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.
16Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
12Senate Resolution 727: Supporting the Designation of May 29, 2026, as "Mental Health Awareness in Agriculture Day" to Raise Awareness Around Mental Health in the Agricultural Industry And...
13Senate Resolution 728: Expressing the Sense of the Senate That the President Should Prioritize Securing the Release of Pastor Jin Mingri, Pastor GAO Quanfu and His Wife Pang Yu, Jimmy Lai, Dr...
Nineteen bills and two resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 4506-4524, and S. Res. 727-728.
Pages S2277-78
Measures Passed
Release of certain individuals: Senate agreed to S. Res. 728, expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should prioritize securing the release of Pastor Jin Mingri, Pastor Gao Quanfu and his wife Pang Yu, Jimmy Lai, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, and Ekpar Asat detained by the People's Republic of China during future engagements with Chinese President Xi Jingping.
Page S2283
National Beef Month
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 711, expressing support for the designation of May 2026 as ``National Beef Month'' to recognize the important role cattle play in the United States, and to consumers, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S2283
Measures Considered
Hostilities Within or Against the Islamic Republic of Iran: By 49 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 118), Senate rejected the motion to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 163, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546a and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act.
Pages S2250-55
Withholding Pay of Senators During a Shutdown: Agreement
Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of S.Res. 526, withholding the pay of Senators if a Government shutdown occurs.
Pages S2255-59
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By a unanimous vote of 99 yeas (Vote No. 119), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the affirmative, Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the resolution.
Page S2256
Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 121), Senate rejected Reed motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 132, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Examinations for Risks to Active-Duty Servicemembers and Their Covered Dependents''. Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F);
Pages S2264-65
Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt
By 50 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 122), Senate rejected Warnock motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 141, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt''.
Page S2265
Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-05
Improper Overdraft Opt- In Practices: By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 123), Senate rejected Van Hollen motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 130, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-05: Improper Overdraft Opt-In Practices''. Fair Credit Reporting;
Pages S2265-66
Background Screening
By voice vote, Senate rejected Blunt Rochester motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 133, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Fair Credit Reporting; Background Screening''. Fair Credit Reporting;
Page S2266
Permissible Purposes for Furnishing, Using, and Obtaining Consumer Reports
By voice vote, Senate rejected Wyden motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 145, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Fair Credit Reporting; Permissible Purposes for Furnishing, Using, and Obtaining Consumer Reports''. Truth in Lending (Regulation Z);
Pages S2266-67
Consumer Protections for Home Sales Financed Under Contracts for Deed
By voice vote, Senate rejected Schumer motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 149, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Consumer Protections for Home Sales Financed Under Contracts for Deed''. Fair Credit Reporting;
Page S2267
Name-Only Matching Procedures
By voice vote, Senate rejected Warnock motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only Matching Procedures''.
Page S2267
Limited Applicability of Consumer Financial Protection Act's `Time or Space' Exception With Respect to Digital Marketing Providers
By voice vote, Senate rejected Blumenthal motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 150, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Limited Applicability of Consumer Financial Protection Act's `Time or Space' Exception With Respect to Digital Marketing Providers''. Fair Credit Reporting;
Page S2268
File Disclosure
By voice vote, Senate rejected Kim motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 127, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Fair Credit Reporting; File Disclosure''. Fair Credit Reporting Act;
Page S2268
Preemption of State Laws
By voice vote, Senate rejected Whitehouse motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 155, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Fair Credit Reporting Act; Preemption of State Laws''. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Regulation F);
Pages S2268-69
Time-Barred Debt
By voice vote, Senate rejected Kim motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 126, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Regulation F); Time- Barred Debt''. Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F);
Page S2269
Pay-to-Pay Fees
By voice vote, Senate rejected Alsobrooks motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 125, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Pay-to-Pay Fees''.
Page S2269
Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02
Deceptive Marketing Practices About the Speed or Cost of Sending a Remittance Transfer: By voice vote, Senate rejected Gallego motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 131, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-02: Deceptive Marketing Practices About the Speed or Cost of Sending a Remittance Transfer''. Truth in Lending (Regulation Z);
Pages S2269-70
Consumer Credit Offered to Borrowers in Advance of Expected Receipt of Compensation for Work
By voice vote, Senate rejected Merkley motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 156, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Consumer Credit Offered to Borrowers in Advance of Expected Receipt of Compensation for Work''. Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B);
Page S2270
Revocations or Unfavorable Changes to the Terms of Existing Credit Arrangements
By voice vote, Senate rejected Booker motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 154, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B); Revocations or Unfavorable Changes to the Terms of Existing Credit Arrangements''.
Page S2270
Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03
Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions: By voice vote, Senate rejected Cortez Masto motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 128, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03: Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions''.
Pages S2270-71
The Fair Credit Reporting Act's Limited Preemption of State Laws
By voice vote, Senate rejected Cortez Masto motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 129, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``The Fair Credit Reporting Act's Limited Preemption of State Laws''.
Page S2271
Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices
By voice vote, Senate rejected Durbin motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 147, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices''. Truth in Lending (Regulation Z);
Pages S2271-72
Use of Digital User Accounts to Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans
By voice vote, Senate rejected Welch motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 134, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Use of Digital User Accounts to Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans''.
Page S2272
Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-04
Whistleblower Protections Under CFPA Section 1057: By voice vote, Senate rejected Welch motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 135, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to ``Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-04: Whistleblower Protections Under CFPA Section 1057''.
Page S2272
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the motion to invoke cloture with respect to S. 4344, to extend section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for 3 years, be withdrawn.
Pages S2249-50
En Bloc Nominations: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motion to invoke cloture with respect to the nominations to be considered en bloc, pursuant to S. Res. 690 (119th Congress) ripen at 1:45 p.m., on Thursday, May 14, 2026.
Page S2283
Nomination Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nomination: By 54 yeas to 45 nays (Vote No. EX. 120), Kevin Warsh, of Florida, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years.
Pages S2260, S2286
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S2280-82
Record Votes
Six record votes were taken today. (Total--123)
Pages S2255-56, S2260, S2265-66
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:44 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 14, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S2283.)
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: 85 of 220 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times recently to explain how important the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is to the economies of the three countries--particularly the United States and particularly agriculture in the United States--and that we need to soon make a decision to continue the USMCA. It is up for review, and that review ought to be conducted very quickly because of the economic importance that I have kind of tried to demonstrate on the floor of the U.S. Senate--how it has expanded trade between our countries and business between our countries and how it has been so beneficial to the economic growth of all three countries but particularly the United States. So I have said the renewal is really a no-brainer.
