Legislative Session
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6644, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, Donald Trump's war with Iran grows more confusing and more contradictory by the day.
Yesterday, Trump suggested without any explanation that:
But, this morning, Pete Hegseth stood before the camera and announced that today will be the most intense day of strikes yet. He said that today's activity will involve the ``most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes.''
Well, which is it? Is the war ending, or are we on the brink of the worst fighting yet? How is it possible that Trump and his cronies can't make it 12 hours without contradicting themselves about this war?
It is incredible. I have never seen anything like it--a war-- serious--putting our soldiers in harm's way, costing billions, which should be spent on reducing our costs here overseas, and they don't even have a rationale. They keep contradicting each other and contradicting themselves.
Yesterday, President Trump was also asked whether the war is ``very complete,'' as he said, or is it just at the beginning, as Hegseth says. Well, do you care to guess the President's answer?
He said:
He said it is both.
He said:
Those words, by the way, sound a lot like regime change to me, which Trump and others have denied is their goal.
Donald Trump is clueless. He has no earthly clue what he is talking about. If something pops into his head, he says it. The next day, if something pops into his head that is contradictory, he says it even though the two things are totally at odds with each other. He doesn't care about the truth. He doesn't care about the soldiers he has put in harm's way. He doesn't care about the billions of dollars we are spending here while people are demanding that he spend them on lowering costs.
He can't articulate a plan for a vision because he has no plan or vision; and the statistics show that this is the least popular war, at the beginning of it, of any war this country has engaged in. Donald Trump doesn't even seem to know whether or not the country is at war. It is as if he wakes up in the morning and decides right then and there what the plan is going to be.
Donald Trump is risking the lives of our troops, the safety of the American people, and the stability of the world economy based on whims, based on feelings, based on contradictions. It is dangerous. It is incompetent. It is sort of like a second grader running this war.
Donald Trump is also a liar. He claims that Iranian Tomahawk missiles were responsible for the bombing of an all-girls' school that killed 170 people, including many children.
Iran doesn't have Tomahawk missiles, Donald Trump. The claim is beyond asinine.
Again, he says whatever pops into his head no matter what the truth is, and we all know he lies, but on something as horrible as this, it is appalling. No other leader in the administration--not even Pete Hegseth, who does whatever Trump wants--is claiming Iranian missiles did this. Trump is lying through his teeth.
So, this morning, I will be demanding a full, independent, and transparent investigation to get to the bottom of what happened at this school and why so many innocent civilians were tragically killed. There needs to be accountability.
Meanwhile, Trump's addiction to chaos is coming back to haunt the United States. The most formidable weapon Iran has right now is the Strait of Hormuz which, today, is effectively shut down; and now, thanks to Donald Trump's lack of foresight, Iran has a new, even more radical, even more hostile extreme leader, who will not be inclined to give up leverage over the strait. That is the one weapon that Iran has where it can be, unfortunately, successful.
Oil and gas prices are soaring across the world, including here in America. A barrel of Brent crude shot over $100 a barrel yesterday. That got Trump to say his contradictory things to try to bring the price down. It came down a little but not much. The average price of 1 gallon in the United States is $3.54. That is a 17-percent increase since the start of the war.
Yet Donald Trump says: If it rises, it rises. He says: It doesn't really affect us.
What a clueless thing to say. Has Donald Trump ever filled his own tank in his life? Has he any clue of what people go through when the price of gas goes up? Maybe billionaires like him don't have to worry, but for the rest of us, his war with Iran means more inflation in America--and not just in gasoline. Airline tickets will go up because of the price of fuel for the airlines. Food prices will go up because of the price of fertilizer. It will cut across the board, as we have seen before, when oil prices go up. Donald Trump is causing chaos in our economy.
Finally, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio owe the American people some answers. The administration needs to come before Congress and testify in public hearings, under oath, as to why our troops are fighting and dying in the Middle East.
This morning, I am joining with a group of my colleagues to demand just that, that they come before Congress and testify in public so they can see what the administration is up to and not up to, and I believe they will see the mass confusion as they engage in this war.
The story from the administration changes by the hour, so what we need are public hearings where the administration testifies under oath. When it comes to sending our servicemembers into harm's way, the American people need to understand why, but right now, they don't even have a ``why.'' That needs to change. We need testimony. We are demanding it today. We need accountability.
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 executive 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 majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, home ownership--that quintessential part of the American dream--has become increasingly unattainable for a lot of Americans and for younger Americans in particular.
The New York Times reports that home prices have surged roughly 50 percent since the pandemic, and mortgage rates have also risen. A December 2025 article from the New York Post notes:
Let me just repeat that.
With these kinds of numbers, it is no surprise that the typical age of first-time home buyers has reached an alltime high of age 40 or that in a recent New York Times poll 25 percent of registered voters listed housing as their biggest financial worry--the only category to get more than 20 percent.
That number was even worse for young people, with more than 50 percent of registered voters between the ages of 18 and 29 putting housing at the top of their financial worry list.
Well, this week, we are taking action. On the floor this week is the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a package of bills targeted at making housing more affordable and accessible for hard-working Americans. This bill isn't some new government program that will drive up costs to taxpayers while doing little or nothing to solve housing problems for everyday Americans. No. This bill offers real solutions that will unlock new home construction, drive down prices, and increase the supply of affordable homes.
One problem driving up the cost of housing is regulation. Regulations account for roughly 25 percent of the cost of constructing a new single-family dwelling, and, of course, these costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher selling prices for new homes. That is why the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act takes aim at unnecessary regulation by removing, streamlining, or updating regulations that act as a drag on the supply of affordable housing.
Along with removing regulatory barriers, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act focuses on unleashing private sector investment.
And this entire bill has been put together with an emphasis on allowing States and local communities to pursue the housing solutions that work for them.
Look at the great diversity of circumstances across rural, suburban, and urban communities, and it should be clear to everyone that one- size-fits-all mandates from Washington are not the solution. Instead, we need to empower States and localities to create the solutions that fit their particular communities.
There is a lot more in this bill, from support for veterans and rural communities to increased oversight and accountability for Federal housing programs. It is the product of good ideas from both parties and from both Houses of Congress. And it is no surprise that it is supported by everyone from the National League of Cities to the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders and the National Association of REALTORS.
The inflation crisis that defined the Biden administration is still weighing down a lot of American families. And since taking office last January, Republicans have been focused on making life easier for the American people. We prevented a massive tax hike and put more money in American's pockets with the working families tax cuts, took aim this January at high prices at the pharmacy counter, and now we are continuing our work on affordability with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act to open the door for affordable homes for hard-working Americans around the country. And we are going to continue to do everything we can to ease the burdens facing Americans and to make life better for the American people.
Mr. President, in just a moment, I am going to move to proceed to a piece of legislation that we have voted on a number of times already, and that is a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security.
This is now the 25th day of the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. It follows the Democrat shutdown last fall that went for 43 days of virtually the entire government. This applies to the Department of Homeland Security.
And so here we are, 25 days into another government shutdown instigated by Democrats because they want, I guess, changes made to the bill--although it is very hard to know what that is because, at this point, they refuse even to meet to talk about this.
