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.
22Senate Resolution 702: Commending the American Chemical Society on the Occasion of Its 150th Anniversary and Recognizing Its Many Years of Service to the United States
23Senate Resolution 703: Expressing Support for the Designation of the Week of May 3, 2026, Through May 9, 2026, as "National Small Business Week" to Celebrate the Contributions of Small Businesses...
24Senate Resolution 704: Supporting the Mission and Goals of National Fentanyl Awareness Day in 2026, Including Increasing Individual and Public Awareness of the Impact of Fake or Counterfeit...
25Senate Resolution 705: Commending the "Donut Dollies" for Their Patriotic Service and Steadfast Support of United States Servicemembers in Combat and Honoring Their Extraordinary Contributions To...
26Senate Resolution 706: Expressing Support for the Designation of April 2026 as "National Child Abuse Prevention Month", and the Goals and Ideals of National Child Abuse Prevention Month
Eighteen bills and ten resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 4426-4443, S.J. Res. 189, and S. Res. 698- 706.
Pages S2128-29
Measures Passed
Transfer Administrative Jurisdiction: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was discharged from further consideration of S. 2280, to transfer administrative jurisdiction over certain parcels of Federal land in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and the bill was then passed.
Page S2100
Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act
Senate passed S. 874, to ensure that whistleblowers, including contractors, are protected from retaliation when a Federal employee orders a reprisal, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S2100-02
SBA Fraud Enforcement Extension Act
Senate passed S. 1199, to extend the statute of limitations for fraud under certain pandemic programs, after withdrawing the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and after agreeing to the following amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S2107-08
Adopted
Ernst Amendment No. 5440, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S2107
Ernst (for Markey) Amendment No. 5441 (to Amendment No. 5440), to require a report on Department of Justice activity related to certain programs.
Pages S2107-08
Expanding the Surety Bond Program Act
Senate passed S. 2232, to expand the surety bond program under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S2108-09
National Dark Sky Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 701, designating the week of April 20 through 26, 2026, as ``National Dark Sky Week''.
Page S2109
American Chemical Society 150th anniversary
Senate agreed to S. Res. 702, commending the American Chemical Society on the occasion of its 150th anniversary and recognizing its many years of service to the United States.
Page S2109
National Small Business Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 703, expressing support for the designation of the week of May 3, 2026, through May 9, 2026, as ``National Small Business Week'' to celebrate the contributions of small businesses and entrepreneurs in every community in the United States.
Page S2109
National Fentanyl Awareness Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 704, supporting the mission and goals of National Fentanyl Awareness Day in 2026, including increasing individual and public awareness of the impact of fake or counterfeit fentanyl pills on families and young people.
Page S2109
Commending the Donut Dollies
Senate agreed to S. Res. 705, commending the ``Donut Dollies'' for their patriotic service and steadfast support of United States servicemembers in combat and honoring their extraordinary contributions to the morale and well-being of United States servicemembers during wartime.
Page S2109
PIPELINE Safety Act
Senate passed S. 2975, to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance the safety of pipeline transportation, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S2109-21
Measures Considered
Air Plan Disapproval: By 46 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 110), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 139, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Air Plan Disapproval; Colorado; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period''.
Page S2106
Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents
By 47 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 111), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 99, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services relating to ``Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents''.
Page S2106
En Bloc Nominations: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motion to invoke cloture with respect to S. Res. 690, authorizing the en bloc consideration on Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar, ripen at 11:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 30, 2026; and that if cloture is invoked on the resolution, all post-cloture time be expired and Senate vote on adoption of the resolution at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader in consultation with the Democratic Leader no earlier than Friday, May 1, 2026.
Pages S2137-38
Nomination Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nomination: By 59 yeas to 39 nays (Vote No. EX. 109), Robert Cekada, of Florida, to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Pages S2096, S2141
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S2130-37
Record Votes
Three record votes were taken today. (Total--111)
Pages S2096, S2106
Adjournment
Senate convened at 12 noon and adjourned at 7:07 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 30, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on pages S2137-38.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 60 of 139 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, the illegal drug fentanyl kills tens of thousands every year. Today marks National Fentanyl Awareness Day. I want to thank the senior Senator from New Hampshire for her collaboration with me in recognizing this day and the dangers that come from fentanyl.
In recent years, we have become too familiar with fentanyl's dangers. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives, with the number totaling tens of thousands each year. That is why I worked with Senator Cassidy of Louisiana in getting legislation that we entitled the HALT Fentanyl Act passed into law and signed by the President last year. So now fentanyl is permanently scheduled, and law enforcement has more tools to remove the dangerous drugs from Americans' streets.
I want to commend President Trump and the Department of Justice for using those tools. Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl seizures continue to reach record highs, and countless Americans are safer as a result.
I also want to thank law enforcement for their tireless efforts to keep Americans safe and their daily choice to protect all of us from dangerous drugs like fentanyl.
Now, there is another recent problem that has come up with fentanyl being mixed with another dangerous drug, xylazine. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am committing to continue to combat dangerous drugs mixed with fentanyl. Again, xylazine is an example.
Under my leadership, our committee recently reported an important, as well as bipartisan, bill that would do just that. I will continue to push for passage of that legislation to stop the xylazine and fentanyl mixture.
Today, though, I join many in raising awareness concerning fentanyl's impact and in expressing my solidarity with those affected by this poison.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, we need law enforcement. Nowhere was that more evident than on Saturday night, when a gunman attempted to storm the White House Correspondents' Dinner in an attempt to kill the President, individuals in the line of succession to the Presidency, and civilians who got in the way.
We need law enforcement. We need the police officers who patrol our streets, the first to respond when someone is in danger or needs help. We need the FBI agents who investigate Federal crimes, from money laundering to kidnapping. We need the Secret Service agents who protect the President and Vice President and other dignitaries. We need sheriffs' offices and transit police and ATF agents, and, yes, we need the Federal law enforcement officers who patrol our borders and take dangerous illegal aliens off of our streets.
You could be forgiven for thinking that I am stating the obvious. Ask most Americans, and I think you would find they say: Of course--of course--we need law enforcement.
But that doesn't always seem to be obvious to my Democratic colleagues.
The ``defund the police'' movement and ``abolish ICE'' movements were both embraced by Members of the Democrat Party, and now Democrats are at it again.
The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down because Democrats decided they don't want to fund border security or immigration enforcement. They refuse to fund the Border Patrol. They refuse to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They are refusing to fund any physical presence at our borders or any agents to take dangerous criminal illegal aliens off of our streets.
Not only that, the Democrat leader made it very clear that his party doesn't ever--he doesn't even, I should say, respect the work these law enforcement agents are doing.
``Nobody in this country respects ICE and Border Patrol,'' the Democrat leader said on the floor last week. And when asked to clarify his comments to say whether he really thinks nobody respects agents who put their lives on the line to, for example, stop dangerous individuals from crossing the border, the Democrat leader declined to answer. He declined to answer.
And I guess it is no surprise. Declining to fund these key law enforcement Agencies is a pretty good clue that Democrats don't respect the sacrifices these agents make to protect our country.
Why do we need law enforcement officers? Because there are dangerous individuals out there who choose to do harm. That is just a fact of living in a fallen world. And no government program or liberal fantasy is going to erase that reality.
And just as there are dangerous individuals already in our communities, there are dangerous individuals who would like to make their way illegally across our borders: drug traffickers, human traffickers, other criminals, terrorists.
Border Patrol agents stop them. And when dangerous individuals do make their way into our country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents work to take these dangerous individuals off of our streets.
Democrats may not like this reality. They may not like the fact that we need border security and immigration enforcement. But the fact remains that Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are two Agencies that play a key role in our safety.
And the enormity of what Democrats have opted for cannot be overstated: no agents--zero agents--at the border; no one--no one--to stop dangerous individuals from making their way into our country; and no one--no one--to catch and deport these dangerous individuals if they do make it in.
Republicans, of course, are not going to let that happen. As long as we are in charge, we are going to do everything we can to protect our borders and keep dangerous criminal illegal aliens off of our streets.
And that is why, after weeks and weeks of attempting to negotiate a funding agreement with Democrats before they ultimately walked away, we are now set to consider a reconciliation bill to fund border security and immigration enforcement for the next 3 years.
We have passed the budget resolution that will open the way for the final bill, and I hope my colleagues in the House will pass it in short order.
We need law enforcement. It is too bad the Democratic Party doesn't always agree.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise for two reasons: First, I talked last night about carbon capture--carbon dioxide capture--injection wells in Louisiana. I am not going to regive that speech.
Carbon dioxide, while a naturally occurring gas that God created-- when you breathe, what you blow out is carbon dioxide. The world couldn't exist without carbon dioxide. Plants couldn't conduct photosynthesis. But carbon dioxide is also a gas that is heavier than air, and it rises. And it is also dispersed throughout our atmosphere.
And while there are many good things about CO2, as we call it, one of the bad things is that carbon dioxide acts as a blanket over our world. And what happens when you are in bed, under a blanket? The blanket holds in heat. And carbon dioxide acts as this blanket, and it holds in the Earth's heat. And that can--that can affect your climate and your temperature. That is what all this discussion about carbon dioxide is all about.
A number of years ago, Congress decided to encourage companies that produce carbon dioxide. And one of the ways you also produce carbon dioxide, I should also add, is by burning fossil fuels. So a petrochemical plant, which uses natural gas when it produces the chemicals, it also produces CO2, or carbon dioxide, just like I have been producing it as I have been breathing while we are talking.
In any event, Congress passed a statute and said: We want to try to minimize the production of carbon dioxide, which can affect our climate when we burn fossil fuels.
So Congress came up with this idea of paying companies money to capture that carbon dioxide so that it is not released into the atmosphere--and, boy, do we pay a bunch of money. It is about $30 billion in spending every year. We are paying it to private companies to capture this carbon dioxide. It will be about $30 billion that we are spending by 2030.
One of the things that companies do when they produce the carbon dioxide and they want to capture it--after they capture it, they have to do something with it. One of the things that many of you probably know is that they drill-well inject it underground. In my State, that is very controversial. Some people support it. Some people don't.
I am not here to debate the merits of carbon capture and what we call carbon capture sequestration. All I am saying is that under Louisiana law, if you own property and you don't want a company drilling a well and putting carbon dioxide under your property, you should have the right to say no.
My legislation--Louisiana passed a statute. I am not saying they were right or wrong to do it, just like I am not debating the merits--or lack thereof--of carbon capture and sequestration. All I am saying is that under my State law, if a company captures this carbon dioxide and wants to drill a well and inject it beneath the surface and if they want to put it on my property and I don't want them to put it on my property, then they come to me and say ``I want to drill a well and inject carbon dioxide,'' I am entitled to say ``Yep, you got it. Happy to help'' or I am entitled to say ``I don't want you to do it.'' They say ``Pretty please?'' and I say ``The short answer is no. The long answer is hell no.''
Under my State law, those private companies can force me to let them drill that well. We call it expropriation. Some States call it eminent domain. It is just like if a State wants to put a road through your property and it can't put it anywhere else, they can take your land, but they have to pay you for it. Well, in my State, the legislature says they can do the same thing with the drilling of these wells.
All I am saying is, in the great State of Louisiana, we go about this business of debating carbon capture and climate change and that sort of thing. If you own property, which, under my State constitution and the Federal Constitution, is an inalienable/unalienable right--you have the right to own property in America--and if a company wants to drill a well on your property and put carbon dioxide down there and you don't want them to, then you ought to have a right to say no, and the State can't make you, and the companies can't make you. And that is all I am saying. That is the only point I was trying to make last night.
If the powers that be in my State start bullying people--I am not saying they will, but if they start bullying people and taking their property when they don't want to give it up, in order to inject carbon dioxide beneath their
I wasn't very clear last night. I think I was tired, and it was late, and I was also in a hurry to get home to watch ``Wheel of Fortune.''
Now, Mr. President, the other reason I am here, which is just as important, is for this man sitting right here. His name is Patrick Taylor. He is a fine American, and he and I work together.
Much to my sorrow--well, it is sorrow, but it is also pride--Patrick is going to work for another Agency. And I mean that my feelings are mixed about it.
Here is my strategy. I am not saying people who don't follow my strategy are doing it wrong. This is just the way I have always done it. I have been in government and politics for a while, and I have known some politicians that don't want to hire anybody smarter than them, OK, because they don't want anybody around them who will make them look bad. That is cool. To each his own. I don't do it that way, OK? I figure, if I hire people smarter than me, they will make me look better. That is what I have always tried to do, and I fully concede that Patrick is smarter than me.
But one of the downsides of hiring people smarter than you is that they are ambitious, they learn all they can, and somebody comes in and hires them away. That happens, and it has happened to me a number of times. Every single time, even though I am disappointed, I also try to say to myself: You know, this is a compliment, and I am sad, but I am happy. And that is what has happened with Patrick.
Patrick, as I told you, is really smart. He is a graduate of Colgate. I wrote it all down here. He has a master's from Hillsdale College. He studied at the Claremont Institute. He is on my communications team. This guy is a master at digital media. I mean, he can make posts and stuff on digital media. He can make that social media stuff walk, talk, and whistle ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic,'' man, and he gets people to watch, and it is awesome.
Patrick is going to work for the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. I asked him about it, and he said: It is top secret. If I told you, I would have to drown you in the ocean.
He didn't really say that.
It is a great job, and I am happy for him. He has been with me for 3 years, and it has been a great 3 years.
Patrick, Godspeed. Come back and see us. You are going to do great.
I just wanted to come by and acknowledge his service to the good people of America and to the good people of Louisiana and thank him for all of his help. It has been a lot of fun.
If you write a book, I reserve the right to edit it first, OK? You can't include everything in that book.
Patrick, thank you, man.
That is all I have, Mr. President. I can show my way out. My work here is done.
So I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Is that OK, Madam Parliamentarian?
Thank you, ma'am.
This is our Parliamentarian, Mr. President. She is pretty smart too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, every American should be grateful that President Trump, Vice President Vance, the Cabinet, and thousands of other attendees were not harmed during Saturday's disturbing shooting that took place at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.
We now know that the shooter was attempting to kill the President, and this was the third assassination attempt we have seen on his life in the past couple of years.
Now, some Democrats--and I would include former President Obama in this--some have claimed that we don't have details about the suspect's motives, but we do have plenty of details, and we know that the shooter actually laid a good bit of this out. He did a manifesto, and he sent that manifesto to his family shortly before the attack. The shooter said he was going to target administration officials ``prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.'' It shows you he thought this through. Now, his reason for this, he said President Trump is--and I quote his wording here again--``pedophile, rapist, traitor.''
