whole lot of essential government employees are suffering as a result, to say nothing of the essential government work--the work of government--that is suffering. The deployment of cyber security measures to Federal Agencies has been delayed. States are having to wait for disaster reimbursements. FEMA training centers are closed, affecting 45,000 students per week, and the list goes on.
I mentioned the air travel chaos that ensued as a result of Democrats' first fiscal year 2026 shutdown. Well, the longer this DHS shutdown drags on, the more likely it is that we will start to have staffing problems at airport checkpoints, which will lead to compounding flight delays and other problems.
Now, it shouldn't need saying that it is always a terrible idea to use the Department of Homeland Security as a political pawn. There are always threats to the homeland that have to be addressed, and that is exactly the work that is done by the Department of Homeland Security. But above all, right now, with an enhanced terror threat from Iran and Iran-funded terrorist groups, it is vital that we ensure the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded and fully functioning.
It is 2 more days until the Department of Homeland Security employees start missing part of their paychecks. I hope that my Democrat colleagues will finally decide to come to the table and bring their second shutdown in under 6 months to a close.
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 bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, it has been 4 days since Donald Trump launched America into a war that most Americans oppose, most Americans don't understand, and his own administration can't consistently explain.
I walked out of yesterday's intelligence briefing even more concerned than when I walked in because if the case for war were strong, the story would be consistent and steady. Instead, it changes by the hour.
First, Donald Trump suggested the goal was regime change. He said the people of Iran should rise up and take back their country.
Then it was about nuclear weapons--the same program he said was ``obliterated'' last summer.
Then, yesterday morning, Pete Hegseth said:
He said:
Then Secretary Rubio claimed it was about crippling Iran's missiles. Then it was about crippling Iran's navy. Then Rubio said it was about what Israel would do and the Iranian response. We heard that this attack was ``defensive'' in nature; then Rubio says it was ``preemptive.''
Which one is it, Donald Trump? Regime change? Nuclear weapons? Missiles? An imminent threat to the homeland? Or a preemptive strike to stop future attacks on the region?
When the rationale for war keeps shifting, the strategy is missing, and that is because there is no strategy. And when the strategy is missing, the risk grows. Six American servicemembers are dead. The conflict is widening. The State Department is telling Americans to leave the region. Oil prices have already jumped 7 percent in just a few days.
History teaches us a simple lesson: Wars without a clear objective do not stay small. They get bigger. They get bloodier. They get longer. They get more expensive.
This is not a defensive war. This is not a necessary war. This is a war of choice. The American people do not want another endless war of choice in the Middle East. They do not want to see our troops fight and die in a pointless war. Parents don't want to worry about whether or not their kids will be sent abroad to fight in a conflict Americans didn't ask for.
The American people want leadership that is focused on lowering costs here at home because, while this administration debates which justification to use for the war, American families are debating which bill to pay. Gas prices are rising again. Electric bills are through the roof. Groceries are still too high. Housing costs are crushing middle-class families. Health insurance premiums are rising. The President should be focused on lowering costs.
Instead of mission creep abroad, we need cost relief here at home. Instead of shifting rationales for war, we need a clear strategy for affordability. That is what Americans are asking for, and that is what Senate Democrats are fighting for.
Mr. President, that is why, this week, the Senate is moving long- overdue housing legislation, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, and I want to thank Senator Warren for her incredible work bringing this package to fruition.
The ROAD to Housing Act is a good step, but Democrats know it is only the first step. We have much more work to do to fix the housing crisis--to restore the promise of homeownership and bring rents down. Democrats will continue to develop and push additional housing policies that build on the good work of this bill, including the ideas we laid out in our housing rollout and in our report on the housing crisis in January.
But Democrats are not stopping at housing. Later this week, I will join my colleagues to roll out our food prices legislation. Our bill will go straight to one of the core problems of the food industry: too much consolidation in America's food system, especially in meat and agriculture, where a handful of dominant players squeeze farmers on one end and squeeze consumers on the other.
Donald Trump acts like affordability is some kind of hoax, but Democrats understand it is the No. 1 thing people think about when they are paying the rent, filling up their tank, and especially when pushing a cart down the grocery aisle. We will keep fighting on this issue because Americans want us to bring their costs down.
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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. today and that all time during recess count postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6644.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, the President of the United States took decisive action this weekend to keep America and Americans safe. He did it to stop the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. He did it to forge a path to peace in the Middle East.
Operation Epic Fury is one of the boldest military operations in modern history. I support it fully and without reservation. President Trump had the courage to do what is right and what needed to be done, something previous administrations refused to do--absolutely refused.
Operation Epic Fury has one purpose: to protect the American people from a regime that has spent 47 years at war
I heard the minority leader here on the floor, this morning, make reference to parents whose sons and daughters serve in the military. Well, I got an email yesterday from one of those parents, a Gold Star parent because she lost her son in Iraq in 2008. He was from Wyoming: SSG Tyler Pickett. She emailed me because I had spoken at his funeral in 2008. He was a 28-year-old from Saratoga, WY, killed by an IED. And we know that it was Iran who was supplying those IEDs that killed so many Americans in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
And what did she say? She said:
She said:
That is a mother who lost her son, who is cheering the action this past weekend--and it continues today--to protect the American homeland for which her son lost his life 18 years ago.
For 47 years, Iran has chanted ``Death to America,'' and they have meant it. Iran has, for years, bankrolled and armed terrorists-- terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans, terrorists who on October 7, 2023, killed over 1,000 Israelis and Americans in the attack by Hamas on Israel. Iran has plotted assassinations on American soil against dissidents, against American officials, and even against President Trump.
Iran continued to race to build nuclear weapons. Even after the successful bombing of their nuclear facilities, last year, the Iranians were not deterred. They said: We are going to go do it again.
And they stockpiled ballistic missiles, which could be used to deliver a nuclear weapon or just to attack neighbors.
Make no mistake, Iran is not some faraway threat. It is a clear and present danger to the United States, and this Congress knows it. Every Democrat knows it.
In the past 96 hours, Iran has launched a wave of missiles and drones and attacked 11 countries in the region. Think about that. Iran attacked 11 of their neighboring countries--immediate neighbors. Iran's indiscriminate attacks prove Iran poses a universal threat. President Trump gave Iran every opportunity to choose peace. Instead, they chose delay, they chose deception, and they chose destruction. Iran refused every diplomatic off-ramp offered, and Iran believed it could once again run out the clock without consequences.
Iran was wrong. Operation Epic Fury was President Trump's commitment to protect our Nation.
Today, Ayatollah Khamenei is dead, his senior leadership team is dead, and his reign of terror is over. Iran's vast missile arsenal is being dismantled. Its nuclear program is being demolished. Its tentacles of terror are being severed. America is safer. The world is safer. This is American peace through strength.
Operation Epic Fury also sends a strong message to America's other adversaries. Iran's allies and enablers, of course, are China and Russia. For years, every dollar of Iranian oil and weapon sales sustained their terrorist regime. The oil and weapons also strengthened our adversaries. This anti-American axis of aggression is today weaker. President Trump has reshaped the strategic landscape in the Middle East and all around the world.