Now, remember how this all began. The Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill was negotiated by both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and it passed out of the House of Representatives. So it comes over here to the Senate, a bill negotiated by Democrats in the Senate along with our Republican colleagues on our side and our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the White House. So we had an agreed-upon Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
And then what happened? Well, the Democrats decided they didn't like that bill anymore and decided to walk away from it, wanted to renegotiate it, after all that negotiation, which included, I might add, reforms that they had requested specifically as they apply to ICE, including body cameras--$20 million in there for body cameras-- deescalation training, additional oversight of ICE activities. A whole range of things were included in the base bill. It is the bill that we will be voting on later this week, again, unless there is some--unless they decide to actually come to the table and negotiate.
So it had all that input from Republicans, Democrats. Reforms requested by Democrats, passed out of the House, comes over here to be picked up and passed by the Senate. Senate Democrats say: Whoops, sorry. We are not for this anymore. We want to renegotiate.
So in that context, the White House and Senate Republicans have made good-faith efforts to submit proposals, additional ideas that the Democrats have put on their long wish list--which was about 15 items, some of which were not doable.
I mean, there are certain things on there--obviously, anytime you are trying to negotiate a deal, you are not going to get everything you want, right? Well, the Democrats had a long list of things, demands that they had wanted.
Republicans agreed to sit down. The White House, to their credit, has submitted now multiple efforts. The most recent one has not been responded to by the Senate Democrats.
But what makes this even more stark is you have now Agencies of government with employees who aren't going to get paid that perform important national security functions, cyber security. You think that is not a problem in a dangerous world? Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection--Border Patrol--they are not getting paid. TSA-- people are starting to travel. The airport, the lines are getting longer and longer and longer. Coast Guard, FEMA--FEMA, the Agency that responds to disasters around this country and has virtually run out of money--is also part of the bill that the Democrats are holding up.
Now, all that is bad enough and, frankly, shameful, if you think about it, given what is at stake for this country and for our national security, for our border security, for security in our communities, for disaster assistance, for our cyber security. Those are all things that aren't being funded because of the Democrat shutdown, which is bad in and of itself.
But what makes it even worse is they are now saying they don't even want to sit down and talk. Overtures were made yesterday to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Countless overtures have been made to the Democrat leadership, and they have basically said: Sorry, we don't want to talk.
So here we are, in the 25th day now of the government shutdown instigated by Democrats, after they had agreed to the very bill that they are now opposing, and are now opposing even sitting down and talking and negotiating on the things they say they want. Explain that one.
This is borderline obnoxious. This is indefensible; it is unjustifiable; and there are American people who are going to hurt as a result of this and those already who work at these Agencies--some 120,000 at 1 Agency alone--that aren't going to get paid, who perform critical security missions for this country to keep the American people safe.
I don't get it. I really don't. You want reforms? Our side, the White House have been willing to sit down, have given a number of the suggestions the Democrats had, in addition to the things that were in the original bill that they had negotiated and agreed to, which included reforms, like I said: $20 million for body cameras, deescalation training, oversight of ICE. There have been a number of additional things the White House has been willing to work with the Democrats on.
Tom Homan, who has been sort of in the lead in terms of what is going on out there as far as the enforcement issue is concerned, has offered up himself and been willing to talk about some of these requests that Democrats have, but, frankly, it is hard to get to a solution when you have one party that refuses to even sit down and talk. This is kind of a new low, really.
There are certain things the American people, I think, expect of their elected officials, one of which is to continue the basic functioning of the government: funding government Agencies, especially government Agencies that have critical national security missions.
What makes it even worse is, we have tried now on countless occasions to buy additional time to allow for negotiations to continue and to fund those Agencies, at least temporarily, until there is a permanent solution in place. We have now twice come down here on the floor and asked for a continuing resolution--a continuing resolution, meaning a funding mechanism that will allow these Agencies to function and these employees to get paid until such time as there actually is an agreement, and they have objected to that both times.
So we are going to try again. I am going to move to reconsider, and we will have another opportunity to vote on that proposal--the original proposal negotiated by House and Senate Democrats and Republicans, unless between now and the time we vote on this, they
There is no question about--you know, sometimes there is some ``Who is shutting down the government?'' My impression, in this case at least, is that the Democrats view this as a political issue and some sort of a political winner for them; otherwise, I can't explain why-- why they won't even sit down at the table and negotiate. It is not about politics. These are people's lives we are talking about. These are jobs. These are livelihoods. These are families.
And the mission, which is protecting the American people, keeping this country safe and secure--there is no higher one. You want to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, the Department that is tasked with defending the homeland? Those people aren't getting paid; those programs aren't getting funded; and those functions aren't being performed by the people that we ask to do that job.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026: Motion to Proceed
So, Mr. President, I am going to move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to substitute amendment No. 4308 to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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 executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I recognize the majority whip.
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 come to the floor today having just heard the minority leader talk about the fact that the Democrats have now filed five new War Powers Acts. Let's talk about that act and what it all means and what the Democrats are trying to do here.
The War Powers Act was enacted in 1973. It was first used by the Democrats. They first used it in 2018. So it sat for 45 years not being used, and then they used it against President Trump in his first term. There have been a total of 11 times that War Powers Resolutions have been offered, 8 of them were from Senator Kaine and Senator Sanders, all aimed at President Trump. We defeated one of these last week.
So now they have come out, and they have introduced five more, and one of the Senate Democrats' loudest complainers about everything said that it is basically symbolic. It is just symbolic what they are doing. These are show votes. We know the record of the Democrats. Do you know how many they introduced when Obama was President? Zero. Do you know how many they introduced when Biden was President? Zero. Because when a Democrat is President, Democrats forget about the War Powers Act-- ignore it completely.
So what is behind this charade of what the Democrats are doing? Well, let me quote Senator Tim Kaine the Senator from Virginia, who was the Vice Presidential nominee when Hillary Clinton ran for President, because it is all about trying to control the Senate floor time. This is what Senator Kaine said earlier this year. He said: Flood the Senate calendar with privileged motions where I am taking the floor time away from the Republican Party.
That is what this is all about. This isn't about advancing the needs of the Nation. This isn't about helping people. It is not about protecting Americans. None of that is true. It is about slowing down the Senate, throwing instruments into the gears, all to try to create theater--not to help protect our troops, not to help protect our people, not to make the world safer. Not at all. That is what this is all about. Their hand has been shown.
Mr. President, after 47 years of terrorism and torture and tyranny, what we are seeing today that is Iran's murderous leadership, they are dead. Their missiles, their launchers, their production sites--they have been severely damaged. Since the start of the operation, missile attacks from Iran have gone down by 90 percent. Over 50 of Iran's warships have been sunk. This is a sign of success on the part of our brave men and women in uniform.
For decades, American Presidents have pledged Iran would never acquire a nuclear weapon. Thank goodness we have a President now in the United States--President Donald J. Trump--who kept that promise. The President has acted boldly; he has acted decisively; and this is where so many others have hesitated.
What we see is Presidential courage and commitment to ensure that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons. What we have seen is American peace through strength.
Iran is a terrorist regime, and that is why, today, Iran is still terrorizing the world by trying to hold the world's energy supply hostage. This regime is attempting to choke off the shipping of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. In recent days, Iran has attacked oil and gas facilities across the region and has targeted oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Remember, 20 percent of the world's oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, I understand why families are worried about the price of energy. I agree absolutely with these families that I talked to this weekend in Wyoming. This weekend I met with a group of ranchers. We were at the Green River Valley Stockgrowers Association meeting. It was in Big Piney.
