Do you allow analytics?

We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.

Referandom is here: Tinder for Congress 🔥

Support Referandom

April 2026 →

SenateFloor Session

April 28, 2026

Speeches 31Members 11Roll Calls 1

Congressional Record ↗Watch on C-SPAN ↗

Senate Floor VideoThe Senate does not publish its floor video for embedding. C-SPAN keeps the whole day.Watch on C-SPAN ↗

Bills Debated

01Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Within or Against the Republic of Cuba That Have Not Been Authorized by Congress: Motion to Discharge
S.J.Res. 124 →6 members spoke
02Protecting Americans From Russian Litigation Act of 2025
S. 2934 →1 member spoke
03Protect Infant Formula From Contamination Act
S. 272 →1 member spoke
04Maverick Act
S. 4161 →1 member spoke
05Second Chance Month
S.Res. 668 →1 member spoke
06Introductory Statement on S. 4410
S. 4410 →1 member spoke
07Introductory Statement on S. 4417
S. 4417 →1 member spoke

Roll Calls

S.J.Res. 124Vote to See ResultA joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress.On the Point of Order S.J.Res. 124

Speeches and Other Business

01Remembering Henry A. Wallace
2 members spoke
02Welcoming King Charles and Queen Camilla of England
1 member spoke
03National Apprenticeship Week
2 members spoke
04Trump Administration
1 member spoke
05Cuba
1 member spoke
06Joint Meeting of Congress
2 members spoke
07Department of Homeland Security
1 member spoke
08Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
2 members spoke
09Vote on Motion (Executive Session)
2 members spoke

Routine Business (33)

01Senate
02Unanimous Consent Agreement
1 member spoke
03Unanimous Consent Agreement: S. 4344
S. 4344 →2 members spoke
04Executive Calendar: Motion to Proceed (Executive Session)
S.Res. 690 →1 member spoke
05En Bloc Nominations (Executive Session)
06Cloture Motion (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
07Legislative Session
1 member spoke
08Joint Meeting of the Two Houses: Address by His Majesty King Charles III
09Recess Until 4 P.M.
1 member spoke
10Legislative Session: Continued
6 members spoke
11Resolutions Submitted Today
S.Res. 692 →1 member spoke
12Morning Business
1 member spoke
13Recognizing Bannock County Veterans Memorial Building
14Tribute to Donald Wayne Engel
15Recognizing Toppling Goliath Brewing Co.
16Remembering Nancy Esther Plank Kelley
17Tribute to Norma Ashby Smith
18Privileged Nomination Referred to Committee
S.Res. 116 →
19Executive Reports of Committee
20Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
21Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
S. 4410 →2 members spoke
22Senate Resolution 691: Supporting the Designation of April 2026 as the "Month of the Military Child"
S.Res. 691 →
23Senate Resolution 692: Designating the Week of April 20 Through April 24, 2026, as "National Home Visiting Week"
S.Res. 692 →
24Senate Resolution 693: Recognizing and Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month
S.Res. 693 →
25Senate Resolution 694: Designating April 2026 as "Financial Literacy Month"
S.Res. 694 →
26Senate Resolution 695: Commemorating April 6, 2026, as the Day the Artemis II Crew Surpassed the Record for the Farthest Distance Traveled by Astronauts Into Deep Space and Celebrating the Success...
S.Res. 695 →
27Senate Resolution 696: Expressing Support for the Designation of the Month of April 2026 as "Parkinson's Awareness Month"
S.Res. 696 →
28Senate Resolution 697: Welcoming Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom to the United States on the Occasion of His Majesty's Address to a Joint Meeting Of...
S.Res. 697 →
29Text of Senate Amendment 5436
30Text of Senate Amendment 5437
31Authority for Committees to Meet
1 member spoke
32Orders for Wednesday, April 29, 2026
1 member spoke
33Adjournment Until Tomorrow
1 member spoke

Daily Digest

Routine Proceedings, pages S2059-S2087 Measures Introduced
Twenty-one bills and seven resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 4405-4425, and S. Res. 691-697.
Pages S2080-81
Measures Passed
Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act: Senate passed S. 2934, to limit the availability of civil actions affected by United States sanctions.
Pages S2073-74
Protect Infant Formula from Contamination Act
Senate passed S. 272, to improve the safety of infant formula through testing of infant formula for microorganisms, after agreeing to the amendment to the title and the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S2074-75
Maverick Act
Committee on Armed Services was discharged from further consideration of S. 4161, to authorize the transfer by the Secretary of the Navy to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center Commission in Huntsville, Alabama, of certain F-14 Tomcat aircraft, and the bill was then passed, after agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Page S2075
Lummis (for Scott (FL)) Amendment No. 5437, to clarify the provision of excess spare parts to the Commission.
Page S2075
Second Chance Month
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 668, designating April 2026 as ``Second Chance Month'', and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S2075
National Home Visiting Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 692, designating the week of April 20 through April 24, 2026, as ``National Home Visiting Week''.
Pages S2075-76
National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 693, recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.
Pages S2075-76
Financial Literacy Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 694, designating April 2026 as ``Financial Literacy Month''.
Pages S2075-76
Celebrating the Success of the Artemis II Mission
Senate agreed to S. Res. 695, commemorating April 6, 2026, as the day the Artemis II crew surpassed the record for the farthest distance traveled by astronauts into deep space and celebrating the success of the Artemis II mission.
Pages S2075-76
Parkinson's Awareness Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 696, expressing support for the designation of the month of April 2026 as ``Parkinson's Awareness Month''.
Pages S2075-76
Welcoming Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom
Senate agreed to S. Res. 697, welcoming Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom to the United States on the occasion of His Majesty's address to a joint meeting of Congress, and recognizing the historic global significance of the United States-United Kingdom relationship.
Pages S2075-76
Measures Considered
En Bloc Nominations--Cloture: Senate began consideration of S. Res. 690, authorizing the en bloc consideration on Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
Page S2065
A motion was entered to close further debate on the resolution, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur on Thursday, April 30, 2026.
Page S2065
Prior to the consideration of this measure, Senate took the following action
By 52 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 107), Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the resolution.
Page S2065
Hostilities Within or Against Cuba
Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 124, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Republic of Cuba that have not been authorized by Congress, after having been discharged of consideration from the Committee on Foreign Relations pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a), and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976.
Pages S2070-73
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 108), Senate determined that the point of order against the joint resolution, as not being entitled to privilege under 50 U.S.C. 1546a due to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities, was sustained.
Pages S2070-71
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 4344, extend section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for 3 years, occur at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader, in consultation with the Democratic Leader, no later than Friday, May 1, 2026.
Pages S2064-65
Cekada Nomination: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at 2:15 p.m., on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination of Robert Cekada, of Florida, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Page S2087
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S2083-86
Record Votes
Two record votes were taken today. (Total--108)
Pages S2065, S2070-71
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:49 p.m., until 12 noon on Wednesday, April 29, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S2087.)

Remembering Henry A. Wallace

Chuck GrassleyRepublican, Iowa

Mr. President, 2026 is an opportunity to talk about the centennial progress in American agriculture and a famous Iowa family that was involved in that.

Before I give my remarks on that centennial, I would like to give a little history of the Wallace family of Iowa--three generations.

Grandfather Henry Wallace, I don't have a lot of history on, but Henry C. Wallace, his son, was President Harding's Secretary of Agriculture, from 1921 until Henry's death in 1924. And then Henry C. Wallace had a son, Henry A. Wallace, who was Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Commerce from 1933 to 1941, under Franklin Roosevelt's first two terms.

Unlike his father, who was presumably a Republican under President Harding, Henry A. Wallace was obviously a Democrat to serve in Franklin Roosevelt's Cabinet, and then he went on to be a Vice President during Franklin Roosevelt's third term.

In 1948, this same Henry A. Wallace was the Progressive Party's candidate for President of the United States, a time when Harry Truman was reelected President of the generation.

So that is kind of the politics of the people I am talking about, but I am talking about their role in American agriculture and what it has meant for the production of corn today in the United States.

So we celebrate the work of an Iowan who pioneered new frontiers in American agriculture. That pioneer was Henry A. Wallace.

Like many farm kids, Henry grew up with soil, the very soul of Iowa running through his veins. Henry's dad and grandfather--both named, as I said, Henry--cofounded a publication called ``Wallaces Farmer,'' a trusted farm journal for farmers across the Midwest.

Exactly 100 years ago, on April 20, 1926, Henry's hybrid seed corn business was incorporated. At that time, Iowan corn farmers planted seeds that they saved from the previous year, called open-pollinated corn. Yields were about 20 bushels per acre, from one year to the next, year after year.

In fact, history tells us that the production of corn in the United States is about 25 bushel per acre, from the Civil War until the 1930s. That is when Wallace researched and made great progress in increasing yields.

So Henry A. Wallace, the famous Secretary of Agriculture and Vice President of the United States, revolutionized corn yields by crossing open-pollinated corn varieties. Together with an Iowa State University professor, he developed the Iowa Corn Yield Test. In 1924, Henry A. Wallace won the contest with a hybrid called Copper Cross.

Like many American innovators, Henry had an idea and put that idea to work to accomplish his goals. His efforts would transform production agriculture, but, first, Henry needed markets for his new research and his product that resulted from that research.

So using famous Iowa ingenuity, he cultivated trust with his customers. Those customers, of course, were the family farmers of that day. He adopted a farmer-to-farmer sales model.

In 1935, Henry renamed Hi-Bred Corn Company to the name of Pioneer, and Pioneer is still a famous name for farmers in Iowa. And that company was the Pioneer Seed Corn Company until recently. A company named Corteva took it over.

So, Iowa, of course, is known as the ``Tall Corn State,'' thanks in large part to the adoption of hybrid corn. Henry A. Wallace helped corn farmers go from 20 bushels of corn per acre to now the average being over 200 bushels of corn per acre.