Inside Iran, people are pouring into the streets to celebrate. To the Iranian people: You have endured decades of repression and brutality. This is a moment of freedom. America stands with you.
As Operation Epic Fury succeeds in Iran, far-left Democrats in this Chamber are on a mission, and their mission is to undercut American peace through strength. This week, Democrats are going to force a vote on yet another War Powers Resolution. Their War Powers Resolution is intended to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief as he works to protect the country.
This administration briefed the Gang of 8 before Operation Epic Fury began. Every Senator is going to be briefed later this afternoon. The mission objectives are clear and publicly stated: Destroy Iran's missile industry; destroy Iran's Navy; destroy Iran's terrorist network; stop the world's No. 1 sponsor of terror from obtaining nuclear weapons.
President Trump protected our country. He did it by enforcing a redline with Iran. This is the opposite of President Obama and the Democrats. They tried to buy the Ayatollah's friendship. They sent pallets of cash directly into Iran.
Under the War Powers Act, the President retains authority to conduct missions like this for up to 60 days. Now is the time for Congress to support our servicemembers in the combat zone, not undermine them from this very Chamber.
If Senate Democrats are truly concerned about protecting the American people, here is what they should do right now, right here, today: Fund the Department of Homeland Security. They have been holding it up, shutting it down. Today, the greatest threat to our safety at home right here is terrorism. We are at heightened alert.
The Department of Homeland Security is on the front line against terrorism, and the Democrats want to keep it shut.
The Department of Homeland Security protects our airports, our shores, our cyber networks, our homeland. Democrats have shut down the Department of Homeland Security, and that shutdown endangers every single American citizen.
This weekend in Austin, TX, a killer wore a T-shirt with the Iranian flag and a sweatshirt that read ``Property of Allah.'' The investigation is ongoing, but the message is clear, now is the time for us to be on high alert. For the safety of the American people, the Department of Homeland Security needs to be fully funded. The workers need to be fully paid, not waiting and hoping to say: Well, will we ever get paid again, as the Democrats refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans stand with the brave men and women who are carrying out Operation Epic Fury. We pray for their safety in harm's way. We also pray for the family members who have given their lives in defense of our freedom, as the email that I have just read from the mother of SSG Tyler Pickett from Wyoming who lost his life in 2008 near Kirkuk in Iraq.
Peace through strength always keeps America secure, and as the majority whip, I am going to do everything possible to defeat Senator Kaine's resolution that undercuts our peace through strength.
Republicans are going to continue to work for the safety and security of the American people and of this great country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, we are facing a dark moment in our country's history. On Saturday, Donald Trump decided to drag the American people into a reckless, illegal war with Iran, a war based on lies, a war launched with no imminent threat to our Nation.
Six U.S. servicemembers are now dead and more badly hurt. A missile from the United States and Israeli-led bombing campaign reportedly killed over 150 people at a girls' school in Iran, many of them little girls, some as young as 7 years old. And now, violence is spreading across the Middle East, with the threat of that violence bleeding into the United States.
And for what? For another forever war that the American people do not want? Our Constitution is clear; only Congress can declare war. That is because one single person should not have the power to drag our entire country into a reckless war.
But that is exactly--exactly--what Donald Trump has done. He has given prepared remarks. He has spoken to the press. Yet, even after multiple bombing runs and the death of American servicemembers, Donald Trump cannot give a single clear reason for this war.
Why are we at war? Donald Trump has dozens of reasons and, ultimately, no reason at all. Worse yet, Donald Trump is dragging Americans into this war with no plan for how to end it. He
Every hour, the Trump administration feeds us shifting justifications for this war; every hour, he contradicts a justification that he used earlier. Donald Trump said that Iran has restarted its nuclear program, but Donald Trump's own officials have said that is not true.
Donald Trump claimed that Iran is developing long-range missiles that will soon be capable of hitting the United States. That directly goes against what his own government has claimed.
As recently as January, the Trump administration said they would not engage in any regime change wars. And now, they are calling on the Iranian people to rise up and change their regime. Khamenei was an authoritarian dictator who has the blood of Americans on his hands, but killing one leader does not topple a brutal regime. The next leader could be just as bad or even worse. And Donald Trump's deceptions keep right on coming. In June of last year, Trump bombed Iran and claimed that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been ``completely and totally obliterated.''
``Completely and totally obliterated.''
And now, Trump is telling the American people that he had to attack Iran on Saturday because Iran posed an imminent threat based on their nuclear capabilities. Both of those things cannot be true.
If Donald Trump believes that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a threat, he had the chance to curb them. In fact, the United States had a deal that would have prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That was President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, and Trump ripped up that deal and got nothing in return.
Instead of doing the hard work of diplomacy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Trump is lying to Americans while dragging us into yet another reckless war that is costing American lives.
Already, six U.S. servicemembers have been killed, and others have been seriously hurt in these attacks. My heart is with these servicemembers and their loved ones, but Trump just doesn't seem to care.
In fact, he said he is not ruling out sending United States' ground troops into Iran. He even said that, while every President says, Well, there will be no boots on the ground, he doesn't say it. He is proud of the fact that he is willing to put American lives at risk for this war of his own choosing. It is truly horrific.
The ripple effects of this violence are even broader. Protesters in countries across the world are storming U.S. Embassies and threatening the lives of State Department officials. American citizens living in the region are now in the middle of a war zone, in danger, and unsure if they can make it home safely.
And the violence is spreading. Iran has attacked at least nine countries since the Trump administration and Israel started this war on Saturday, putting more American servicemembers and more American civilians abroad at risk and threatening to destabilize the entire region.
I disagree with Donald Trump, but I understand that he won the 2024 election. But when he ran in 2024, he said repeatedly that he would be a peace President. He ran on a platform of no more wars. He said he would be a President to stop wars, not start them, and Americans believed him.
But now, we face an ugly reality. In the modern era, no American President has ordered more military strikes against as many different countries as Donald Trump. None. Donald Trump's disregard for human life seems to have no bounds.
I want to make one more point here, and it is about something that is very personal to me. All three of my brothers served in the military. My oldest brother served off and on in Vietnam for 6 years, running 266 combat missions. I remember the fear our family felt with every late- night phone call or official-looking letter. Could my brother be hurt? Could he be dead?
It is still hard to find the words to describe the pain that we put American families through when we ship a generation off to war. Mamas are worried sick that their sons or daughters will not make it home. A new generation of veterans will have to live with the horrors of war, live with the trauma of witnessing innocent victims of war take their final breath, live with their own injuries and prolonged recoveries.
The people who will be asked to sacrifice their lives are the American people. It won't be Donald Trump. It won't be Pete Hegseth. It will be our sons and daughters, our nieces and nephews, our grandchildren. Trump is right to note that people die in war. That happens as surely as night follows day. And that means that the leaders who send young people to die must take the consequences of this conflict with the seriousness it deserves, with life-and-death seriousness.