Now, when the price of gasoline goes up, it is a concern to everyone, and not just because of the cost of gas but also the cost of food because it costs more to produce the food when energy prices are higher. So we need to do everything we can to make sure we can get down the price of energy for people who are not only having to just drive but who produce in this Nation. And that is why Republicans are taking action now to lessen the pain.
Fortunately, America is once again energy-dominant. It wasn't that way in the past when American energy producers were being attacked by the Democrats.
Wyoming is America's energy breadbasket, and we are no longer utterly dependent on the Middle East for energy. We were in the past but not anymore. And that is because of Republican policies that unleashed American energy, and we have it in abundance.
America is now the No. 1 producer of oil in the world. We are setting record numbers for production--almost 14 million barrels of oil every day. That is more than double where we were 15 years ago.
Now, with respect to what is happening in the Persian Gulf, there is no question: Prices are going up, and Republicans are working to bring gas prices back down quickly. I believe we are in a strong position to do it because of the energy dominance agenda that we have.
At the same time, President Trump is determined to get energy flowing again in the Middle East. He has announced that the United States will provide risk insurance to oil tankers in the region. He also announced that the U.S. Navy will escort cargo ships if necessary.
You know, this is very similar to what President Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s. It worked then; it is going to work now.
The President's dynamic actions are going to get prices back down, and what he is doing, in the long run, is going to keep prices down. The real loser, of course, with what is happening in Iran right now is communist China.
China is one of Iran's biggest allies and enablers. It buys most of Iran's oil exports, and it buys them at a discount. It buys them at a discount because it is buying them on the black market. So China has been getting massive amounts of oil from Iran and paying a lower price as a result.
What does Iran do? Well, it turns and uses the money to buy Chinese air defense systems and other weapons, as well as fund terrorism. These are the very weapons that our military is destroying and continues to destroy today.
Operation Epic Fury is more than just a success against the world's No. 1 sponsor of terrorism. It is a significant setback for our No. 1 adversary in the world.
President Trump is completely rewriting the global energy map, and he is doing it in America's favor. Our Nation needs to continue to produce more energy. That means oil and natural gas. It means coal, and the President has been terrific in signing Executive orders on that. It means uranium for nuclear power.
We all know affordable, available, and reliable American energy is a source. It is a source of American strength, it is a source of American safety, and it is a source of American prosperity.
In the meantime, Congress should take action to lower gas prices for American families. I have introduced legislation to do that. It is called the Pay Less at the Pump Act. It does exactly that. This legislation repeals a harmful tax called the Superfund tax on crude oil.
Well, where did this tax come from? Well, the Democrats--$12 billion tax in their 2022 reckless tax-and-spending bill. Working families have been paying the price ever since. It is unfair. It is what the Democrats want to do. They always want to raise taxes.
My bill will lower prices at the pump and lead to more American energy production. It is certainly good for my home State of Wyoming. It is good for working families. It is good for our entire Nation.
Republicans promised to make America safer and more prosperous, and we are going to continue to do both of those things.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, it was October 11, 2002--24 years ago. There was a vote on this Senate floor. I was here. The vote was an important one in the history of this country and maybe one of the most important votes I ever cast as a Member of the Senate.
What was the question? The question before the Senate: Will we go to war? Are we ready to invade Iraq?
President George W. Bush had told us that we needed to do it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which could obliterate our allies and friends and eventually threaten the United States.
The vote took place at about midnight. The floor was full because of the importance of the vote. I remember it well. Twenty-three of us voted no--1 Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22 Democrats. Three of us who voted no that night are still here, 24 years later.
We invaded Iraq. What did we find? No weapons of mass destruction-- none. They searched long and hard, as the intelligence Agencies had told us they were there and were a threat to the United States.
We stayed in Iraq for year after year after year afterward, and 4,500 American lives were lost in that war of Iraq.
I remember going to visit Walter Reed Hospital and meeting the veterans who came back from Iraq. Most of them had lost a limb because of IEDs. There were terrible stories of what they had endured and some of them had scars from that war that they would never, ever live down.
There were many heroes, too, among our military. They did their duty. Their Commander in Chief said: We are going to invade Iraq, and they did.
One of those is my colleague in the U.S. Senate today, Tammy Duckworth, who was a member of the Illinois National Guard and was a helicopter pilot who was shot down over Iraq and suffered serious wounds and injuries as a result.
I don't take anything away from the soldiers, the airmen, the sailors, and those in the Coast Guard who did their duty. But the reason we had a vote is because we said the American people have to decide whether their sons and daughters will fight this war.
This isn't an idea that just comes to us new. This idea is written right here in a little book called the Constitution of the United States. In article I, the powers of Congress, section 8, the power to declare war is given to Congress.
Now the Senator who just spoke, from Wyoming, is a friend of mine, but I disagree with what he said. I do believe the American people have a constitutional right to make the decision as to whether their children will be called on to fight a war. That is not too much to ask.
We are now engaged in a war which, by definition, changes by the day. There have been at least seven different explanations by this White House as to why we are fighting this war. Yesterday, the President of the United States, in the chaotic manner which has become so typical of him, at one time said it is going to be a very short war in duration, and then, later in the day, he said: We will make it a longer war. We will fight to the finish.
We don't know where he is on so many things. He is an impulsive Commander in Chief. I can't think of a worse combination. That is the reality.
When Senators come to the floor and want to have an open debate about the war in Iran, which we are currently engaged in, I will vote yes every time. I believe the American people have an obligation to step up and make the decision publicly as to whether or not we are going to fight a war that is going to last for a long period of time.
The way they do that is through Senators and Members of the House. To say that any President can take us to war anytime is foolhearted. We learned that in Iraq. We shouldn't have to learn it again in Iran.
Mr. President, on a different topic completely, on Sunday, President Trump said he would not sign any legislation until Congress passes a bill that I believe threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans-- to take away their constitutional right to vote.
Amidst a war in the Middle East and DHS funding negotiations, the President of the United States now insists that the SAVE America Act should be our No. 1 priority--our only priority. He made it clear.
Don't let the name of this bill fool you. The SAVE America Act would not protect our elections. Instead, it would make it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote.
To start with, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in the United States. President Trump and his followers would have us believe that it is commonplace, and that is why he ``lost the election'' a few years ago.
Election officials are required to verify, now, under the law, all registered voters' citizenship status. The system works. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation--and you can look this up online-- from 2003 to 2023, 20 years--in 20 years, do you know how many non- American citizens they caught voting in 20 years? Twenty-four. There were 24 people who were ineligible for voting in a 20-year period of time--20 years, 24 cases.
The SAVE America Act would upend the past two decades of successfully secure elections with untested, dangerous limitations on voter registration.
Here is how it goes. You want to buy an airline ticket, and they ask you for identification. You pull out your driver's license, if you have one--simple. So why shouldn't we ask the same of voters? Well, there are a couple of elements you should know.
The SAVE America Act does not allow you to use your driver's license as identification. It doesn't allow you even if you have a REAL ID, which you are supposed to have on your driver's license.
So the most common form of identification for Americans is ineligible under this new law.
You have to prove where you were born. They will accept a couple-- three things. One is a passport. Do you have one? Half of Americans don't have a passport. They don't own one. I do, but half of Americans don't.
What would it cost for you to make sure you have a passport by the next election in November? It is a $165 fee. That is one of the ways that you can prove you are actually American, but it is not the only way.