And we have some people, in contests over the United States, that on 5-acre plots they do a lot of extra things to

When I started farming, in 1960, when my dad died, I was probably producing about 50 bushels of corn per acre. More recently, we have reached the 200-bushel level.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Welcoming King Charles and Queen Camilla of England

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, before I begin, I want to mention how pleased we are to be able to welcome King Charles and Queen Camilla to the Capitol today.

A special relationship between our two nations has been a long and fruitful one, and I think it is fair to say that over the course of our Nation's history, we have had no closer ally than Great Britain.

We have stood together in war and in peace and, together, opposed the enemies of the free world. And I am confident that we will continue to stand together for centuries to come.

Official Text ↗

National Apprenticeship Week

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, this week is National Apprenticeship Week. This week, we celebrate the pathways that apprenticeships provide for many Americans to attain their American dream, to find a good-paying job, and to do meaningful work.

Working in the trades or in manufacturing is, indeed, meaningful work. No matter how far technology advances, we are still going to need builders, doers, and makers.

To my knowledge, there is no artificial intelligence that can climb an electric pole; there is no chatbot that can fix a toilet; and there is no app that will install your home's HVAC system.

Skilled jobs are in-demand jobs, and they are going to be in demand for a long time to come. And we need to invest in and support the next generation of skilled professionals.

That is one of the things that Republicans did last year in the Working Families Tax Cut bill. That landmark piece of legislation made a significant investment in American workers, starting with investing in education and training programs that support skilled jobs.

For decades now, the 529 education savings plan has been a powerful tool for parents to save for their kids' education. At first, 529s could only be used for college; but in 2017, Republicans expanded the eligible uses of 529 plans to include K-12 expenses as well.

And in last year's Working Families Tax Cut, Republicans expanded 529s again and gave Americans flexibility to use their savings for vocational and continuing education programs as well.

On top of that, we doubled the withdrawal limit to $20,000 per year, giving Americans even greater flexibility to choose a program that suits their needs and their dreams.

The expansion of 529s complements the creation of new Trump Accounts in the Working Families Tax Cut. Trump Accounts provide parents with another option to invest in their children's future.

The money in those accounts can be used for education, to buy a first home, or to start a business when a child reaches adulthood. They are just one more way to give the next generation a head start on their American dream.

And speaking of creating options and opportunity, beginning this summer, Americans will be able to take advantage of the new Workforce Pell program created by the Working Families Tax Cut.

Most people are probably familiar with the traditional Pell Grant Program. Pell grants offer need-based financial aid for students in undergraduate degree programs. And until now, they have generally been limited to students in those programs.

Workforce Pell will provide financial assistance to Americans in shorter-term skills and career training programs. It will help workers pursuing skills for in-demand jobs at various stages of their careers. And it will be available to those just joining the workforce, those looking to grow and advance in their careers, and those who may be looking to switch careers, even if they have already earned a bachelor's degree.

And this innovative new program will help grow the workforce for a number of important jobs: careers in healthcare like phlebotomy and paramedicine, truck driving, childcare, welding, and numerous other skilled professions that provide pathways to success.

In addition to supporting the education needed for more Americans to pursue careers in the trades and in manufacturing, the Working Families Tax Cut also supports their success once they are in those jobs.

The pro-worker and pro-growth tax policy in the bill allows American workers to keep more of their hard-earned money and supports the small business growth, job growth, and entrepreneurship that mean more opportunities for Americans to get ahead.

The Working Families Tax Cut made lower tax rates permanent, which means bigger paychecks and bigger refunds for hard-working Americans.

And then there is no tax on overtime, which allows workers to keep more of the money they earn when they spend extra hours on the job. It is not uncommon for workers in manufacturing and the trades to put in more than 40 hours a week. So no tax on overtime is going to deliver significant tax savings to many of these Americans.

And then there are the pro-growth tax policies in this bill, like permanently lowered tax rates for small businesses. The 199A small business deduction is also now a permanent feature of America's Tax Code. It allows small businesses, farms, and ranches to reduce their tax burden and invest more in their operations and in their employees.

And then there is full expensing for new equipment, which is now permanent thanks to this bill, and supports businesses upgrading and replacing machinery and other equipment that is essential to their work.

This landmark bill also allows for full expensing of new factories and factory improvements. And we have seen a number of manufacturing investments being made across the United States since this bill passed last year.

One of the pillars of the Working Families Tax Cut is providing Americans with more opportunities to get ahead. And everything I have mentioned this morning is about cultivating opportunity, whether it is investing in education, supporting good-paying jobs, encouraging entrepreneurship, and promoting an economic environment where businesses can grow and create those good-paying jobs.

That is what the Working Families Tax Cut is all about, and this story is only just beginning to be written.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Trump Administration

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, as our Nation wages Donald Trump's reckless war with a dangerous and erratic enemy and as the Department of Homeland Security is still not funded because of the high jinks within the

Trump's values are perverse--just perverse. If the President and House Republicans truly care about our national security, fund DHS, fund the Secret Service, fund CISA, fund the Coast Guard, fund all the crucial, law-abiding Agencies that every Democrat and every Republican in the Senate unanimously voted to fund not once but twice.

Now House Republicans say they are tinkering with technical changes to our legislation.

Speaker Johnson, our bill--our bipartisan bill--doesn't need any changes. Just pass the damn thing. Pass the damn thing. We desperately need it.

Democrats chose to fund national security and keep Americans safe. For 32 days, House Republicans have blocked the funding for DHS. Donald Trump and Republicans' fixation on the ballroom just shows how out of touch--how very out of touch--they are.

Let us not forget that last year, Karoline Leavitt said Trump's gilded ballroom ``is not going to cost the taxpayers a dime.'' Well, rewind. Instead, the ballroom is going to cost the taxpayers a pretty penny, to the tune of $400 million. Let me repeat: $400 million for Trump's walled palace--that is how much his acolyte Senator Graham wants to authorize for the project in this new bill. He has also floated potentially forcing through ballroom funding with Republicans' partisan reconciliation process. Rush it through without debate and without amendment--$400 million for a ballroom? Seriously? Apparently, Donald Trump wasn't satisfied with forcing Americans to foot the bill for a war they do not want and $1 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires that Americans eschew. It is absolute absurdity.

What happened to funding the ballroom with tens of millions of dollars in shady donations Trump received from billionaires and corporations or with the billions his family has made off the Presidency? What happened to that--ignoble as that was?

Instead of spending $400 million to build a walled palace for Donald Trump, Republicans should use that money to lower housing, food, gas, and healthcare costs for the American people. I am putting out a framework today on how to bring down healthcare costs. Republicans ought to follow it--helping the American people for once.

Unfortunately, holding up DHS funding isn't the only way Republican infighting is threatening America's national security.

Speaker Johnson, Donald Trump, and national Republicans: America's national security is at stake. Get your act together on FISA. America cannot afford for you to continue dithering on FISA.

Get your act together, Speaker Johnson. Run the House of Representatives like it should be run--dealing with the problems America faces.

Official Text ↗

Cuba

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Now, Mr. President, on Cuba, since launching his disastrous war with Iran, Donald Trump has said that ``Cuba's going to be next'' and that ``we may stop by Cuba'' after we are finished.

The last thing working Americans need right now is another war, let alone one that is 90 miles south of the United States.

Republicans must get out in front of the looming catastrophe in Cuba before it gets even worse, as they should have done with Trump's war in Iran.

Today, Senate Democrats will advance a War Powers Resolution to give Republicans an opportunity to stop a looming catastrophe in Cuba.

Republicans, do Trump a favor: Support our War Powers Resolution so he doesn't get messed up in another foreign adventure that hurts America.

Official Text ↗

Joint Meeting of Congress

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, on King Charles, today is a great honor for both the House and Senate to welcome His Majesty King Charles III to address a joint meeting of Congress.

It has been 35 years since a British monarch addressed the elected representatives of the American people. In that time, the world has changed dramatically, but in many ways, the same tests remain before us. Conflict still grips regions across the globe, Russia grows more aggressive, the Middle East remains unstable, and the future of the transatlantic alliance hangs in the balance.

Today, the visit of King Charles III should serve as a reminder to the President of the United States and to every elected official in this country: Friends and allies matter, and most of all, for the security of Europe, NATO matters.

I encourage His Majesty to impress upon the President the absolute importance of NATO. I hope he is able to get Trump to listen and understand the stakes. NATO must endure. It must stay strong. Our national security depends on it. The security of much of the world depends on it. To walk away from NATO would be a terrible mistake that will reverberate for generations and make Americans far less safe. Trump must listen and understand the stakes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Department of Homeland Security

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I want to make sure we can keep America safe and secure. People who share that goal also share a common belief. The belief is this: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol have an important mission for our Nation. Their mission is to keep America safe and secure.

At this very moment, these vital Agencies are running out of money. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin has warned that the money will run out by the end of this week. We are just days away from a law enforcement funding shortfall. If ICE and Border Patrol go unfunded, America itself will become less safe.

Last week, Republicans here in the U.S. Senate passed a budget blueprint, and it fully funds these critical Agencies. That budget has now been sent to the House of Representatives. Speaker Johnson has pledged to all of us that he will put it on the floor as soon as tomorrow, and I encourage my colleagues there to pass it without delay. A targeted and focused bill is the right path because it is the quickest path. It funds American law enforcement now. It protects the American people now as well as into the future.

If you believe in secure borders, this bill is for you. If you believe in safe communities, this bill is for you. If you want our law enforcement fully funded for the long term despite the Democrats' best efforts to defund them, this bill is for you.

This bill is also President Trump's bill. A few weeks ago, the President gave it his complete and total endorsement. I was with the President in the Oval Office, and we sat down and went through it. President Trump has been clear. He says he wants this funding bill on his desk. Senate Republicans heard him loud and clear. We stuck together. We passed a budget blueprint. It is one that keeps America safe. Republicans need to continue to stick together to meet the President's deadline.