Now, this is unhinged rhetoric. It is completely in line with the lies that the Democrats have repeated on just about a daily basis every day regarding President Trump. We have heard it on TV, on podcasts, on social media, in their speeches, and it is something else that they continue with this rhetoric.
And Gov. Tim Walz who, of course, was the VP nominee in the last election once said:
Again, that was Gov. Tim Walz.
Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called the President an ``existential threat to democracy,'' ``the most significant threat to American democracy since the Civil War,'' and an ``authoritarian.'' And some of them have chosen to compare him to historical figures, and that historical figure they usually use is Hitler. And, of course, Kamala Harris once compared him to a ``communist dictator.''
This is reckless rhetoric. This is the kind of rhetoric that needs to stop because this places a target on our President, and this is the type of rhetoric that has no place in civil public life.
Now, we are celebrating America 250, and we are looking at how this Nation has remained strong and free. Indeed, I think that as you look at our history, those tenets of faith, family, freedom, hope, and opportunity have served us well. And how do we achieve that American dream? Well, we have kept ourselves free and focused on achieving that dream for each and every person. They all look different. Everybody's dream is different of what they want, what their goals are, the type of community they want to live in. They are all different.
But we arrive at decisions of what kind of communities we will have, what kind of country we will have--those issues of importance--we arrive there through robust, respectful, bipartisan debate. We don't get there by exercising reckless rhetoric, some of which I have quoted. It is so disappointing to hear this from some of our colleagues and then to see the type of vitriol that this spurs.
Now, when we have robust, respectful, bipartisan debate--I share my opinion; someone else shares their opinion--what this does is to empower not only us, but the people that we represent, to enter into that debate, to be a part of the public square, to defend our freedoms, to build consensus, and to serve the American people and to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy.
Now, without it, without having that marketplace of ideas, without that robust, respectful debate that leads to exchange and asking: What if we did this? What if we did that? If we did not have that, then this Nation would head to a very dark place. And this latest assassination attempt on President Trump is another reminder of what can happen when Americans abandon the possibility of working together and instead of settling their differences by debate in the public square, they choose to settle these differences by violence, by reckless rhetoric.
So as we approach our Nation's 250th anniversary, we need to remember that it is this exchange of ideas and this robust, respectful debate that has helped to sustain the freedoms that we enjoy in this country.
Mr. President, now, on a separate but related topic, we go to this issue of Department of Homeland Security funding. It is important that we remember that the Agency that is responsible for protecting our President, his family, our Vice President, his family, our Cabinet members--they all have a security detail--but the Agency is the Secret Service, and the Secret Service is in the Department of Homeland Security, as is Homeland Security Investigations, ICE, Border Patrol, TSA. See, it all comes out of that DHS budget.
And we now are on day 74 of the Democrats' latest shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. It is the third time this Congress that they have chosen to shut down Homeland Security.
Now, to ensure that agents continue to receive their paychecks, President Trump has resorted to using funds from the Working Families Tax Cut--Big Beautiful Bill--that we passed last year, and thank goodness that we did. And I will remind the Chamber: Every single Democrat voted against that bill. Every single Democrat voted against your pocketbook. They voted to increase your taxes by voting no on the Big Beautiful Bill.
Well, thank goodness we got it passed because that is where the President has been able to go and move some money around and pay people that are working without a paycheck.
Now, you know, it makes you wonder how many people would choose to continue to work and not receive a paycheck? But that is what our Democrat colleagues continue to do.
Last night, I did a telephone townhall, and on this townhall was a grandmother who lives in Middle Tennessee. Her question to me was very pointed. She said: Senator Blackburn, my grandson is in the Coast Guard. Have you-all figured out how to pay the Coast Guard?
The Coast Guard. They are funded by DHS. So our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to say to the Coast Guard: Forget it. We are not for paying you.
So think about this. When you talk about going after human traffickers and drug runners, the Democrats don't want to fund that activity.
When you talk about Homeland Security Investigations that helps to find missing children, that locks up pedophiles and predators, that locks up groomers--they don't want to go after them. They are choosing to not fund that Agency.
Well, I had another caller on the townhall last night, and they said: I don't get this. Why don't they want to pay TSA? Why don't they want to pay ICE agents who were picking up people that broke the law to come into the country and have committed crimes and need to be deported? These are people that, by and large, most have orders of deportation already issued against them. They are ready to be deported.
And the answer is disappointing, but it is what the Democrats will tell you. Their goal is to abolish ICE, to open the border back up, and just say: You-all come. Anybody can come. We are going to vacate immigration law.
And their third goal is to defund the police. You know, during Joe Biden's era, they loved the fact--loved it--the border was wide open. And we had illegal aliens entering the country by the thousands and the millions. They liked it that way. They didn't know who was in the country, but they were glad they were here. They wanted more sanctuary cities.
And, again, what we see the Democrats doing, they are putting illegal aliens before citizens. They are not funding--will not fund Federal law enforcement, don't want to fund immigration, don't want to fund the Coast Guard, don't want to fund the TSA. I guess they just think that there should be no scanning and no review.
So we know that that is their goal, and we know also that they don't want a deal on this. They want to continue to have a fight. They want this issue. Their goal is to abolish ICE, to defund Federal law enforcement. That is where they are headed, so they like having a shutdown.
Well, they continue with this political charade, and we have now passed a budget resolution that is going to open the path for us for a targeted public safety reconciliation bill that is going to fund these issues through President Trump's term. We will take this issue off the table.
Now, we did this on the Big Beautiful Bill. We did it through reconciliation. We did it with 51 votes. And as I said earlier, not one single Democrat--not one--voted for the Big Beautiful Bill. And we will make certain that ICE and CBP and these other Agencies are funded, and we will do it without a single Democrat vote.
And also, doing it this way, the Democrats will have none of the reforms they pretended to want when it came to Homeland Security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, you and I are the elected representatives of our States, and sometimes we speak not on behalf of ourselves but on behalf of our entire State. Now is one of those times.
Everyone in Louisiana felt grief at the mass shooting in Shreveport that I spoke to on this floor last week. Now I speak for all in Louisiana who feel grief at the mass shooting in Baton Rouge last week, and our whole State feels this grief. We all grieve.
I have a friend Collis Temple--famous in Louisiana--the first African American who played basketball for LSU. He called to say that he, as a parent, felt the grief of this young lady's family, and it was Collis who compelled me to speak today because every family can imagine no longer having their child or their sibling.
We all grieve. Every classmate can picture walking to school and seeing an empty chair where their classmate once sat.
We all grieve. Every friend can imagine going on a carefree senior skip day. If you are older than 18, you can remember when you were once 18 and something awful happened--indeed, every friend grieves.
What do we say when words fail? We can say that all, in my State, in my country, are deeply and profoundly sorry and that all of Louisiana grieves with Martha's family.
So I ask that this body and all who are here join in a quiet moment for the life of Martha Odom, for everyone who loved her, loves her still, and will always love her.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill that Senator Shaheen and I introduced recently. It is called the Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now Act, or the INSULIN Act. This bill would make insulin more affordable for Americans with diabetes.
I would like to also recognize the work of Senators Warnock and Kennedy who joined us in introducing this important bill.
In 1997, I founded the Senate Diabetes Caucus after meeting with a family from Maine who had a 10-year-old son with type 1 diabetes.
I will never forget this young boy looking up at me and saying to me that he wished that he could just take 1 day off from having type 1 diabetes--his birthday or Christmas--just 1 day. But, of course, he could not.
It was then that I knew that I had to dedicate my efforts toward earlier diagnosis, better treatments and technology, and one day a cure.
Since 2009, Senator Shaheen and I have cochaired the Diabetes Caucus in the Senate and worked together to fund vital research and advance policies that will improve the lives of those who are living with diabetes. One of our top priorities has been to make insulin more affordable.
Now, insulin was first isolated more than 100 years ago in Canada, and the scientist who did discover it gave away, essentially, the patent rights because they wanted insulin to be available and affordable to everyone who needed it.
Tens of millions of Americans rely on insulin as part of their daily treatment
I have heard from far too many people across Maine and across this country who, because of the escalating costs of insulin, feel they have to ration their insulin and do not take the full dose that their physician has prescribed and that they need to be healthy.
Let me tell you of one example.
Bek Hoskins, of Chelsea, ME, is a young adult. Bek was forced to skip her doses of insulin to try to make it last longer, to stretch it out, because she simply could not afford the cost. In one profoundly memorable instance, Bek pushed her body's limit too far, and she ended up in the emergency room. Her husband Barrett rushed her, through a snowstorm, to the hospital, and she nearly died because she tried to go without insulin for 2 days. Such a dangerous, preventable crisis should never occur. We must address this life-threatening problem.
Senator Shaheen and I have introduced legislation to reduce the price of insulin in the past two Congresses, and we have made some progress. For example, three of the biggest insulin manufacturers--Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi--voluntarily chose to cut their list prices. This is encouraging, but there is more work to be done. We also joined together for reforms in the pharmacy benefit manager system, which encouraged PBMs to choose the highest priced insulin for insurance formularies. That was because their compensation was frequently a percentage of the list price. Much of that we are fixing, and some of it was fixed last year. But we need more legislation to fix the fundamental problems in the insulin market, including limited biosimilar competition, as well as barriers to patients' access.
The INSULIN Act would do just that. Our bill would limit cost sharing for insulin to no more than $35 a month, or 25 percent of the list price per month, for at least one type of insulin for each type that is needed and dosage form, for patients who have commercial insurance.
Our bill would also prohibit insurers and pharmacy benefit managers from placing utilization obstacles such as prior authorization and step therapy on products that have capped costs. These important patient protections will deliver immediate out-of-pocket relief.
The INSULIN Act of 2026 will also promote generic and biosimilar competition in the insurance market to further drive down prices through more competition. The bill would create a new, expedited FDA pathway to promote biosimilar competition. It would take similar steps to enhance regulatory certainty for biosimilar drug companies, such as by requiring the FDA to prioritize actions such as inspections and communications with manufacturers.
We can't have a situation where a biosimilar, which is like a generic for insulin, is launched at a low price but faces obstacles to its approval even if it is absolutely identical to a brand-name insulin, and we can't allow--and we have seen this before--pharmacy benefit managers to refuse to choose that lower priced biosimilar product for the insurance company's formulary simply because they will make less on the deal.
Finally, this bill helps address the insulin needs of uninsured Americans by creating a pilot grant program for States to implement to identify people with diabetes who are uninsured and provide them with insulin at $35 a month. It will also create an insulin resource center and a hotline for people with diabetes who are uninsured to help connect them with programs so that they can secure the insulin that they need in order to be healthy.
The INSULIN Act will help make insulin more affordable for Americans, both those with and without insurance, by capping the cost and addressing fundamental flaws in the insulin market and the FDA approval process. I thank the American Diabetes Association, Breakthrough T1D, and the Endocrine Society for endorsing this much needed legislation.
Let me just add one final point. If individuals who are insulin- dependent are able to use their insulin, they not only are going to be healthier and avoid severe ramifications of not taking insulin; the healthcare system is going to save money. It is far less expensive to help people afford the insulin that they need for their diabetes than to have them hospitalized or at risk of losing a limb or becoming blind or having other severe consequences because they are not able to afford their insulin.
So I would encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan and much needed legislation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a law that most people will have never heard of, but it is very, very important to our national security. That is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA as we sometimes refer to it.
We are approaching the expiration of this section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act later this week, and time's a-wastin' for us to get this actually done.
I know it is important for us to have debates and offer constructive suggestions about changes in these laws, but we cannot risk going dark on this essential intelligence-gathering law, which actually has empowered President Trump to help keep the country safe.
Without getting into the merits of one of these proposals or another, let me just take a step back and talk about the importance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and national security.
One of the major misconceptions about this is it is a law enforcement tool, but it is not. It is not primarily a law enforcement tool. Now, it is illegal to commit espionage in this country, but the main reason this is used is to collect information from people overseas on national security threats to the United States. And it allows the intelligence community to connect the dots to understand what our adversaries are up to.
FISA was enacted in 1978 in order to provide more transparency and avoid overreach of surveillance of domestic actors. If you read the history of the FBI going back to the J. Edgar Hoover days, there was a lot of things that the FBI was doing under J. Edger Hoover that today we would blanch at and certainly consider illegal when it regards surveillance of U.S. persons.
So FISA was enacted to make sure that we did not allow any unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens, but we did preserve the ability to gain information about foreign actors overseas on potential national security threats to the United States.
Section 702, which is the provision that expires in a very short time now, was first enacted in 2008, and as I said, authorizes the U.S. Government to target foreign--hence, the name--the word ``foreign'' in the FISA--foreign intelligence collection of non-U.S. persons.
Now, that is a bureaucratic way of just saying: American citizens are--you cannot surveil American citizens no matter where they are, even if they are overseas. It only authorizes surveillance of foreign intelligence collection for non-U.S. persons overseas outside of the United States.
Unlike traditional criminal investigations where warrants are issued based on probable cause--that is, showing a probable cause to a judge that a crime has been committed, thus justifying issuance of a warrant to then search or collect information here in America--unlike that, intelligence
So our criminal justice system is designed to investigate and prosecute crimes that occur after they happen. But the intelligence community needs these tools like FISA to be able to prevent bad things from happening. So it is forward-leaning rather than retrospective.
President Trump has asked Congress to reauthorize this essential authority, as the current law properly balances intelligence needs with privacy protections of U.S. citizens.
Let me just put a finer point on that. To allow this to expire would be an affront to the President; but also, it would essentially blind the President to this essential intelligence that he uses on a daily basis in his President's Daily Brief.
Many folks are familiar with the fact that the President gets intelligence briefings on a daily basis, and it is called the PDR, President's Daily--PDB, excuse me, the President's Daily Brief.
So the intelligence Agencies--notably the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence--will brief the President on national security threats.
Mr. President, 60 percent--60 percent--of the information contained in the President's Daily Brief is a product of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So to allow that to expire would basically handicap the President in terms of getting access to the information he needs in order to work within and U.S. Government to keep the public and our Nation safe. So 60 percent of the President's Daily Brief is a product of 702 of FISA.
In 2025, a quarter--25 percent--of the national security Agencies-- that is our Signals Intelligence Agency--25 percent of their reports were comprised of information gathered under section 702.
This information, of course, has allowed the U.S. Government to thwart terrorist attacks and to make sure that we protect the public at large. It has also helped us find and rescue American hostages and much more.