So I continue my review today of this USMCA, but there is one part of that agreement that does not show up in the text of the agreement or is easily calculated in dollars, as I have tried to explain the value of the USMCA in dollar terms. In other words, it is hard to give any statistics to this aspect of the USMCA and its value.
It is the invaluable effect of countering China on the global stage because of what has developed as a result of the USMCA. That is through alignment on agricultural, environmental, intellectual property rules and regulations, and by aligning rules of origin, strengthening nearshore supply chains, and countless other provisions. The USMCA protects our domestic workers, our companies, and our products from being replaced by Chinese competition.
The alignment of the North American economy, because of the USMCA, to U.S. standards--that all sends a very strong signal to the rest of the world. That signal is this: If you align with the United States, you and your economy will prosper.
As more and more countries are finding out, aligning in the opposite direction--with China--means intellectual property theft, continuously moving goalposts, and regulatory uncertainty. Because of the USMCA and the North American economy being aligned--because of the USMCA--I think it shows the importance of counteracting China.
So I urge the Trump administration to quickly advance trilateral conversations on renewing USMCA, and I say this especially with Canada because I see we are dragging our feet in regard to sitting down with Canada. We should not be pushing Canada to the back burner in the USMCA negotiations. The United States and Canada economically are so integrated that it is important to keep this moving.
The Canadians showed their willingness to expand trade with China, to our detriment. They did this in January--including in electric vehicles. This administration must move quickly to ensure Canada remains focused on strengthening trade between our two countries, and we do that by sitting down with Canada very quickly.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, later today, the Senate will finish considering the nomination of Kevin Warsh to be the 17th Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Leading the Federal Reserve System is an enormous task. The decisions the Fed makes affect Wall Street and Main Street and kitchen tables all across the country. So it is critical that we have people who understand not only the macro--the global economy and the markets--but who appreciate the microeconomy, and that is the hard-working Americans, their jobs, and their livelihoods.
Kevin Warsh is just such a person.
He credits his knowledge of the real economy to growing up in Upstate New York where his dad ran a children's clothing store and manufacturing company. From Shaker High School, he went on to Stanford University and then Harvard Law School.
He then started a career on Wall Street, but he shifted to public service and joined the Bush administration's economic policy team in 2002. Four years later, President Bush nominated him to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. At age 35, Kevin Warsh was unanimously-- unanimously--confirmed here in the Senate and became the youngest Governor in the history of the Federal Reserve. Being the youngest person to take a seat in the Federal Reserve's boardroom is impressive enough, but Kevin Warsh didn't just take his seat--he was a key player during the time he was on the Board.
Kevin Warsh seems to have just the profile of a Federal Reserve Chairman; yet Democrats oppose his nomination. That is right. For the first time in its history, the Banking Committee reported out a nominee for Fed Chairman on a party line vote because every single Democrat opposed Mr. Warsh's nomination--and, actually, only one Democrat was even present for the vote. The other 10 Democrats on the Banking Committee didn't even bother to show up for it.
And, yesterday on the floor, all but one Democrat opposed the first of Mr. Warsh's two nominations: his nomination to be on the Board of Governors. He has already had that job, and a number of Democrats actually supported his nomination the last time; but those same Democrats voted yesterday against appointing him to the Board, and I suspect they will do the same when it comes time to vote on his other nomination to be the Chairman later today.
I wish I could say I am surprised, but this is just how bad Trump derangement syndrome has gotten on the other side of the aisle. Democrats won't say so, but that is what it is. I expect we are going to hear Democrats attempt to justify their opposition by suggesting that a Chairman Warsh would somehow threaten the Fed's independence. I have to say that is a pretty serious claim and one that doesn't really have any basis in reality.
To begin with, Mr. Warsh's testimony before the Banking Committee should have put any concerns about his independence to rest, but if the depth of his commitment to Fed independence were at all unclear, I recommend my colleagues review a speech he gave in 2010, entitled ``An Ode to Independence,'' in which he said:
Or they could ask Randall Kroszner, who served with Warsh on the Fed Board, who said:
Or maybe--maybe--they could just ask the Democrat leader, who introduced Kevin Warsh at his 2006 confirmation hearing. He said then of Warsh:
That was the Democrat leader's comments, who is now leading the charge in opposing Warsh's nomination.
It doesn't seem to matter who President Trump nominates-- the Democrats blindly oppose them. Democrats aren't interested in a person's qualifications. All they care about is opposing President Trump, and it has been that way since he took office last January. President Trump is the only President on record who has not had a single--single--civilian nominee approved by voice vote or by unanimous consent here in the U.S. Senate--the only President in history. Democrats have dragged out the process on every single one of his nominations.
The fact that two Democrats voted for our former colleague Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary of DHS, in this day and age here, appears to be an act of courage in today's Democrat Party--even though it was a vote that traditionally would have been widely bipartisan, if not unanimous, but not when Democrats are in the throes of Trump derangement syndrome.
It is shameful--it really is--but Republicans aren't letting it stop us.
In September, we took steps to restore Senate precedent on largely noncontroversial Presidential nominees to ensure that no other President has to face the kind of petty--and I mean petty--partisanship that President Trump is encountering. Very soon, we will vote on a fourth nominations package containing 49 Trump nominees who have had their hearings and markups and are ready for confirmation, and we will keep moving forward.
I know that Democrats aren't happy that Donald Trump is the President, but that doesn't mean that nominations should be held up for purely political reasons.
As the Democrat leader said just a few years ago:
Well, unfortunately, Democrats have made it pretty clear that they are only--only--interested in partisan games since President Trump took office, but we have got a country to run, and Republicans are doing our job.
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, today, the Senate will vote on a simple question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its constitutional responsibility to decide the question of war?
As Madison summarized:
With studied care.
The Founders said that no one person, not even the President, should be able to take this Nation to war.
They would observe that throughout history, Executives were inclined to commit troops and treasure to battles that made no sense in a government by and for the people in a democratic republic. So they stipulated there had to be a debate and a vote here in the legislative branch, an act of Congress, a declaration of war, or an authorization by legislation for war. Yet we have had neither. We have had neither.
In the 1973 War Powers Act, there is a third option. It is a condition in which the United States has been attacked or is under imminent threat of an attack.
Some colleagues have said that imminent threat was real, and therefore the President has 60 days to conduct a war before he is in violation of the Constitution.
Now, I disagree. Many of us and many experts believe nothing close to an imminent threat existed that justified that third option--the President having 60 days to respond without action by Congress. But many colleagues across the aisle have said: We will give the benefit of the doubt to the President's contention that there was an imminent threat, but we will reconsider our position when the 60 days has expired.
Well, my friends, the 60 days expired on May 1. We are way past that deadline.