Every Republican knows why this reconciliation process is necessary. It is necessary because, as President Trump has rightfully said, protecting American citizens is the first duty of government, and it is necessary because, as Senate Democrats continue to demonstrate, protecting American citizens is something that Democrats oppose. They have actively obstructed it.

Last week, the minority leader came to this floor, and he delivered a statement which I found very disturbing. I found it disturbing and also misleading and wrong. The Senator from New York, who just left the floor a few moments ago, stood here and said Republicans are funding ``two groups: Border Patrol and ICE,'' and he went on to say ``that nobody respects in this country.'' Those are the words of the minority leader, the Senator from New York. He said nobody respects them in this country. That statement alone is blatantly false. The heroes of ICE and Border Patrol spend their days arresting gang members, seizing fentanyl, and securing the border. The American people know it, and the American people respect it. Americans all across this country honor their service and their sacrifice.

Let me tell you what Americans don't respect, and let me tell you what Americans flat-out reject: It is the Democrats who call to defund the police. It is the Democrats who call to abolish ICE and to abolish our Border Patrol.

That is why today's Democrat Party is the way it is. It is because that is what they stand for. The Democrats would rather protect illegal immigrant criminals than law-abiding U.S. citizens.

The American people voted for secure borders. They voted for safe communities. President Trump and Republicans have delivered. Look at the historic border security accomplishments. What you have seen now under Republican leadership is that zero--absolutely zero--illegal immigrants have been released into our country in nearly a year.

Democrats want to return to the days of open borders. Well, Americans had open borders for 4 years under Joe Biden. It was one of the most dangerous and deadly times in American history. Ten million illegal immigrants flooded into our country. Open borders are a magnet, and they were a magnet and were proven to be a magnet for hardened criminals, for drug dealers, and for terror suspects.

Americans are done with this catch-and-release program. Americans are done with open borders.

ICE and Border Patrol deserve to be paid. ICE and Border Patrol deserve to have the tools, the resources, and the support they need each and every day to carry out their mission. It is time for Congress to fund these heroes who keep our country safe.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Unanimous Consent Agreement

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes of debate, equally divided, between Senator Wyden and the majority leader prior to the scheduled cloture vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.

Official Text ↗

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

Mr. President, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is an important tool for gathering foreign intelligence and keeping America safe, but this authority of the government also serves as a backdoor for warrantless surveillance of Americans right here at home.

The Trump administration, led by Stephen Miller, has asked Congress for a no-strings-attached extension of section 702. There is a growing bipartisan recognition of the need to reform this surveillance tool to protect American privacy and civil liberties.

Section 702 allows the government to collect the private communications of foreigners overseas without a warrant issued by a court. The problem is that millions--potentially billions--of innocent American communications with friends, family members, or coworkers abroad are being swept up in this collection.

Once collected, the government can read Americans' private texts, emails and messages and even listen to phone calls without ever obtaining a warrant from a judge.

To no one's surprise, without court approval for such searches, administrations of both parties have abused section 702 to spy on American families, including the families of protesters, Members of Congress, journalists, and even women on dating apps and rental tenants. We have every reason to believe that such abuses will continue, if not get worse, under the Trump administration as it is using every tool at its disposal to target political enemies and undermine the basic underpinnings of our democracy.

Last year, the Trump administration conducted more than 23,000-- 23,000--warrantless searches of Americans' private phone calls, texts, and emails, and these are just the ones we know about.

Every Member of Congress should also be concerned about the increase in so-called ``sensitive queries'' conducted by the FBI under Kash Patel's leadership. These are warrantless searches of section 702 data that target religious leaders, organizations, politicians, political organizations, and journalists. In 2025, the FBI conducted over three times as many sensitive queries as the Biden administration in 2024. We don't know whom the FBI has targeted using these sensitive queries, but we know under Kash Patel's leadership, the FBI has been all too willing to target political enemies to appease President Trump.

The Trump administration also refuses to release the latest FISA Court ruling on section 702, which found ``deficiencies'' with how the administration is conducting searches on Americans.

Rather than telling the American people what those deficiencies in the program are, the Trump administration is appealing the court's ruling. The American people deserve to see this opinion before their House Members and Senate Members vote on reauthorizing section 702.

Senator Lee is a conservative Republican from Utah. He and I are working together. We have proposed a path forward with the bipartisan SAFE Act, which would reauthorize section 702 for 3 years, while including critical reforms to protect Americans' constitutional right. Our bill would require the government to obtain a judicial warrant before accessing American citizens' texts, emails, or phone calls that the government has collected using section 702.

This would ensure independent, nonpartisan oversight of the government's use of this surveillance approach and stop this never- ending cycle of misuse under 702. Our warrant would protect Americans' privacy without jeopardizing national security.

We have expressly included robust exceptions for legitimate security needs, including for what is known as exigent circumstances, where there is any threat to life and agents have no time to obtain a warrant. That, of course, is the response when we talk about changing this system: You are going to slow it down when we need it the most; there could be an emergency, and we have to move. We wrote expressly in our amendment that exigent circumstances could move forward in a state of emergency.

The SAFE Act would also put an end to the government's practice of buying our personal data from third-party data brokers without a warrant. The Department of Homeland Security has reportedly used this loophole to track protesters in real time under the pretext that they are ``domestic terrorists.''

You remember the two individuals killed in Minneapolis by ICE? One of them was identified on the spot as a domestic terrorist--totally untrue.

If the government wants to spy on Americans, it needs to get a warrant, court approval. It is based on what we know as the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection. Period.

That is why our amendment--our bipartisan amendment--is supported by conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats alike. The Senate could take up the SAFE Act and vote on it this week, and I hope we do. I believe

Congress should also address the ill-advised expansion of section 702 that allows its use for surveillance for noncitizens traveling in the United States. This provision may be the reason Stephen Miller is the White House leading advocate for reauthorizing section 702. He reportedly views 702 as ``critical to a variety of Homeland Security missions.'' What could that possibly be? Immigration in the United States, even though this section is expressly focused on foreign intelligence abroad.

If a reauthorization bill reaches the floor of the Senate, I will pursue an amendment to limit the government's ability to use section 702 for President Trump's mass deportation campaign.

Some may argue that there is not enough time to enact reforms before section 702 expires--false. Section 702 surveillance operates under yearlong certifications approved by the FISA Court. Even if section 702 were to expire this week, the law makes it clear, the surveillance may continue until March of next year.

There is no emergency excusing Congress from getting this right. This affects the privacy, potentially, of every American family.

I will vote against any long-term extension of section 702 that gives this administration--or any administration--unfettered access to America's communications without a warrant. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I ask unanimous consent that the document that I have in my hand be entered in the Record with my statement just given on the floor of the Senate.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Unanimous Consent Agreement: S. 4344

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 373, S. 4344, occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, no later than Friday, May 1.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Ron WydenDemocrat, Oregon

Reserving the right to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Ron WydenDemocrat, Oregon

Mr. President, the Senate is now delaying a vote on FISA because Members are waking up to the fact that this surveillance authority is too dangerous to hand to any President without new reforms. And here is the bottom line. If there were the votes today to advance this bill right now, we would be voting. But when it comes to reauthorizing section 702, I am here to offer the judgment that the only path forward is reform.

Here is how we got here. Two weeks ago, the leadership in the House executed the oldest play in the book when it comes to surveillance: They waited until a week before the bill was set to expire, there was no time to debate, and they tried to pass a straight reauthorization without reforms.

What happened? A bipartisan coalition said: No way.

Then they came back with a new bill that week, but it turned out that these so-called reforms made FISA 702 less accountable. That bill failed.

Then the House voted on a straight extension of the law--again with no reforms. A bipartisan coalition voted that down.

And now, this week, the House Republican leadership tried to sell a fake reform to their Members a third time. Once again, the body is in disarray.

It is clear that Senators who voted to support the current FISA surveillance law in the past are now rethinking their positions. Every day, this administration demonstrates its contempt for the rule of law and its thirst for absolute power. They have destroyed

There are many ways in which 702 can be abused by the administration, including warrantless searches of Americans' communications in 702 data. The fact is, there are alarm bells pointing to administration abuses. What kind of abuses? Month after month, Trump administration officials have been trotting out conspiracy theories about elections and voting. These theories include accusations of foreign involvement. The Director of National Intelligence even showed up at the FBI's ballot-seizing raid in Fulton, GA. And one of her excuses: She was there to protect against foreign interference. These conspiracy theories open the door for more warrantless 702 searches, all to try to discredit American elections.

The Trump administration has also been abusing its authorities to go after journalists whose stories they don't like. All it takes is an accusation of a foreign connection and they can be subjected to 702 searches. Then there are protesters who the administration could accuse of being connected to antifa groups.

When the guardrails are gone and the abuses are clear, there is only one solution: Congress must require court-ordered warrants to conduct searches on Americans. There ought to be exceptions, but only for emergencies.

I am going to close with one last important issue that colleagues are approaching all of us to ask about, and that is the role of AI in supercharging surveillance abuses. The Trump administration is going full speed ahead on AI, and Americans are rightly concerned about how artificial intelligence is going to affect their privacy rights.

In the case of section 702, the government could use artificial intelligence to process huge amounts of data to identify Americans for warrantless searches. These technological advances are happening so fast, and Congress needs to step up and protect Americans. New tools require new rules, and it really applies to artificial intelligence.

So when the Senate returns to vote on government surveillance, I am here to say another effort to jam this bill through without reforms is also going to be dead as a doornail.

I urge all Members to come forward and work in a bipartisan way because security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. Smart policies get you both; not so smart policies get you neither.

I urge my colleagues to recognize that at this moment it is right for the Senate to postpone the vote. It is the second time we have postponed a vote because the country doesn't buy this argument that we should sacrifice our liberty in order to have security. We can find both.

I urge my colleagues to use this interim period to make sure that actually happens, and I intend to be on the floor objecting at every opportunity if it doesn't.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further objection?