In April of 2024, Congress responded to the concerns that some had raised about privacy of U.S. citizens by passing the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, the RISAA. RISAA, I guess. I am not sure how to pronounce it, but that is the acronym; RISAA, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.
So these concerns which led to these reforms included incidents such as unlawful targeting of Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide, during the run-up to the President's election in 2016. But that is a different section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Obviously, Carter Page was an American citizen, and based on what I have said--you have heard me say--you can't surveil American citizens, whether they are at home or abroad without a warrant.
So this would not apply to the Carter Page case; although, I agree it was an abomination where an FBI lawyer basically misrepresented the facts to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court who then issued a warrant on Carter Page.
And the Justice Department has since admitted that it did not have probable cause to surveil him.
So a different section--section 702 is different from the Carter Page example. So the R-I-S-A-A--RISAA--was crafted to address past abuses of the foreign intelligence surveillance authorities and privacy and civil liberty concerns while ensuring that the government had the capability in order to protect Americans from foreign threats.
The provisions enacted into law have gone a long way to curb the likelihood of abuses that were happening under FISA authorities during the Obama and the Biden administrations.
According to a recent report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the reforms that Congress passed under RISAA have had positive effects regarding the safeguarding of privacy and civil liberty. These included significant reforms to the way that the FBI can conduct U.S. person queries.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act section 702 is authorized overseas on a noncitizen, but if they communicate with an American citizen here in the United States, that information is maintained in a database by the intelligence Agencies. It is lawfully collected information, not for the purposes of a criminal investigation, but for purposes of collecting intelligence to be able to connect the dots and protect the Nation.
Targeting refers to the actual collection of data on non-U.S. persons abroad who may be potential threats. While querying--or looking into-- the data that is collected in that process is different. It is worth repeating again. Only non-U.S. persons abroad may be targeted under 702.
But RISAA, the reforms, include stronger oversight measures and consequences for violations of these new requirements, which is entirely appropriate. Part of this is not only to address potential violations but also to build the public's confidence that their own government is not spying on them as I have heard some people suggest.
But perhaps the most significant reforms in RISAA were how these queries of lawfully collected information were conducted. Due to new requirements from RISAA, queries of U.S. persons already collected-- lawfully collected--information are now even further restricted and subject to three reviews. That is sort of a belt-and-suspenders approach to making sure we protect American citizens.
Since 2023, the total number of queries of U.S. persons has dropped by 87 percent. According to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, within the first year after the enactment of these reforms, more than 98 percent of the FBI's queries of already lawfully collected information weren't compliant with these new requirements.
The report concludes that, while the implementation of these reforms are still being studied, it is clear they are having a positive effect on the privacy of American citizens.
Furthermore, FISA remains a very important tool that the U.S. Government uses in order to support our national security, which is why President Trump has been so adamant that we need to get this law reauthorized and not let it go dark.
Last March, CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified that 70 percent of his Agency's success in countering advanced weapons proliferation and 90 percent of their success in interdicting synthetic drugs like fentanyl were the result of information acquired by using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Section 702 allows the U.S. Government to vet foreign persons seeking to enter the United States for connections to terrorism and international drug trafficking operations. It is also a critical tool for combatting cyber threats. Section 702 proved particularly useful for the U.S. Government's efforts to crack down on illicit drug trafficking into the country.
This intelligence has helped the United States, together with our friends, to identify the supply chain for precursor chemicals coming from China and used to make synthetic drugs like fentanyl in Mexico. And it also has allowed the intelligence Agencies to seize machinery in China that would have been able to produce millions of pills per hour-- these pill pressers, these automated pill pressers. Section 702 also allows our Border Patrol to seize these pill pressers at the border.
Reports indicate that 90 percent of the CIA's successful interdiction of synthetic drugs like fentanyl is attributable to section 702.
So some people are suggesting it ought to go dark; we ought not to extend it. It makes no sense when you begin to look at how effective it has been in keeping the country safe.
Section 702 is also important in counterterrorism. Information acquired under that section has allowed the FBI to identify a potential terrorist threat, in October of 2023, related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The FBI was able to warn the Department of Defense and the relevant host nations about this threat against American troops.
In another instance, section 702 allowed the United States to discover and thwart a planned terrorist attack against a high-profile concert in Europe.
These are just a couple of examples--of numerous examples--of ways section 702 has helped the United States protect our citizens against foreign threats.
And no one knows that better than President Trump, who is the daily consumer of this information. Again, 60 percent of his daily intelligence brief is composed of section 702 intelligence. And, of course, the President is responsible for the protection of all of our citizens and U.S. interests, and that is why he has asked us to reauthorize this critical authority.
President Trump recently wrote on Truth Social to say:
After 4 years of weakness under President Biden, President Trump is showing the world that the United States is, once again, a power to be dealt with. It is imperative we equip the President and the entire administration, working with Congress in an oversight capacity, like on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on which I serve. It is important that we equip the Trump administration with the tools and authorities they need to maintain deterrence and, hopefully, peace through strength.
We cannot allow this authority to expire. It would be foolhardy and reckless to do so.
So President Trump has asked us to reauthorize FISA section 702, and I hope all of our colleagues in both Chambers will not tie the President's hands behind his back while we have Americans in active combat overseas.
And we need this essential intelligence in order to protect our people and our homeland.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, earlier this morning, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court took another step toward resurrecting the Jim Crow South.
In a decision that for all practical purposes upends half a century of precedent, defies the spirit of the American Civil Rights Movement, and reverses generations of progress toward racial justice, the rightwing Court today essentially declared it valid and appropriate for States to discriminate against racial minorities in drawing districts.
The Voting Rights Act--a law written in the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of Americans who marched, who fought, and died for the right to vote and to prevent racial discrimination--has been diminished once again.
The consequence of this decision is as clear as it is dangerous: fewer protections for voters, more power for politicians to draw maps that silence them--particularly historically disenfranchised voters.
The conservative Court has tried to make it seem like its decision today was narrow and tailored. But let's be very clear. In the words of Justice Kagan, this decision is a ``demolition''--a ``demolition''--of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It opens the floodgates for States across the South to redraw their congressional districts and make voters of color essentially invisible in our democracy. By some estimates, this decision could lead conservative State legislatures to draw as many as 19 additional seats that favor Republicans in the House.
So, far from being a narrow decision, this MAGA Court is trying to give Republicans a leg up--an illegitimate leg up--in future elections.
Let me say it again: This case is the MAGA Court trying to give Republicans a leg up in future elections.
It is a knife to the heart of some of the most important civil rights legislation that past generations marched for, organized for, and bled for. It will bring back the old, sinister practices long discarded to the dustbin of history: State legislatures diluting, erasing, and overpowering voters of color.
Shame on the High Court. Shame on the MAGA Justices for rigging our elections.
This did not happen all at once. For years, this Court--beginning with the Roberts decision in the awful Shelby County decision--has chipped away at the Voting Rights Act, decision by decision. Chief Justice Roberts bears a lot of the blame for this awful decision.
The commitment of equal representation has been broken before, but every time, Americans have forced it back into the law. Senate Democrats will fight it, once again, to reverse this awful, awful decision.
Even before this wretched decision, we knew the MAGA far right was hell-bent in trying to undermine our democracy.
Mr. President, we know that the MAGA right is trying to rig our democracy. We knew it long before this decision. Donald Trump knows and his party knows that they are going to lose this election in 2026, which is why they are working around the clock to tilt the scales unfairly in their favor.
Trump issued another Executive order, a month ago, to subvert our elections. Last week, they took aim at the Southern Poverty Law Center to chill speech and suppress actions from organizations that protect democracy. Trump continues to push for his SAVE Act to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans, and he stacked his administration with election deniers.
So, today, I am launching the Democratic Party's most expansive effort, to date, to protect the 2026 midterm elections and to shield them from the direct threats posed by Trump and MAGA Republicans.
This afternoon, a group of Senators and I will meet with former Attorney General Eric Holder, Mark Elias, and some of the country's top election experts to talk about how we can be ready for any and all threats that might come against our elections this fall.
I want to thank my Senate Democratic colleagues for joining in today's meeting.
We know that some on the extreme right will try to rig the system. Donald Trump said it. He said he can't win the election except by rigging it. That is more or less what he said. Donald Trump's Justice Department sought to seize States' voter rolls. Rightwingers raided election offices in Georgia. They pressed election officials in Arizona to turn over documents. Online radicals are threatening poll workers and are spreading lies about voter fraud. And, here in Congress, hard- right Republicans are trying to pass Jim Crow 2.0 in the SAVE Act.
These threats are only going to intensify the closer we get to election day. So our election fraud task force represents the most aggressive and coordinated effort to date to make sure our elections this fall are protected. The goal of our task force is to ensure that every vote counts and every American can participate in our democracy without coercion, intimidation, or threats from Trump or anyone else.
Now, Mr. President, on DHS--a lot is happening today-- last night, Donald Trump confirmed what I have been saying for weeks: Speaker Johnson and House Republicans are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security. They are holding it up--the Republicans, not Democrats. The White House said it, in effect. The White House put out a memo urging House Republicans to stop dithering and pass the DHS bill that every Democrat and every Republican in the Senate passed unanimously not once but twice.
For weeks, Republicans have tried to pin the blame for their shutdown on Democrats. The Trump administration just exposed how preposterous that lie is.
Republican dysfunction is endangering our national security. House Republicans have been so busy fighting one another in the House that FISA may expire.
Republicans, get your act together. Our national security depends on it.
While Democrats have been trying to fund the Secret Service, the TSA, the Coast Guard, CISA, FEMA, and other crucial Agencies, Republicans have been trying to jam through as much as another $140 billion for Trump's rogue Agencies. And while Democrats have been working diligently and assiduously to try and lower Americans' costs, Republicans want to splurge on a $400 million gold-plated ballroom for the President. The last thing Americans want us spending their tax dollars on is a gilded palace for Donald Trump.
What will Trump ask Americans to pay for next--a moat?
What else could $400 million get Americans? A year of childcare for 30,000 families; skills for training 50,000 new electricians, plumbers, and welders; disaster loans for 10,000 households; and so much more.
Keep in mind that, just 1 month ago today, Donald Trump said:
Then put your money where your mouth is, President Trump. Stop trying to waste Americans' hard-earned tax dollars on this extravagance, and get your party to work with Democrats to keep the American people safe.
Finally, Mr. President, on Iran and gas prices--as I said, there is a lot going on--just hours ago, Pentagon officials told Congress that Trump's disastrous war has cost taxpayers $25 billion. Can you believe it? At least $25 billion and we are less than 2 months into this war. And $25 billion is just the sticker price.
Americans are also paying for this war at the pump. This morning, average gas prices in America hit $4.23 a gallon. That is a record high since the start of the war.
Let me repeat: U.S. gas prices are at their highest level since the beginning of the war in Iran. It is now $4.23--up 40 percent since Trump started his costly war with Iran.
The price of gas is the highest it has been in 4 years. There is only one person to blame--Donald J. Trump.
Trump says he is bleeding Iran economically. But he is draining the pockets of American families. And for what? The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. The Iranian regime is still radical. Our servicemembers are still in harm's way. Trump still has no idea how to end this blunder.
Instead, we hear reports that Trump is telling his aides to prepare for a protracted blockade. This morning, Trump warned that Iran better get smart soon.
Well, it is Donald Trump who had better get smart soon and end this war unless he wants Americans to continue paying $4.23 at the pump.
This week, Democrats will force a vote on our War Powers Resolution for the sixth time. We will continue to force votes every week as this war rages on.
I urge my Republican friends to help bail Donald Trump out of his mess. Vote with us to end this war, or you, Republican Senators, will continue to face the outrage of the American people.
This Friday marks 60 days since Trump officially notified Congress that he had launched this reckless war. Under the War Powers Act, Trump must seek authorization for his war to continue beyond 60 days. After that deadline, Republicans will have no place to hide and no more hollow excuses to let this fighting continue. Republicans know Trump's handling of this war has been a disaster. They see how much the American people are hurting right now.
How many War Powers Resolutions do Democrats need to put before Senate Republicans until they do what is right?
How many Americans will have to go bankrupt?
How many days do our service members have to spend apart from their families?
How many people will have to die before Trump realizes that this war must end?
I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, Paducah, KY, is a town of 26,000 people on the banks of the Ohio River, known for its barbecue, character, and community. At the heart of that community, for more than 70 years, is the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club. What began in the 1950s as a small group of men under the leadership of local parole officer Oscar Cross has since grown into a Paducah institution, serving boys and girls from ages 6 to 18.
Through financial responsibility lessons, health education, literacy programs, and community service projects, the club offers kids much more than just a safe place to go after school. It provides stability, mentorship, and life skills that shape their future.
The future of the club, however, is limited by something as simple as paperwork. The building that houses the Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Club sits on a 3\1/2\-acre lot owned by the city, constrained by a Federal restriction that prevents the property from being transferred to the Boys & Girls Club. As a result, much needed renovations to improve and expand the space they are in is out of reach, kneecapping growth.
According to the club's executive director Andrew McGlenon, transferring the property would allow for renovations and new facilities like a gym and classrooms that would nearly double the daily attendance from 100 to 200 kids.
Congressman Comer and I have introduced legislation to lift the outdated restriction and allow the city of Paducah to transfer the mere 3\1/2\ acres to the club, as has been requested by the city, the club, and the community for several years now. There is no policy change here. It simply seeks to take care of a community back home.
In fact, this is how a unanimous consent request should be used. All parties want to see the land swap effectuated. The only thing the Senate needs to do to ensure that the Boys & Girls Club can better serve its community is to allow this bill to pass today. This isn't a sweeping policy change. This isn't a national regulation. This is something local for a local boys and girls club. I can't imagine why it would be objected to. Passing this bill today will ensure that a cornerstone of Paducah's youth continues to serve generations to come.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1276 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.
Madam President, reserving the right to object, the House is currently holding a number of Senate-passed bills without action, including legislation I have introduced and passed through the Senate and measures led by many of my colleagues. Right now, there are six bills that I have passed out of the Senate that are sitting in the House awaiting action. Nearly every bill that the House is refusing to move is overwhelmingly bipartisan and noncontroversial.
Of the 87 bills that have been signed into law in this Congress, nearly twice as many originated in the House as in the Senate. This imbalance is both unreasonable and unacceptable.
I understand that my colleague from Kentucky is interested in getting yet another House bill, H.R. 1276, passed today, and I appreciate the diligence and effort he has devoted to this legislation affecting property in Paducah, KY. But I cannot let this bill become law until there is resolution on either House or Senate inaction.