Now the President has a new excuse. He says: Well, we are no longer conducting acts of war. We are in a cease-fire.
But what matters are the facts on the ground. Are we, in fact--have we, in fact, suspended all the acts of war? No, we have not. We are still engaged on a daily basis. The United States is still blockading Iranian ports. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian warships. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian vessels. That is an act of war. Iran is still blockading the Strait of Hormuz. That is an act of war. They are still firing on U.S. Naval vessels. That is an act of war. They are still attacking U.S.-flagged tankers. That is an act of war.
Both sides are engaged in a daily war as defined by international law. Is it at a somewhat lower level than the bombing campaign? Yes, I will grant you that. But it is a war by every definition. It has not ended. Our troops have not been withdrawn.
So here we are. Are we going to honor that oath to the Constitution? Each and every one of you took that oath. The Constitution is very clear: War can be conducted by the United States only with congressional authorization. We are now past that 60 days, so that excuse, that reason, is gone.
How seriously do you take the Constitution? If you don't take it seriously, maybe you shouldn't be serving in this Chamber.
It is clear how important that debate is in this Chamber when you look at the catastrophe that has unfolded with this war of choice. Catastrophe. Undermined the reformers. Massively strengthened the hard line--massively. Enriched Russia extensively. We lifted the sanctions on Russia. They are able to sell their oil at a world price--a world price that is double what it was before. We have lost men and women in uniform. We have hundreds that are injured. We are spending $1 to $2 billion a day.
Here at home, there are massive increased costs for the American family. People keep saying it is $4 for gas now--$1.50 higher than it was. Well, in Oregon, it is over $5. Diesel is over $6. The cost to a family in the course of a year at this point is about $2,700 additional cash out of hand, posttax dollars--gone.
When energy goes up, everything goes up. Our agricultural community is looking at the increased cost for fertilizer on top of the chaos of the tariffs affecting their inputs and their outputs. The inflation index is way up--3.8 percent last month, which is the highest year- over-year in 3 years, and more is coming.
We have undermined our alliances. We said to the Europeans: We don't need you.
President Trump said: We do not need you. Then he said: Please, please come and help.
They said: This war you have embarked on is unwise. You did not ask us for help. You did not consult with us beforehand. This is your choice. It is a big mistake. And, no, we are not going to partner in this massive catastrophe.
The enriched uranium is still buried deep underground. There is a path on the uranium question. The path will look something like this: Iran will agree not to enrich for 5 years or so. That would be face- saving for the United States of America. But then they will be free to enrich to a low level, protecting and defending their sovereignty, with international inspections. The enriched uranium--60 percent--they will be in agreement that will be moved to Russia or somewhere else.
Those three features--all part of the JCPOA, the agreement that was reached through diplomacy rather than war, the agreement that President Trump tore up in his first administration and created an expanded pathway to more enriched uranium in Iran because he tore up the agreement.
So costs at home, deaths of servicemembers, cost to the Treasury, undermining alliances, enriching Russia, failing to retrieve uranium-- mistake after mistake after mistake. That is why the Founders said that a President by himself should not be able to go to war and wrote a Constitution that we each have pledged ourselves to. We are a democratic republic, not an authoritarian power--authoritarian power, the President or the Chief Executive, the dictator, whatever you want to call him.
But we have a responsibility, and today, we will test whether or not we honor that oath to the Constitution. Will we?
Option 1, have we done a declaration of war? We have not.
Option 2, have we passed an authorization for the use of military force? We have not.
Option 3, the President has 60 days when there is an imminent threat. So colleagues who have asserted that is a legitimate option, I disagree, but those who have asserted it, 60 days is up.
So will you or will you not honor your constitutional responsibility? That is the question that will be in the vote today.
Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 163.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I come to the floor having just heard the Senator from Oregon is proposing a resolution, a War Powers Act today, heard him say this was about protecting the Constitution.
What they are doing--the Democrats are doing is not about protecting the Constitution; it is about obstructing the President of the United States. That is what is happening here today. That is exactly what Democrats are trying to do.
Going back to 1973, there have been a total of 17 War Powers Act votes in Congress. That is when the War Powers became law--1973. There have been 17 votes in 53 years, and 14 of the 17 votes were from Democrats aimed specifically at President Trump--53 years; 17; 14 of 17 by the Democrats actively going after President Trump.
Democrats--here they are saying they are protecting the Constitution. They introduce absolutely zero War Powers Resolutions under President Obama, and that was despite his strikes in Libya. Democrats introduced absolutely zero War Powers Resolutions under President Biden despite his actions in Syria. So we have Libya, Syria, and they say nothing.
This is the eighth vote on Iran this very Congress. We have also had War Powers Resolutions and votes regarding Cuba and Venezuela.
Well, let's talk about Iran. For nearly 50 years, Iran has waged war against our Nation. Iran is the world's largest, leading sponsor of terrorism. They regularly chant ``Death to America.'' Iran has murdered thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iranians, and has tried to build nuclear weapons.
For decades, American Presidents have pledged that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon. Only President Trump had the courage and the strength to keep his word. Earlier this year, President Trump responded with military precision. Now we are deploying economic pressure as well and diplomatic pressure.
Under President Trump, America continues to restore peace through strength around the world. Today, Iran is losing $500 million a day in revenue. They are going to lose that much today, yesterday, and they will again tomorrow.
That is the impact of what the President is doing to Iran right now. Iran's cash cow of oil exports has collapsed.
By contrast, America is pumping out record amounts of oil and natural gas.
Iran's economy is on life support. Its leadership has been eliminated.
Thirteen days ago, President Trump sent a letter to Congress about the conflict in Iran. The President made it very clear--clear that the major fighting is halted; clear that the American cease-fire has held for more than a month, and our Naval blockade is working.
This week, President Trump is meeting with China overseas. Democrats right here in the Senate want to pull the rug out from under him.
Let's be clear: President Trump has complied with the law. Enforcing a blockade is not the same as active hostilities under the War Powers Act. That is the established and binding precedent that governs the U.S. Senate.
Democrats don't seem to care. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said in January that their goal--the Democrat goal, he said, is to ``flood the Senate calendar.'' So they want to run out the clock on the Republican majority.
The Senate has now rejected each and every one of these Democrat delays. We need to reject this one as well. We should reject it because it is partisan. We should reject it because it is written by Democrats to weaken our Commander in Chief. And we should reject it because it encourages Iran to doubt the resolve of our Nation.
Iran is going to be watching this vote today. China will be watching this vote. America must continue to show strength and resolve.
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, yesterday, Donald Trump told a reporter: ``I don't think about Americans' financial situations.'' I don't think of anyone.