The majority leader.

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, let me just say to my colleague from Oregon that, obviously, there are, I think, constructive conversations going on right now about how to address some of the concerns that he has raised on this. But I would also say that, by midnight on Thursday, this authority goes dark. It is authority that our military leadership and intelligence leadership rely on heavily to keep the United States safe, and so I hope we can find a way to proceed with this in a fashion that doesn't allow this authority to go dark at midnight on Thursday.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Ron WydenDemocrat, Oregon

Mr. President, just so we are clear, there is authority to continue the protections for the American people already. We will have that debate. I am eager to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

We have to recognize that the only path forward for the American people is actual reform and not just cliche's.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Executive Calendar: Motion to Proceed (Executive Session)

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 5, S. Res. 690.

Official Text ↗

Vote on Motion (Executive Session)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.

Ron WydenDemocrat, Oregon

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr.Tuberville).

The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

The motion was agreed to.

Official Text ↗

En Bloc Nominations (Executive Session)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the executive resolution.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Official Text ↗

Cloture Motion (Executive Session)

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

Official Text ↗

Legislative Session

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Joint Meeting of the Two Houses: Address by His Majesty King Charles III

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed as a body to the Hall of the House

Thereupon, the Senate, preceded by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, Jason Bell; the Secretary of the Senate, Jackie Barber; and the Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, proceeded to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear the address by His Majesty King Charles III.

(The address delivered by His Majesty King Charles III to the joint meeting of the two Houses of Congress is printed in the proceedings of the House of Representatives in today's Record.)

Official Text ↗

Recess Until 4 P.M.

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled recess begin immediately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senate stands in recess until 4 p.m.

There being no objection, at the conclusion of the joint session, the Senate, at 12:16 p.m., recessed until 4 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Banks).

Official Text ↗

Legislative Session: Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Tim KaineDemocrat, Virginia

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a War Powers Resolution that will be called up for a vote in the 5 o'clock hour, I believe, and I expect a number of other colleagues might take the floor. This is a resolution that I filed together with Senators Gallego and Schiff, and it is like other resolutions that I have filed in recent weeks to challenge the President's authority to take the United States to war without a vote of Congress.

In this instance, this resolution deals with the country of Cuba. The United States has had a long, long history with Cuba that I needn't recount here, but suffice it to say, as a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, I have never heard the suggestion that Cuba poses an imminent security threat to the United States, and I think it is an accepted fact that there is currently no war authorization passed by Congress that would authorize military actions against Cuba.

And so using the privileged provision of the War Powers Resolution, I have filed this, together with my colleagues, to say we should not be at war--we should not be engaged in hostilities with Cuba unless there is a congressional debate and vote.

My argument is that, under the terms of the resolution, we are already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American force--primarily the Coast Guard but other assets as well--to engage in a very devastating economic blockade of the nation. If anyone were doing to the United States what we are doing to Cuba, we would definitely consider it an act of war.

Let me describe what United States actions with respect to Cuba now mean to Cuban citizens. The blockade which went into effect and is using United States assets to block energy from being delivered to the island--because it does not have its own energy sources--has led to severe humanitarian crises across Cuba. Between January and March, nearly 100,000 scheduled surgical procedures were not carried out in hospitals in the country due to power limitations--power limitations brought on by the fuel blockade. More than 11,000 of these procedures were procedures that had been scheduled for children.

Hospitals in Cuba are facing a particularly severe shortage of fuel since Cuban hospitals are run by the Cuban Government and President Trump has focused on curtailing shipments of energy destined for governmental use, and that governmental use includes hospitals and other healthcare providers. There has been significant press reporting about the humanitarian impact of this energy blockade upon the healthcare sector and medical shortages in Cuba.

In addition to the canceling of hospital procedures, the shortage of energy and particularly the blocking of energy to the Cuban Government has meant the cutoff of running water in many urban areas because the water supply systems in Cuba rely upon electric pumps. More than a third of the Cuban population does not currently have access to clean water. Eighty-seven percent of the national water system's pumps rely on grid electricity to function. Trash has piled up because of lack of gas to run garbage trucks, and doctors say preventable deaths are rising as equipment fails, including the refrigeration that is necessary to maintain certain medications at appropriately low temperatures.

In Cuba, daily power cuts in urban and rural areas have been lasting between 12 and 20 hours and, in some cases, exceeding 48 to 72 hours. Cuba has experienced multiple national blackouts in the months of March and April. Cuba is a nation that is very rural, and these cuts fall particularly heavily upon rural Cuba.

In late March, the United States Coast Guard did allow a single Russian oil tanker carrying about 730,000 barrels of oil to pass through the blockade, providing Cuba with a few weeks of fuel. But in a country where the average monthly wage is about $15, gas is now nearly $40 a gallon. If you can find it, you probably can't afford it.

The blockade of energy also affects food prices. They have risen more than 13 percent. Restrictions in rural electrical supply are projected to cause a 40-percent reduction in short-cycle crop yields--crops like vegetables, beans, and potatoes. Cold chain disruption has led to significant rates of spoilage for perishable foods.

These are the kinds of things that happen when the United States decides, for no reason other than a desire to change the Cuban regime, that we will impose an energy blockade upon them. And again, if another country was doing this to the United States and causing the cancellation of medical procedures, especially for kids; the blackouts; the shutting down of municipality water supplies; and other significant challenges in the United States, we would consider it a hostility and even an act of war.

It is interesting that there has not yet been a clear justification for what the United States is doing to Cuba other than a desire to change its regime. There is no argument that they have nuclear weapons or a ballistic missile program. There is no argument that they pose an imminent threat to the United States.

Now, could we stand here and debate at some length and find some significant bipartisan support for the notion that the Cuban regime is a gross violator of human rights? I think we could. It has been a source of sadness that as the United States took some steps toward normalization of Cuba, that did not lead the Cuban Government to necessarily open up human rights or freedoms for its population. So, sure, we could have a debate about what we thought about the Cuban regime, but a desire to change the regime of another nation is not a sufficient reason for the United States to threaten and carry out military action that is devastating to the population.

So given that regime change should not be a reason for war unless it is debated upon and embraced by Congress--and if we were going to say the regime change of a bad regime is a reason for the United States to go to war, we would have an awful lot of countries in the world where we would be debating about going to war. But given that there isn't an imminent threat to the United States from Cuba, I am glad to join with my colleagues and call up this War Powers Resolution.

We just heard a powerful speech from King Charles III. We took the break to walk down to the House to hear the speech, and it was a powerful one. And one of the lines in the speech that got a lot of applause on all sides of the aisle--and I even noticed members of the President's own Cabinet standing to applaud a line--was his assertion that part of the origin of the American Declaration of Independence and the American independence project was to form a government whereby the legislature would have the power, as the article I branch, to stand up against overreaches by an Executive.

An overreaching Executive, even in matters of war, is not something that is new to the United States. It is not something that is partisan. Executives of both parties, Whigs and Federalists, before there were Democrats and Republicans, often attempted to overreach. But what the Framers put into

Abraham Lincoln, as a Congressperson, wrote a letter to his law partner grappling with this very issue, and he said the Framers of the Constitution were very focused on reducing what he called ``Kingly oppressions.'' And he said the most Kingly of all oppressions is the tendency of Executives to distract or impoverish their populations by taking them to war. And so, for that reason, we vested the question of war with the legislature.

And so given that there are underway hostilities against Cuba that are causing significant humanitarian crises among children and others, innocent civilians in Cuba, and given that there has been no congressional authorization of these hostilities, I ask my colleagues to do what we were just urged to do by King Charles III and, in the best tradition of American Government, stand for the proposition that the legislature should provide a check against an overreaching Executive.

Please vote in the affirmative on my resolution that we should not be engaged in hostilities or war with Cuba absent a congressional debate and vote.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Christopher A. CoonsDemocrat, Delaware

Mr. President, I rise to follow the comments of my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I intend to join him in voting against any proceedings by the United States military, any action by our President to invade or occupy Cuba without authorization by the Senate, by the House, by the Congress of the United States.

We just heard an address by King Charles III, and it is striking that he made a few simple and clear points. He delivered his remarks with humor, with engagement, and with respect, but he could not have been clearer that the fight for freedom in the world today is principally engaged in Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression. And he asked us to continue our support with our NATO allies for Ukraine's brave fight and got a standing ovation.

He also reminded us of the very beginnings of liberty in the British Commonwealth when the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede and spoke about the shared history of limitations on Executive power, on restrictions on overreach--first by a King; here, by a President.

The sad truth is that this body has gradually handed away the power to control war and peace to increasingly overly powerful Presidents.

I am grateful to my colleague from the Commonwealth of Virginia for his repeated efforts to bring to this floor and to move forward clarifying amendments, important votes, to sunset an overused authorization for the use of military force that dated back 24, 25 years, and to insist that in the current actions against Venezuela, against Iran, and potentially soon against Cuba that this body do its job: Stand up and take a vote, be on the record.

Last, if I might, I am the senior Democrat on Defense Appropriations, and in repeated recent meetings with the highest levels of the leadership, civilian and military at the Pentagon, I have repeatedly raised concerns about the defense of Ukraine.

Last year, the Pentagon sent us a budget. The President sent us a budget that requested nothing--zero--to reinforce our NATO allies in the Baltic States and to support Ukraine.

Ukraine is, today, overwhelmingly funded by our NATO allies, by the Western European partners who have stepped forward and funded their acquisition of munitions in the United States and from across our partners and allies.

Last year, they requested zero, and this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, inserted $400 million for the defense of Ukraine--$400 million out of $1.1 trillion last year.

Once again, this year we received a budget with zero for Ukraine, and I have made it clear to the administration and their representatives, the Secretary and others, that if they don't demonstrate how they will spend the money appropriated by this body and signed into law by the President, they should not expect to receive one dime more.