There is another way. Your birth certificate--have you seen it lately? Do you have it in your home? Do you know where to find it?
And if you have a birth certificate which says your maiden name as a woman--it doesn't say your married name--it doesn't work. It is ineligible.
So this notion of proving you are an American citizen turns out to be a lot more complicated when you actually read the proposal the President is insisting on.
Suddenly, providing your driver's license, even if REAL ID compliant, will no longer be enough to register to vote; nor would military IDs be sufficient for servicemembers.
Men and women serving actively in the military, sworn to uphold the Constitution, when they go to vote, they show their military ID and are told by the election official, whoever it is: Sorry, that doesn't qualify. We need a passport or we need a birth certificate.
Under this legislation, election officials would accept a limited number of documents, and this could prevent millions of Americans from being eligible to vote in November.
Why would the President of the United States be pushing so hard for a bill which would make it more difficult to vote? Because he is worried about the outcomes of this election. He thinks he is going to lose. And he believes that more and more people who have limited access to the identification requirements don't own a passport, don't have a birth certificate, and are going to be ineligible to vote, and help his chances to win the election in November. It is that simple.
Tens of millions of married women that took their spouse's last name are going to have to spend the time and money to obtain an amended birth certificate, if your State allows you to have one.
Why are we making it so complicated?
As I said earlier of the incidents of fraud over the last 20 years, there are 24 cases of fraud in the United States of non-Americans trying to vote--24 times in 20 years and in the millions and millions of votes that have been cast.
Making America fill out more paperwork will not secure our elections. This bill only makes it harder for women, members of our military, and seniors to participate in the democratic process.
The President says he won't allow us to send any bill to him to be signed into law until we pass this one, denying the right to vote to millions of Americans in November. That is what the whole issue is about.
Mr. President, on a different issue, this week, the Senate is considering the Housing for the 21st Century Act, a measure intended to address the affordability crisis by boosting housing supplies and making homes more affordable for Americans.
I want to speak to three amendments I filed to that bill and the important protections they provide American taxpayers and consumers.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis spurred by lax lending standards and subprime mortgages that went belly-up, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Dodd-Frank placed guardrails on the financial sector to prevent such a crisis from happening again. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while promoting one industry over that almost exclusively.
Which industry is that? It is the cryptocurrency industry. This administration is playing with fire--dropping lawsuits, hollowing out enforcement, and curtailing investigations into bad actors, while cozying up to crypto donors. If this administration refuses to act, then it is on Congress to provide strong guardrails to protect consumers and curb corruption.
Cryptocurrency is a highly risky, volatile, unpredictable asset. Take the Bitcoin, the gold standard of crypto. It has fallen in value nearly 50 percent since setting a record-high last October.
And it is not just Bitcoin. The total value of the crypto market has dropped from nearly $4.2 trillion in October 2025 to $2.36 trillion today. All the gains from last year have been wiped out for investors in that cryptocurrency.
Crypto has developed a troubling reputation for fraud, including scams facilitated by crypto ATMs, which disproportionately target senior citizens. In 2025, last year alone, the FBI received more than 12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud that resulted in more than $333 million in losses.
How does it work? A senior citizen gets a telephone call and is told: You were supposed to show up for jury duty last month and you didn't show up. Did you know there is a warrant out for your arrest?
The senior citizen says: I didn't know anything about that.
Well, that is a fact, the warrant will be served on you, unless you pay your fine. I will tell you how you can do it and spare yourself the embarrassment. Go to the crypto machine and feed in $10,000, and it will all go away. The senior citizen worried that their family is going to learn that they missed their jury duty or whatever it might be, embarrassed at the prospect of discussing it with their kids just does that, goes to the crypto machine.
Does that happen very often? Mr. President, 12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud, $333 million in losses, seniors convinced by scammers to plug money into the crypto machines.
And the President has used crypto to enrich himself and his family. Fresh off returning to the Oval Office for a second term, Donald Trump launched a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit. President Trump issued a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit since he was reelected as President.
And his family's crypto firm World Liberty Financial has brought in approximately $1 billion in revenue, the family firm. President Trump's crypto dealings reportedly account for more than 20 percent of his net worth. In 1 year, President Trump and his family have increased the family fortune to the tune of $1.4 billion, primarily through crypto.
My first amendment would crack down on what some have called ``the getaway vehicle'' for criminals. I am talking about crypto ATMs. You might not know that they are there, but the next time you go to a grocery store and look at an ATM machine, look what is next to it; it is a crypto ATM machine so you can funnel money in and buy Bitcoins. I am talking about crypto ATMs that are all over America, 30,000 of them--30,000 of these machines. If you look at your gas station or your grocery store, you are going to see them. They are being used by criminals to cheat Americans, primarily senior citizens, out of their life savings.
I have spoken before about how scammers are targeting Americans, impersonating their banking institution that they can trust, and scamming them into putting their hard-earned money into these crypto ATMs.
Because of the untraceable and anonymous nature of crypto, once the victim deposits cash into a crypto ATM, sends it to the scammer's wallet, it is nearly impossible to recover.
My amendment would require crypto ATM operators to register with the Treasury Department and report their kiosk locations. It also would require
I have also filed an amendment that would prevent crypto companies from receiving a taxpayer-funded bailout. Imagine, these crypto operations don't pay deposit insurance like banks and savings and loans and others. And when it comes to a crisis like the one we had in 2008, that insurance becomes important to saving those institutions.
Currently, crypto is considering asking for that kind of protection without paying any insurance premiums. If and when the crypto crash occurs, American taxpayers should not be the ones on the hook for these crypto ventures that are owned by President Trump and his family.
Mr. President, 2 in 3 Americans oppose a government bailout of the crypto industry, while only 9 percent support one.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all the 80-20 issues; this is a 90-10 issue. There should never be a taxpayer bailout for crypto.
I have also raised serious concerns about crypto with the Trump administration exposing the retirement accounts of millions of America to crypto. You cannot discuss retirement security in the United States without mentioning Social Security.
While the Social Security trust funds can only invest in government bonds, I have filed an amendment to make it explicitly clear that the trust funds cannot currently and can never invest in crypto. Social Security ensures our seniors have food on their table and clothes on their backs. It is backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, the safest asset in the world, because of the full faith and credit of the United States backing it up.
If the trust funds were exposed to the volatility of the crypto market, the financial security, under Social Security, that our seniors depend on could be pulled out from under them, rising and falling with the swings of this risky asset.
Here is the bottom line: Do we want to expose the bedrock promise of Social Security to risky assets like crypto?
If your answer is no, I hope you will support my amendment. It is past time we put guardrails in place to stop fraud and corruption in the crypto industry.
When the GENIUS Act came up for a vote last year, I voted no because it gave Congress' blessing for President Trump and his family to further enrich themselves with very little protection for consumers. As Congress considers market structure legislation, I intend to submit these amendments to the bill to fully place meaningful guardrails in this industry.
The American consumer is not aware of what is going on with crypto; it is time for them to open their eyes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, yesterday, I rose to explain my opposition to the nomination of Joshua Rudd to be the Director of the National Security Agency and to lead Cyber Command. During his hearing, General Rudd failed to demonstrate a bare minimum understanding of the constitutional limits on NSA activities.