Instead, Trump and his team seem to be treating war with Iran like a game, as if Commander in Chief was a costume and Secretary of War is a fun, pretend title, and the lives lost are just numbers on a board with the title Operation Epic Fury.
Forty-eight hours after he started this war, Trump finally addressed the American people and took questions. He spoke to the people who are worried sick about what this war means for them and what it means for the people they love.
Instead of offering a plan, however, he talked about renovations to his gold-encrusted ballroom. It is sickening, and it is time for this Congress to make him stop.
Here is what we need: First, Donald Trump started this war illegally, without the consent of Congress, and he cannot be allowed to continue it. There is too much at stake. Every single Senator must support Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution to block this reckless war. This isn't about politics. This is about life and death for young Americans who will be called on to serve and for civilians who will end up in harm's way.
Second, the United States must investigate the bombing of an elementary school in Iran. Israel claims it was not aware of any operations in the area by their own IDF, and that raises the question of whether it was a United States strike and how that happened.
The U.S. military's Central Command has said it needs to look into the incident. As we regularly do following a catastrophe of this size with the possible involvement of the U.S. military, we must find out what happened and hold those responsible to account.
And, third, we need to hold accountable every single Trump administration official who lied to the American people about this unconstitutional war. People have a right to the truth from their government, and nowhere, at no time, is that more crucial than in the life-and-death decisions surrounding the decision to go to war.
We must hold our elected officials accountable if they don't level with the people who will be sent to fight and possibly to die. Along with many of you, I am angry at what this administration is doing. I feel grief for those killed in the conflict. I feel anguish for the families at home trying to make sense of why their beloved husbands, wives, sons, daughters, moms, and dads are sent into a war that no one can explain.
And I will keep fighting for an end to this war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I just left a hearing involving the Veterans of Foreign Wars before the Veterans' Committee. In fact, it was a joint hearing of both the House's and the Senate's Veterans' Committees, where I am the ranking member.
I informed them that I was coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate to seek unanimous consent on the Major Richard Star Act, and there was a spontaneous standing ovation. I dare say that that applause was totally bipartisan--nonpolitical--because there is no more glaring and egregious injustice affecting veterans today--our Nation's patriots-- than the fact that 50,000 veterans and servicemembers are forced to medically retire or to undergo medical separation because of combat- related injuries and are unable to collect both retirement benefits and disability compensation. Right now, the men and
If they retire as a result of those combat injuries with less than 20 years of service--the majority of them have less than 20 years of service--they will be reduced in their retirement pay, dollar for dollar, from their VA disability benefits. Let me just repeat: Right now, combat-injured veterans are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. So if they have to retire because they have been injured in combat, they sacrifice, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because of the disability benefits that they receive. They are entitled to both. They have earned both. The Nation promised them both. They deserve both.
The Major Richard Star Act will finally provide some justice to those veterans. It will finally provide these military retirees with their full disability and Department of Defense retirement benefits, righting this longstanding injustice.
It is sponsored by 77 of my colleagues in the Senate, including both Republicans and Democrats. It has similar support in the House of Representatives. We have never been provided with a vote--yes, a vote. If it did receive a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. The simple request for a vote has been denied. There are a variety of excuses that have been offered like ``It costs too much.''
Well, as the national commander of the VFW said today, in supporting this bill, the costs of providing for our veterans are part of the cost of war. We are in a war right now, real-time, and some of those combat- injured veterans will be sacrificing their disability or retirement pay because of this injustice. And then some have characterized the Major Richard Star Act as providing for double-dipping. Well, our veterans forced to retire because of combat injures have earned both. We can afford to right this injustice. Whatever the estimate on the amount of funding required--and it has varied over the years--it is a pittance compared to the costs of our national defense--close to a trillion dollars now. This country can afford to do the right thing by these combat-injured veterans, and we have a moral imperative to do so.
Veterans who have served more than 20 years already received both the VA and the DOD payments in whole. Veterans who have served less than 20 years because they are combat injured--frankly, for any reason--deserve better.
This week and last, thousands of veterans have flown into our Nation's Capital from every corner of the country to advocate for their top priorities, and collectively, they are calling on Congress--all of them--all of the veterans service organizations, all of the groups that represent our Nation's heroes have told us unequivocally and repeatedly that correcting this injustice is absolutely necessary. The benefits they have earned are the benefits they should be receiving right now, and it will make a huge difference in the lives of all these veterans.
Take, for example, SSG Clayton Smith. He was involuntarily medically retired after 11 years in the U.S. Army because of his combat-related injury. He feels that veterans impacted by this offset have upheld their commitment to serve, but the system fails to recognize its commitment to him--promises made, promises kept, but in this case, not kept. In his words:
It would also help veterans like Dan Nevins from Florida. His military career was ended when an improvised explosive device detonated beneath his vehicle during his deployment to Iraq in 2004. He is a bilateral amputee. He has overcome years of recurring infection and countless surgeries. He says he has no regrets about his service. He joined to serve his country. He believes it is worth fighting for.
These veterans deserve elected officials who will fight for them and deliver the benefits they have earned. In the words of Barry Jesinoski, the DAV's national adjutant and CEO:
A message to my colleagues: Respect without action is meaningless. Rhetoric without action is meaningless. Words without action are worthless. So let's put the politics aside and listen to our veterans. Let's pass the Richard Star Act today.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard Star Act; 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. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Reserving the right to object.
Mr. President, first of all, let's--since I have the opportunity: We all revere and respect those men and women who have served and sacrificed to defend our liberty. That is completely nonpartisan. We prove it day in and day out. We prove it by how much money we spend on veterans' benefits.
So I certainly appreciate the Senator from Connecticut, his advocacy. I advocate for veterans as well. It is interesting, though, this unanimous consent request is very similar, if not identical, to the same unanimous consent request offered on October 9 of 2025 by the Senator from Connecticut.
At that point in time, responding to it, that unanimous consent, the Senator from Mississippi--the then- and now-current chair of the Armed Services Committee--stated, and I quote:
I am assuming he was talking about the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
And that is the reason that in Democrat majorities and Republican majorities, House Democrat majorities and Senate Democrat majorities, and in Democrat administrations, this legislation has never been accepted because we simply cannot afford it.
The chairman of Armed Services went on to say:
There is no such offset identified in this unanimous consent request. And when we do not identify offsets, that means $10 billion has come out of readiness, out of the strength of our military to defend ourselves during the most dangerous time we have had since World War II. And with that logic, the chairman of Armed Services, the Senator from Mississippi, objected to the Senator from Connecticut's unanimous consent request.
Now, what has changed is we now have a score on this specific bill. When the Senator from Mississippi was objecting last time, he was quoting a $9 billion to $10 billion score. We just got the score on this one. Now, it is $70 billion to $75 billion.
Again, we all revere the finest among us. The men and women of the military that I know didn't serve and sacrifice oblivious to the fact that we are mortgaging our children's future. They served and sacrificed to secure our children's future. So we can't just come down here and talk about how much we love vets and how we want to support them. We also have to look at the reality of the situation in dollars and cents. We are $39 trillion in debt. Over the next decade, it will be $60 trillion. We have to look at the dollars and cents.