So as the question of how we will conduct ourselves going forward in Cuba, in Ukraine, in the Middle East is before this body, I intend to continue to vote for the Congress to take its constitutional role and, more than anything, for us to not hand away the power of the purse to an overreaching President.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Peter WelchDemocrat, Vermont

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the resolution offered by Senator Kaine and others to prohibit the unauthorized use of American Armed Forces in hostilities against Cuba.

Now, some may think this isn't a necessary concern, but to quote the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief:

This is urgent, and it requires immediate attention by the U.S. Senate.

Cuba is a bankrupt country. It is the size of Tennessee. It has neither the capacity nor the intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off oil from Venezuela and started illegally blockading oil shipments to Cuba from other countries, Cuba's economy was barely functioning.

Today, electricity is unavailable for most hours of the day across the entire island. Think of what that means for everyday life. It doesn't take much imagination. Just think about what it is like in our own communities when there is a power outage for a period of time.

In Cuba, where it is sustained, it is catastrophic. Havana's streets are filled with smoldering garbage. The country is facing economic collapse, literally, and the United States is complicit in that economic collapse.

So by causing Cuba's economy to fall apart and leaving millions of Cubans without enough food or access to medical care, the White House hopes to create a national security ``emergency'' to justify regime change, including, if necessary, the use of military force.

And we have seen that script play out before with the Trump administration.

President Trump has said as much. He has repeatedly threatened to use force against Cuba. Without any legal justification, he said:

The reason Cuba is ``down to [the] fumes'' is due to its own government, its failed policies. And because of the U.S. oil blockade, both, together, have led to this catastrophic situation.

But no American President, under any circumstances, ``friendly'' or ``unfriendly,'' should threaten to take over another sovereign nation. It is Congress's responsibility to reject such a flagrant ``might makes right'' abuse of Executive power.

There is plenty of blame to go around for how we got to this point. Cuba's leaders, whose priority is holding onto power, do systematically violate the rights of the Cuban people, and they align themselves--the Cuban leaders--with, ideologically, some of the world's worst regimes.

Cuba's centralized economy has practically ruined the country, despite its tropical climate and abundance of rich farmland.

For our part--we control our part--the United States has tried to overthrow the Cuban Government by armed invasion, by assassination, by financing Cuban dissidents, and imposing a web of punitive sanctions with extraterritorial reach.

So after 65 years of an embargo that has not achieved any of its goals but has exacerbated and tested the daily suffering of the Cuban people who are not our adversary, the United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist.

A few weeks ago, I outlined what I thought such an agreement would look like. I won't repeat that here, but at the very least, the President should, No. 1, remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which has no legal or factual basis and which no other country agrees with.

And the President should pressure Congress to repeal the failed U.S. embargo so Cuba's economic reconstruction can begin.

And Cuba's leaders--and they have enormous responsibility here-- should abandon central planning of the economy. It has been an absolute disaster for the Cuban people. And the Cuban Government must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely and without fear of prosecution.

Political and economic change in Cuba is long overdue. Neither is sufficient by itself. The Cuban people--90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution--they want leaders who accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, and greater freedom and real accountability.

Rather than threats of a ``takeover,'' the United States should negotiate a solution with Cuba that puts U.S. national interests and the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first, not the interests of the Cuban Government or American billionaires.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kaine's resolution. The American people do not want to wake up in the morning to learn that we are at war with Cuba, and I urge the Trump administration and Cuba's leaders to take the steps I have outlined to finally put an end to the decades of hostility between us.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Ruben GallegoDemocrat, Arizona

Mr. President, when I talk to people in Arizona, they tell me they want their politicians to focus on helping them afford healthcare, buy a home, put groceries on the table, and fill up the tank.

Not once has anyone said to me: You know what we need? Another war.

And yet, that is exactly what this administration keeps delivering, one conflict after another.

Right after New Year's, Trump illegally invaded Venezuela with no plan for democratic transition. Less than 2 months later, he led us into a war with Iran with no justification or definition of what victory looks like.

Now, 13 servicemembers are dead; we are deploying more troops overseas; and gas prices are up 40 percent as a direct result of Trump's failing foreign policy.

But as if the disaster of the Iran war and the resulting spike in oil prices weren't enough, Trump is continuing to threaten to invade Cuba as well. What we have seen in the past 5 months tells us we can't just ignore these threats.

Trump's go-fast-and-break-things approach doesn't work. When you rush into a war without a plan, people die. When you send servicemembers overseas with no clear justification, they come home broken. And we can't afford the consequences of that, not when it comes to American lives.

Trump has zero understanding of what it means to make life-and-death decisions because he has never served a day in his life. It is not his or his friends' children he is sending to die; it is young working- class Americans.

I know. I served in Iraq with many of these men and women. Twenty- three of them did not make it back. Their lives, the lives of our servicemembers, are what Trump is playing with right now.

The American people are not asking for this. They want us to focus on building up our communities, not nation building abroad. They want us focused on building housing in Arizona, not bombing houses in Havana. They want us to lower the cost of healthcare and not condemn a generation of veterans to a lifetime of hospital visits. And they want us to make their lives more affordable, not spend their tax dollars on unnecessary wars.

But instead of focusing on what the American people want, President Trump has decided instead to focus on satisfying the neocons in his circle, like Marco Rubio, who are always asking for a new war and who see every crisis as an opportunity to score political points in South Florida.

Donald Trump, the man who ran on ``America First'' and ending forever wars has handed over the keys to the war hawks, and it is American families that are going to pay the price.

This resolution is very clear: No unauthorized war in Cuba, and no more bypassing Congress. If military force is necessary, then Trump and Rubio need to come to Congress and make their case in full view of the American public and let the country decide if it is really in America's best interests.

But the people I talk to in Arizona, the troops I have served with, and the families who have buried loved ones who didn't come back, they know the answer. They know what the final answer would be. It is: Do not do this. It is not in our interest, and it is not what America wants.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Chris Van HollenDemocrat, Maryland

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this War Powers Resolution to make clear that the United States will not be dragged into yet another conflict, this time with Cuba--a conflict that would not serve American interests and does not have authorization from this U.S. Congress.

Americans are already paying the price for President Trump's illegal war against Iran--a war that has no end in sight, a war that is making us less safe and worse off. And, of course, before the war in Iran, we saw Trump's illegal act of war against Venezuela, where he put our troops in danger in order to grab Venezuela's oil for his billionaire buddies. The administration continues to carry out illegal, monthslong boat strikes in international waters, which have killed at least 185 people since September. Now President Trump has also floated the idea of using force against our allies, like his scheme to seize Greenland, which, of course, is part of Denmark, which is part of the NATO alliance. And the list goes on and on and on.

Our Constitution is explicit: The power to declare war rests with Congress--with the Senate and with the House--not with the President of the United States. Yet we are once again confronted with a situation where Trump appears ready to tear up our Constitution--a Constitution when he was once asked whether he had to abide by, he said: I don't know. And we are seeing that mindset in action every day.

We have seen deeply alarming rhetoric and actions from the administration when it comes to Cuba. What began as economic warfare has now edged into open discussions of military intervention. President Trump himself has said:

But we all know that Cuba is not property to be acquired by Donald Trump, and military force is not supposed to be a tool for Presidential impulse or political theater. And no President--no President--has the legal authority to unilaterally send American troops into conflict starting a war. But Trump has shown again and again that he thinks he is above the law and above the Constitution.

Many of us just joined the King of England, King Charles, where he talked about the Magna Carta and checks and balances. This President of the United States thinks he is a King and thinks he is not bound by checks and balances. Any of our colleagues who aid and abet him are complicit in undermining the Constitution of the United States--one that he has shown disdain for time and again.

To understand why we are here, we need to look at the choices this administration and previous administrations have made and the consequences that have followed.

President Trump's current policy on Cuba is not a total aberration; it is him and Secretary Rubio doubling down and putting on steroids over 65 years of a failed, bankrupt policy.

Since 1960, Republicans and Democratic administrations alike have pursued a policy of isolation and economic pressure and strangulation toward Cuba. After 6\1/2\ decades, the promise of political change still has not been realized.

You would think that when you keep doing something and don't get the result you want, you would do something different. Instead, we see the Trump administration doubling down and putting their foot on the gas of failed policies.

I recall that under President Biden, the United States began to turn the tide. It began to take some positive steps. The Obama administration restored diplomatic relations, expanded travel, and made an effort to engage with Cuba in a way that had not been done in decades.

I had a chance to see this newfound diplomacy up close. My first trip to Cuba was to visit an American called Alan Gross. He was part of an international development contractor with USAID, and he was a constituent of mine in Maryland.

He was imprisoned by the Cuban Government for 5 years. I worked closely with the Obama administration to help secure his release and joined the bipartisan delegation that included Senator Leahy and Senator Flake at the time that ultimately brought Alan Gross home in 2014.

That breakthrough played a role in opening the door to a new chapter in U.S.-Cuban relations. At the time, we began to see some shoots of real progress and liberalization in the Cuban economy. The problems at hand were, of course, not solved overnight, but the light at the end of the tunnel was beginning to look bright, and it was clear that this new approach had real potential. But that chapter was short-lived, as President Trump in his first term reversed course, reimposing strict travel restrictions and tightening sanctions--back to the failed playbook of over 60 years.

A diplomatic relationship cannot be repaired overnight--especially with two countries with decades of fraught history like the United States and Cuba--and the Biden administration failed to take meaningful steps to get us back on the course that the Obama administration had taken us, which brings us to where we are today, with the Trump administration not only reverting to their first-term policies but doubling down on this hostile, ineffective, and proven failure of an approach.

The Trump administration has pursued an aggressive pressure campaign against Cuba: tightening restrictions, cutting off critical fuel supplies, and effectively imposing an oil blockade on the island--an oil blockade that is exhausting the country's supply of fuel, restricting both travel and daily life within the country while also crippling the Nation's healthcare system, resulting in preventable deaths. Here is a headline from the March 26 New York Times. It reads ``Cuban Patients Are Dying Because of U.S. Blockade, Doctors Say.''