His responses to questions about privacy rights and transparency were deeply troubling. He wouldn't commit to the Agency's past policy of not purchasing and using very sensitive location data on Americans, and he wouldn't rule out secretly violating public policies and guardrails on NSA activities.
While I admire the nominee's many years of military service, he does not have a background in national signals intelligence activities or cyber operations that would qualify him for this position.
Now, he is not the first unqualified nominee. In fact, there are currently no qualified, Senate-confirmed officials in charge of cyber security.
The country faces serious cyber security threats. This is truly a five-alarm fire. Yet the President keeps nominating officials to key cyber security roles who have less knowledge of the topic than an undergraduate computer science major.
General Rudd is the wrong person for the job, and I oppose his nomination. But if the Senate confirms General Rudd despite his lack of familiarity with basic constitutional principles, it is all the more essential--truly important--that the Senate pass legislation to protect against surveillance abuses.
So this morning, I am going to take just a few minutes to discuss why the government's surveillance activities are dangerously broad and how Congress can protect the privacy of Americans and protect the security of our country.
I intend this morning to talk about three issues that are going to come before Senators in the next 3 weeks. Let me repeat that. These three issues will be before Senators very shortly. They are section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, surveillance of Americans by ICE, and the dangerous ways that artificial intelligence can be used to surveil American citizens.
As most of my colleagues know, there is a section in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--it is section 702--that expires in just a few weeks. Congress is going to soon debate its reauthorization.
I have been doing this for a while, and I know how it usually plays out. Opponents of reforming section 702 don't want a real debate where Members can decide for themselves which reform amendments to support. So what happens is there is an inadequate bill that is brought up, magically shows up a few days before the authorization expires, and Members are told: Holy Toledo, there is just no time to do anything except pass that bill. And it is always said that if the Senators vote for any amendments, the program dies, and terrible things that we don't want to have happen will all happen, and it will be the Senators' fault.
So this morning, I want to make sure that people know you shouldn't buy into this. It is a disservice to our constituents and to the constitutional responsibilities we all have. The Senate can have a debate. The Senate can consider amendments on the merit.
One more point I will return to later: Senators should not accept secret interpretations of the legislation they vote on.
The country needs to have an open debate about the surveillance authorities that directly affect the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans, and it is a debate that shouldn't exclude the American people.
So, first, let's lay some groundwork for this discussion. This important law is section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It authorizes a warrantless surveillance program. The FISA Court approves the overall program, but it doesn't review the individual targets. Picking targets is up to the government. Targets do not have to be suspected terrorists or spies; anyone the government believes possesses foreign intelligence information is fair game.
The targets are supposed to be foreigners, but there are lots of them. The most recent public data was for 2024 when there were more than 291,000 targets, which is more than triple what it was 10 years before.
Some of these targets are going to be talking to Americans, and the communications of Americans are going to be collected by the government. In many cases, these will be law-abiding Americans having perfectly legitimate conversations. Journalists, foreign aid workers, people with families overseas all could have their communications swept up in the surveillance just because they were talking to somebody outside the country.
We don't know exactly how many Americans' communications are swept up by what the government calls incidental collection. That is because the government refuses to tell us. But we know it is large; we know it is increasing. So the question Congress needs to consider is how to target foreign threats while protecting the rights of Americans.
Ben Franklin said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security are going to lose both and deserve neither. But smart policies, which are something I feel particularly strong about, give you both. They are not mutually exclusive. Liberty and security--you can have both, but you need smart policies.
With that principle in mind, the best way to protect the rights of Americans
For years, there has been jaw-dropping abuse of these searches. That has been done especially by the FBI. Some internal administrative changes were made as a result. Two years ago, when Congress last reauthorized 702, opponents of reform made a big deal about those changes. But let me give you an example of how the changes from the 2024 reauthorization bill fell short.
There is a category of searches that is considered especially sensitive. It includes searches for elected officials, Presidential appointees, Governors, political candidates, American political organizations and the people who lead them, as well as media organizations and journalists. All are involved in this area.
So what did the last reauthorization bill do to ensure that the government wasn't abusing its authority by combing through all those communications to look for journalists and Governors and Senators? The so-called big reform was to require the approval of the Deputy FBI Director for those sensitive searches.
Until 2 months ago, the Deputy FBI Director was Mr. Dan Bongino. As most of my colleagues know, he is a longtime conspiracy theorist who has frequently called for specious investigations of political opponents. This is the man whom the President and the U.S. Senate put in charge of these very sensitive searches.
His replacement is Deputy Director Andrew Bailey, who is another highly partisan election denier who recently directed a raid on the Georgia election office to justify the conspiracy theories of the Trump administration.
I don't know about my colleagues, but their so-called reform doesn't make me feel better. I think we are all going to feel worse. But it is even worse than it appears. The FBI has refused to even keep track of all the sensitive searches the Deputy Director considered. The inspector general urged the FBI to just put this information into an easy spreadsheet, and they refused to do that. That is exactly how much the FBI does not want oversight.
There are a lot of other reforms that are desperately needed to 702. Later this week, I will be introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to enact critical reforms to government surveillance-- including 702. I am not going through all of the reforms today, but this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. And I especially want to point to a new provision of 702 that urgently needs to be repealed.
Two years ago, during the last reauthorization debacle, something really bad happened. Over in the House, existing surveillance law was changed so that the government could force anybody with access to communications to secretly collect those communications for the government. As I pointed out at the time, that could mean anybody installing or repairing a cable box or anybody who was responsible for a Wi-Fi router. It was a jaw-dropping expansion of authorities that could end up forcing countless ordinary Americans to secretly help the government spy on their fellow citizens.
When the provision was introduced, the Biden administration knew it had a problem. This was such a dramatic and disturbing expansion of section 702 that the Biden Justice Department had to promise it would only use these authorities in certain narrow situations.
My colleague from Virginia, who is my seatmate on the committee, acknowledged that the law as written was badly flawed, and he vowed, to his credit, to fix this overbroad provision at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, it has not been fixed yet.
The Biden administration refused to tell the public when it would use this dangerous, incredibly broad provision. The Trump administration certainly isn't providing any details about it. So Congress isn't having a real, informed debate about this staggering provision and whether this vast and dangerous expansion of surveillance is justified.
I can tell you my view. This expansion of the government's authority is not justified, and even if it were narrowed to the circumstances that the Biden administration described in secret, I believe it is time to get rid of the provision.
But here is the other thing: Whatever secret promise the Biden administration made about using these unchecked authorities with restraint, the current administration isn't going to feel bound by that. So whatever the previous administration intended to accomplish with the provision, there is absolutely nothing preventing the current administration from conscripting the cable guy, tech support men and women, and others to secretly spy on Americans.
The past 15 years have shown that unless Congress has an open debate about surveillance, the laws that are passed cannot be assumed to have the support of the American people. That is fundamentally wrong. Right now, the government is relying on secret law with regard to section 702 of FISA.
I already mentioned that the provision that was stuck into the last reauthorization bill could allow the government to force all sorts of people to spy on their neighbors. I have explained the details of how the Biden administration chose to interpret it and how the Trump administration is going to interpret it and that it is all a big secret. Americans have the right to be confused and angry that this is how the government and Congress choose to do business.
There is another example of secret law related to section 702, and it affects the privacy rights of the American people. For years, I have asked various administrations to declassify it. Thus far, they have all refused, although I await a response from DNI Gabbard. I strongly believe that this matter should be declassified and that Congress needs to debate it openly before 702 is reauthorized. The fact is, when it is eventually declassified, the American people are going to be stunned that it took so long and that Congress had been debating this authority with insufficient information.