So, again, this unanimous consent request went from an assumed cost of 10 billion to now 70 billion, which reminds me an awful lot of the PACT Act, which I voted for and supported. But when that was first being discussed, it was called the burn pit legislation.
My former chief of staff served in Iraq; he was impacted by it. But I remember discussions--these were informal. I don't have anything formally written, but back in early discussions of the burn pit legislation, we were being told it was going to be $1 billion or $2 billion a year.
When the House passed their version of the PACT Act, the CBO score was for $322 billion over 10 years. The Senate got its hands on that piece of legislation, and the score was $667 billion. The current window is over $700 billion. That is not chump change. That is approaching a trillion dollars over 10 years.
Now, again, it is not like we are spending less on veterans, even though our veteran population is declining. In 2019, we spent $200 billion on veterans' benefits. Again, now, their retirement is through the Defense Department. This is just benefits for VA. Two hundred billion dollars, that equates to about $11,500 per veteran. This was before the pandemic--so $200 billion, $11,500 per vet.
This year, we will spend about $435 billion, so it has more than doubled, and our cost per vet is up to $28,000 per veteran. Somebody has got to look at this.
We are $177 billion for veterans' benefits above and beyond what we spent in 2019, fully inflated for inflation. There is no other account in the Federal Government that is that out of whack, comparing 2019 fully inflated.
So this is not the way to pass this legislation. The Senator from Connecticut has all these cosponsors. Fine. Go through the committee process. Scrutinize this. Take a look at the score, take a look at what the history of this is. It is not like we are the first Congress that reveres the members of the military.
For some reason, they differentiate between somebody who has 20 years of service or less than. Let's look at that. Let's debate it. Let's bring it through the committee process, regular order. And then if it has that great support, I might even vote for it.
But let's go through the process to see whether these policies make sense, whether there truly is double-dipping, whether there is a better way of handling--by the way, I have been told the Department of War is looking at this exact issue. They have reverence for the finest among us as well.
But this is not the way to do this, not by unanimous consent request. It was objected to in October, and I am going to object to it right now.
Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I am saddened, I am angered, and I am heartbroken for the veterans across this great country that the Senate is failing to match their courage and dedication and failing to keep faith with them. I am heartbroken for a nation that can afford to spend tens of billions of dollars, as we are doing right now--perhaps hundreds of billions--in a conflict far away, putting American lives in harm's way, causing deaths--six, at least, so far--and casualties in realtime when we are failing to match their bravery with our own. It is unconscionable. A lot of words, a lot of numbers, a lot of fallback to Senate procedures, process--meaningless--the words and numbers are meaningless to veterans who are deprived of benefits they have earned, benefits they have been promised.
So I regret my colleague's objection to this bill. I believe he is in a small minority of this body. He has a right to object under our rules.
But I would like to offer to him a commonsense middle ground. Even if we don't have unanimous consent to pass the Major Richard Star Act right now and support our combat-injured veterans, let's agree to a vote. Give us a vote. That is our job--to vote.
I have a time agreement here that would authorize the Senate to take a single up-and-down vote on passage of this bill before August, not precipitously--sometime before August--one vote scheduled by the majority leader, Senator Thune, at his discretion. It could start and finish in 45 minutes. It simply guarantees one vote on passage at a 60- vote, filibuster-proof threshold. That is our rule.
And I would offer, most respectfully, that surely this great body can afford a half hour or 45 minutes to give our combat-injured veterans a vote on restoration of their hard-earned benefits.
Let us vote. That is our job. Let us give our veterans an up-or-down vote on a matter of simple justice: benefits they have been promised.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from Connecticut said we need to do our job. I agree. Our job is to recognize the fact that we are $39 trillion in debt on the back of $60 trillion, with the Social Security trust fund running out during that timeframe.
Our job would be, then, to go through the regular order process of taking this before the committee. If it has such broad bipartisan support, fine, but, again, similar efforts along these lines have failed in the past with Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate. There is something about this that concerns people. So vet it out in the committee process. We are trying to bypass that process by unanimous consent requests. This is not the way to produce good legislation, not when we are $39 trillion in debt.
So for all the other reasons I mentioned in my previous objection, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, we have regular order in the Senate, and there is regular order in the military. I will have a hard time looking in the eye of those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guard members who are in conflict, in harm's way, right now in the Middle East, defending the national security of this great Nation. I will have a hard time explaining to them what ``regular order'' means when they are combat injured and they suffer, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because they are receiving disability benefits when they are injured--right now--in this conflict.
I don't know how I can look them in the eye. I don't know how any Member of the U.S. Senate can look them in the eye and explain: We won't vote because of regular order. That is a mockery of democracy, and it is shameful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. President, I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and my colleague, the ranking member of that committee, Senator Blumenthal was just here on the Senate floor discussing the importance of the Major Richard Star Act. That bill is not in the jurisdiction, at least at this point, of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It is a matter for the Armed Services Committee. But it is one that is important to veterans across the country.
The issue behind the Richard Star Act is hugely important to veterans across the country. We saw that today with the joint hearings that we have annually with the House Veterans' Committee.
The VFW and other veterans service organizations highly prioritize the Richard Star Act's passage. That act--this legislation--would make certain that veterans who are medically retired due to combat or combat-related injuries would receive their earned VA disability compensation and their full retirement pay without one payment being reduced because of the other. So, today, there is an offset. The Richard Star Act would eliminate that offset.
No veteran, in my mind, should have their retirement that they earned decreased because they also were eligible for disability compensation due to an injury that they sustained during their military service. So you earn your retirement by years of service, but then that is diminished if you have a disability as a result of the service.
While the Richard Star Act, as I indicated, is not within the jurisdiction of
The VFW, as I said, just completed their testimony before our joint committee, and their advocacy and that of other veterans service organizations have prioritized this piece of legislation for years.
It is widely sponsored by Members of the U.S. Senate, but we have been at this for about 5 years. And while the vast majority of Senators support the bill, as evidenced by their sponsorship of the bill, it has not been considered in a legislative manner sufficient for it to have moved forward.
I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I want to make certain that combat-injured veterans receive their full benefits. They upheld their oath. They fulfilled their duty, and the question before us is whether we will fulfill ours.
I am committed to continuing to work closely with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and with Senators from both sides of the aisle to find a responsible path forward and a solution that ultimately leads to the passage of the Major Richard Star Act in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and eventually for it to make its way to the President's desk to become law.
Our Nation's combat-wounded veterans--and we say this particularly at this point in time, with what is going on in the world, with men and women from the United States in harm's way. Our Nation's combat-wounded veterans should not have to continue fighting for benefits they already earned, and it is time for Congress to act.
Housing for the 21st Century Act: Motion to Proceed: Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to maybe lower my own temperature but explain what I was getting at in the Judiciary Committee hearing this morning. We had the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem before the committee, and I have not been shy about some of my criticism for the Secretary of Homeland Security really on two fronts.