For instance, Senator Paul is, right now, singlehandedly blocking nearly 20 bipartisan bills that have passed the Senate Commerce Committee from getting through this Chamber. Among them are S. 28, Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, my bill with Senator Cantwell; S. 196, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act, by Senator Blackburn; S. 244, the ROUTERS Act, by Senator Blackburn; S. 245, the Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2025, by Senator Hickenlooper; S. 246, the Interstate Transport Act of 2025, by Senator Budd; S. 258, the TORNADO Act, by Senator Wicker; S. 278, the Kids Off Social Media Act, my bill with Senator Schatz; S. 281, the TICKET Act, by Senator Schmitt; S. 289, the Youth Poisoning Protection Act, by Senator Duckworth; S. 314, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, by Senator Klobuchar; S. 315, the AM Radio Act, by Senator Markey and myself; S. 434, the Space Commerce Advisory Committee Act, by Senator Peters; S. 580, the Combating CCP Labor Abuses Act of 2025, by Senator Peters; S. 841, the Romance Scam Prevention Act, by Senator Blackburn; and S. 2357, the Young Fishermen's Development Extension Act, by Senator Sullivan.
One of these bills, the Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, or ``Spy Fridge,'' as it is known, I have authored along with Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell and Senators Curtis and Warnock. It very simply requires the packaging or listing of an internet-connected appliance to disclose if the product has a camera or recording capability.
Many Americans do not realize that a growing number of these so- called smart household devices and appliances include cameras and/or microphones that can record them and have the ability to transmit their data without their knowledge. In other words, when Americans buy a new refrigerator, they shouldn't have to worry about their refrigerator recording the conversations with their spouse while they are standing in the kitchen or taking a video recording of them in their own home. Americans deserve to know, at a minimum, if their appliances are doing this.
By my count, Senator Paul has blocked 16 pieces of bipartisan legislation that have been considered and approved by the Commerce Committee. I understand that he has a philosophical objection to all these bills, although I have to say that I am more than a little befuddled by his opposition to the ``Spy Fridge'' bill given his leadership, which I have stood with him on, fighting against unauthorized surveillance. He may be the only libertarian on planet Earth that is fighting to have more surveillance; fighting to have private, intimate conversations in your home recorded without your knowledge. That is certainly not consistent with any libertarianism I have ever heard.
But I will say, I am willing to forgo my objection. I am willing to step back and work with Senator Paul to pass his legislation, despite this widespread blocking of bills, if he will agree, quite reasonably, to lift his hold on the ``Spy Fridge'' bill. That is a reasonable compromise. Ninety-nine Senators support the ``Spy Fridge'' bill. He is the only one who opposes it.
And I would also welcome working with the House to ensure that more Senate bills--good bills--receive timely consideration and are passed out of the House in exchange for lifting my own holds on other House- approved measures.
And so if you are home in Paducah, KY, I want to explain what is about to happen right now. In just a moment, I am going to ask for unanimous consent, and then I want you to listen to Senator Paul because he has total and complete control over whether his legislation about the Boys & Girls Club in Paducah, KY, passes or not.
If Senator Paul says the magic words ``I object,'' then understand that his bill and my bill both will fail to pass. If he decides we can be reasonable and work together, if he simply doesn't say the words ``I object,'' then his bill will pass and go to President Trump's desk for signature, and my bill protecting you and your home from being surveilled and spied upon will likewise pass and go to President Trump's desk for signature. So Senator Paul has a choice: pass two bills or zero bills.
Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent be modified; that the Senate also proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 64, H.R. 859; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think the problem we have here is a misunderstanding, and it is sort of a false equivalency that somehow granting a boys and girls club a deed to 3\1/ 2\ acres they have been using for 50-some-odd years that was once held by the Federal Government and is held by the city--to let this boys and girls club have a deed, that that is somehow equivalent to a nationwide regulation with fines and fees.
There are some questions about these smart refrigerators: Are they so smart that they hook themselves up to the internet unbeknownst to the person? The refrigerator shows up in your house and somehow a cord surreptitiously comes out the back and plugs into the cable or it somehow hooks up to your router; it knows your password and has Bluetooth? How do you get a smart refrigerator that spies on you without your hooking it up to the internet? So that is a question.
But the other question and sort of the mistaken notion here is that somehow, when you voluntarily agree to give information, that that is something that libertarians object to. Libertarians object to the government spying on you. If you voluntarily agree to share your information, that has never been something the libertarians object to.
For example, the internet is predicated upon your anonymous information being shared on your purchases. Sharing of information is not something libertarians object to. They object to the government snooping on you and getting your information.
So having a national mandate that you are going to enforce on the refrigerator manufacturers--that you are going to fine them and if they don't pay, they will be held in contempt for--I just don't see that as a very Republican idea to be introducing national regulations.
To say that is equivalent to the Boys & Girls Club--you are going to hold the Boys & Girls Club unless I agree to a national regulation on the smart refrigerators that are surreptitiously somehow hooking themselves up to the internet and spying on us? It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. It also, to most people with common sense, would not seem to be equivalent. I would never in my right mind come to the floor to object to the Boys & Girls Club of Texas. I don't think they are equivalent.
But if you have 30 bills or 100 bills that want to have nationwide regulations--your a.m. radio bill. You want to mandate to the car manufacturers that they have a.m. radio. Why? Technology has gone beyond this in many ways. We have Teslas now, and nobody in their Tesla is going to tune in through an antenna. But, you know, to get an antenna into a Tesla and get it to work, you have to coat the battery with this special coating. It costs a couple hundred dollars. Your bill says that the manufacturers can't charge more for that. So if I sell Teslas and I have to spend $300 to get an a.m. antenna radio working in my Tesla that nobody is going to use, that you are going to mandate on behalf of people who really have a vested interest, a monetary interest, in a.m. radio--there are questions that should be asked, and that should be debated, and that is controversial enough not to be a unanimous consent. A Boys & Girls Club kind of sounds to me like a unanimous consent agreement.
The mistaken notion we have around here is that we want to pass hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation that affect policy. What I get every time is ``Well, this legislation only adds $50 million'' or ``It is only going to be $500 million'' because millions of dollars don't matter anymore; nationwide regulations don't matter anymore. Well, it does.
And these are policy differences, and these are honest. These aren't because I dislike you or I dislike your legislation. I don't want a national regulation on refrigerator people. I just don't want it, and I don't see a need for it, and I think it is a reasonable position to take, but it has nothing to do with the Boys Club.
I would promise you, if you have anything to do with Boys & Girls Clubs or any kind of small, parochial interest, you haven't seen me. I don't come to the floor to object to that. But something that is on policy, I do object to, and I have questions about how the refrigerators are surreptitiously hooking themselves up and spying on people.
The thing is, when you go to buy one of these refrigerators, they charge you more, I would assume, for a smart refrigerator, so my guess is they advertise they are smart so they can charge 200 bucks more. I don't know how you are getting a refrigerator with a microphone and the ability to connect to the internet without knowing it because they charge you and it is an incentive for them to advertise this.
So I don't understand where the problem is, nor do I understand how they hook themselves up, so therefore I do object.
Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would note a couple of things.
No. 1, Senator Paul said libertarians only object to the government surveilling them. That is not what I have ever heard from a libertarian. I am not a full-throated libertarian like Senator Paul is, but I am easily one of the most libertarian Members of this body, and I have very strong libertarian leanings. I have spent 14 years in the Senate fighting to protect civil liberties.
The libertarians I have talked to, the Texans I have talked to are not particularly interested in giant corporations spying on them either. The government is not the only bad actor. By objecting, what Senator Paul is saying is that giant corporations can come into your home--can come into your kitchen, can come into your bedroom--can tape- record the most intimate conversations you have, can videotape you, and they don't even have to tell you they are doing that.
Understand, my bill is not prohibiting them from surveilling; it is simply saying: Tell the consumers before you tape-record them or video them.
I thought it was interesting that Senator Paul says: Gosh, this doesn't sound like a very Republican bill.
Well, there are 535 Members of the U.S. Congress, and 534 of them agree with this bill. The only one that does not is Senator Paul. And the result of it is that giant corporations are empowered to spy on you without you ever knowing it.
He secondly mentioned the a.m. radio for every vehicle. Listen, a.m. radio--I have led the fight for 14 years against censorship, against silencing political speech. Censorship comes from government, but it also comes from giant corporations, whether Big Tech, which has been egregious in censoring free speech, or in this instance the giant auto companies that colluded together to remove a.m. radio because a.m. radio, among other things, has been a haven for free speech. Rush Limbaugh would never have been heard in America without a.m. radio; Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity.
Why do the giant corporations want to take a.m. radio down? Because they want to silence conservative speech. Yet Senator Paul has objected to that bill as well. He is perfectly happy or at least--I don't know if he is happy or not, but his objection suggests he is willing to do nothing to stop corporations from muzzling conservatives and making it impossible for conservatives to speak, for libertarians to speak.
I think putting everything in the control of giant corporations is the very opposite of being a libertarian.
I want to finally speak to the folks in Paducah, KY. Look, I think this bill is a reasonable bill. I would like to see it pass. I have told the author of it in the House, Representative Comer--he is a good friend. He and I have worked together on a number of matters. I am willing to work with him cooperatively to find a way forward for this bill to pass.
It could have passed today. All that Senator Paul had to do was not say the words ``I object,'' and this bill on Paducah, KY, would have passed the Senate, gone to the White House, and President Trump would have signed it.
By the way, at the same time, you would be protected against being surveilled in your home without your knowing it.
But, unfortunately, Senator Paul decided to object across the board, and so at least today, nothing has passed.
Madam President, the interesting thing we hear--you know, because typically you don't hear it from Republicans--nationwide mandates on refrigerators, nationwide mandates on car manufactures, penalties and Federal punishment if we don't comply with the way of thinking that is prescribed by these bills. What we didn't hear, though, was any kind of objection to the idea or explanation of how your refrigerator is going to spy on you.
I think it sort of assumes the notion that people are not competent, not smart enough to make any decisions on their own, that Big Brother has to help them out with it.
You have to imagine that someone is buying a smart refrigerator that is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks more than a non-smart refrigerator, is going to cost you more--I can't imagine it isn't advertised. So
Regulation like this are the regulations of the left and of Big Brother, who thinks that Americans are incompetent and can't make their decisions. But regulations like this add up, and they add to the cost of refrigerators, they add to the cost of appliances.
Just go to California. In California, you will see a tag on everything that says ``doesn't cause cancer anywhere else in the United States but may cause cancer in California'' because they have over- labeled everything to death.
It really isn't the business of the Federal Government to be involved with this.
They need to be committed to the rules of fraud. They shouldn't be able to sell something to you that is hooking itself up to the internet. But if you have to hook it up--if you have ever Bluetoothed something, you have to do something. The internet just doesn't come and grab your picture on the refrigerator or listen to your microphone. It has to be hooked up to the internet. You have to do this.
So there ought to be some thought that goes into this.
I am disappointed that you choose to hurt the Boys & Girls Club, but what is the alternative? I have to just say: I won't use my brain. I won't think about the consequences of this bill. I won't think about how it goes against our philosophy of adding more Federal regulations. I won't think about the cost to corporations. I won't think about the nonsensical assertion that it is going to spy on you without you knowing it because it is going to hook itself up to the internet. I am supposed to ignore all that and take that in order to get a deed for a Boys & Girls Club. I find this a false equivalency and insincere.
Every objection I have to every one of your other bills is a debatable item based on philosophy. If you have a philosophical difference with this, come to the floor and tell us why you hate the Boys & Girls Club of Paducah, but don't come to us and say: Well, you have to accept a regulation on refrigerators in order to help the Boys & Girls Club--which doesn't cost anything. It is a bizarre, arcane thing. The Federal Government, I think, owned the land, gave it to the city, and said the city couldn't transfer it 50 years ago. The Boys & Girls Club has been on this land for 50 years, but they don't have the title, so we are trying to give them the title through legislation.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that, because it doesn't affect nationwide policy, shouldn't have to go to committee, shouldn't have to come to the floor, shouldn't have to tie up a lot of time. These are the things we can dispense with. But a nationwide regulation on cars shouldn't be adopted without debate and without the normal procedure of the Senate. This is a special procedure. We only do things unanimously that typically we agree on.
If we want to have sense of the Senate to recognize John Lewis or a sense of the Senate to recognize some individual, those are the kinds of things we do unanimously, but we don't typically do policy or regulations for the whole country unanimously.
So I hope there is a better way out where we can think about treating and figuring out what levels of legislation rise to the ability of having a serious debate over and what things are parochial and really could be passed unanimously.
Madam President, the most recent assassination attempt makes approval of a secure White House addition more urgent. The National Planning Commission, of which I am a member, voted 8 to 1 to approve the White House addition. Lawfare, though, is currently delaying construction.
It is clear that the threats of violence against our President are not going away; they keep getting worse. So to prevent further delay, Congress should authorize the White House ballroom and get it on a path to completion. Let's get it built.
I am very glad that this latest assassination attempt was stopped, but it is concerning that the would-be assassin got so close and that these types of threats are growing more frequent.
The fact I even have to qualify my remarks to specifically say that I am talking about the latest assassination attempt rather than the one before it or the one before that should make us all think clearly on how seriously we need to be taking this.
We do need to improve security for the President, and one solution is already right in front of us. The most significant thing we can do-- something that will make the biggest improvement in security--is have a secure event space in the White House ballroom project. Its designs are complete. The project has already broken ground. Funding has already been secured from private donors, not taxpayers. My proposal today doesn't involve any tax money.
Congress doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here. I have a straightforward bill, which I will move to pass in a moment, to give this project clear, legal authority to proceed. By passing my bill, we can help build the ballroom with no more legal delays, no more bureaucratic delays, improved reporting and progress updates to Congress, and no added cost to taxpayers.
I support the building of the ballroom, and the Senate can do something right now to make it happen. Let's do the right thing without delay. Let's formalize and authorize the White House ballroom.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Well, today is day 464 of Donald Trump's Presidency, and we are in a full-blown affordability crisis.
We are 2 months into Trump's illegal war with Iran, a war that, according to experts, is costing taxpayers over $1 billion a day. American families are getting flattened by rising costs on just about everything, from groceries, to rent, to gas. Just today, gas prices hit a new high since Trump started his war. People are stretching themselves to the brink just to pay their bills. But what is the biggest issue of the day, according to Republicans in Congress? Fast- tracking Donald Trump's gold-encrusted ballroom.