Now I want to briefly explain why our coalition is attaching all of these other reforms to a section 702 bill. The reason is that no matter how concerned the public is about abusive surveillance, trying to address this problem with a piecemeal approach--pushing one specific reform after another--would be impossible. So a comprehensive approach that attaches these reforms to legislation reauthorizing 702 is the most effective way to deal with the problems.
So let me stress, if you are concerned about ICE and CBP and how they are collecting information on Americans--even as they terrorize our towns and cities--supporting our surveillance reform legislation is the one way you can do something specific about it now.
For example, our bipartisan reform bill takes on an issue I have been working on for years. It is the government's purchase of private information on the American people from one of the sleaziest industries in America, which is the one run by the data brokers. Both ICE and CBP have purchased and used Americans' location data--highly sensitive information--that can reveal what medical clinics you go to, what protests you are involved with, and the friends and family you see.
The Agencies have made various arguments to justify collecting these records, including the false assertion that all Americans have actually consented to location data being collected.
I want to emphasize that the government, in these cases, bought the records of millions of Americans' movements without any warrant or court oversight whatsoever. If the FBI wants to wiretap just one person's phone or to obtain a week's worth of location information about where that person went from a phone company, the Agency would need to go to a judge and justify the surveillance. That is what the Constitution requires. But if the government wants to buy that very same location data about millions of Americans, the government maintains that it doesn't need anything except a credit card.
In 2023, it was forced to shut down a program to purchase the location data of our people due to scrutiny that had been done by the inspector general and Congress, but last year, there were
Location data is not the only sensitive information on Americans that the government is purchasing without a warrant. Web browsing information--what websites Americans visit--is obviously very private. Just imagine the government looking over your shoulder all the time when you are using your phone. It is almost equivalent to spying on your thoughts. That is what happens when the government gets together with these sleazy data brokers. And it is not just ICE; the Pentagon, the IRS, Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, the Secret Service-- all of them have purchased Americans' location information or web browsing information.
The government's purchase of all of this private information ought to be enough, but I want to wrap up by talking about how artificial intelligence could be used on these records.
Artificial intelligence tools are designed to comb through enormous datasets, find patterns, and identify behaviors of interest to the government. A few years ago, Americans may have believed that their personal information would be overlooked in an ocean of data. Now we know AI can be looking at everybody.
I have been warning for nearly a decade that data available for purchase from companies was just as sensitive as information the government collects directly. Creating AI profiles of Americans based on that data represents a chilling expansion of mass surveillance that must not be allowed.
As my colleagues are aware, the Trump administration decided to single out one company over the weekend for punishment because the company didn't want its artificial intelligence tool used for the mass surveillance of Americans. The company's CEO said that if the government's purchase of Americans' locations, web browsing, and other sensitive data is currently legal, it is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI.
That in a nutshell is the problem our bipartisan legislation will fix--update the law to current realities and stop the government from buying data on Americans from sleazy data brokers. It has to be addressed in a section 702 reauthorization bill which Congress will actually consider, because if legislators don't seize this opportunity, technology will just get further and further ahead of the law, and Americans will rightly have little faith that Congress is interested in protecting their privacy.
Now, with this thought, I am going to close. We are considering a nominee to be the Director of the NSA who refused to answer whether the government needs a warrant to spy on people in the United States. He would not commit to maintaining the NSA's policy of not purchasing location data without a warrant. He wouldn't commit to telling the American people if the NSA violates the policies and guardrails of successive administrations that were made public. This nominee wouldn't even promise to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about these matters.
I am urging my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Regardless, I am urging that the issues related to privacy and the rule of law raised by this nomination are considered in comprehensive surveillance reform legislation.
I am part of a bipartisan coalition, and our bipartisan, bicameral bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, is going to be introduced shortly. I would be glad to talk to colleagues, regardless of their party and philosophy, about it, and I urge them to support the legislation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Legislative Session: Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on amendment No. 4308, offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Scott, to H.R. 6644, a bill to increase the supply of housing in America and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 9, and one Senator responded ``present.''
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to commit falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, with the change of our clocks in recent days, the Sun seems to shine later in the day and days are getting longer. We are even starting to feel signs of spring in the air here in Washington, DC. But along with the longer days and the budding flowers, something else is rapidly approaching that Americans find far less palatable, and that, of course, is tax season.
Americans have long had a distaste for taxes in this country, going back to the Boston Tea Party--a protest over seemingly minor taxes imposed by the British Empire that helped spark the American Revolution. While we may not find ourselves clamoring for a revolution on April 15, it remains, nevertheless, a hapless ritual of forking over a good percentage of our hard-earned wages to the Federal Government-- something none of us looks forward to.
Fortunately for the American people, Senate Republicans have delivered a series of important victories through the Working Families Tax Cut Act that will set them up for a far less painful tax season than they would have experienced if the Democrats had been in charge. In fact, our Democratic colleagues uniformly voted against any of these tax cuts.
With the 2017 Trump tax cuts set to expire, Americans would have experienced the largest increase in history if it weren't for this new legislation--and again, our Democratic colleagues were OK with that. We saved the average Texas family more than $3,000, and we prevented 62 percent of Americans from seeing a tax increase. Small business owners alone would have seen their Federal tax rates increase by nearly 50 percent, and American households would have faced a more than $4 trillion tax hike. Democrats, as I said, were OK with that.
By now, at least most of my colleagues have become familiar with some of these top-line numbers, but today, I want to highlight a few provisions that have seen a little less daylight even though they will serve as a boon to working families all across our Nation.
As we all know, 56 percent of American voters have said that affordability is their top concern. I am actually surprised it is that low, but 56 is no small number. Parents of small children in particular are feeling the affordability crunch even more than their childless peers as they try to stretch their paychecks to meet the increasing costs of housing, groceries, and childcare each month.
While there is no silver bullet that can magically make the cost of raising a family go away, Republicans have delivered provisions through the Working Families Tax Cut Act that will attempt to lessen that burden. For example, back in 2017, Republicans doubled the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. In 2025, that was scheduled to go back to $1,000, but Senate Republicans built on their prior success and permanently increased the child tax credit to $2,200 per child. We ensured that this was not via temporary provision, and we provided that it would not be eaten up by inflation by making sure that it was permanent and tied to inflation so that the child tax credit can keep pace with the increasing costs of raising a child over time. Parents who are married and filing jointly can earn up to $400,000 and still be able to claim this credit.
In addition to expanding the child tax credit, Republicans took steps to alleviate what is perhaps one of the most commonly cited concerns that parents face, and that is the increasing cost of childcare.
Some families are spending as much as $15,000 or more per year for each child in full-time childcare--higher than the annual median cost of rent in the United States, with even higher costs for the very young. This marks a more than 50-percent increase over the past decade--far outpacing inflammation.
These skyrocketing costs leave many families with two working parents in a very difficult dilemma: They can either eat this cost or choose to have one or the other parent give up their income entirely in order to provide full-time childcare. This choice can bring with it a great deal of mixed emotions, with the tradeoffs involved being much more complex than simply the dollars and cents on either side of the ledger. And this isn't to mention the situation of single parents, who often have even fewer options on the table.