The stated goal was to force political change in Havana, but months into the Trump administration's belligerent approach, it is clear they have not begun to achieve the intended result. Again, same old policy, no better results--in fact, worse. The Cuban authoritarian government remains fully in control. Instead, what we are seeing is the rapid deterioration of conditions for the people of Cuba.

Across the island, families are living through prolonged blackouts and an energy crisis that has crippled infrastructure across the island. Without sufficient fuel, hospitals cannot function properly, schools and businesses are forced to close, and families are left to navigate daily life without the most basic necessities.

The only change--the only change--that the United States has succeeded in forcing upon Cuba is a humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people, because of Trump and Rubio's reckless blockade that is punishing the Cuban people, not the Cuban regime.

We have seen this approach before. We have seen it for 60 years. We know how it ends. The longer we continue down this path, the more severe the consequences will become--not for those in power but for the millions of people caught in the middle.

That should force all of us to ask a critical question: What exactly is the Trump-Rubio strategy here?

We see they don't have a strategy in Iran, and they clearly don't have a strategy here, because if the goal is to support the Cuban people, then it is failing--failing, failing, failing--because what we are seeing is yet another policy built on the assumption that maximum pressure will produce quick political change. Instead, it has produced maximum citizen and civilian suffering with minimal results.

Now, instead of reconsidering this failed approach, the administration appears to be considering an even more dangerous step-- that of military escalation. Of course we want democracy and fundamental freedoms for the people of Cuba, but we have seen over decades that economic strangulation does not work, and we have learned the hard way in Afghanistan and now Iran that bombs don't turn dictatorships into democracies. Yet here we are with reports that the administration is considering yet another war that is not in this country's interest.

Americans are asking for stability. They are asking for lower costs. The idea of launching another illegal, costly, regime-change war is completely out of step with what their hopes and aspirations are. Yet that is what this administration is pursuing even though Candidate Trump promised he would focus on bringing down prices and keeping us out of war.

The American people are already bearing significant costs of the war in Iran--lives lost, treasure expended, making us less safe--and all of this not authorized by this Congress. And now, instead of bringing that conflict to an end, this administration is signaling it may open the door to yet another one in Cuba.

We have to ask what gets crowded out when we have a President and a White House that are focused on getting Americans into war rather than on the economic well-being of the American people.

We have a responsibility here to the American people to represent them and to act in their interests. And decisions of war and peace, whether it is Iran or Cuba or anywhere else, must be made with the involvement of the representatives of the American people. That is not just my sentiment; that is what is in the Constitution of the United States.

So we have the opportunity today to get ahead of another bad decision by the Trump administration, another bad decision to drag us into an illegal war, and to do it now before that conflict begins instead of hoping we can end it once the fuse is lit. In fact, it is our duty--it is our duty--to uphold the Constitution and make clear that we will do our jobs here in the U.S. Senate.

So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to uphold our constitutional responsibilities and to vote in favor of this War Powers Resolution.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, the measure we are talking about is completely out of touch with the facts in Cuba, nor is it relevant to anything actually happening in Cuba right now.

President Trump has never suggested we put troops on the ground in Cuba, so this entire effort is moot.

The only reason I can think a Democrat would propose this is for a fundraising email showing how they are fighting President Trump tooth and nail.

I want to note that elected Democrats have turned up violent rhetoric against this President in the last several years, resulting in yet another radicalized leftwinger attempting to assassinate President Trump on Saturday night. And my Democrat colleagues still refuse to fund paychecks for the Secret Service agents who stopped the shooter or for the ICE and Border Patrol agents protecting Americans lives. But since Democrats refuse to fix that problem they created, let's talk about the resolution before us today.

I am from Florida. We probably have more Cuban Americans in Florida than any State in the country, and they have been unbelievably successful in our State. So I am really--I always love to talk about Cuba, and I am glad the Democrats want to talk about Cuba.

Since the 1959 socialist revolution, the authoritarian dictatorship has refused to hold free and fair elections in Cuba. So there are no elections in Cuba. There is no duly elected President in Cuba. The Castro regime has killed Americans and its citizens, and they cozy up to our enemies--Russia, communist China, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Democrats say they are the party of democracy, so where is their concern for the anti-democratic dictator operating 90 miles from the shore of Florida, 90 miles from the shore of the United States?

Many Democrats--some in this Chamber--are embracing socialism and even embracing a violent socialist leader, Hasan Piker, that wants me murdered. He says I should be murdered; capitalists should be murdered; 9/11--we deserved it; anti-Semitic; and he supports the regime in Cuba.

Some Democrats have even gone to Cuba with Piker, attempting to whitewash the atrocities of the illegitimate,

Some Democrats say they want socialism. Where has that succeeded? Nowhere. It results in misery and death for everyone but the regime leaders. Everyplace that has tried, it has always failed, and the only people that succeed are the regime leaders.

Right now--right now--for decades, Cuba has been unjustly imprisoning hundreds of political prisoners just for demanding elections and complaining that the regime is failing to provide electricity. There is a 6-year-old boy in prison right now because he complained his family didn't have electricity. Have I heard one of my Democratic colleagues say ``Oh, that is wrong''?

When they say that under Obama, things were better, oh, did all the political prisoners get released? No.

There is a photo right here. What year do you think this was taken? Do you think it was taken during the Second World War at a concentration camp, a Holocaust survivor? Do you think it was maybe from a Soviet prison?

What year do you think, Mr. President? What is your guess as far as the year this was taken?

This was taken just a few miles from the Florida shore, probably less than 100 miles from our shore, just a few weeks ago.

This individual--his name is Alexander Diaz Rodriguez. If you look at the before-he-went-to-prison picture, he doesn't look 30 years old. But he is a political prisoner. He was tortured, starved, isolated. He was denied this unbelievable healthcare system in Cuba even though he has cancer--all because he opposed the socialist regime. Not one of my Democratic colleagues here, not one of my Democratic colleagues who went down to Cuba did one thing to get him out of prison.

This is the misery of the people of Cuba. This is the face of the misery of the people of Cuba.

The President of Cuba just had an interview with mainstream media. Did not ask one question about the political prisoners. Didn't ask any of these things.

A lot of people never want to look at these pictures, never want to post these. I am going to look at this, and I am going to talk about this as long as possible. We all should be thinking about, this is the face of the regime in Cuba, and when you go support the regime in Cuba, you are supporting what they are doing to an individual like Alexander.

Democrats in this Chamber will choose to oppose President Trump but not Cuba's illegitimate, communist dictator, Miguel Diaz-Canel.

The real reason we are discussing this is what one of my Democratic colleagues said. My Democratic colleague said he plans to keep introducing these resolutions just to criticize President Trump, waste our time and ask ``Have you seen enough?'' One of my Democratic colleagues even admitted that on national television.

But again, President Trump has never said that he wants to put boots on the ground. I don't think any of my Republican colleagues have said it. Even Lindsey Graham has not said it.

So this resolution is defending the regime that is oppressing people like Alexander Diaz Rodriguez.

I will ask my Democratic colleagues to take a look at this picture. Look at this picture, and think of what that regime is doing. This is what the Cuban regime is doing to the people right now.

So, to my Democrat colleagues, have you seen enough? Have you seen enough to say this has to stop?

President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him. This President has never said he wants to put boots on the ground.

This is a complete waste of our time, and it is a complete insult to Cubans in Cuba and to Cubans in my State.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Official Text ↗

Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Within or Against the Republic of Cuba That Have Not Been Authorized by Congress: Motion to Discharge

Tim KaineDemocrat, Virginia

Mr. President, I am about to make a motion with respect to the War Powers Resolution, but I understand there will be a point of order offered that is not debatable. So I just want to say that my understanding is that the point of order will suggest that what is currently being engaged in, in Cuba, is not hostilities.

The War Powers Resolution clearly contemplates a resolution being within the contemplation of the body of hostilities that are ongoing or are imminent because Congress wanted an ability for Congress to stop a war before it started, and that was contemplated in the War Powers Resolution.

I would also point out that the United States is using force to block energy from going to Cuba, and that has led to the cancelation of 100,000 surgeries in hospitals, including 11,000 for children. It has led to massive power blackouts. It has led to the unavailability of clean water because water systems depend upon electric pumps.

My argument would be, if anyone were doing that to the United States and affecting our citizens in that way, we would certainly view that as hostilities that we would want to do everything we could to stop.

With that, Mr. President, pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act for fiscal years 1984 and 1985--that is 50 U.S.C., section 1546(a)--and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 124.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Tim KaineDemocrat, Virginia

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Florida.

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, I just want to say I am from Florida, and I probably have more Cuban Americans in my State than anywhere else in this country. This is really important. The Cuban regime has just been despicable. They have killed Americans, and they have destroyed the lives of Cubans for decades. So this has to change.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that this joint resolution is not entitled to privilege under 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) due to U.S. troops not being engaged in hostilities.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair submits the question to the Senate for its decision.

The question is, Is the point of order well taken?

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr.Tuberville).

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr.Warner) is necessarily absent.

The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 47.

The point of order is well-taken.

The motion to discharge falls.

The Senator from Louisiana.

John KennedyRepublican, Louisiana

Mr. President, with me today are two of my interns that I have enjoyed working with, Ms. Rebecca Streidel and Mr. Charlie Kay. And I wanted to--also with me--he is not a summer intern. He is one of my permanent colleagues Mr. John Lowery.

But I want to thank Rebecca and Charlie for working with me and for their good work. It has been a pleasure, and I hope you learned a lot. Thank you for being part of our team.

Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of subjects today. First, I thought it would be appropriate to make a comment about the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday night.

I want to be clear, I was not there, so I don't know whether that helps my perspective or hurts it. But I was at home watching the NBA playoffs. The Timberwolves won, by the way.