I repeat: Donald Trump actually said this. He said:
Can you believe it? You wouldn't believe it coming from any other President. But, sadly, from this President, it smacks of reality. He says almost anything, and he doesn't care.
Clearly, Donald Trump doesn't care about Americans' financial situations, considering that, just this morning, we saw wholesale inflation skyrocket to 6 percent, the highest it has been since December of 2022--wholesale inflation, 6 percent. As those costs trickle down to Americans, Americans are going to be paying more and more and more, and they hate it.
Now, what is Donald Trump thinking about instead? Himself, especially his new ballroom, at a time when 77 percent--that is 77 percent--of Americans say that Donald Trump's policies have increased their cost of living.
Trump and the Senate GOP try to force through a bill that would spend $1 billion taxpayer dollars on a gilded ballroom and not one penny on bringing down American costs. Trump may be trying to build a ballroom, but, clearly, he is living in the theater of the absurd.
Really? Do Americans want a ballroom when wholesale inflation just hit 6 percent--the highest level in 4 years? Do Americans want a ballroom when food prices just went up more in April than in any month in nearly 40 years? Do Americans want a ballroom when the cost of a gallon of gas has increased a dollar and a half since March?
Of course not.
I would say Trump has completely lost touch with the American people, but that would assume that Trump was ever in touch with the American people to begin with. And on this issue, he sure as heck isn't.
Mr. President, on Iran, Trump was talking about his disastrous Iran war when he said:
Trump launched this war without a plan, without a clear objective, and without any thought to how it might affect the American people.
When Hegseth and other Pentagon officials came to testify, at the end of April, they said this war cost American taxpayers $25 billion. Well, yesterday, they revised that figure to $29 billion. Trump has forced American taxpayers to sink at least $29 billion into a war that still has no end game.
And $29 billion is just the sticker price and doesn't include the hundreds of additional dollars American families will have to pay this year just to fill up their tanks. Americans are paying over $4\1/2\ a gallon at the pump--more than a dollar and a half above what it was when Trump started this war.
If Senate Republicans care about Americans' financial situations, which they should, they need to vote for our War Powers Resolution today to limit Trump's ability to continue this war without authorization. Senator Merkley will be introducing that War Powers Resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, in a little while.
Today's vote will be the Republicans' seventh--seventh--opportunity to support our resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with Iran and stop the economic fallout from this historic blunder.
Americans' financial situation is dire, and Republicans don't think about anyone other than Donald Trump.
Mr. President, on China, Donald Trump may have no interest in helping the American people get ahead, but he certainly seems willing to give China a leg up. We all ought to fear what Donald Trump may concede to China just so he can claim a headline. Trump has fantasized about $1 trillion in Chinese investments in America that would give the Chinese a stranglehold on our economy, threaten our supply chains, our economic independence, and our national security.
This is Trump empowering Xi's ``Made in China'' ambitions--selling out American manufacturers and workers, giving CCP businesses an edge in undermining America building the industries of the future here at home.
He is opening the door. He is saying: China, you come here. Use all American innovation and technology and everything else; and then send it back to China, and let China take the lead over America on industry over industry.
What a disgrace. The American people--American businesses--aren't going to fall for this bunk.
And then there are many other things we all worry about that Trump would or could do to weaken American workers, families, and businesses when he gets outnegotiated by Xi. And that has happened time and time again.
Here are some of the things that Donald Trump could do that we all worry about--American workers, American families, American people, American companies worry about.
Donald Trump could sell out American autoworkers by allowing Chinese EVs to flood our markets and crowd out domestic manufacturing.
Donald Trump could sell out America on chips and AI, allowing the sale of our AI chips and semiconductor equipment to China so they can catch up in the technology race that will define the global economy for the next decade. This is a clear and present threat, not just to American jobs but to our national security.
Donald Trump could sell out on fentanyl, failing to use American leverage to extract real and meaningful concessions from the Chinese Communist Party to prevent the deadly flow of fentanyl poisoning our communities. This is an issue I brought up directly with Xi years ago. We were making some progress. Will Donald Trump sell it out? We all worry about it.
Donald Trump could sell out Taiwan, whose people want to continue living in freedom, instead of under the jackboot of the Chinese Communist Party. Any threat Trump allows Xi Jinping to
So in all of these things, forget the ``Art of the Deal.'' Trump is practicing the ``art of the duped.''
Forget the ``art of the deal.'' Donald Trump is practicing the ``art of the duped.''
Mr. President, on Mr. Warsh, Donald Trump has made it clear he will stop at nothing--nothing--to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve at the expense of the American economy and the American people. As the Senate prepares to vote on Kevin Warsh's confirmation as Fed chair, Donald Trump has shown no sign he intends to stop his crusade against an independent Fed.
Trump undermined the central bank with his attempt to oust Lisa Cook and his sham investigation against Chairman Powell. Those attacks on the Fed ought to concern everyone who is worried about the cost of living and interest rates going up.
The more Donald Trump interferes with an independent Fed, the more chaos he injects into the markets. And the more chaos he injects into the markets, the more the interest rates go up.
Markets like certainty. Donald Trump doesn't offer that.
With this administration's disastrous war and failed economic agenda driving up costs, Donald Trump will only seek to exert more pressure on the Fed to manipulate interest rates to his own political advantage. Appointing a new Fed Chair amid this chaos and coercion could further undermine the independence of the Fed.
I urge Senate Republicans to join Democrats in protecting the Fed and restoring some stability to our economy.
Mr. President, on CRAs, later today, the Senate will have a series of votes on the Trump administration's undermining of key protections for the American consumer against predatory corporate practices that raise costs and limit opportunity.
The CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has played a critical role on the side of people to help them avoid junk fees, predatory medical debt, and payday lenders who take advantage of people in need, including military servicemembers.
The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize undermining these critical protections, and, today, Senate Democrats stand up and say ``enough.''
As someone who helped authorize the CFPB, years ago, I feel strongly that we cannot let Trump undermine and constrain this vital Agency. So I thank Senator Warren and so many of my Democratic colleagues for leading these joint resolutions of disapproval to fight on behalf of the American people, of the American consumer.
The joint resolution of disapproval that I am leading is against the Trump administration's decision to reverse CFPB protections on mortgage lending called ``contract for deed'' transactions, that without the proper guardrails can be predatory to people trying to live the American dream in purchasing a home.
For millions of Americans who can't access a traditional mortgage, a contract for deed can seem like a lifeline, but all too often these arrangements are traps. The buyer takes on every obligation of home ownership immediately--taxes, repairs, risk--but doesn't receive the deed until they have paid every last dollar. You miss a single payment, and you can lose everything--no equity, no recourse, evicted like a tenant.