Once again, there is no single legislative fix to this dilemma, but Republicans have taken important steps toward addressing the struggles that working families face in the Working Families Tax Cut Act by enhancing the paid family and medical leave credit and the employer- provided childcare credit.
The paid family and medical leave credit is a general business credit that is now offered to employers who provide paid family and medical leave to qualifying employees. That makes it a lot easier for these businesses--often small businesses--to offer this childcare support for their employees. Our 2025 legislation strengthened this credit, broadened the eligibility to make it more widely available, and made it permanent.
This provision will reward businesses that offer these valuable benefits to their employees, allowing mothers to recover from childbirth and allowing both mothers and fathers the time they want to bond with their newborns in the first important months of their lives.
We also built on these successes by bolstering the employer-provided child tax credit. This credit rewards businesses that provide childcare to their employees, whether by constructing an onsite daycare center or by assisting employees with subsidies or other options that help them afford childcare.
By incentivizing onsite childcare options, which can make the dropoffs and pickups less logistically challenging, and offsetting the high costs, this tax credit is another step toward a less stressful experience of parenting in America--and if there is anybody who needs a little less stress, it is parents.
But this isn't the end of the pro-family provisions in the Working Families Tax Cut Act. We also bolstered the adoption tax credit by making it partially refundable--up to $5,000--in order to support those who have decided to build their families through the heroic path of adoption. We increased the dependent care assistance exclusion--up to $7,500 from $5,000--and we increased the child and dependent care tax credit, which will help millions of families offset the cost of childcare by nearly $1,000, on average.
There is no doubt that raising a family in today's world is a rewarding but challenging experience, but thanks to the historic inflation that the Biden administration imposed on the American people, this already daunting journey became much harder. While, again, we don't have a silver bullet or a magic wand that can make all of these rising costs go away overnight, I hope that the pro-family reforms that we champion in the Working Families Tax Cut Act can make this journey easier on the millions of parents around the country.
So while none of us are looking forward to filing our income tax returns come April 15, I hope that working parents will see a little bit of well-deserved relief in their pocketbooks as a result of these provisions that Republicans provided in the Working Families Tax Cut Act and which President Trump signed into law.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Housing for the 21st Century Act
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, before I go to my topics, I want to recognize one of my colleagues, Mr. Connor Domingue. He is sitting to my right, your left.
Connor has been one of my colleagues for a while. I rely on him a lot, including for counseling with respect to healthcare. Connor is a graduate of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.
He is leaving me. I hate to see him go. I am happy for him--sad for me, happy for him. He is going back home to Louisiana to take a job in Louisiana State government. And I asked him to come down today to just thank him for giving so much to his country--Connor.
Mr. President, I want to talk about two rather diverse topics, coffee and our friends in the United Kingdom.
About 90 percent of my personal philosophy is: Don't hurt someone unless they are trying to hurt you. Don't take other people's stuff. And leave me alone.
I believe in free will. I believe God gave us all free will. With that free will goes responsibility.
I don't need government to tell me how to live my life. That doesn't mean I don't support reasonable rules and regulations and laws. But I don't need government to micromanage my life. That is what I mean when I say: ``Leave me alone.''
Earlier this month--it might have been the last part of last month--I noticed that Secretary Kennedy started talking about coffee. Particularly, he mentioned Starbucks coffee.
Now, I voted for Secretary Kennedy to be the President's choice. I like Secretary Kennedy. I don't agree with everything that Secretary Kennedy has said and done. We have some differences. I use a toilet seat to sit on. I won't go any further on that.
But one of the things I support Secretary Kennedy on is trying to make the American people more cognizant about what they are eating, not to tell them what they can eat and drink but to make them aware. And so I heard Bobby talking about Starbucks coffee--pretty popular. I am paraphrasing what he said, but he commented on how bad it is for you.
So I scratched my head and said: You know, I am going to look into this. So I did. This is a cup of Starbucks coffee. I know that doesn't give you any frame of reference, but I checked--the most popular Starbucks coffee drink is a caramel macchiato--caramel macchiato. Now, I don't know what that is. I haven't had it. I generally don't drink coffee that takes 10 or more words to order. But I am told that Starbucks' most popular drink is the caramel macchiato. It will cost you, at Union Station--here is a macchiato cup from Starbucks. I am told it will cost you $6.88 to buy a large caramel macchiato at Union Station.
Now, again, I am not telling people what to drink or how to spend their money, but I will tell you if you want to come by my office, you can get coffee for free. It won't be a caramel macchiato, but it is pretty dang good coffee.
But be that as it may, I said: You know, I have got to look into what is in a caramel macchiato. Here is what is in a caramel macchiato: milk, brewed espresso, vanilla syrup--I didn't know what vanilla syrup was. I found out that vanilla syrup is sugar, water, natural flavors, potassium sorbate, and citric acid. Also in a caramel macchiato is caramel sauce. Makes sense. That is why they call it a caramel macchiato. Caramel sauce is sugar, corn syrup, butter, cream, milk, and salt.
Also in a caramel macchiato is water, heavy cream, nonfat dry milk, natural flavors, salt, mono and diglycerides--I probably mispronounced that--soy lecithin--I probably mispronounced that too, but I don't know what the hell it is anyway--and sulfites.
Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but in a caramel macchiato, there are 310 calories; 80 of those calories come from fat. The total fat in a caramel macchiato is 9 grams. Saturated fat is 6 grams; cholesterol, 35 milligrams; sodium, 190 milligrams--whoa, Nellie--total carbohydrates, 44 grams; protein, 13 grams; and caffeine, 150 milligrams.
Of the total of 44 grams of carbohydrates--the sugar got my attention--42 grams of that is sugar. That is about 85 percent of your recommended daily sugar intake. So one of these, you have got 85 percent of the amount of sugar that you are supposed to take in for the day. Fat intake, one of these provides you with 30 percent of your recommended daily saturated fat intake and 12 percent of your recommended daily cholesterol intake.
Again, I am not criticizing anybody--well, there goes the caramel macchiato. Grab it for me there.
I am not telling anybody what to do or not to do. I am just pointing out the facts. A caramel macchiato has as much sugar as 12 Chips Ahoy cookies. A caramel macchiato has as much sugar as four Krispy Kreme glazed doughnuts. A caramel macchiato--the most popular drink at Starbucks--has as much sugar as two servings of Breyers cookies and cream ice cream. It has as much sugar as one Chick-fil-A brownie. And it has about as much sugar as about 50 percent of a medium McDonald's chocolate milkshake. You can burn off the calories, though, if you run 3 miles to burn off the calories.
So, again, I am not here to tell people what they should drink or not drink or eat or not drink, but I wanted the American people, to the extent that they are listening and that they care to understand, why I think Secretary Kennedy made the point that he made about coffee that takes 10 or more words to order--and specifically Starbucks coffee.
Now, the second thing I want to talk about, our friends in the United Kingdom--and they are our friends. I love the people of the United Kingdom. I do. I went to school there for a while. They are wonderful people. They deserve better than the government that they are being given right now. I don't mean any disrespect in saying this, but I am not a big fan of the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Starmer. The United Kingdom was founded by geniuses, but at the moment, it is being run by idiots.
We entered Iran because we had no choice. I don't want America to be the world's policemen; I do not. But on occasion, some of the bad guys in the world decide they are going to be the world's policemen, and it requires us to intervene, and that is why we are in Iran--if I said Iraq, I made a mistake--that is why we are in Iran.