I am sorry it happened Saturday night. I am glad no one got hurt. I think what happened is as straightforward as it is tragic.

An overeducated, underemployed, self-righteous punk from California who thinks he is smarter and more virtuous than the American people and who thinks if you disagree with him, you are not only in error, you are in sin and deserve to die, tried to crash the function and assassinate the President and some members of his administration.

Many members of our media--and, look, I am glad no one was hurt. I said that, but I want to emphasize that. Some members of the media will portray him as a victim. They will say his mom or daddy didn't love him enough, or maybe he was just mixed up or confused or had a mental defect.

They can say what they want. But I believe in free will and responsibility. And this punk was responsible for his actions, and he is going to be punished. And he, frankly, should be punished.

I want to also say a word about security.

Look, we are going to hold hearings. We love to hold hearings on Capitol Hill. That is one of our favorite things to do. And there are going to be hearings held about the security provided by our Secret Service and others. I am not saying those hearings shouldn't be held. I am not a security expert.

But I want to thank the members of law enforcement who prevented what could have been a very serious tragedy Saturday night.

I am pretty familiar with the Washington Hilton hotel, and the truth is, those who are also familiar with it know that this guy never got close. He was on a different floor. He never made it to the right floor, and that is because of our brave women and men who provide security. In fact, I thought our security showed great restraint. I was frankly very surprised that this punk didn't end up like a piece of Swiss cheese.

Mr. President, could I ask my colleagues here to hold it down for a minute? Maybe they could take their discussions off the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we have order on the floor?

John KennedyRepublican, Louisiana

I know they have got work to do. But I have got work to do too, and I can't hear myself think here.

Mr. President, let me say a word about King Charles.

King Charles spoke to a joint session of Congress today. I thank him so much for coming. He was eloquent. He was charming. He was funny. He talked about the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. And we do have a special relationship, and I hope it can continue.

And I want to come back to the King's visit.

In preparation for the King's visit and the King's speech, I read an article, in particular, in The Economist magazine. I read The Economist magazine, anyway, every week. In my opinion--I have read it cover to cover. It is really--some call it a newspaper, but it really is a magazine.

I have read it cover to cover for 25 years. It covers the world. I have always enjoyed the reporting because it is very in depth, and it is very factual. Just about every author of every article offers his or her opinion. But it is subtle, and it is nuanced. And usually they offer their opinion after presenting both sides of the story.

It hurts me to say--it disappoints me to say--that, in the past year, The Economist has really changed. Their reporting has crossed the line, in my opinion, and they are so angry at the President and angry at America that it has seeped into their reporting. And I really regret that. I am going to keep reading, but I really regret that they have given in to their appetitive desires and lost some of their objectivity.

And the article, in particular, that I read, I read it on the plane. I don't remember whether I was going home or coming up. But the article that I read in preparation for King Charles' visit was entitled: ``Britain rethinks its `special relationship' with America.''

``Britain rethinks its `special relationship' with America.''

And this was the question that The Economist was asking: Should Britain, the United Kingdom, which we do have a special relationship-- should the United Kingdom keep hugging America or embrace Europe?

Like it was a buffet, like they have a choice--and the article startled me. The article also points out--and this also surprised me and disappointed me--that the author of the article pointed it out, almost gleefully, that today, when you poll the American people and ask them if they approve of Britain, 76 percent of Americans approve. When you ask our friends in Britain if they approve of America, only 34 percent do. That one surprised me.

I want to set the record straight that, regardless of what the polls show, America does have a special relationship with the United Kingdom, and it is an important relationship. And that is why the American people spilled their blood and spent their treasure in 1917 to protect the British Empire. That is why the American people spent their treasure and spilled their blood in 1941 in World War II to protect the British Empire, which would not have won without America's help.

After World War II, in Great Britain, it was horrible. They were devastated, flat on their back broke. America--still, they were our friends--our special friends. America lifted them up, bankrolled their reconstruction. We went in, loaned them money, helped them to get back on their feet.

And then, shortly after World War II, we, of course, discovered that we--we meaning the United Kingdom and the United States--had a new enemy, the Soviet Union. We protected the United Kingdom all through the Cold War. I am proud of that. I would do it again in a heartbeat.

In fact, if you look at the numbers today, we still protect the United Kingdom and NATO and our friends in Europe. If you look at the money--I know there has been a lot of rhetoric that our allies in Europe are going to do better and spend more money on their own defense, but the numbers are the numbers. The American taxpayer still puts up 60 percent of total NATO defense spending today. We put up $845 billion a year to protect our cousins in the United Kingdom and in Europe.

I support NATO. I support continuing to do that. And so I agree with King

But friends tell friends the truth. And to my friends in the United Kingdom, as we try to appreciate and reset our relationship, I would say to them gently and respectfully: The world has changed. You have to pay your own bills for a while.

This isn't the fault of the good people of the United Kingdom. This is the fault of their political leadership. It is especially true of their current political leadership. But they have castrated their military. They have. They are weak as rainwater. This doesn't happen in a week or a day or a month. This happened over a long period of time.

I remember when Great Britain ruled the seas. Now, when Iran fires a missile at their base in Cyprus, they can barely find a ship to send down there. And that ship barely made it.

On the political leadership in the United Kingdom, I have watched it hollow out its industrial base. I have watched the political leadership in the United Kingdom spend all their money on welfare.

And do you know what? It is their money. That is none of my business. If that is what they want to do in a democracy, Godspeed.

But they have depended on the American taxpayer to defend them, and the political leadership--and, again, I say this gently. I don't want to do anything to take away from the King's speech. I say this gently and respectfully: It is time for the political leadership in the United Kingdom to embrace adulthood. And it is time for them to start paying their bills and time for them to start spending money on the military.

Now, I know the Prime Minister said: We are going to do better. And he and some of our other allies in Europe are talking about spending 3.5 percent of their GDP on defense and another 1.5 percent on infrastructure in support of defense. It is a lot of talk so far.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the UK, published his plan for the military and military spending. I actually read it. I thought this part was special. Yes, he is going to start spending more money, but it is back-end loaded. It is not going to happen. They are not spending any serious money until 2030, and I can assure you that Sir Keir will not be around as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in September or October or January of 2030. He is struggling now. His poll numbers--I probably shouldn't say this, but it is true. He is polling right up there with gonorrhea in terms of popularity. It is just a fact.

So I do celebrate the special relationship that we have, and I do want us to be closer. But the political leadership in the United Kingdom has got to do its part. This is supposed to be a partnership.

For my final comment, the King, I think, is here through the rest of the day--the King and the Queen. And, of course, even though it was a beautiful speech that King Charles gave, the real heavy lifting is done, as we all know, in private. The King is going to meet privately with President Trump, and they are going to talk about the world, and they are going to get down to the specifics of things we can do to help each other.

I don't know what the King is going to talk to the President about. I don't know if he is carrying messages from the political leadership in the United Kingdom. That is all above my pay grade. But if the King is carrying a message from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to try to convince our President to give away the Diego Garcia military base to an African country which is the BFF of China, I hope our President will continue to resist. I hope he will respond to that request, if it is made, by saying: The short answer is no. The long answer is hell no.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom--as you know, Mr. President, the Chagos Islands are owned by the United Kingdom. They are in the Indian Ocean. On one of the islands, we built a military base with the United Kingdom called Diego Garcia. And it is a really important military base for both countries.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has decided because the United Nations has made him feel guilty about Britain's colonial past-- the United Nations has told Prime Minister Starmer that he has got to give away this military base to the African country of Mauritius, even though Mauritius has never owned Diego Garcia or the Chagos Islands. They have no connection with it, none whatsoever.

But because the Prime Minister has this White guilt because the United Kingdom and the good people of Great Britain once controlled other countries, they are supposed to feel guilty and give away our military base and their military base to Mauritius, who will promptly turn the keys over to China.

It is one of the--I think I described it one time as bone-deep, down- to-the-marrow stupid, and it is.

And eventually, the Prime Minister talked the President into it. And then President Trump came--as he always does, he thought it through. He said: No, I am not doing that.

And so they are still sawing on him and working on him. And I don't know if the King is going to bring it up, and certainly it is the King's right if he does. But I hope the President will stand firm, and let's not give away this military base to China.

Mr. President, I want to spend my last few minutes on another topic. This one is important to all of us, but it is also important to Louisiana. I want to talk about carbon dioxide.

We all know, we have all heard carbon dioxide--CO2--is a gas. It is colorless. It is odorless. It is everywhere. It is actually a pretty small part of our atmosphere really. I looked at the numbers. It is 0.04 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. It is a really, really small part of it, but it packs a wallop.

CO2 is composed of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen, and it is produced naturally. When we breathe out, for example, we breathe out carbon dioxide. It is produced naturally when organic matter decomposes. And it is very important to God's world. Plants use it for photosynthesis. It also is released when we burn fossil fuels. You have probably read that.

And even though carbon dioxide has all these extraordinarily beneficial uses, one of the downsides of it is that it is a fairly heavy gas. And it rises, even though it is dispersed throughout our atmosphere. But it does rise, and it is what is called a greenhouse gas. It acts like a blanket.

If you get enough CO2 in our atmosphere, it is like a blanket covers the Earth. And what happens when you are under a blanket? It holds in heat. And that heat can change your natural temperature and sometimes impacts your weather and your sea levels. That is why you hear some folks talk about global warming and climate change. That is what we are talking about. That is all CO2 is.

We don't have a world plan to deal with this problem. President Biden came up with a plan. It was called ``spend as much money as I possibly can.'' He spent billions of dollars fighting CO2.

I checked. Do you know how much all of the billions--and he might have spent a trillion but certainly billions of dollars of American taxpayer money that he spent--do you know how much it lowered temperatures? None. Zero. Zilch. He never had a plan. It was always just throw money at the wall and see what happens. I hope in the future we can do better.