Over 200,000 New Yorkers are in these arrangements right now.
The CFPB has heard reports of many unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in ``contract for deed'' transactions and took action in 2024 to crack down on these practices by applying the same lending protections to these loans as other consumer and mortgage loans.
What does Trump want to do? Of course, he wants to give a green light to the bad actors, that they are free to exploit American potential homeowners in this way by eliminating the protections of CFPB.
Apparently, Trump wasn't paying attention during the 2008 financial crisis. Giving these predatory lenders free rein only hurts the American people and the American economy.
I call on all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to join me in protecting Americans who just want a fair shot at the American dream.
Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator Cornyn for up to 10 minutes and Senator Kennedy for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, like many families across America, mine was touched by the disease of cancer when I was a young man. At the age of 14, my father died of lung cancer. I was 14; he was 53. Seeing my dad struggle changed my life. I made it a priority during my time in Congress to try to spare others from the suffering. We have made significant progress in reducing smoking over the last several decades. After I passed legislation banning smoking on airplanes, it turned out to be a tipping point. And, increasingly, we have seen tobacco and cigarettes disappear from public spaces.
But Big Tobacco did not dissipate like a cloud of smoke. They rebranded with flashy new products: vaping and e-cigarettes. And they followed the same playbook they used to sell Marlboro cigarettes and so many others: They targeted our children in America.
Tobacco companies have donated generously to Donald Trump's election, his inauguration, and his ``Great Gatsby'' ballroom with the expectation of favorable treatment, and President Trump's administration has delivered for tobacco. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration did something it had never done before. After pressure from President Trump, the FDA authorized the first ever flavored e- cigarettes.
Why is that important? That is what lures the children into this deadly habit. Scientists, doctors, and parents--even the FDA's own studies--all acknowledge sweet and fruity flavored e-cigarettes are responsible for addicting our children. Health experts I have spoken to believe the true number of high school kids vaping is at least 40 percent--40 percent of our kids vaping--a percentage that teachers, principals, and students acknowledge. These are not kids vaping to quit cigarette smoking. These are kids who first became addicted to nicotine because of flavored vaping.
Why would an administration supposedly committed to making America healthy again unleash this new wave of addiction on our children? Formaldehyde, chromium, and heavy metals like nickel and lead all are present in e-cigarettes. A recent study found that vaping is likely to cause cancer.
We should not trust Big Tobacco when they promise they won't market to kids. We know better.
Then, on Friday, the Food and Drug Administration granted a free pass to scores of illegal vapes, permitting them to stay on the market without having met the law's requirement that they first prove to the FDA that their product is ``appropriate for the protection of public health.'' They didn't try to do it because they can't do that; they can't prove it.
But even that gift to vaping and cigarette titans like Altria and R. J. Reynolds was not enough to spare the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Yesterday, President Trump canned him, forced his resignation. Dr. Makary is gone for his resistance to this expansion of vaping in the high schools of America.
What a disgraceful display in Washington. The President wants yes-men no matter the consequences, even if it harms our children.
While I did not agree on everything that Dr. Makary did, I appreciated his commitment and focus on protecting kids from Big Tobacco.
Whether it is for drugs, medical devices, or tobacco products, it is never a good idea for the President and the White House to pressure regulators to approve applications. That is a recipe for deadly consequences.
As the President's whims have created dangerous vacancies now at the
Mr. President, on a separate topic, every family, like my own, has wrestled with a dangerous medical condition. When you or a loved one receive a diagnosis, there is only one question on your mind: Is there a cure? Is there a treatment? Often, thank God, the answer is yes.
America's world-class medical researchers and institutions have pushed the boundaries of science and achieved so many important and lifesaving breakthroughs. Medical researchers have turned terminal illness into treatable conditions in many instances--from HIV and AIDS, to heart disease, to many types of cancer--and they have developed treatments that have given patients what they desire the most: more time with their loved ones.
This work is primarily supported by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. It is not only the Nation's premier medical research agency; it is the world's premier medical research agency.
Today, the budget of the National Institutes of Health is nearly $50 billion. The vast majority of their research is competitively awarded to scientists, research institutions, and small businesses in every State across the Nation. Last year, Illinois hospitals and universities received more than $1.2 billion in NIH funding.
What do we have to show for this investment? Well, thanks to NIH research, cancer deaths have declined by 34 percent between 1991 and 2022, and death from heart disease and stroke fell by 78 percent between 1968 and 2013. Medical research works. Because of NIH funding, we are on the verge of curing--yes, curing--sickle cell disease. Consider this: Between 2010 and 2016, the FDA approved more than 200 new drugs and treatments. Every single one of them benefitted from NIH research funding--money well spent.
Congress has long recognized the importance of NIH, which is why we, on a bipartisan basis, provided NIH with $19 billion in additional funding over the past decade, a 60-percent increase. I was part of that effort, and I am proud to announce that it was bipartisan from the start. Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, was chairman of the key Appropriations subcommittee. Senator Patty Murray, who is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, was a leader in this field. Senator Susan Collins did remarkable work in the same area. It has been bipartisan from the start. And working together as a team, we have achieved an amazing investment in medical research.
However, thousands of chronic diseases still need treatments, causing millions of families to suffer. These families are depending on us to support NIH in groundbreaking research today. So, this week, I have reintroduced the American Cures Act, which would provide our top medical research agencies with 5 percent real funding growth every year. My bill would ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of new treatments and would provide researchers with the strong, stable funding they need to continue their lifesaving work.
This legislation is more important than ever since we currently have a new administration that seems hell-bent on dismantling America's medical research infrastructure. No nation has ever made such a significant investment in science as the United States. No nation's scientists have ever done more to improve the quality of life on Earth. Through government support for scientific research, we have split the atom, defeated polio, and mapped the human genome.
American leadership comes with the responsibility to continue to move forward, to never be satisfied when there are those suffering with sickness, and to push the boundaries of what is possible. Let's pass the American Cures Act on a bipartisan basis and give families facing terrible illnesses today the hope of treatment and cures tomorrow.
Mr. President, eight decades ago, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement now known as the 1944 Water Treaty to govern the sharing of waters in the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. According to this treaty, the United States is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet, or just under 500,000 gallons, of water from the Colorado River to Mexico each year. Similarly, Mexico is obligated to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet to the United States from the Rio Grande River every 5 years.
And while the United States has dutifully held up its end of the bargain, Mexico has been delinquent on repeated occasions. Now, Mexico is hundreds of thousands of acre-feet behind in their required water deliveries. In the most recent cycle, which ended in October of last year, Mexico had delivered less than half of the water it was obligated to deliver under the terms of the treaty. Furthermore, Mexico has not been consistent in their water delivery, sometimes waiting until the very end of the 5-year period to deliver a substantial amount of water in an attempt, ostensibly, to catch up.