I think I was primarily focused on--what I wanted to focus on was the failure, in my opinion, of the FEMA response for Hurricane Helene really across the Southeast but particularly in North Carolina, where it hit hardest.
So I went in thinking that I was going to talk a little bit about my frustration with Hurricane Helene, but then an hour before the hearing, after 30 days when I sent a letter saying I also wanted detailed information on Operation so-called Charlotte's Web, which was identifying illegally present people and deporting them--I have no problem with that, by the way. What I have a problem with is the how. But I got basically a ``Dear Sir, Madam, or Small Child: Thank you for asking questions we don't intend to answer'' response from the Secretary of Homeland Security. That did not make me happy. So I have to admit, when I got into the hearing, the heart rate was up a little bit.
What I wanted to do in the hearing was talk about how I apply my professional experience to working here in the Senate. I was going to give her a performance evaluation for her 14 months on the job, and I was going to use as evidence empirical information, stuff that we found--hard to get but stuff that we got.
This is a graphic of three different hurricane responses. Trump 1 had Florence and Matthew, devastating storms in North Carolina. You can see here--anytime you are in business, when you see outlays and expenditures kind of flat, that means an organization is doing a good job. In other words, we knew what the damage was, we had the money for it, they requested the reimbursement, and they got it. That is what competent disaster management looks like.
Under Secretary Noem and Helene--a $59 billion impact in North Carolina--that is what incompetence looks like. You can see the huge difference between obligations and outlays.
Well, let's just translate this into human terms in North Carolina. That means a county that can't even balance its budget, Yancey County, one of the hardest hit--they are just looking for basic reimbursements now, and the Secretary has decided that every reimbursement in excess of $100,000 has to go across her desk before it is approved. That is almost unheard of. It may be a violation of the law in terms of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, but it is certainly in violation of common sense.
If you want to do a quick back-of-the-napkin--do the math--divide 100,000 into 59 billion. That is a lot of numbers, right? A lot of approvals. Really? The Homeland Security Secretary wants $100,000 increments for people who are suffering in Western North Carolina to be subject to her approval? That is what produces garbage like this. That is what gets people fired in the private sector, where I spent the majority of my career before I joined the State legislature in 2006.
So on the disaster recovery front, Secretary Noem has failed miserably, by empirical standards. Nothing personal. It could be my mother in this position. I would have to fire my beloved mom. At the end of the day, this is horrible performance. And why it is horrible-- these are not only facts and figures; these are people's lives, and she has decided paperwork and redtape are more important than flooding the zone and giving them money for removing debris, money for actual temporary housing, money for buyouts--the basic sorts of things you have to do.
But I was only going to talk briefly about that. I wanted to talk more about the main subject in Judiciary, and that was the response for these deportations. I am angry with Secretary Noem because she has taken away one of the most important issues that Republicans won elections on in 2024. The border was wide open. Millions of people were coming across the border. We didn't know who they were. There were an estimated 1.7 million so-called ``got-aways.'' These are people who pay a premium to the cartels to go through a section of the border where they can escape detection. They even give them carpet to put under their shoes so they can't be traced. These are not angels. These are people that are paying cartels a premium to come across the border. The other people just simply come to a border crossing, present themselves, and they can seek asylum. Bad people, all right? I get that. They should be apprehended, incarcerated, or deported.
I simply asked 30 days ago: Of the 500 encounters in Charlotte, could you give me your data on it--anonymized? I don't want the specific people unless they want to come forward. I want to know: If you had an interaction with somebody, were they illegally present? were they a U.S. citizen? did you detain them? did you destroy their property in the process of detaining somebody briefly and come to find out-- whoopsie--they have been a U.S. citizen for 20 years?
That is important performance information. That is called a job performance assessment. Why can't I get that for the 500 or so encounters in Charlotte, a town that is 20 minutes from where I live?
Then I get a letter an hour before the hearing saying: No, that is confidential information.
Then she has the audacity to come to a hearing and say they are a top-notch, professional law enforcement organization. There is not a law enforcement organization in the United States of America that couldn't answer that question for me.
So which one is it? Have you failed to keep track of all these encounters or are you refusing to provide it to me because you are concerned with the results--that the minority of the people you are probably detaining are the ones who are bad people that should be detained, deported, or incarcerated? I just want to know what the success rate is. And she refused to answer that question.
So I announced in the hearing today that, similar to what I had to do to get the Homeland Security Secretary to even come before the committee--I had to put a hold on any sorts of nominations that went through Homeland Security. Maybe it had an influence. Maybe other pressures got her there. But now she is not answering my questions.
So, effective today, I will refuse to allow any en bloc nominations to go through this Senate floor until I get my questions answered-- effective today. Effective on March 19, I will block any nomination, any markup of legislation that goes before Finance, Banking, Judiciary, or Veterans' Affairs. I will block my own nominations until I get the answer to the question--and every other one that goes through that-- because my vote is necessary in any partisan votes to get it out of the committees.
I want answers to questions. That is what you give to a U.S. Senator. You don't treat us like some sort of person that you just placate in a committee and go on and do other things. I have the election certificate. I have people in North Carolina that want answers, and I want answers. If I don't get them, we are simply going to shut down the noms process until we can get somebody to answer my question.
Now, the questions I am not going to cover that have to do with the encounters--that is delineated in the letter. But these are five other questions that I want answered, and they go like this--because I want them in the Federal Register, and I will submit a document so the transcription is accurate. These are my five questions:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 expressly prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from restricting or diverting FEMA resources from the Agency's mission. Based on your disaster response, I have reason to believe that she is violating the law, either knowingly or unknowingly, so I want to know what the total amount of FEMA reimbursements are that are currently being held by DHS for final approval to be spent by FEMA. I want the exact dollar figures, and I want a full list of the recipients.
Based on recent reports, I have reason to believe that DHS has delegated responsibilities of the FEMA Administrator to an outside contractor, who is Kara Voorhies. What is her official role in DHS? That is my second question.
My third question: Special government employees, SGEs, are prohibited by law from working more than 130 days during any 365-day period. How many days has Corey Lewandowski worked over the last year, and how many days does he currently have left under the SGE status?
No 4: Why does Corey Lewandowski have final signoff authority on internal DHS routing documents--these are internal routing documents-- above the Deputy Secretary--a part-time, unpaid person--above a Deputy Secretary before documents are submitted to the Homeland Security Secretary for approval?
No. 5: Based on an unclassified letter submitted to Congress yesterday by the DHS Office of Inspector General--these are the people that keep us honest; they are a very important part of the role--I have reason to believe that the Secretary and the Department are obstructing at least one criminal investigation.
Not my words; these are the words of the Office of Inspector General, who published a letter yesterday. That is almost unheard of. Do you have any idea how bad it has to be for someone embedded in a Department to publish a letter about the obstruction of the Secretary of that Department? That is bad, folks.
So I want the Secretary to answer the question: Do you believe that restricting or delaying the inspector general's access to documents, systems, and witnesses reflects a direct violation of Federal law?
The OIG thinks she does, so I want to know.