The President did not enter Iran to start a war. He entered Iran to prevent a war. Let me tell you why I say that. Our intelligence clearly showed--categorically, unequivocally--that Iran had restarted its nuclear warhead program. And let me say, I love the people of Iran too. I mean that. I don't think much of their political leadership. The good people of Iran basically are being governed--before and, now, with the new Supreme Leader--by Jack Nicholson in The Shining. They are stone- cold crazy.
Their religion teaches them--their interpretation of their religion tells them that they have to kill people who don't interpret their religion the same way that they do, and when your religion tells you to kill somebody, as far as I am concerned, it is time to get a new religion. But be that as it may, our intelligence clearly showed that Iran had restarted its nuclear weapons program; and its plan was to produce so many ballistic missiles and, to some extent, cruise missiles and drones. In fact, they were producing between 200 and 600 ballistic missiles a month.
Our intelligence showed that their plan was to stockpile so many missiles and so many drones that if we reentered--or anyone reentered Iran to stop their new efforts to obtain a nuclear warhead, that they would annihilate the entire Middle East--the entire Middle East--and other countries they could reach, like Turkey. That is a fact. That is what the intelligence showed.
So the President, wanting to avoid a future war, said: I have got to intervene now. And here is our mission--I don't care what you have heard; this is what our mission is in Iran. We want to destroy their Navy. We want to destroy Iran's Air Force. We want to destroy Iran's missile production facilities. We want to destroy Iran's drone production facilities. We want to destroy or make them use as many of their missiles as they have--and their drones--and we want to attack and destroy the
Now, there has been a lot of speculation by some of my Democratic friends that, well, the President is going to put boots on the ground. I don't believe that. I don't believe that. If the President puts boots on the ground, the thud you hear will be me face-planting from surprise. I will faint. How long will this take? I think a few more weeks, and then we will be out.
Was our intelligence right? You had better believe it was. What is the very first thing that the Iranian leadership did? They started attacking all of the other countries in the Middle East. They even fired a missile at Turkey. They even fired a missile at the United Kingdom, one of its bases in Cyprus.
Now, I give you this background so you will know why the President did what he did. Everything I just told you, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom knew. He had the same intelligence we had. When it came time for us to intervene, he said: You cannot use any United Kingdom air force bases or military bases--none, zero, nada. He specifically said you can't use Diego Garcia, the joint United States-United Kingdom military base in the Indian Ocean that Keir Starmer is trying to give away to Mauritius. You have heard me talk about it on the Senate floor. And Mauritius, of course, will welcome the Chinese.
Now, once the war started going the way of people who believe in freedom, Prime Minister Starmer changed his mind. Now, he says: You can use our bases.
Thank you very much. It is a little late. We don't need you.
He also is trying to give President Trump advice about how to conduct war. That is a little bit like seeking the advice of a nun about sex. So Keir Starmer is the last person you would want to go to, to advise you about how to have a military confrontation. He is the kind of guy that, if you are in the middle of a bar fight, he will want to stop and quote Socrates. That is what this is, a bar fight.
And so I decided after watching this circus without a tent, this goat rodeo that the Prime Minister has thrust upon the world, I said, you know, let me take a look at what the Prime Minister's plans are in terms of defense because, if you remember about a year ago January, the Prime Minister produced this report--that is all it was, was a report-- but he called it a root-and-branch strategic defense review, and its purpose was to settle the United Kingdom's military path for years to come.
It was ready last--not this past January, but the January before. He didn't produce it until this past summer.
The Prime Minister makes a big deal in his report. He says: We have changed our ways. We have been born again. We are now going to spend 2.6 of our GDP on defense by 2027.
I am thinking: Good for you. It is about time.
He said: This is going to be in line with all of our NATO allies--2.6 of our GDP on defense by 2027.
He said: By God, by 2035, we are going to be spending 3.5 percent.
I am thinking: Man, that is great.
And then I read the report. The cash is backloaded. He didn't bother to tell the people of the United Kingdom or NATO or the President. The cash is backloaded. He is not going to even start spending the money-- the real money--until the 2030s. That is 4 years from now. He is going to make it somebody else's problem. I can assure you the Prime Minister will not be the Prime Minister in 2030 and beyond. Talk about sleight of hand.
If you run the numbers, there is a great deal of inflation in defense production because so many countries now are starting to actually spend more money on defense--not promising to do so by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. So you have to factor in inflation.
Under the Prime Minister's plan to not even start spending the real money until 2030, the defense inflation is going to eat away at the amount of money that he has promised to spend. If you factor in reasonable defense production, the numbers come out to him actually spending 24 billion--$32 billion--less than he promised. Do you think he couldn't figure that out? His numbers guys know all about it. This is nothing but sleight of hand. In fact, one commentator in the United Kingdom has said it is even--it is worse. According to his computations, there is going to be a 28 billion gap over 4 years--over 4 years.
Now, the United Kingdom has also promised to work with us and Australia on building an Australian--a new attack submarine. Is the Prime Minister going to wait until 2030 to do that? We can't wait until 2030.
Now, look, these are the facts: The United Kingdom has about 140,000 soldiers, members of the military. And God bless every one of them. God bless every one of them. They are down 20 percent since 2012--and declining. To give you a frame of reference, the United States has 2.1 million members of the military. They have 140,000. It is 2.8 million if you include civilian support staff for our military.
So when we first heard that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was going to start spending 2.6 percent, up to 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, of course we got excited. It is about time that the people in Europe embrace adulthood and stop sending us the bill for their defense. So we were excited. I was excited. I was ready to come down here and congratulate the Prime Minister, and then I read the fine print. Sleight of hand. It is all sleight of hand.
Now, if I am wrong, I hope the Prime Minister will respond, but if I am right, shame on him. Shame on him for looking the good people of the United Kingdom in the eye and the good people of the world in the eye and lying and saying that the United Kingdom would do its part when the Prime Minister has no intention whatsoever.
The final point I will make--you have heard me: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom wants to give away a military base, a joint military base that we own with the United Kingdom called Diego Garcia. It is in the middle of the Indian Ocean. The Prime Minister has decided he has to give it to Mauritius.
Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands, one of which houses our military base. Mauritius has no connection to the Islands. But the United Nations told the Prime Minister that he should be ashamed and that the good people of the United Kingdom should be ashamed because of the United Kingdom's colonial past.
So Mr. Starmer, woke that he is, said: We have got to give it away, we want to give it away to Mauritius--who is just like this with China. You might as well just hand the keys to China.
To do that, Mr. Starmer has to get President Trump's permission, and I have been round and round with the President. I don't know how many times I have been on this floor talking about: Please stop it, Mr. President.
One day--I am not criticizing the President because he has to listen to his advisers. I get that. First, he was against it. Then, he was for it. Then, he was against it. Then, he was for it.
His last comment--I think he has figured Mr. Starmer, the Prime Minister, out. He said: No way, no how.
He said: No sir, no, ma'am, no way. I am not giving you permission.
Please stick, Mr. President. Please don't do it.
For us to give away that military base, which will end up in the hands of China, for us to give away one of the few places in the Indian Ocean that we can actually refuel our submarines, for us to give away what--this isn't hyperbole. It is one of the most important military bases in defense of the American people. For us to give it away would be unconscionable.
Tell Mr. Starmer no, Mr. President.