This uncertainty in and of itself has made life difficult, you can imagine, for the more than 400,000 farmers and ranchers who call Texas home. Imagine trying to grow crops not knowing whether you are going to have any water for as long as 4 years, only to receive a huge lump sum at the end of year 5. It just doesn't work out. But this is a very real dilemma faced by many of my constituents in South Texas.
Water deliveries from Mexico are vital to irrigation farming and municipal use in the Rio Grande Valley, helping generate billions in economic productivity for the region. Water shortages created by Mexico's failure to follow this treaty have wreaked havoc on the ability of farmers and ranchers to plan and to tend their crops, which has, in turn, had a terrible economic cost on our entire State. In 2024, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, which ran the only sugarcane mill in Texas, announced they were forced to close operations after more than 51 years because of these water shortages. Five hundred American jobs were lost as a result.
If Mexico continues to fail to live up to the treaty, more and more farmers and ranchers and other producers will face the same fate. Many growers will potentially default on their financing, and they will be unable to secure any additional financing for future crops without the ability to plan on future water deliveries. Imagine running a bank that offers credit to farmers in the community. If you know the farmer will not be able to access the water they need in order to grow their crops and have a profitable business, obviously that makes it a much riskier bet to offer them a line of credit or a loan.
Further delay of water deliveries could result in bankruptcies, land auctions, more lost jobs, supply chain disruptions, and higher prices at the grocery store for Americans around the country.
I am grateful to Secretary Rubio--the Secretary of State--and Secretary Rollins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their leadership on this issue and for their willingness to engage with Mexico and indeed put pressure on them to hold up their end of the bargain.
But South Texas farmers cannot wait. They have already suffered too much from the draught caused by Mexico's failure to live up to its obligations.
The ``carrot'' approach is clearly not working, so now it is time to bring out the ``sticks.'' For this reason, I am introducing legislation called the Water Assurance and Treaty Enforcement for Rio Grande Farmers--or WATER for Farmers--Act, which will impose penalties in the form of tariffs on Mexico if they continue in their delinquency.
This bill will establish annual benchmarks that Mexico must meet in order to be considered compliant with the 1944 Water Treaty. These annual benchmarks will help ensure that water deliveries are predictable for the farmers
This bill would also direct the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture, to determine each year if Mexico has met the requirements of these benchmarks. If Mexico does not, this legislation directs the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs on the shortfalls accumulated at the end of each year.
While this may seem like an extraordinary measure, Mexico has had ample time to make things right. As I said, we have tried ``carrots.'' Those don't work, so now it is time for the ``sticks.''
By imposing severe tariffs on Mexico, I hope they will pick up the pace and begin delivering the water they are already committed to delivering so that South Texas farmers and ranchers will have the predictability they need.
South Texans and the agricultural community there are counting on us to ensure that Mexico complies with this treaty that they agreed to way back in 1944.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, and I will not give up on this matter until the farmers in Texas are made whole.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be voting on S. Res. 526, and I wanted to spend a few moments explaining what my resolution would do.
First, it is a resolution; it is not a bill. This resolution will only affect the U.S. Senate. It will not affect the U.S. House of Representatives.
Very simply, this is what my resolution would do. When we shut down the government--and by that, I mean, of course, when Congress, House and Senate, refuses to provide funding for an Agency in government and in some cases, all of government, and those Agencies or all of government, as the case may be, have to shut down, that means that Federal employees for the most part aren't being paid.
My resolution would require--or stipulate, rather, that Senators wouldn't be paid either. It is called shared sacrifice.
Now, I want to be clear so my colleagues understand exactly what this resolution would do because I have worked hard to get the votes to pass this, and I have had to make a few accommodations.
First, a Senator would not lose his or her salary. The money would be escrowed. The Senator's salary just would not be available to that Senator while we are in a shutdown, but once the shutdown is over, you will get your money.
No. 2, again, to repeat, this bill will not apply to the House of Representatives. It will only apply to the U.S. Senate. The House can take care of its own business.
Because of the 27th Amendment and in order for my resolution to be constitutional, the resolution will not take effect until the day after the midterm elections. The 27th Amendment provides pretty clearly that our compensation as Members of the Senate--and the House, for that matter, although this resolution doesn't apply to the House--can't be changed until after an election, and the soonest election, of course, is midterms.
If I could, if I were King for a day--I am not. I don't aspire to be. But if I were, I would make this resolution effective immediately because I am very concerned--I hope I am wrong. If I am wrong, I will apologize. I am very concerned that my Senate colleagues on the Democratic side are going to try to shut down the government yet again right before the election to try to create chaos to affect the midterm elections. If I am wrong in that prediction, I will come here and apologize to every Senator by name. So if I could, I would make this resolution apply immediately.
Frankly, if I were also King for a day and I wanted to stop government shutdowns, I would do more than this. I would do two things. I would say that if government shuts down, a Senator loses his pay. It is not escrowed and you get it back later; you just don't get your pay. I would also say that you can't leave Washington; you can't go home.
If you make people forfeit their pay and tell them they can't leave Washington, we won't have any more shutdowns, and everybody in this body knows that. But I can't pass that. I would if I could, but I can't.
So to repeat one more time, all my resolution would do would say: If we choose to shut down government, you are not going to be paid. You will get your money later, but while we are in a shutdown, you are not going to be paid.
This is about shared sacrifice. I mean, what we have done this year in terms of keeping government open--last October--I looked it up before I came to the floor--last October, we shut down government for 43 days. That is the longest shutdown in history. We had FBI agents, national park rangers, CDC scientists, our staff here in Congress-- nobody was getting paid. Then 3 months later, after we finally got out of that 43-day shutdown, we shut down the Department of Homeland Security. It was shut down for 76 days. This is all in 1 year.
We ought to hide our heads in a bag. It has to stop. Shutting down government should not be a default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences.
So that is what my Senate resolution will do. Vote how you want to. I am not saying this is going to stop all shutdowns. As I say, if I were King for a day, I know what to pass that will stop them, but maybe this will help.
So vote for it if you want to. Don't vote for it if you don't want to. Follow your heart. Be sure and take your brain with you, because this is about shared sacrifice. This is about putting our money where our mouths are.
I yield the floor. Thank you for your time and attention.
My work here is done, and I can show myself out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:
The motion was rejected.
(Mr. BANKS assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526, a resolution withholding the pay of Senators if a Government shutdown occurs, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. President, here in DC this week is Police Week, and we are reflecting on the brave men and women who serve us in Tennessee and also across this country, where they are serving our communities every day with courage, with integrity, and with honor. We so appreciate their service. Every day, they put their lives on the line to protect their families, their friends, their neighbors. They enforce the law, and they keep the peace; and for that, they deserve every American's enduring gratitude.