Mr. President, I know we are 2 minutes away from going into recess, and I am not going to extend time.
The bottom line: This Secretary has done our President an injustice by some of the most incompetent execution I have had the displeasure to witness over the last 11 years and 2 months that I have been a U.S. Senator. It bears no resemblance to Trump 1 in terms of Homeland Security and in terms of FEMA response.
I am a Republican. I support this President. I believe deporting people illegally present here is critically important to our future. But I also believe you have to be able to execute, you have to be able to do your job, you have to be able to be responsible, and when you make a mistake, you admit it and move on. This Secretary has done none of that, and so I will be doing none of nominating and confirming and markups until such time as I get an answer to these critical questions--or her resignation or the answer to the question, whichever comes first.
Housing for the 21st Century Act: Motion to Proceed: Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, late last week, when I first scheduled this consent request that is relating to Jeffrey Epstein's bank records, I was not expecting it to be set against the backdrop of Donald Trump dragging America into yet another war in the Middle East.
I will address the horrific crimes and worldwide financial network of Mr. Epstein in a minute. Right at the outset, I need to address the actions of the Trump administration this past weekend.
This is a war the American people do not want, a war that has already cost American lives, a war the President and his scheming advisers have not even tried to justify, a war Donald Trump kicked off at his private club minutes before stepping out to celebrate at a glitzy fundraiser where attendees spent $1 million per plate.
Now, I remember the debate about the Iraq war 20 years ago, including the bad faith attacks against those of us who opposed it from the start.
No doubt there will be a replay of that debate. There will be some who say: War is on. It is time for everybody to line up behind the President and every other issue has got to go by the wayside. That is wrong.
It has been clear from the beginning that the core principle for this administration is that Donald Trump gets to do what he wants, no matter the cost, when he wants to. It doesn't matter to him how many American soldiers die as a result of the war. It doesn't matter how many people lose their health insurance or their livelihoods as a result of his policies.
And in the case of Mr. Epstein, it doesn't matter how many pedophiles and sex traffickers continue to walk the streets and prey on the vulnerable while the Trump administration hides essential Epstein files from the public.
The position of this administration is that Donald Trump can't do anything wrong. He gets to do what he wants, and everybody else has to obey. Ultimately, the American people aren't going to have it. I won't either, and that was the message in my town meetings this past weekend.
The last thing that I am going to do is to slow down or walk away from our 4-year investigation into Epstein's trafficking network because Donald Trump decided to kick off another open-ended war in the Middle East. So I am going to take just a few minutes to lay out why the Senate needs to pass my legislation demanding the release of the Epstein bank records that are at the Treasury Department.
Here is what Americans needs to know. Four years ago, my investigators on the Finance Committee began digging into the so-called tax planning that Jeffrey Epstein performed for one of the titans of Wall Street. That man was Leon Black. That relationship spawned sprawling financial ties, and Black had a curious story about their relationship. Here was a guy worth billions and billions of dollars, really a money-making machine.
He already employed the best tax and estate planning experts in the Nation.
Keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein wasn't a tax lawyer or an accountant. The rates Black paid him were astronomical compared to what he was paying the experts that he already employed. So my investigators kept digging. What we found and what has been confirmed in more recent Epstein reports is that this story is a sham.
Jeffrey Epstein wasn't really doing serious tax and estate work, and Black's lawyers had to keep tabs on the advice he did give, which was often shoddy.
Our investigation grew. In late 2023, we reached out to the Biden Treasury Department and sought copies of the bank records that it had on Mr. Epstein. The Biden Treasury Department wouldn't give us the files, but they allowed my investigators to review them in-person and to take notes.
That is how I am aware today that there is a massive file of Epstein records at the Treasury Department. These are detailed bank records, a roadmap of Epstein's financial history.
In fact, they are filings made by banks specifically to alert Federal law enforcement to suspicious payments--evidence of possible financial crimes. They are designed to help the Treasury investigators in the Justice Department root out crimes like money laundering and trafficking.
My investigators reviewed a large portion of them on Valentine's Day 2024. We learned that Jeffrey Epstein made 4,725 wire transfers adding up to more than $1 billion in and out of his JPMorgan bank accounts in the decade after 2003.
We learned that he moved hundreds of millions of dollars more through accounts at Bank of New York Mellon and Deutsche Bank. We learned that he used Russian correspondent bank accounts to process hundreds of millions in payments associated with trafficking in Russia and Eastern Europe.
In the portion of the Epstein bank records that my investigators saw, there could be more than $1.5 billion in suspicious Epstein transactions laid out for law enforcement to review.
Mr. President and colleagues, this is a staggering amount, and it is inexplicably high based on what is currently known about Epstein's sources of income. These Epstein records are not among the files the Justice Department has released over the last few months.
The bill Congress passed requiring the release of the DOJ Epstein files doesn't affect the records at the Treasury Department at all. And the kicker, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is hiding these bank records from Senate investigators.
The Secretary refused repeatedly to turn them over, and he has refused to let us see what we already know is there. The administration came in with a whole lot of bluster about whether they were going to release the Epstein files. So I wanted to give them a chance to make good on their word.
I requested the complete set of files from the Treasury multiple times last spring and summer. Both times, I got denials. Secretary Bessent has even gone out in public and downplayed their significance. He has denied the Treasury has any investigative role with the Epstein files at all.
At an appearance last summer, he said the Epstein files were ``sitting there'' at the Treasury Department and that the Department's job was only to ``collect them.''
He said ``there were no files, per se, just hundreds and thousands of reports'' and ``our job is simply to collect the reports.''
Let me be clear on this: Secretary Bessent is not telling the American people the truth. A person with his background in finance absolutely knows perfectly well what the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is all about. That is the law enforcement office within the Treasury Department that collects the bank records.
And the Secretary hasn't shied away from getting involved in other investigations. He has the Treasury Department launching all kinds of efforts to help the Trump administration's deportation campaign in Minnesota.
So the Secretary wants to have it both ways. When it comes to investigating people in communities the Trump administration considers to be adversaries, the Treasury Department and Mr. Bessent are totally aggressive. When it comes to investigating pedophiles with connections to Donald Trump, the files remain locked away.
So let me explain why it is important to break the Bessent hold on these documents. They would help investigators learn who funded and who enabled Epstein. They would help us see where his payments went. They would help us identify any connections to organized crime. They would help us learn more about Epstein's patterns, for example, how he controlled women and girls by controlling their accounts.
They would help reveal how Epstein's henchmen, including those who still control his estate, assisted in his crimes. That is the kind of information the Treasury Secretary's stranglehold on these documents is hiding from investigators. We have waited long enough.
But a week ago, there was a stunning news report that prompted my decision to come to the Senate floor with the unanimous consent request I will make today. CBS News reported on the existence of a mystery Epstein investigation going back to 2010, an investigation the public knew nothing about until now. It was spearheaded by the Drug Enforcement Administration, and its targets were Epstein and 14 others. It dealt with drug trafficking and money laundering in New York and the Virgin Islands.