Another recent Republican plan would send $400 million to the White House--I guess to buy more gold leaf and onyx marble for the want-to-be King. But I want to be clear: It is common sense that we can, of course, protect the President without shoveling millions of dollars into Trump's ballroom in the middle of an affordability crisis.
This bill to rubberstamp Trump's latest vanity project is a giant slap in the face to American families, just plain and simple. Americans are selling their plasma to pay for groceries and gas. Think about that.
Americans right now today are selling their blood just to pay their bills. And what is the Republicans' solution? Dump more money into Donald Trump's golden-crusted vanity project, and let's do it on the fast track because it is that urgent.
Well, here are a few other ideas for things we could fast-track to actually help the American people: We could reverse Trump's and the Republicans' giant healthcare costs that kicked millions of Americans off their health insurance and jacked up insurance premiums for millions more; or we could deliver affordable childcare for every American family; or we could undo Republicans' cuts to food assistance for families; or we could put a stop to Trump's across-the-board tariffs; or we could end Donald Trump's war with Iran. And, look, the list goes on and on.
But nowhere on the list of ways to lower costs for American families is rubberstamping Donald Trump's lavish ballroom. Remember, Trump's ballroom has already become a tool for what looks like corruption in plain sight.
Since day one, giant corporations have lined up to dump millions of dollars into Trump's ballroom, and that includes Meta, Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, Coinbase, and Palantir.
And those are just the people and the entities that we know of. Others are being kept secret from the American people because Donald Trump has let them stay anonymous.
So what do they have to hide? And what are all these donors expecting in return? And by the way, if Congress bankrolls this ballroom for Trump's corporate donors like other Republicans are proposing, what happens to all those private donations?
So, by the way, I want to make that point again: If Congress bankrolls this ballroom for Trump's corporate donors like the other Republicans are proposing, what happens to all those private donations? If Trump is using his ballroom to facilitate a giant pay-to-play scheme, then the American people deserve to know.
Instead of dumping even more money into Trump's golden ballroom, we need to put an end to this corruption and focus on lowering costs for American families. That is what Democrats are laser-focused on. Republicans should join us and get it done.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2280, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2280) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 289, S. 874.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
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. 874), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, my bipartisan Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act, which just passed in the Senate, basically closes loopholes in the law to ensure that Federal contractors are protected when they disclose information about fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer money.
Each year, whistleblowers help the government save money and fight fraud when they make disclosures to Congress, inspectors general, and other oversight bodies.
Currently, the law that protects contractor whistleblowers is weaker than the laws that protect both Federal and private sector employees. In some instances, loopholes have allowed Federal officials to retaliate against whistleblowers with absolutely no accountability.
My bill would make it perfectly clear that Federal officials cannot direct retaliation against contractors any more than they can direct retaliation against Federal employees.
If they violate the law, the bill will allow Agencies to take disciplinary action. The bill would also clarify that employers cannot evade whistleblower laws through nondisclosure agreements and other employment contracts and ensure that contractor employees are not retaliated against for refusing to perform an action that they believe is illegal.
I would like to thank Senator Grassley for joining me in introducing this legislation and Representatives Garcia and Comer for introducing the House companion, which was unanimously approved by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
I urge my colleagues to continue to join me in passing this bill through the House and certainly appreciate the support that I received on the floor here today.
Mr. President, Hawaii experienced its worst flooding in more than 20 years last month. Two storms, less than 2 weeks apart, whipped up hurricane force winds of up to 135 miles per hour and dumped more than 62 inches of rain in parts of the State.
All told, nearly 2 trillion gallons of water fell from the sky statewide, enough to fill 3 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, and the resulting damage was widespread and it was severe.
It all started on March 10 when the first storm known as a Kona low brought close to 10 inches of rain over 4 days and broke daily rainfall records on Oahu, Maui, Hawaii Island, and Kauai. The powerful winds and heavy rain flooded homes, toppled power lines, and shuttered schools and businesses.
Over 100,000 people lost power, but before people could even begin to recover, a second storm quickly followed just days later delivering more than a foot of rain. But the ground was still saturated from the previous storm and drainage capacity was overwhelmed, and so flooding got worse across the State.
More than 5,000 residents were forced to evacuate and seek cover in shelters and schools. Homes were lifted off of their foundations, cars floated out of driveways, roads and highways became inaccessible, crops washed away on farms and fields.
But amid the devastation, rocked by relentless rain, Hawaii's aloha spirit prevailed. We saw it in the heroic emergency responders who rescued hundreds of people who were stuck in danger with no way to get out. We saw it in all the people rushing to check in on their neighbors, sharing information on social media in realtime, and helping to clean up the debris and the mud once the rain passed.
Farmers who lost their own fields instead went to help their neighbors to rebuild.
Businesses spring into action to hand out supplies and hot meals, despite losing sales and incurring damages of their own. That is Hawaii. No one is a stranger, especially in time of need. And everybody pitches in.
Recovering from a disaster of this magnitude will take months and years. Homes, roads, schools, and hospitals were flooded and badly damaged and will need to be rebuilt. And doing so requires resources, which is why the Trump administration's approval of Governor Josh Green's disaster declaration request was so important.
As with disasters in the past, these Federal dollars will support cleanup and repairs, as well as help residents to get back on their feet through individual assistance.
The State and county governments are doing everything that they can to help people recover fully and quickly, but they cannot do it alone. They need help.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to share the burden of rebuilding. And while the approval of a disaster declaration is a very important and good first step, it is just that. It is a first step.
In the months and the years ahead, we will need to be there to provide support and resources in any way we can, until the affected people and communities are made whole once again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I am speaking in advance of my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet's effort to seek redress in this body for a wave of pollution that is being unleashed in his State and neighboring States as well.
One of the things about our failed Environmental Protection Agency right now is that one State can't regulate pollution that comes to it from another State. And yet the good neighbor policy that somebody has to be able to say ``Hey, wait a minute; you can't pollute my State from another State'' is one that EPA has just walked away from.
In this case, the problem is a coal facility in Colorado. And just start with coal. It is really indisputable that coal is America's dirtiest, deadliest, and most expensive energy source. It is a dying industry for market reasons. It can't compete because it is dirty, deadly, and expensive.
And yet, since taking office, President Trump has worked desperately to keep coal on life support, perhaps because the coal industry paid $3.5 million in 2024 to help him get elected, and Trump is a man who understands a quid pro quo.
The Trump administration has taken every possible action to benefit the coal industry; never mind our health. Remember, it is the deadliest of energy sources. And never mind our bank accounts. Remember, it is the most expensive of energy sources.
He even rolled back health-protecting standards for mercury and toxic emissions from coal plants. Mercury is pretty seriously, deadly stuff; and he rolled back those standards.
He exempted one-third of all coal plants nationwide from toxic pollution standards. Who loses? Anybody exposed to the toxic pollution they emit. Who wins? Trump's big donors.
He even directed the Secretary of Energy to issue orders under the Federal Power Act to force coal plants to stay online, driving up consumer costs against the wishes of the utilities and even the plants' owners. But they still had to buy and burn coal. So there is somebody out there who is going to make money off that.
And now Trump has perverted the Clean Air Act to trample on States' rights to protect their own citizens.
Coal plants are the Nation's most significant source of haze. The same coal pollutants that drive health issues and deaths nationwide drive haze formations. Under the Clean Air Act's Regional Haze Program, States establish plans to reduce haze-causing pollution. States may choose to include coal plant retirements in their plans. Often, that is consistent with the utility and the plant owner's wishes, as an old plant ends its useful life. When the EPA approves these plans, the retirements then become enforceable.
In 2022, Colorado submitted a regional haze plan to the EPA that included coal plant retirements that Colorado utilities had independently and voluntarily planned for. ``They do better with cheaper, cleaner renewable energy'' is the simple answer.
In January of this year, the EPA turned around and disapproved Colorado's plan, making the argument that Colorado's plan, voluntarily entered into with these utilities, could represent a ``taking'' under the Constitution.
So we have here a really flagrant abuse of Federal authority: Make it more difficult for Colorado to protect its own citizens from toxic pollution and to provide affordable energy. And the resulting pollution won't just endanger Coloradans. This is a national issue because the haze blows, with prevailing winds, toward eastern States.
My State of Rhode Island, for instance, has occasions when we have bad air days. And if you are driving into work in the morning and you are listening to the talk radio, they will say: Today is a bad air day. Children should stay home. Elderly people and people with breathing difficulties should not go out.
It looks like a beautiful summer day. Kids will want to be in the yard, but it
And there is nothing the State of Rhode Island can do about it. If every car in our State was an EV, if everything ran off of clean electricity, we would still be out of compliance because we are a downwind State.
And huge powerplants that push their pollution up into the sky, far enough that prevailing winds carries it out of their State and onto ours, they are the ones that are to blame, and there is nothing we can do about it.
So I am very sympathetic to concerns that the EPA has a particularly important job when neighboring States are polluting one another and can't reach a regulatory solution because it is out of State, and that is exactly the predicament that we are creating here today.
When Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act in 1996 to give Congress the opportunity to vote on regulations, well, that is why we are here today. We have a chance to undo this, and I hope we will because everybody here has a good chance of being a downwind State. Even California is often a downwind State from China. So you have got to be able to have protections from upwind pollution, and this would strip that.
So the Trump administration's effort here--at breakneck speed--to tear down protections of Americans' health, safety, and environment we have a chance to claw back. Congressional Review Act resolutions like this one can help hold the administration to account.
I will conclude by saying I just left the EPW hearing with EPA Administrator Zeldin. The point that I made in that hearing was that we are now headed into an election cycle in which the American people are desperately concerned about the cost of stuff. Stuff costs too much, and the Trump administration is ignoring the problem, if not making it worse. Those are basically the two buckets. They are either ignoring it completely or they are deliberately making it worse.
With respect to electricity costs, the Trump administration is deliberately making it worse. They are raising costs for consumers on purpose.
How are they doing it, and why are they doing it? Well, the ``how'' is that they are keeping inexpensive clean energy off the grid. We just went through this in Rhode Island. Our Revolution Wind offshore power facility was stalled by illegal orders of the Trump administration not once but twice, and the result was that power was delayed from coming ashore. Well, Revolution Wind has a contract to sell power onto the grid. That contract specifies a price. The price is 9 cents--9 cents. ISO New England--our grid operator--can do fairly easy math to show what the average grid price is for electricity. And guess what. It is 18 cents. So this 9-cent power was stalled going into an 18-cent grid.
Because it is 9-cent power, what would it have done? It would have been called up first by the grid because every grid calls up the least expensive power first. So that 9-cent power would have been flowing into the grid. It would have been filling up demand, and that would have meant that some dirty fossil fuel-polluting units would not have been called up. They were too expensive to run.
So, when they push all that clean energy off the grid and buy time for the dirty, polluting fossil fuel plants--that is money directly to the fossil fuel industry--two things happen: One, costs go up for all consumers because those new, more expensive plants called online raise the price for everybody. So electricity bills go up. They are driven up on purpose by the delay of clean energy getting onto the grid.
Where do those billions of dollars in extra costs that are extracted from American consumers go? Guess where--to the owners of those fossil fuel plants that are in the margin, the ones that get run because the clean energy has been kept off of the grid.
It is a ginormous money pump out of the pockets of ordinary American ratepayers and into the pockets of the fossil fuel billionaires who put so much money into getting Trump elected. That is being done on purpose. Electricity costs are being driven up on purpose.
Don't tell me that the Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of the Interior, for that matter, don't understand how the grid works. They have people who know exactly how the generation stack works. They know exactly that the least expensive units get run first and that the least expensive units displace the more expensive units, which is good for consumers, until the heavy hand of a fossil fuel-influenced government steps in and tries to prevent consumers from getting low-cost clean energy. Then the hole that that leaves that would have been filled by clean energy--you have got to go fill that hole by going up the stack to more and more expensive units, and virtually every time, that more expensive unit is a fossil fuel unit.
So, like I said, what the Trump administration has created on purpose is a ginormous money pump to extract billions of dollars from regular consumers who would otherwise be enjoying the benefit of low-cost clean power, and they have done it as a reward for Trump's big fossil fuel donors, the ones who threw hundreds of millions of dollars at his campaign and who are now reaping a multiple-times reward with that investment.
Mr. President, Colorado is one of the most beautiful places not just in America but in the world.
In Denver, we have got over 300 days of sunshine annually. We have access to incredible green spaces, and if you look west, you can lose yourself in the best view in America--the Rocky Mountains.
But it wasn't always this way.
In the 1950s, Colorado was and still is one of the fastest growing cities in America. Even stretching back to my days as mayor back in the 2000s, one of our main goals was to attract young people to not just come and ski in Colorado but to visit Denver, perhaps consider starting a business there, building a business, growing your family, building a life.
To put it in perspective, between 1950 and 1960, Denver's population grew by just about 20 percent. This brought more cars, more industry but also more pollution. By the 1970s and 1980s, the smog was so bad that, nationally, there was a nickname for Denver--the ``brown cloud.'' There were days you couldn't even see the mountains at all, which, as a geologist and a Coloradan, pained me.
But then something incredible happened. In 1970, a Democratic Congress passed the Clean Air Act. It was signed into law by a Republican President. It is a reminder that clean air has never been a partisan issue. It benefits literally everyone. The Clean Air Act helped to propel States like Colorado and others to turn things around, to look at that pollution in a different light. Emissions testing and fuel standards soon followed, and guess what happened. The air got cleaner. Visibility improved. People such as my son who has asthma would be healthier.
Then, in 1999, the EPA created the Regional Haze Program. The initiative was rooted around one single idea: If you go to a national park, you should be able to see it. So States were asked to develop plans to cut pollution that limits those gorgeous views.
Once again, Colorado stepped in and led the way. In my first year as Governor, Colorado submitted our Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, which was first approved in 2012. It put us on a path to improving the quality of air we breathe in the place that we are lucky to call home.
We also brought environmentalists and the energy industry together to create the first methane regulations in the world in 2014. This was the blending of environmental and industry discussions. I think those regulations--again, the first methane regulations in the world were in Colorado--helped in the years leading up to 2017 to reduce methane emissions from Colorado's oil and gas sector by 70 percent. That is right--70 percent.
Despite all that success, the Trump administration is now threatening to turn back the clock and reduce and diminish the success of Colorado's clean air efforts.
Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, whom I voted against, rejected Colorado's updated Regional Haze Plan. They didn't reject Colorado's plan because the science was wrong. They didn't dispute the goals, and they didn't dispute the modeling. They rejected it to prop up a handful of aging coal plants--coal-fired electrical generation plants--that were already planning to close. The utilities had created the models, had found the replacement sources of energy, and were ready to close those older, less-efficient, and significantly dirtier generation plants.