Few places better capture the magnitude of their sacrifices than the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial that is here in our Nation's Capital. Engraved on that memorial are the names of every fallen officer in our country going back to the year 1850. This memorial contains 24,775 names. This week, 363 heroes are being added, including 3 from Tennessee: Hugh Carlen of Putnam County, whose watch ended February 24, 1912; James Hood of Jonesborough, who fell in the line of duty August 26, 1928; and Deputy Sheriff Justin Bradford Mowery, of Blount County, whom we tragically lost on December 28.
This week's candlelight vigil will provide a powerful moment to reflect on their sacrifices and their stories and those made by the thousands of other officers on the Roll Call of Heroes.
There is a reason our officers are called the thin blue line: They are the only force separating us from chaos, disorder, and anarchy. They take pride in their responsibility, but to do their jobs, they need the support of their communities, their States, their country. They need the support of this Chamber, and for too long, they have lacked that support from Democrat leadership. Instead of funding the police, the Democrats have worked to defund the police and, indeed, all law enforcement. But, under President Trump, the Federal Government is backing the blue from one side of this country to another.
In Tennessee, we have seen this much needed support in Memphis. For years, Memphis, which is an iconic American city, has struggled with rampant crime. In 2024, it had the highest crime rate per capita of any city in the country. Memphians truly suffered. Indeed, all West Tennesseans suffered. Many could not walk outside of their homes without fear of being robbed, assaulted, or murdered in Memphis.
Under the President's leadership, those days are coming to an end. Since launching the Memphis Safe Task Force last year, crime in Memphis has plummeted. In the first quarter of this year, overall crime was down more than 40 percent compared to 2025. Indeed, since the task force began 7 months ago, the crime rate has been cut 50 percent.
The way this happened was in coordination with local, State, and Federal resources. The task force has done a great job in getting criminals off the street and behind bars. In total, authorities have made more than 9,000 arrests, including 996 for narcotics, 838 for firearms offenses, 105 for sex offenses, and 67 for homicide. They have also seized 1,500 illegal firearms, and they have located 150 missing children. Every single American--indeed, every Member of this Chamber-- should applaud this success.
In the Senate, Republicans are working to support the administration's effort. My Restoring Law and Order Act would increase funding for law enforcement and help keep violent criminals behind bars.
The Protecting Law Enforcement Officers from Doxxing Act would make it illegal to dox Federal law enforcement officials and put them in harm's way.
The Safer Prisons Act would double the maximum term of imprisonment for assaulting a Federal Bureau of Prisons correctional officer.
While Republicans work to support our brave officers, unfortunately, many of our Democratic colleagues are trying to do everything in their power to undermine law enforcement.
For 76 days, they shut down the Department of Homeland Security, left the Secret Service, Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, and other critical Agencies without funding, and they jeopardized our Nation's security at a time of heightened threats from the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, Iran.
And the reason? Well, they had a petty reason. They used our Federal law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security as a trading chip. What they were trying to do was to abolish ICE, end the enforcement of our immigration laws, and defund Federal law enforcement.
Thank goodness they were not successful. They got nothing for their little fit. President Trump brought this charade to an end late last month by signing into law legislation that reopened DHS and restored its vital operations.
Now Republicans are moving forward with a public security bill that will fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection for years to come. We are accomplishing this through the reconciliation process, and that is the same process we used to pass the Working Families Tax Cut last year. We are going to make certain we can fund these vital Agencies.
Our colleagues across the aisle can continue to oppose the rule of law, and they can side with criminals over law enforcement. They can continue to side
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on Donald Trump's attempt to take over America's central bank.
Trump's economy is in big trouble, and everybody knows it, including Donald Trump. Consumer sentiment is at an alltime low. Families are paying more for groceries, more for housing, more for healthcare--all thanks to Trump's chaotic tariffs and his One Big Beautiful Bill, and now his foolish and illegal war with Iran is further driving up the cost of gas and the cost of nearly everything else here at home.
So it is no wonder that Donald Trump is desperate to salvage the economy before November's midterm elections. Now, he can do that. Instead of taking action to lower prices, which he could do, he has cooked up a ridiculous scheme: Install sock puppets at the Federal Reserve Board who are willing to artificially juice the economy. Of course, it will be American families who pay the price when this scheme backfires and raises prices and the cost of borrowing even more.
Donald Trump has not been subtle about this takeover attempt. First, he opened a bogus criminal investigation into Fed Governor Lisa Cook, and he illegally tried to fire her. Then he opened another bogus criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jay Powell--all in a ploy to push him out.
Trump then proclaimed:
And, about a month later, he nominated Kevin Warsh to be his sock puppet on the Fed.
Consideration of Mr. Warsh's nomination was rightfully delayed by some of my Republican colleagues when they joined Democrats in refusing to move forward amid the Department of Justice's phony inquiry into Chair Powell, but the second that the administration pretended to close the investigation, Republicans folded and advanced Mr. Warsh's nomination. No one here is fooled. The investigation is still open.
But don't take it from me. Take it from President Trump, who said the investigation is ``not dropped.''
Take it from the President's spokeswoman, who said ``The investigation still continues.''
Take it from U.S. attorney Pirro, who said that she ``will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation.'' She went on to promise that her office would ``continue to litigate the issue.''
And no one should forget that President Trump is still trying to fire Fed Governor Cook, taking it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Justice Department's reported criminal probe against her is ongoing.
So it is clear that Donald Trump is still using bogus criminal investigations as a way to take over the Fed--to push out the people who have been confirmed so that he can install his own people who will do exactly what he wants.
So let me turn to Mr. Warsh, the nominee. At this unprecedented moment in the Fed's history, he is uniquely unqualified to lead the Agency, and that is why every single Democrat on the Banking Committee voted against his nomination--the first party-line vote ever for a Fed Chair, ever in history.
First, Mr. Warsh has proven to be a sock puppet for President Trump. During his confirmation hearing, Warsh couldn't even say that Trump lost the 2020 election. We need a Fed Chair who evaluates economic data and sets monetary policy in the real world, not in Trump's delusional alternative reality.
Second, Mr. Warsh has refused to disclose the sources of more than $100 million worthwhile of assets. If confirmed, he will be the wealthiest Fed Chair in history, but he refuses to provide transparency to the American people about who he is entangled with. During his hearing, Mr. Warsh refused to say if he is invested in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies that have facilitated money laundering, Chinese-controlled companies, or financing vehicles established by Jeffrey Epstein.