The existence of this probe was revealed by a long memorandum prepared by one of the law enforcement agencies involved. That is an agency that specialized in breaking up transnational organized crime. Most of the 69-page memo was redacted, but the outlines are there. This was a major investigation that began in 2010 and ran at least into 2015.
So now, I am working on obtaining an unredacted copy of this memorandum from the Drug Enforcement Administration. There is no reason for the Trump administration to withhold it. It literally says ``unclassified'' at the top of every page. I have got several other questions about the investigation's conclusion and its findings.
One obvious takeaway is that the Senate cannot allow the Treasury Secretary to keep the Epstein bank records hidden any longer. The evidence out in public is clear. This wasn't some small-time operation run by Epstein and Maxwell. It is a miscarriage of justice that they are the only two persons who face prosecution in the United States.
Epstein's network spanned the globe. It involved extraordinarily powerful and wealthy people. It involved serious financial crimes and huge flows of money. And now, based on the revelation of a Drug Enforcement Administration investigation, we now know as we stand here today it may have involved drugs and drug cartels.
The Treasury Secretary in an administration that was interested in justice would have a team of highly skilled investigators digging through the Epstein bank records to assist with prosecutions.
Instead, Mr. Bessent, Pam Bondi, the entire Trump group in Congress, and the administration is covering up for pedophiles, sex traffickers, and, quite possibly, drug cartels.
If they are not going to do any investigating, the Senate ought to be able to step in. That is what my bill is all about. It mandates that the Treasury turn over these Epstein bank records to Senate investigators.
We will do the job the Trump administration should have started on day one. And there is an important new reason to pass the bill. There is a lot of Epstein-related news that breaks nearly every day.
I would wager that a lot of banks where Epstein and his network did business are following the news, maybe following this discussion, and taking a second look at his transactions.
It is entirely possible that there are new bank filings coming in today, and they are flagging a new set of suspicious transactions that deserve investigation. The Treasury Secretary is blocking that investigation from happening.
Before I wrap up, I just want to note this: I first sought these documents in 2023, and that was under a Democratic administration. I requested copies of
I am still frustrated that the Biden administration didn't provide them. So nobody has a right to claim that we didn't come out on this issue in a bipartisan way.
My investigation will move forward in other directions as well. I continue to believe that some of the biggest banks on Wall Street were among Epstein's biggest enablers. JPMorgan, BNY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, and others had opportunity after opportunity to blow the whistle, and they just kept looking the other way.
These aren't itty-bitty banks in Utah or Oregon. These were big Wall Street banks, and they looked the other way.
And particularly in the case of JPMorganChase, the evidence shows they knew what Epstein was up to, and they looked the other way because he brought in mountains of cash. They waited until after he died to flag more than 99 percent of his suspicious payments. By then, it was too late to do any good in terms of stopping him.
So now, Congress must change the rules, and I intend to push this to make sure that this kind of bank reporting to prevent this kind of horrendous situation where so many young women and families were hurt-- I am going to make sure that this situation doesn't happen again.
There is a lot more to come from my investigation. From the beginning, I have welcomed participation from both sides, and that still stands. And my colleagues here in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, know that my door is open to all of them.
We are going to stay at it until we have all the facts because they are not blue and red. And then I am going to have a major reform effort so the Wall Street banks can never, never, never hurt the American people the way they have by handling the Epstein investigation.
I strongly hope my colleagues will support my request to pass my bill, the Produce Epstein Treasury Records Act. There is no excuse for the Secretary of the Treasury to continue blocking our access to the Epstein bank records.
So, therefore, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 2746 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Wyden substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is no debate that Jeffrey Epstein's crimes of sexual abuses and other crimes are appalling. And the investigation there is, ongoing, must focus on bringing those who participated to justice.
The Justice Department already has been tasked and has tasked about 500 lawyers to publicly release over 3 million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos in response to President Trump having signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law on November 19, 2025.
According to one New York Times article, the current pile of pages would reach to the top of the Empire State Building.
Since the House of Representatives took the lead on moving the Epstein Files Transparency Act, it is not surprising that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Judiciary Committee are now leading the congressional review of the millions of pages of documents from the Justice Department. The House Oversight Committee is particularly busy reviewing documents relating to corporate, nonprofit, academic, and governmental entities with known or alleged ties to Epstein's web of financial networks that were turned over by the U.S. Justice Department on January 31, along with documents turned over earlier by the Epstein estate.
The House Oversight Committee also specifically requested these Treasury documents that have been talked about here today from the Department of Treasury and requested that the Department provide all suspicious activities reports, or SARS, and accompanying material filed relating to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for its independent review.
That is these very files that the Treasury Department was asked to release and provide. Treasury replied that it would fully cooperate with the committee and that it will work alongside other relevant Federal Agencies to deliver on the request as thoroughly as possible.
The subpoenas, depositions, and SAR requests made between the two House committees are part of a very robust investigatory process, one which deals with massive amounts of information and patterns of activity collected over a 20-year period.
The Finance Committee has one of the broadest committee jurisdictions in the Senate, but it is the Banking Committee, not the Finance Committee, which has specific subject matter jurisdiction over bank suspicious activity reports and a more particular expertise with reading and handling of those documents.
At this stage, while the House committees are pursuing the same exact information from the same Agencies and the Agencies have agreed, by law passed in the House and Senate, to release those materials, it would not be helpful for either the Senate Finance or the Senate Banking Committee to confound the process by attempting to duplicate or compete with their work while adding more stress to the Department struggling to keep up with the pace of congressional demands.
Mr. President, for these reasons I object to my colleague's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I am going to be very brief.
First of all, as my colleague knows, we are talking about a different set of files. I am concerned about the Treasury Department. What my colleague is talking about is essentially the Justice Department.
And what is needed here is more investigations rather than less, and nobody has the expertise that we have on the Senate Finance Committee. The Treasury Secretary knows that, and that is why his strategy is just to slow-walk this. He is just hoping this disappears.
Well, I have said it at home, and I have said it again at a townhall meeting: I want everybody to know that we are not going anywhere on this. We are going to stay at it until all the information comes out. We are going to have a bank reform proposal.
My colleague is on the Banking Committee. I look forward to him seeing my bank reform proposal because these Wall Street banks behaved abominably.
They saw what was going on. I happen to think one of the reasons they did it is because they liked the fact that Epstein was giving them referrals.
So my colleague and I agree on a number of issues. Pharmaceutical benefit managers would be one. But we couldn't disagree more on this. And until the slow-walking ends, the investigation that I have launched and has taken place over 4 years and has blown the whistle on a lot of important steps, it is a beginning. We will stay at it until we have got real reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, just to make one quick clarification, I am not just talking about the Justice Department. The Treasury Department has agreed to release the exact files that have been demanded and has said that they will provide them as thoroughly and as quickly as possible to the House Oversight Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, we will make this really brief.
I have made a number of requests specifically for the information that my colleague has now described as something that is going to come out.
I will believe it when I see it.
What I do know is the Treasury Department has stonewalled us every single day through the Trump administration.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act
Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate puts small business first in America's innovation program and gives them the certainty they need to build and grow.