The Trump administration seems to think we must choose between clean air and affordable energy, which is nonsense. Colorado has shown that that is a false choice. Time and time again, we have brought communities and utilities and regulators together to protect our clean air supply without hurting our economy or our energy supply.
Last summer, the Front Range experienced the lowest number of ozone action alerts in a decade. Let me say that again. Last year was the lowest number of ozone action alerts in a decade. Thanks to bipartisan investments in renewable energy, Colorado ranked among the top 10 States in overall energy production.
The administration's decision doesn't lower costs for anybody. It just means more pollution and more haze in those very places we treasure the most.
Colorado is never going to move forward by returning to the 1970s. For decades, we have fought tooth and nail to ensure that our mountains are visible and our national parks are the most beautiful and the most enjoyable in America. We should support this measure and prevent Washington politics from clouding Colorado's hard-fought progress.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on a critical subject for the American people. I rise because Congress--this Congress--has a historic opportunity over the next 6 months to deliver an energy and economic bonanza for the American people by overhauling our broken permitting process.
President Trump has shown bold leadership, cutting redtape and attracting transformational investment. Just last year--just last year--he helped catalyze $92 billion of new investment for the Keystone State at the Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit in Pittsburgh. And since then, other enormous investments in advanced manufacturing and transformation energy infrastructure have been made in our Commonwealth.
But the President cannot carry this alone. A true overhaul requires Congress to reclaim its article I responsibilities and to ensure that the Federal Government is a partner to American energy dominance, not an obstacle to American energy dominance--and an obstacle is exactly what our permitting system is today. It is what it has become.
A McKinsey study found $1.5 trillion in critical infrastructure is frozen in permitting limbo, holding back 2.4 trillion in economic activity.
It takes 5 years--5 years--to get a permit for a powerplant. That is longer than it took us to win World War II. Transmission lines take nearly 8 years.
The supply-demand gap tells the same story. From 2013 to 2024, U.S. natural gas demand surged 49 percent, and pipeline capacity grew by 26 percent; storage capacity, 2 percent. Demand--demand for energy--is sprinting, and capacity is crawling.
And nowhere--nowhere in America--is that failure felt more acutely than in Pennsylvania. Our Commonwealth is an energy superpower. But because so much of our energy infrastructure crosses State lines, rivers, and wetlands, nearly every project in Pennsylvania needs Federal approvals, and the current system makes that almost impossible to obtain.
Take the PennEast Pipeline, a project that would have delivered Pennsylvania natural gas to New Jersey homes and businesses. Environmental activists weaponized this permitting system to kill it. Over 12,000 direct and indirect jobs--gone. And PennEast is just one example among many.
And here is the sad irony: Pennsylvania ranks third in the Nation in electricity production, second in the Nation in natural gas, and second in nuclear power. And yet, Pennsylvania families face a 20-percent hike in energy prices that are projected over the next 3 years; Pennsylvania businesses, up to 30 percent.
If we lacked the needed capital or the workers or the reserves, rising prices, they might make sense. But we have all three. The obstacle holding back Pennsylvania energy is Washington made. And it is time--it is time--for Congress to fix it. We must do better.
And done right, permitting reform will force Federal and State governments to move faster, to clear the backlog, and to unleash a wave of investment across our economy. It will lower prices. The projects stuck in limbo could power more than 50 million homes. That backlog drives up cost on everything, from farming to fighter jets. Cheaper energy means cheaper everything. It will create great--great--high- paying jobs. Every new nuclear plant, every new pad, every oil rig, every pipeline, every new power line unlocked by reforms, means thousands of jobs--thousands of jobs--for welders, electricians, pipefitters, and engineers in small, industrial towns across America-- towns like Bloomsburg, PA, where I grew up.
And it will make us more secure. We are in a head-to-head race with communist China for AI leadership, and the stakes are existential. We cannot afford to lose, and we cannot win without more energy.
The recent fighting in the Strait of Hormuz is a stark reminder: We cannot rely on the rest of the world to power our future. We must build it ourselves, and we must be the supplier--the supplier of choice--to our allies around the world.
And that--for all those reasons--that is why I am introducing the Unlock American Energy and Jobs Act. This is gold standard--the gold standard--for what Pennsylvania and the country needs.
The bill addresses four chokepoints. First, it stops opponents from weaponizing the Clean Water Act as a general-purpose veto, setting hard deadlines and limiting reviews in actual water quality concerns; No. 2, it scraps the outdated rule forcing American LNG exporters to seek case-by-case Federal approval before selling our natural gas abroad; No. 3, it modernizes nuclear licensing to match today's technology and decades--decades--of proven safety in America and around the world; and No. 4, it brings common sense to environmental litigation which activists routinely use to kill projects that have already cleared every single regulatory hurdle.
Now let me be clear--let me be clear--this is not an argument--this is not an argument--for abolishing environmental standards. It is not an argument for shutting down public debate. It is an argument for decisions that are timely, decisions that are lawful, and decisions-- and this is most important--that are final.
We can do both: We can protect our natural resources, and we can still build America's future.
And now--now, my friends--is the moment. We have a pro-energy President. A Republican Congress determined to unleash American energy. I have spoken with many, many of my Democratic colleagues who want projects, who want these same kinds of projects unlocked in their States too. The common ground on this topic is real, and the American people are demanding--they are insisting--that we seize the moment.
Now, I know with all the issues going around, I know that time is short and the priorities are many. Some are urgent, like ending the DHS shutdown. But we must be ruthless in our prioritization. If we let this moment slip, we lose a golden--golden--opportunity for lower costs, to create jobs, and to transform our economy.
President Trump laid the blueprint, and I am encouraged by the bipartisan conversations that are already underway, but it is up to us. It is up to us to make this momentum permanent. And it is up to us--us in this body--to unleash a new era of American security dominance.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of our workers, our businesses, and our economy. Specifically, I am here to talk about my resolution, which we will be voting on shortly, to protect the millions of workers who could lose their jobs because of an extreme Trump administration rule.
This is an issue that affects all of us because, well, let me tell you, when industries like agriculture and construction lose workers, it impacts their supply chains and prices go up.
In my State of Nevada and across every single State in this Nation, our economy, well, it is fueled by our workers. This includes thousands of individuals who live in this country legally. Thousands of individuals who live in this country legally, who have legal authorization to work, and who show up every single day to do the jobs that keep our communities running.
These workers, they are doing everything that is asked of them. They have been vetted. They are playing by the rules. They are paying their taxes. And yet today, because of a misguided rule change by the Trump administration, many of them are at risk of losing their jobs and their livelihoods through no fault of their own. That is because workers with employment authorization documents, also known as work permits, must renew them every few years, but they can only file that paperwork 6 months before their permit expires.
While 6 months seems like a long time, the processing delays at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, especially under this administration, are even longer. They can stretch well beyond 6 months.
And so for years, there had been a simple, commonsense solution. If a worker filed their renewal on time, their current work permit would be automatically extended while the government finished processing their application. It is the government that was slow, not the worker.
This way, people wouldn't have a gap in work authorization. This policy kept people working. It provided stability for businesses, and it prevented needless disruptions to our economy.
But last fall, that changed. The Trump administration issued a rule that fully eliminated these automatic extensions, pulling the rug out from under workers who did everything right.
Now, these individuals face an impossible choice: stop working and lose their income and their ability to provide for their family or risk working without authorization and risk deportation.
It also puts our business owners in a terrible position. Employers are going to be forced to go without workers or have to let go of workers whose work permits expired because the government took too long to issue their renewals. That is why many business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are opposed to this reckless Trump rule.
They know it will affect key industries like agriculture and food processing, construction and even childcare. And we know what happens when there are fewer workers able to meet demands: Prices go up.
So think about it. More than 3.5 million legally authorized workers nationwide could be impacted by this misguided rule. In construction alone, roughly 600,000 workers could be forced off the job, right as we face a critical shortage of labor needed to build much needed housing across America. In Nevada, we already have 11,000 fewer construction workers than we did just a year ago, and even more workers are sidelined because of paperwork delays.
What is this going to mean? Projects are going to stall, costs will rise, working families will feel it in the form of higher housing prices and fewer available homes. And it doesn't stop there.
In hospitality, an industry that is the backbone of Nevada's economy, more than half a million workers nationwide could be affected. So for a State like mine, where tourism drives growth and supports countless small businesses, losing thousands of workers in our hotels, restaurants, and entertainment venues would be devastating.
Fewer workers means reduced capacity. It means lower service levels. It means lost revenue, not just for our businesses but for entire communities that depend upon a strong tourism economy. And that is wrong. It is just wrong.
It is why I introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn this harmful Trump rule. My legislation would restore automatic extensions for workers who have already been vetted and who have their work permits while their paperwork is being processed.
This is about fairness. It is about stability, and it is about helping our workers and our businesses.
So today I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in taking a simple step, a vote to support workers and the business community. So let's overturn this harmful rule change that will hurt families, small businesses, large businesses, and our entire economy. Let's put America's workers--again, our businesses, everything, our economy--first by reinstating automatic extensions for work permit renewals. If we don't, we risk losing 3.5 million workers from our workforce. And trust me; we will all pay the price.
Mr. President, today, I am bringing the Congressional Review Act resolution to the floor to challenge EPA's disapproval of Colorado's regional haze plan. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Hickenlooper and Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this effort.
For decades, we have relied on a simple principle in this country to keep our air clean: States and the Federal Government work together to reduce pollution and protect public health. That includes programs like Regional Haze, which is designed to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, like Rocky Mountain National Park in Northern Colorado.
In 2022, Colorado submitted a good-faith plan to improve air quality. The State provided a range of solutions--including the voluntary, already-planned retirement of aging coal plants.
The decisions to close these plants were driven by basic economics. Colorado utilities recognized that it no longer made sense to keep them open, based on the high costs of maintaining and operating. And so in its regional haze plan, Colorado incorporated these previously made decisions into the State's strategy to reduce air pollution.
But EPA rejected Colorado's plan--not because it failed to meet Federal standards. EPA rejected it because President Trump is laser- focused on keeping even aging coal plants operational, regardless of the costs or the desires of the local communities.
EPA's disapproval of Colorado's plan was based on an unprecedented and flawed legal theory. EPA alleges that under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, Colorado must somehow prove these coal plant requirements would not violate the Constitution's takings clause, or, in other words, not constitute an illegal government seizure of private property. But that is an impossible case for the State to make. It is also not, in fact, what section 110 of the Clean Air Act requires or what Congress ever intended.
And to make matters worse, the EPA made this shift without any meaningful public input. And the consequences of President Trump and Lee Zeldin's actions are real. They are real for Colorado and for the West and for this country.
They are making it harder--harder--for Colorado to chart our own path on the energy transition and trying to force Coloradans to pay tens of millions of dollars to keep outdated coal plants running. And they are doing this at a moment when energy prices have already increased as a result of the administration's own reckless actions.
Since President Trump's unprovoked war, gasoline prices have risen over 30 percent in Colorado. They have cut investments in the cheapest types of electricity, while promoting the most expensive. Everything the administration has done has made it harder for parents in Colorado to pay their bills and heat their homes, and now to take their children to enjoy some of the incredible national parks and public lands our State has to offer.
If this ruling stands, it won't stop in Colorado. It could open the door to similar challenges across the country, weakening air quality protections and leaving States in an impossible position--responsible for results but stripping them of the tools and the authority to achieve them.
And so I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 139 to overturn the EPA's decision.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "Air Plan Disapproval; Colorado...
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Relating to "Removal of the Automatic...
Mr. President, COVID-19 fraudsters stole at least $200 billion, but time is now running out to hold every single one accountable. Starting this week, crooks who defrauded pandemic relief programs are getting away.
Both Republicans and Democrats should be working around the clock to send a clear message to fraudsters past, present, and future: There are real consequences to stealing from taxpayers.
But Democrats have wanted to press ``snooze'' on passing my SBA Fraud Enforcement Extension Act. This is the third day fraudsters who stole millions in COVID relief funds have been able to escape justice.
You heard me right, folks. Swindlers who took advantage of SBA COVID relief programs are already escaping justice. Every day that passes, another gets away. The clock is ticking, and the countdown is on.
My bill simply gives investigators and prosecutors flexibility to do their jobs by extending the statutes of limitation for defrauding the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund by 5 years.
Congress has already passed an extension of the statutes of limitation for SBA's other COVID relief programs with bipartisan support. This body came together against fraud, and we need to again.
Pandemic program fraud investigations have already uncovered $57 billion in fraud and issued 1,200 indictments. The SBA is currently conducting a manual review of over $3 billion in Restaurant Revitalization Fund awards, but in this program alone, more than $9.5 billion of awards still require review.
We can't allow swindlers, scammers, and con artists to run out the clock, because for fraudsters, time flies when you are having fun.
Look no further than rapper Chris Brown, who exploited the SVOG Program to pay for his lavish $80,000 birthday party and paid himself $5.1 million in the process, and multilocation franchise CoreLife Eatery, which ignored location limits to feast on $7.8 million in taxpayer funds.
Make no mistake, when it comes to fraud and abuse, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Thorough investigations take time, and investigators must be able to continue conducting this vital work on behalf of the American taxpayers. That is why I am urging my colleagues to support the SBA Fraud Enforcement Extension Act so fraudsters know the days of getting away with their scams are numbered. But if Congress continues to press ``snooze,'' taxpayers are the ones who lose billions.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 134, S. 1199, and Calendar No. 135, S. 2232.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.
I ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 1199 be withdrawn; that the Ernst substitute amendment at the desk be considered; that the Markey amendment to the Ernst substitute be considered and agreed to; that the Ernst substitute, as amended, be agreed to; further, that the committee-reported substitute to S. 2232 be agreed to; finally, that the bills, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bills considered and agreed to en bloc are as follows:
Mr. President, I want to thank the Chair for working with me to pass these two bills that were reported favorably out of our committee: Chair Ernst's SBA Fraud Enforcement Act and my Expanding the Surety Bond Program Act.
Senator Ernst's bill extends the statute of limitations for two COVID-era programs and incorporates my amendment to ensure that enforcement by the Department of Justice is carried out in a nonpartisan manner.
My Expanding the Surety Bond Program Act will expand opportunities for small contracting businesses looking to access larger contracts.
Not everyone is aware of the important role that surety bonds play in the contracting process, but every builder, every supplier, every producer in Massachusetts and across the country understands that without them, significant contracts cannot move forward.