But here is my point: One of the things that government did to try to combat CO2--or at least control CO2--is pay companies to capture it. And we are still doing that. And what do I mean by capture?

Well, when companies--let's say, take a petrochemical plant. When it burns fossil fuels, natural gas usually, it produces CO2-- carbon dioxide. And there is a way, under the technology, to capture that CO2. What do you do with it? One option is to inject it into the ground, into the Earth, deep beneath our feet.

Now, you would hope that companies--many of them became during the Biden years very woke, and they criticized anybody who asked questions about President Biden's climate change plan.

But the other reason they were so high on carbon capture is because the Federal Government was giving them bucketloads of money to capture this carbon. It is called the 45Q tax credit.

We pay 85 bucks. It is your money. You are paying it, not me. I pay a little bit of it when I pay my taxes, but we all pay it. We actually pay companies $85 a ton. The lobbyists and many of our friends in the business community are lobbying right now to increase the money that we pay them to $250 a ton. But just based on paying them $85 a ton, by 2030, we will be spending about $30 billion.

So while I want to believe that the companies capture the carbon in the interest of the environment, they are being paid a whole bunch of money to do it as well. I am not saying they wouldn't do it anyway out of the goodness of their heart, but the money doesn't hurt. OK?

You know what the old saying is: You don't have to be rich and famous to be happy. You just have to be rich.

So, anyway, we are paying companies a whole bunch of money to go capture this carbon and inject it in the ground. Now, I didn't come here tonight to debate whether that is a good idea or a bad idea. A lot of that is up to the States and to Congress for another day. There are pros and cons, and some say it is a good idea. Some say it is a bad idea.

I know certain oil and gas companies have been injecting CO2 into producing oil and gas wells for years to make the gas and oil flow better without hurting anybody. I know in other cases there have been CO2 pipelines--carbon dioxide pipelines-- transmitting carbon dioxide that have ruptured and injured people. I don't know who is right, and I don't know who is wrong.

I do know, though, that to inject it underground, you have got to do it on somebody's property. And that is where the rub comes in. We take our property rights in Louisiana seriously. Your right to own property is a Federal constitutional right. In Louisiana, it is also a State constitutional right. So important, we put it in our State constitution. Article I, section 4 of our State constitution says:

Now, our constitution also goes on to say, because we are a practical people in Louisiana:

What does that mean? Well, as we all know, that means, if I own a piece of property and they want to put a highway through and I don't want them to put a highway through my property, but it would cost the taxpayers of my State three times the amount to move the highway over here as opposed to putting it through my property--under the law, we call it expropriation. I think some States call it eminent domain.

In my State, in every other State, and under the Federal Government, the State can come in and say: Look, Kennedy, we know you don't want to give up your property, but it is going to cost us a lot more to put the road over here. So we are going to take your property, but we are going to pay you full price.

And they do. They have to. It is in our constitution. They have to pay the full, fair market price. So we are pretty comfortable with that.

But the people in Louisiana have just discovered that the companies that I talked about who are being paid this Federal money--$85 a ton to capture carbon and inject it into the ground--can also take people's land to put in an injection well. And I don't like that.

I am not taking sides in terms of carbon capture. I am not. But we have got a lot of people in my State that are very suspect about the wisdom of this carbon capture. I am not saying they are right or wrong. But they have learned the hard way that if you trust government, you failed history class.

And if someone in my State who owns a piece of property--it is usually in my rural areas--who owns 50 acres that was handed down from their dad and mom and their dad and mom and their dad and mom, if a company wants to come in and pay them to put in an injection well and put carbon dioxide underneath their land and those land owners are OK with that, I am OK with it.

But I am going to have something to say if a lot of these companies start coming in and taking people's property and putting in an injection well. That is a big difference between putting in a road.

This is a new technology. We are still learning about it. And right now, under Louisiana law--this was passed by the Louisiana Legislature. The statute is title 30, section 1108, Louisiana revised statute 30:1108. This is what it says:

That is the guy or gal who wants to put carbon dioxide under the ground--

That means they get the permission of the State.

So if one of these companies comes to one of my people on their family land and says, ``We will offer you this. We want to put in an injection well,'' and the owners of that land go, ``I don't think so. This property has been in my family for years, and I don't know about this CO2 stuff anyway,'' they are not going to have a choice because the State can come in and take that land.

I don't like that, and I think our legislature needs to weigh in on this. I think we ought to go back to what our State constitution says and what the Federal Constitution has said even longer: People have the right to property. People have the right to property.

That concludes my remarks. I can show myself out.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Protecting Americans From Russian Litigation Act of 2025

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 367, S. 2934.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill (S. 2934) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Protect Infant Formula From Contamination Act

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 306, S. 272.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

The bill (S. 272), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title amendment be agreed to on Calendar No. 306, S. 272.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The committee-reported amendment to the title was agreed to as follows:

Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to improve the safety of

infant formula through testing of infant formula for

microorganisms, and for other purposes.''.

Official Text ↗

Maverick Act

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 4161 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

I ask unanimous consent that the Scott of Florida amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment (No. 5437) was agreed to as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the provision of excess spare parts to the

The bill (S. 4161), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Second Chance Month

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 668.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The resolution (S. Res. 668) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of April 14, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Official Text ↗

Resolutions Submitted Today

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed on the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 692, S.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The resolutions were agreed to.

The preambles were agreed to.

(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Official Text ↗

Morning Business

Ashley MoodyRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to recognize and celebrate a truly iconic symbol of American strength and excellence, the U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron, known to millions simply as the Blue Angels, as they mark their 80th anniversary on April 24, 2026.

Established on April 24, 1946, by order of Admiral Chester Nimitz, the Blue Angels were created to showcase the skill, precision, and professionalism of U.S. naval aviation and to inspire confidence in our Armed Forces following World War II. Eighty years later, they have done exactly that--and so much more.

Based in Pensacola, FL, since 1955, the Blue Angels are not just a flight team; they are a proud part of the gulf coast community and a cornerstone of our Nation's military heritage.

Each year, the squadron performs in more than 60 air shows across the United States, thrilling approximately 11 million spectators annually, while reaching tens of thousands more through visits to schools, hospitals, and community events.

Since their inception, the Blue Angels have inspired over 500 million spectators worldwide, serving as powerful ambassadors of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Their mission is simple: to demonstrate the teamwork, discipline, and pride that define the men and women of our naval services and to inspire the next generation to serve something greater than themselves.

Today, the team flies the F/A-18 Super Hornet, one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, showcasing the cutting edge of American military aviation. But what makes the Blue Angels truly extraordinary is not just the aircraft; it is the people. The squadron is composed of 158 Active-Duty sailors and marines, supported by a highly selective group of pilots who represent the very best of naval aviation. More than 290 demonstration pilots have worn the Blue Angels uniform since 1946. These are men and women who have served in combat, led in the fleet, and volunteered to take on one of the most demanding and visible roles in the military: flying in tight formation at speeds exceeding 400 miles per hour, often separated by mere inches.

From their earliest days flying the F6F Hellcat in 1946, to their transition into jet aircraft in 1949, and now into the modern era of advanced Super Hornets, the Blue Angels have continually evolved while maintaining the same core values of precision, discipline, and excellence.

They are the second-oldest formal aerobatic team in the world and, without question, one of the most respected.

For 80 years, the Blue Angels have reminded us what greatness looks like when courage meets discipline, when teamwork meets trust, and when Americans commit themselves fully to a mission. They represent the very best of our Nation. This is the story of the Blue Angels. And in many ways, that is the story of America.

On behalf of the State of Florida and especially the proud community of Pensacola that calls them ``our Blue Angels,'' I extend my deepest gratitude to every pilot, every sailor, every marine--past and present--who has worn the Blue Angels uniform.

I ask to please join me in honoring the 80th anniversary of the U.S. Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels. May they continue to inspire generations to come. May God bless them, and God bless the United States of America.

Official Text ↗

Executive Reports of Committee

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Official Text ↗

Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 4417. A bill to amend the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Alex PadillaDemocrat, California

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act to make technical corrections to incorporate additional land taken into trust and address water contaminants found since the agreement was ratified.

The Pechanga Band of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe whose ancestors have been living in the Temecula Valley for over 10,000 years. After being forced out of their ancestral home, Temeeku, in 1875, the Tribe rebuilt and reestablished their homes nearby, which later became the federally recognized Pechanga Indian Reservation in 1882.

Since the 1950s, the Tribe has been working with the surrounding water users to develop agreements on water rights and to protect the long-term water supply and sustainability of the Santa Margarita River Watershed, including the groundwater in the Wolf Valley Aquifer.

The Tribe reached a settlement agreement with the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, and the United States, which was ratified as part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, WIIN, Act in 2016 and was made fully enforceable in 2020. This agreement clarified the Tribe's water rights and established mutual cooperative water management agreements with the local water agencies. The agreement also established a water quality fund for addressing salinity caused by the use of recycled and imported water.

However, the water settlement agreement currently only applies to land that was held in trust at the time of the settlement's ratification. The water quality fund is also currently restricted only to desalination activities.

This bill would update the agreement's definition of ``Reservation'' to allow the Tribe to use their water rights on any current and future trust lands. The bill would also expand the possible uses of the water quality fund to include any water quality improvement activities, such as addressing PFAS and other emerging contaminants.

I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and Representative Darrell Issa for introducing companion legislation in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix that would preserve Pechanga's sovereignty over their water rights.

Official Text ↗

Introductory Statement on S. 4410

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Introductory Statement on S. 4417

Alex PadillaDemocrat, California

Official Text ↗

Authority for Committees to Meet

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a closed and open session.

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Official Text ↗

Orders for Wednesday, April 29, 2026

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday, April 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of the Cekada nomination.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, further votes are expected at 4:45 p.m. in relation to the Bennet and Rosen CRA joint resolutions.

Official Text ↗

Adjournment Until Tomorrow

Cynthia M. LummisRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:49 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 12 noon.

Official Text ↗