For too long, our Nation's seed fund programs, SBIR and STTR, have been allowed to prioritize a few large companies over truly small businesses. Until now, these programs received blank checks to squander tax dollars meant to advance innovation in our national interest and have not protected taxpayer-funded technologies from foreign influence.
When confronted with this unacceptable status quo, I knew Congress could work together to find a solution for our truly small businesses. After working across the aisle and with our small businesses, we now have the necessary reforms to strengthen America's seed fund while unleashing small businesses to deliver for taxpayers and our warfighters.
Together, our bipartisan, bicameral legislation will ensure awardees safeguard tech against Chinese espionage, hold recipients accountable to actually producing cutting-edge technologies and capabilities--no more blank checks--require for the first time an annual limit on applications to prioritize truly small businesses over large companies who know how to game the system, establish the first of its kind strategic breakthrough awards, and, finally, provide taxpayers with transparency into who receives these awards.
These changes were necessary, and we are taking the time to absolutely get it right. And, tonight, I am proud the Senate is unanimously passing these long-overdue updates for innovators.
And at this time I would like to yield the floor to my ranking member on the Small Business Committee Senator Markey.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. President, I am so happy to come to the floor today to reopen the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs. These programs deliver more than $4 billion to thousands of innovative small businesses across our country every single year.
But for nearly 5 months, these programs have been shuttered. That never should have happened.
In September, I came to the Senate floor seeking unanimous consent to pass H.R. 5100, a bipartisan bill sponsored by the chairs and ranking members of the Small Business Committee and House Science and Technology Committee to temporarily extend these programs while negotiations continued. Unfortunately, my motion was blocked and the programs abruptly shut down.
As a result, the smallest SBIR and STTR companies were hurt. Important research and development was stalled, and jobs were lost.
While I am glad to have come to an agreement, I am disappointed at the suffering that was caused by the longest shutdown in the program's history.
But we did ultimately come to an agreement. That is what we bring to the floor here today.
More than 40 years ago, Congress created the SBIR Program to serve four purposes: one, stimulate economic innovation; two, use America's small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs; three, to foster and encourage participation by minority and disadvantaged individuals in innovation; and, four, to increase private sector commercialization from Federal research and development.
Ten years later, Congress created the STTR Program to promote collaborations between small businesses and research institutions.
And since the creation of the SBIR and STTR Programs, 33,000 American small businesses have won more than $77 billion in awards.
In my own home State of Massachusetts, more than $9 billion in SBIR and STTR funding has been won by more than 2,600 small businesses in Massachusetts. It has been the engine of growth out on our tech belt.
The SBIR, STTR Programs have been overwhelmingly successful in supporting innovative small businesses and their technologies. This is just great news here. Data shows that 60 percent of all awardees in the past 5 years are first-time winners. The SBIR Program has returned anywhere from $22 to $33 for every $1 spent by the program that is pushed into our economy. And through SBIR and STTR funding, small businesses have created cutting-edge lifesaving medical breakthroughs. In fact--this is an unbelievable number--one out of every eight FDA- approved drugs is linked to the SBIR and STTR Programs.
SBIR funding ultimately led to the creation of a drug to treat COVID- 19 infections, a medication that treats HIV infections, new treatments for Alzheimer's disease, a continuous glucose monitoring device for type 1 diabetics, and even the world's smallest heart pump--SBIR, STTR.
These programs have also led to the creation of technologies we take for granted, such as GPS, wireless communications systems, and even self-automated vacuum cleaners.
Simply put, the benefits of the SBIR and STTR Programs touch our lives far more than most people realize. It has unleashed a cornucopia of innovation that now is a part of every American family's lives, and we must keep this program funded and going.
The American people deserve to have access to the most innovative technologies. Our brave men and women who defend our freedom deserve to be equipped with the best available technology to keep themselves and all of us at home safe as Senator Ernst said. Our families and our friends who are battling illnesses deserve access to the most effective breakthrough treatments that innovation can offer.
For the Federal Government to continue investing in the most innovative technologies, SBIR and STTR funding must continue to be based purely on the strength of an idea, the best ideas our country has. That is the spirit of Darwinian paranoia-inducing competition, which is the heart of our system in our country.
So now, after 5 months of the programs' lapse, I am proud that the chair and I have negotiated a bipartisan agreement that does not automatically eliminate any small business from the program. Unlike previous proposals that would have automatically kicked out more than 50 successful small businesses across 20 States and severely curtailed hundreds of small businesses, this reauthorization would allow small businesses to continue innovating and creating groundbreaking technology for our country.
In an attempt to preserve quality proposals, this legislation requires each Agency with an SBIR and STTR Program to place a ceiling on the number of proposals that any small business can submit. The ceiling must be placed in one of three categories: one, a proposal limit per fiscal year; two, a proposal limit per solicitation; or, three, a proposal limit per topic.
This language provides Agencies the flexibility to administer these programs in a manner that best promotes innovation.
I recently met with Agency officials across the administration, including at the Pentagon, to ensure this language would not hinder the development of cutting-edge technologies to protect our country. I received assurances from the Pentagon--the largest awarding SBIR and STTR Agency--that the provision would be implemented on a per-topic basis and no company would be unfairly targeted. That means any small business can take their best shot at solving any problem the government--the NIH, the Defense Department--poses, and Agencies can secure the most innovative solutions.
I will continue to hold this administration accountable and fight to maintain the merit-based nature of these programs.
This reauthorization also includes several new improvements for the SBIR and STTR communities.
The bill retains the bipartisan 2022 foreign due diligence program, which requires Agencies to create a process to communicate with small businesses if they have been flagged for a foreign risk, and explicitly ends the blacklisting of companies. This transparency measure allows small businesses the opportunity to address any foreign risk they pose, likely unknown to them.
Two, the bill expands direct to phase II authority to the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This will fast-
Three, the bill preserves STTR Program funding for universities and research institutions.
Four, the bill directs Agencies to train contracting officers so that SBIR-STTR technologies can more effectively transition to commercialization.
Five, it allows any unused fiscal year 2026 funding to be carried over so that no SBIR or STTR funding is lost as a result of the program's lapse. Therefore, that funding can be used next year.
Finally, the bill reauthorizes the program until 2031, giving some stability, some reliability, some certainty to small businesses, which they need after a tumultuous 5 months.
Throughout this process, I knew any agreement had to have broad support, and that is why it was so important to get input from all stakeholders and receive assurances from the implementing Agencies. So while this legislation does not include every improvement--I would like to see or make programs permanent--it is a bipartisan product that resulted from a negotiation between the chair and myself as the ranking member.
The agreement now immediately reopens the programs so that we can once again stake our position on the world stage, empowering our most nimble companies in our country and our nimble allies around the world in the innovation ecosystem to partner with our brilliant small businesses to make the technological breakthroughs to put us at the cutting-edge of world leadership.
I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank you, Madam Chair, for our work together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3971, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
I know of no further debate on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the bill, the bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (S. 3971) was passed as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