In the last 7 years, SBA's Surety Bond Program has supported more than $13 billion in revenues--including $165 million in Massachusetts. My bill actually expands this program by raising the limit on SBA- backed surety bonds to $18 million on all contracts, and it also includes provisions that Chair Ernst added to mitigate risks to the program.
Again, I want to thank Chair Ernst for her commitment to seeing these bills through to passage, and I thank the Chamber for unanimously accepting our recommendations.
Mr. President, I also would like to thank Ranking Member Markey for his great collaboration on these bills. It is another example of truly bipartisan work and collaboration to get these bills done, to get them off the floor of the Senate and on their way.
So I really appreciate the consideration that you have given, Ranking Member.
This is a major win for taxpayers who had their hard-earned money stolen by fraudsters. Now the investigators have been given the time they need to track down the thieves who stole taxpayer dollars and to build strong, prosecutable cases.
Today's action also sends a clear message to fraudsters: You will be held accountable. You will not get away with your crimes.
This is critical to ensure that this blatant fraud is stopped in its tracks.
I look forward to working with the SBA, the IG, and the Department of Justice to track down every single crook who defrauded our taxpayers.
Again, I thank the ranking member for the collaboration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 701, S. Res. 702, S. Res. 703, S. Res. 704, and S. Res. 705.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
Mr. President, 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.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 331, S. 2975.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment 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 committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2975), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I was absent from the Senate on Wednesday, April 22, due to bereavement following the passing of a close family member.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 89, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer amendment No. 4799; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that does not lower out-of-pocket health care costs while Americans struggle to make ends meet, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 90, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan amendment No. 4798; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to grocery costs, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 91, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff amendment No. 4897; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation fails to address the practice of insurance companies stepping between patients and their doctors to delay or deny access to care, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 92, Graham amendment No. 5281; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult illegal aliens convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 93, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono amendment No. 4884; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that would not increase Federal funding for or participation in school meal programs, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 94, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper amendment No. 4956; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring that consumers are protected from price increases associated with tariffs and the Iran war, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 95, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks amendment No. 5294; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to increasing funding for child care for families, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 96, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy amendment No. 5414; To provide reconciliation instructions for the Committee on Rules and Administration and establish deficit-neutral reserve funds relating to establishing identification requirements for registration to vote in elections for Federal office, establishing photo identification requirements for voting in elections for Federal office, and election day and the
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 97, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley amendment No. 4794; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to extending the prohibition on Medicaid payments to abortion providers, I would have voted nay.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 98, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey amendment No. 5001; To create a point of order against legislation that would not decrease home electricity bills, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 99, Paul amendment No. 5378; To reduce new budget authority for functions 150, 250, 500, and 600 in order to offset $70,000,000,000 of new spending by cutting $45,000,000,000 of foreign aid, eliminating $5,000,000,000 in refugee spending, cutting $16,000,000,000 from the Department of Education, and cutting $4,000,000,000 of National Science Foundation funding, I would have voted nay.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 100, Merkley amendment No. 5235; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the impacts of hedge fund ownership of single-family homes and rent prices, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 101, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders amendment No. 5159; To reduce the price of prescription drugs in the United States by more than 50 percent by adopting Most Favored Nation drug pricing so that the American people pay no more for prescription drugs than Europeans or Canadians, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 102, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla amendment No. 4855; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that would provide funding to Federal agencies that have unobligated funds from previous reconciliation bills, I would have yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 103, Wyden amendment No. 5336; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study related to economic consequences of private or confidential drug pricing agreements struck by any Federal department, agency, or office with any pharmaceutical manufacturer, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 104, Schiff amendment No. 5333; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to requiring the obligation of amounts appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out the public assistance and hazard mitigation programs, I would have voted yea.
Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 105, S. Con. Res. 33, As Amended; A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, I would have voted nay.
Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Mike Crapo and Representatives Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher to honor the life and legacy of our dear friend Dirk Kempthorne, who recently lost his hard-fought battle with cancer.
Few individuals have devoted more of their lives to serving their community than Dirk Kempthorne. From his first elected office, student body president at the University of Idaho, it was clear that Dirk was a true statesman who was born to serve. Over the decades that followed, Idahoans repeatedly put their trust in him, electing Dirk as mayor of Boise, U.S. Senator, and ultimately as Governor. In each role, Dirk carried that trust with humility and purpose, always putting the needs and hopes of Idahoans first.
As the 51st mayor of Boise, Dirk led Idaho's capital city through a transformation period. Following decades of uncertainty, demolition of historic buildings, and stalled development, Dirk brought people together to chart a new course. Under his steady, locally driven leadership, Boise experienced unprecedented job growth and the revitalization of infrastructure and commerce. Dirk's tenure led to many of the Boise landmarks residents and visitors know today, including the Grove Plaza, Boise Centre, and the Wells Fargo Building.
Dirk carried that same approach to the U.S. Senate after his election in 1992. Dirk quickly made his mark in Congress, recognized by then- Majority Leader Bob Dole as ``one of the Senate's rising young stars.'' While in DC, Dirk advocated for Idaho and the West on several key committees, including Armed Services, Small Business, and Environment and Public Works.
He also authored and passed several important pieces of legislation, including the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which provided much-needed relief for State and local governments burdened by Federal regulations. Equally significant was his leadership in writing the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, a bipartisan effort that passed the Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The legislation, which gave local communities and water systems the flexibility to meet local needs while protecting public health, was drafted in collaboration with officials from all levels of government, water providers, public health experts, and environmental advocates. It was emblematic of Dirk's unique ability to build consensus and deliver real results.
Dirk returned home after one term and was elected Idaho's 30th Governor in a decisive victory. As Governor, he built upon the strong foundation set by his predecessor and mentor Phil Batt and guided Idaho into the era of prosperity and resilience we enjoy today. Dirk prioritized the responsible stewardship of Idaho's natural resources, establishing the department of environmental quality and office of species conservation. He also secured the then largest ever appropriation for our State parks and developed wolf and grizzly bear management plans, balancing States' rights and proven, community-based solutions.
Governor Kempthorne also championed the historic GARVEE bond program, delivering unprecedented funding toward long-overdue transportation improvements across the State. At the same time, Dirk implemented numerous economic development and education efforts, including an initiative focused on ensuring every Idaho child could read at grade level by the third grade.
In addition to his many legislative successes, Dirk was pivotal to leading Idaho and her people through the economic recession of the early 2000s and the aftermath of 9-11 with steadiness and compassion.
In 2006, Dirk was once again called to serve his country when President George W. Bush appointed him as the 49th U.S. Secretary of the Interior. There, Dirk brought Idaho's common sense and shared values to the executive branch. He spearheaded the Department's work to ensure America's public lands were preserved and managed wisely, balancing conservation with the needs of the communities that depended on them. As he had done throughout his life, Dirk prioritized collaboration and local input, particularly when it came to forest health, species management, and wildfire prevention. Dirk's dedication to the outdoors continued to his last day, through his support for the World Center for Birds of Prey in Boise and The Peregrine Fund.
Another core pillar of Dirk's leadership was his steadfast advocacy for the men and women of our armed services. Most recently, Dirk had devoted his talents to initiatives supporting the families of servicemembers, like Operation Military Blessings, and the commissioning of the USS Idaho. Dirk's leadership on the USS Idaho Commissioning Committee helped ensure not only the success of the ship but also raised enough to provide scholarships to every crew member and their family for the life of the ship.
It is only right that his incredible legacy will live on in the heart of the USS Idaho, its engine room, which is named in his honor and bears a plaque reading: ``The Honorable Dirk A. Kempthorne, A Driving Force for the Great State of Idaho, Whose Legacy Endures, Above and Below the Waves.''
Idahoans owe a debt of gratitude to Dirk Kempthorne for a lifetime spent shaping what he called the ``43rd star
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Bright Minds Academy of Hays, KS, in celebration of National Small Business Week and to commend its nomination as the 2026 Kansas Rural Small Business of the Year.
Since 1963, National Small Business Week has highlighted the essential role of small businesses in driving economic growth and creating jobs in communities across our Nation. Every year, the U.S. Small Business Administration honors businesses that exemplify innovation, resilience, and a commitment to service.
Founded by Nick and Andrea Felder, Bright Minds Academy has become a trusted provider of early childhood education for families in Hays. As parents themselves, they were inspired to open a childcare center to support children's learning and serve the needs of working families in their community.
From its beginnings as a single childcare center, Bright Minds Academy now spans multiple locations across Hays, a reflection of its steady leadership. Today, it employs approximately 100 staff and is licensed to care for over 300 children.
Bright Minds Academy is dedicated to providing a safe, fun, and nurturing environment for infants and young children. Their mission to provide high-quality care and education ensures that Kansas children have a strong foundation for success in the future.
I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Bright Minds Academy for its service to Kansas families and communities and in congratulating Nick and Andrea Felder on this well-deserved honor.
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. 4437. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to establish additional requirements for dealers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
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. 4438. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a program to make grants available to States to inform individuals of potential eligibility for the Lifeline program of the Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. President, I have nine 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 5 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 10 a.m.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 4 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 30; 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
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I am here with regard to a unanimous consent resolution.
I have tried one before to pursue a simple truth that climate change is real. Earlier this year, I came to the floor and asked my colleagues if they could all agree on that simple scientific fact. Sadly, given the nature of this body, they could not.
So we are going to break it down into smaller bits because the reality of climate change is made up of many, many simple truths; and I hope that by breaking it down piece by piece, I can find areas where my colleagues will agree.
Today's simple truth: Sea levels are rising. Can we agree on that? The resolution specifically says: ``recognizing that sea levels are rising at accelerated rates due to human-caused climate change.''
As global air temperatures rise, obviously, so do the temperatures of the oceans. Here is a graph showing the increase in ocean heat content. It is measured in zettajoules. ``Zettajoules'' is a very big number. ``Zetta'' means it has 18 zeroes. It is a billion trillions or a trillion billions, depending on which way you want to go about it.
To put it at a more practical scale, the entire production of energy by the human species on all of planet Earth adds up to one half of a zettajoule. The price we pay for the fossil fuel component of that half zettajoule of energy is an ocean whose temperature is increasing by around 15 zettajoules a year. It is a 30-times magnifier because of the effect of fossil fuel emissions.
And as ocean heat content grows, seawater expands. The physical nature of seawater is to expand as it warms. And it also melts nearby glaciers, and both result in higher sea levels.
Combined, glacier melt and thermal expansion of water cause global sea levels to rise, and the rates are accelerating over time.
Here is the curve of global sea level rise. It is one of the most unambiguous indicators of what emissions are doing on our Earth to our natural systems.
Sea level rise has been going at accelerated rates since about 1863, which lines up right with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when greenhouse gas emissions began to rise as we burned coal, natural gas, and oil.
Depending on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise in the United States could range between 2 and over 7 feet by the end of this century. That is a particularly dangerous proposition when you consider that 3.7 million Americans in the contiguous United States live on land less than 3.3 feet above high tide.
And it doesn't come up like the bathtub; it comes up and is still subject to tide and storm, so it can be driven ashore at far higher levels than 2 feet or over 7 feet.
Most of the impact will be in Florida, Louisiana, California, New York, and New Jersey. My home State of Rhode Island and my colleague Senator Markey's home State of Massachusetts will share that unfortunate experience.
Sea level rise isn't just evidence of a change in climate; it has real consequences. Thirty percent of people living in the United States live in coastal areas which puts them at risk from rising seas, increased flooding, shoreline erosion, and storm hazards.
And it is not just people at risk. Mr. President, $10 trillion in goods and services are produced in coastal areas of the United States.
Rising sea level will not only cause what we call increased sunny day flooding, like when there is no rain to cause flooding; it is just tide and sea level rise, but it will also increase the amount of flooding from storms and from storm surges, and that will cost lives and money.
Indeed, it is already disrupting insurance, mortgage, and real estate markets. I have spoken elsewhere about the meltdown in Florida in those markets. Florida was recently described as the biggest loser for real estate values of all the 50 States, and it relates back to this cascade from climate risk to insurance being unavailable or too expensive to afford, to mortgages being compromised, to property values taking a hit.
There is some lessons we should learn from what has already happened. Mr. President, $8.1 billion of the $62 billion ascribed to Hurricane Sandy connects back to the rise in sea levels. Could have saved $8 billion were the sea level rise not happening.
Everywhere, high water levels that were once rare--1-in-100-year events are becoming 1-in-10- or 1-in-5-year events. Up to 13 million Americans will face displacement from sea level rise by 2100.
That is assuming that all goes smoothly, but all doesn't always go smoothly. There are tipping points in life. My favorite example is a rowboat.
If you put more and more weight in the rowboat, the water goes up and up the side of the boat. And there is not much change as the water goes up and up the side of the boat. But then you hit a tipping point where the water flows over the gunwale and into the boat. That is a big tipping point difference because suddenly it is not just more and more of the hull down in the water; it is the whole boat catastrophically falling, flooding, sinking to the bottom of the lake or the sea. So tipping points are to watch for.
Most ice is found in polar regions with as little as 1.5-degrees celsius of warming. The Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could be destabilized. That would be a major tipping point. Our Earth has already warmed 1.2 degrees celsius. So getting to 1.5 is not far away. And Greenland, for instance, is warming four times faster than the global average. So that puts us at the risk of the polar ice tipping point very soon.
Sea levels are expected to rise by 20 to 25 feet. Not 2 feet to 7.2 feet; 20 to 25 feet if the Greenland ice sheet melts and an additional 10 to 17 feet if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts.
The disintegration of either ice sheet would render major cities uninhabitable and completely destroy America's coastal communities.
So here is the simple truth: sea level rise is real. It is happening. Fossil fuel-caused climate change is accelerating its effects. Indeed, it is already disrupting American lives, pocketbooks, and families.
Mr. President, I will yield to Senator Markey from Massachusetts and return to make the actual unanimous consent request.
Mr. President, I thank the great Senator from Rhode Island, from the Ocean State. I represent the Bay State. We kind of have a relationship with the ocean in Rhode Island and in Massachusetts. That is why we are here.
I rise today in support of Senator Whitehouse's resolution recognizing the grave threat of sea level rise due to human-caused climate change.
After decades of fossil fuel companies polluting our planet, ocean and atmospheric temperatures are rising. Our glaciers and ice sheets are melting.
Greenland's ice sheet is three times the size of Texas. And in some areas, the ice is 2 miles high. So just think of Greenland this way: 1,000 miles long, 300 miles wide, and a block of ice on it--the world's biggest ice cube--2 miles high is on top of Greenland, and it is melting.
So just think of a full glass of water: the Atlantic Ocean. Now, just drop the
So in 2007, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi named me as the chair of the Climate Committee in the House of Representatives, she asked me: Where should we go?
And I said: Well, our first visit should be to Greenland because it is the scene of the crime.
So we went up there end of May and out about 50 miles deep into Greenland on top of the 2-mile high icecap, and there is already lakes that are forming because the Sun starts to melt it in May and June and July and August.
What that water does on top of that 2-mile high ice cube is it starts to eddy out groove marks all the way down to the bottom of that 2-mile high ice cube. And then that water--that now warm water--starts to liquefy the bottom of that body of ice. And they measure on the Richter scale ice quakes inside of that big ice cube.
And that is what is happening on the planet. Greenland is a perfect example. I am so glad that Senator Whitehouse raised it because it is the scene of the crime; and all along the East Coast, we are going to see absolutely catastrophic consequences if we don't stop it.
I mean 2 miles--I am thinking 30 football fields high of just ice going straight up in the air--30 football fields. That is what this is. That ice and ice all around the world is running into the ocean faster and faster and causing seas to rise.
The result has been sea level rise on a global scale. In the 20th century, sea levels rose nearly 9 inches over the 20th century. Now, as climate change speeds up, we are expected to see that amount of sea level rise from 2000 to 2030 as much as a foot--1 foot additionally--in just 30 years.
The rate of rise is accelerating, and if we continue to emit greenhouse gases that warm up that ice, sea level just won't quit. It is going to get worse and worse and worse. And for coastal communities across the country like those in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, this rate of rise is very, very real. It means more frequent and severe flooding events, eroding beaches, worsening storm surge, catastrophic consequences.
I mean, in the year 2000, there were three climate-related events that cost $1 billion worth of damage--three in 2000.
Two years ago, 27 events occurred in our country that cost $1 billion worth of damage, and the total amount was $180 billion just out of those 27 events, much less all of the other climate-related damage that was being caused.
It is getting worse and worse and worse, and it means billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, insurers raising premiums or exiting the insurance market for that part of the coastline altogether, and home values just keep dropping.
Senator Whitehouse has talked about this over and over again, warning like a latter-day Cassandra of the coming danger of the impact it is going have upon the valuations of homes, and it means serious risk to human health, to livelihoods, and to lives.
And in Massachusetts, from Winthrop to Chatham to Rockport, our communities are adapting. They are building seawalls, investing in flood modeling, raising homes, and restoring natural ecosystem barriers.
But sea level rise is a particularly challenging crisis. Even if we stabilize emissions, scientists believe that our seas could continue rising for centuries. What we can control is the future rate of sea level rise through our actions right now.
So the task is very clear for the Senate, for our country. We must immediately lower our emissions, invest in ocean science, and build resilient infrastructure to protect against the threat that is already built into the system.
So knowing all of this, what are President Trump and his administration up to? Instead of lowering emissions, they are blocking and killing and delaying 28,000 megawatts of clean energy projects that would cut greenhouse gas emissions instead of tethering the country further to pollution and costly fossil fuels.
Instead of investing in ocean science, President Trump is proposing to cut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by more than a quarter, and that would slash the budget for the National Ocean Service, which coastal communities rely on for water level models, flood risk assessments, and weather forecasting. And it would eliminate the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and laboratories like the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory that have been the backbone of coastal scientific research for decades.
We need to understand our rising seas, not undermine science. Instead of investing in resilient infrastructure, Trump tried to eliminate FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program last year which would have delivered $90 million just to Massachusetts alone.
So let's be clear. These cuts will not save the government money. We are going to pay more on our energy bills. Not double, not triple, not 10 times more because we are not building in the safeguards, but an infinity size more. It is penny-wise but pound-foolish.
Prevention is preferable to cure. That is where we should be. We need to make sure that we send a message. The President and his administration do not care about coastal communities. They do not understand the seriousness of climate change. We have to reject these cuts to science. We have to protect clean energy investments. We have to have the backs of our climate and ocean scientists, and we must support our local governments and first responders on the frontlines of the climate crisis.
This resolution--the Whitehouse resolution--affirms the facts on sea level rise. These facts are forecast and felt on our coasts, and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Whitehouse's resolution and pass this commonsense resolution.
Mr. President, to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, I will move the unanimous consent now and then the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee will speak.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 551; further, 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.
Reserving the right to object, I have got a smile on my face here. First of all, let me state that I am not a climate denier. I am just not a climate alarmist, like the Senators from Rhode Island and Massachusetts. So I am thinking of Chicken Little: ``The sky is falling.'' I am not sure how I am going to be able to sleep tonight.
I always found it very interesting when the Senator from Rhode Island was the chairman of the Budget Committee and we held numerous hearings on climate change with some tenuous connection to the budget. Again, very similar, ``the sky is falling,'' whether it is on insurance or housing costs or whatever.
During those hearings, I spoke about, probably a couple of times, and entered into the record the ``World Climate Declaration: There Is No Climate Emergency,'' signed by two Nobel Prize-winning physicists Dr. Ivan Yaeger and Dr. John Clauser, joined by about 25 other businesses, researchers, and scientists, and signed by a bunch of other people as well. It was a commonsense document.
The Senator from Rhode Island was talking about simple truths. Well, again, the simple truth is there is no climate emergency. The climate has always changed. It always will. CO2 is plant food.
More people die of extreme cold than of extreme heat. I mean, these are things that are brought out in these hearings, generally by the minority witnesses.
Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in support of the Senator from Rhode Island's resolution, S. Res. 551, and applaud him for recognizing that sea level risings are accelerating the rates that we are seeing and driving measurable impact.
So my colleague from the Midwest objecting to this is very disturbing because even our colleague from Maine and I--the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins--had gotten CBO to do two different reports over the last 8 or 9 years to say: How much is climate change costing the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers?
The first study came back and said it is costing us billions of dollars, and the most recent one said it is costing us trillions of dollars.
So, literally, you are costing taxpayers trillions of dollars because you don't want to adapt or mitigate those impacts. I can tell you that these are real-world impacts, and, certainly, when 45 percent of the U.S. economy is happening in coastal areas, that means those coastal economies can be impacted by rising sea levels, and that means that our economic output can be impacted. So we were trying to do something about that.
So I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this important issue. He is out here, time and time again, talking about this, articulating the issues, actually traveling his State, traveling the country, being an articulate voice on why rising levels of our oceans are important, why ocean acidification is important, why protecting fisheries is important, why helping shellfish growers is.
You know, we did some research, Senator Whitehouse, at the University of Washington. It was only a few hundred thousand dollars. But we had five generations of shellfish growers about to go out of business because of the fact that ocean acidification had changed the temperature in the water, and we could not figure out how to seed for those shellfish. And the science that was done at the University of Washington helped us come up with a new process and saved the day.
But what is the next challenge going to be? So we need to strengthen our coastal resiliency in the face of this climate change.
So I really also applaud our colleague Senator Markey, who is a member of the Commerce Committee, also from an ocean State, very dependent on an ocean economy for lots of different issues. He wants to make sure that we are applying the best science to protecting these economies.
As I mentioned, a nonpartisan Government Accountability Office cost report found that climate change will cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion by 2039.
So I know the Presiding Officer knows all about what happens when FEMA and disasters happen and we need to help States. But just imagine that that bill is now going to be $1 trillion by 2039, and rising sea levels are going to be part of that cost.
Washington, my State, is already seeing real-world impacts from this, particularly in sea level rise. Puget Sound levels are projected to rise 1.6 feet by 2050 and as much as 10 feet by 2100. And statewide, we are expecting to see 1 to 3 feet by the end of the century.
So that does have an impact. And the kind of changes that we are talking about can have impacts specifically on infrastructure. Sea level rise will worsen coastal flooding. It will impact storm surge. It will likely--just for example, what does that mean? We have a highway system that runs right up and down our Puget Sound area that can be impacted at times.
We have had a lot of erosion lately, now twice, right outside of Bellingham, and I-5 has been closed. OK, why is I-5 closing? Because we have had so much rain, we have had so much impact-changing environment that we basically have had to have I-5 shut twice just to clean up from the mudslides.
Our Amtrak service, which runs all the way from California up to British Columbia, also has been impacted by huge slides after rain and after these swollen rivers.
And the increased likelihood of ground instability during earthquakes also magnifies devastating events and threatens critical areas like roads, bridges, and fiberoptic cables in greater Seattle, which could all be underwater as early as 2030.
So we just had a massive flood out in the Northwest, in December, and that impact was just unbelievable--one of the biggest. You know, thank God we had the information from NOAA. And thank God, what did we do?
In King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, we basically, over the last decade, planned for mitigation and adaptation. We built a canal system. We built a system that allowed us to take some of that water and create a flow of the massive amount of water that happened during that flood. And we were able to, literally--we lost one individual. That was it.
We were so proud that we had made it through most of that, until one individual drove into a flooded area and, unfortunately, lost their life. We are very, very sorry for them and their family.
But when we planned and did adaptation and mitigation, when we looked at culverts, when we looked at diking systems, when we looked at relieving the pressure, we were able to lessen the impact.
So it is not unlikely that any of these floods or any of these rising water issues impact a major transportation system in our State, whether it is I-5, I-90, or Highway 2, or some of these other facilities.
So we pay a lot of attention to this because we have got a lot of product going to the Pacific right through our State. And so if any of these infrastructure resources are closed, it is literally millions and millions and millions of dollars a day.
So rising wastewater is also an issue. So treatment facilities around Puget Sound and Elliott Bay are increasingly vulnerable to flooding and overflow, threatening the release of bacteria, toxic chemicals, and other pollutants into our waterways and our drinking water. Those risks and costs only grow as the water rises.
In the State of Washington alone, 2 million people live in areas susceptible to flooding, with $86 billion of infrastructure at risk. And that number continues to grow as sea levels rise.
Nationally, 34 million Americans live in low-elevation areas at risk to sea level rise. That is literally 1 in 10 Americans. So why ignore it?
All my colleague was trying to do is to say we should recognize this threat and start to work toward solutions.
Sea level rise endangers one of the cornerstones of our State's heritage and economy, and that is salmon. We all in the Northwest want to make sure that rising sea levels do not impact our estuaries and our wetlands, but that is exactly what these rising sea levels are supposed to do, significantly reduce estuaries and wetlands by 2100. These areas are critical for juvenile salmon as they migrate to the ocean, as well as birds and important wildlife.
Just this week, Isabella Breda at the Seattle Times wrote a piece about how the Chinook salmon--I think I have got to get this for the Senator from Rhode Island because it is a great story. It is on the front page of the Seattle Times. But it is literally about monitors in the river because we are trying to monitor these storms, because when we have--this is the area where, several years ago, we had a massive mudslide in Oso, which killed dozens and dozens of people, unfortunately.
And so we know we can have major events, and we need to do better.
So, basically, it is about how Chinook salmon in the Stillaguamish River are vulnerable to the flooding
So this is really important to us. As a State, we want salmon. We want to understand rising sea levels. We want to understand what flooding is going to do to create damage. When are those spawning grounds going to be lost, and when are Chinook survival rates going to continue to drop? We want to know.
Many of the 29 federally recognized Tribes in my State have already been seeing the impacts of climate change and are already preparing for the worst. And I know some people may not know the geography of our country, but we are talking--OK, let's just say that we are talking way out on the Pacific coast. Tribes like the Hoh Indian Tribe, the Quinault Indian Tribe, the Quileute Tribe, and the Shoalwater Bay Tribe are all located along the Pacific coast, and the threat of sea level rise has forced them to take aggressive, unprecedented actions to move parts of their reservations to higher land. Some have had to plan for full-scale relocation of coastal villages to mitigate the increasing dire threat of floods due to sea level.
Trust me, the Army Corps of Engineers is out there, practically on a monthly basis, trying to come up with a plan to mitigate the impacts of the Pacific on the Shoalwater Tribe.
Others are working tirelessly to mitigate the cumulative effects of coastal erosion, including inland flooding and extreme weather events.
For some of our coastal Tribes, the situation is incredibly dire. Not long ago, when I was visiting the Shoalwater in Tokeland, WA, many of the homes and government buildings that were there on the beach and the shoreline you could just tell were quickly eroding.
And so this is about whether we give them a resolution. This resolution that we were talking about makes clear that we cannot bury our heads in the sand while climate change and sea level rise put billions of dollars of infrastructure and millions of Americans at risk.
If we want to protect our economy and these communities, we need the data and the science to understand the problem. We need to take the necessary steps to protect our communities and our infrastructure and our economy.
So I urge my colleagues to reconsider. I hope that we will have S. Res. 551 before us again. I hope that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that represent coastal States will talk to our colleague from Wisconsin and encourage him to, instead, support this legislation.
We have to do better planning. We have to do better adaptation and mitigation. We have to use better science. And we have to recognize that the impacts of rising sea levels in our oceans really, really do affect our economy.
I am so proud of our fishing economy in the Northwest. I think we sometimes--the Senator from Massachusetts and I, you know, basically debate back and forth about best seafood and best aquaculture. And I know the Senator from Rhode Island also has a lot to brag about.
But that number--45 percent of the economy being in coastal regions of the United States of America and us doing nothing to think about what is the adaptation and mitigation that we need to do is just wrongheaded. We need these. I don't even know if the Senator has got any data on this, but I would assume he has thought about this from a military perspective.
I have got a lot of military bases in our State, and they are very close to water. What are they going to do when sea level rises? What do we have to do to mitigate and adapt so that those bases continue to be successful, particularly at a moment when the Pacific is becoming even more interesting?
So, again, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for helping lead this charge every night but particularly tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I would wrap things up this evening by simply pointing out that the views expressed by the Senator from Wisconsin related to climate change are not shared by the University of Wisconsin, which actually teaches climate science. It has programs in the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Department. It has programs in the Environmental Sciences Department.
Courses include Climate and Climate Change; Climate Change, Human and Planetary Health; Climatic Environments of the Past; Climate Change Ecology; Ice and Climate Dynamics; Soils and Climate Change; Climate Change and Health Disparities; Climate Change Medicine; Agricultural Weather and Climate; Climate Change Economics and Policy; Climate Change Action Planning; Case Studies Exploring Infrastructure Sustainability and Climate Change; Climate Change Governance; Climate Change, Sustainability, and Education; and for the lawyers in the room, even a law class: Climate Change, Human Rights, and the Environment.