We have no idea if Mr. Warsh owns stock in any banks, which will be in direct violation of the Federal Reserve Act upon his swearing in later this week.
We also have no idea how and to whom Mr. Warsh will divest those secret assets. Based on the information we pieced together, it is possible that Stanley Druckenmiller, who makes a living betting on what the Fed will do next, may cut Mr. Warsh a huge check to cash him out. The American people would be right to question who Mr. Warsh will serve if a billionaire gives him a sweetheart deal just as Mr. Warsh takes office.
Third, Warsh says that he has ``no regrets'' from his catastrophic tenure as a Fed Governor before, during, and after the 2008 financial crash. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which Congress set up to investigate the causes of the financial crisis, found that Governor Warsh attended multiple meetings in 2006 in which participants rung the alarm about subprime mortgages and rising mortgages and rising foreclosures and implored the Fed to use its authority to address these risks. Not only did Mr. Warsh ignore these warnings, he pushed back against them. In fact, in 2007, he said:
He also said later that he doesn't ``see any immediate systemic risk issues'' among the big banks. Remember, this is shortly before the crash of 2008.
Then, for good measure, Mr. Warsh also praised risky financial instruments like credit default swaps that helped trigger the 2008 crash, and he said: No, these are innovations that make the financial system safer.
So that is what he did before the crisis. During the crisis, Warsh served as Wall Street's personal liaison on the Fed Board as 8 million workers lost their jobs, 10 million people were being thrown out of their homes, and many more saw their life savings vanish. Mr. Warsh's No. 1 priority? Not those families. Not those workers. Mr. Warsh's No. 1 priority was the big banks that crashed our economy. He worked tirelessly to orchestrate multibillion-dollar Wall Street bailouts. But Mr. Warsh says today he has ``no regrets.''
After the crash, most people on the Fed saw the economic devastation and said: Now might be a good time to lower interest rates to revive the economy and help get people back to work.
Not Mr. Warsh. Nope. He wanted to keep interest rates high--``no regrets''--and he kept pushing for higher interest rates for more than a decade even as our economy struggled.
When the job of Fed Chair became available during Trump's first term as President, Donald Trump passed him by. Now, Mr. Warsh chalked this up to his refusal to ``put [his] ambitions ahead of [his] principles.'' Well, Mr. Warsh decided not to make that mistake the second time around. As soon as Donald Trump became President a second time, Mr. Warsh began shouting from the rooftops that the Fed should cut interest rates. In exchange for abandoning his principles, the President offered Mr. Warsh his dream job.
Look, red lights are flashing all across our economy. American families are struggling. Republicans will come to regret their decision to aid and abet President Trump's Fed takeover by installing Mr. Warsh as Chair.
Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Kevin Warsh's nomination to serve as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I am not persuaded, based on his record and his testimony at his hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, that he has demonstrated the independence or the judgment this position requires.
The Federal Reserve has a statutory dual mandate: maximum employment to support jobs and price stability to avoid excessive inflation. To carry out that mandate effectively, markets need confidence that monetary policy decisions are being made on the basis of
That is especially important now as prices are rising too fast and President Trump is still demanding a big cut in interest rates. In fact, just yesterday, a Washington Post headline read ``Iran war pushed inflation to highest rate in nearly three years.''
We know our constituents are feeling these rapid price increases around the country--at the gas pump, at the kitchen table, farmers across the country with higher input costs. So there is no doubt that the illegal Iran war is driving prices up, and that comes on top of the continued upward inflationary pressure from the President's failed tariff tax policies, which continue to work their way through the system and put upward pressure on prices.
So illegal tariff taxes and the illegal war in Iran and other policies the President is pursuing are making life simply unaffordable for our fellow Americans. Yet, when he was faced with the prospect of carrying out that dual mandate free of political interference from the White House, Mr. Warsh's record and his responses to questions raised very serious concerns.
When he served as a Federal Reserve Governor during the financial crisis and its aftermath, he was a consistent inflation hawk, supporting higher interest rates. He did that even as unemployment then approached 10 percent and the country was in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Despite that loss of jobs and high unemployment, Mr. Warsh repeatedly focused instead on inflation risks.
At a 2009 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee--that is the committee that sets interest rates--Mr. Warsh said he was ``more concerned about upside risks to inflation than downside risks''--again, at a time of very high unemployment.
He also argued publicly against quantitative easing--the policy that Chairman Bernanke put in place to lower long-term borrowing costs and support economic recovery.
So just to step back here, at a time when unemployment was near 10 percent, as Americans faced the great recession, Mr. Warsh was a hawk, pushing for higher interest rates over more near-term relief for American families. That was his position when the economy was weakest, weaker than it had been in generations, when millions of Americans were out of work.
But these days--these days--Mr. Warsh has had a complete conversion, a 180-degree flip. He is now a super dove on interest rates even as unemployment has recovered from the depths of the great recession, and, in fact, today, prices are too high. That is a situation where textbook economics would say that the big rate cuts demanded by President Trump will make inflation worse; they will make life even more unaffordable for the American people. Prices will keep going up.
Now Mr. Warsh says that rapid productivity gains, particularly from artificial intelligence, could justify easier monetary policy without reigniting inflation. Economists across the spectrum are overwhelmingly skeptical of this theory, especially when you look at the near- and midterms--certainly not something that would happen by the end of this year, and it is the end of this year where President Trump is demanding big interest rates. In fact, President Trump has repeatedly and publicly demanded sharply lower rates. We have seen him harangue the Federal Reserve over and over and over. And Mr. Warsh's views have conveniently moved in exactly that direction.
That doesn't automatically disqualify him, but it does create a very legitimate question: Is this a genuine change in economic judgment or is it a shift that reflects the preferences of the President who nominated him--specifically, a President who has been abusing his power to influence monetary policy and to strip the Fed of its independence; a President who has launched an unprecedented assault on the Fed, trying to fire Governor Lisa Cook, trying to concoct charges against Chairman Powell to push him out of the Federal Reserve. President Trump is doing all of this to try to get lower interest rates and much lower interest rates now.
It wasn't a secret that Donald Trump was looking for a Chair who would implement his preferences, who would lower interest rates significantly in the short term. And all of a sudden--all of a sudden-- on his nomination-day conversion or just preceding that as he was auditioning, Mr. Warsh now seems to think that is appropriate despite his clear prior views.
That question became even more concerning during the Banking and Housing Committee hearing. I asked Mr. Warsh a straightforward question about monetary policy.
President Trump has called for a massive rate cut--below 1 percent-- by the end of this year, so I asked Mr. Warsh whether a rate cut of that scale in an economy with steady growth and inflation already above target--whether that would likely put upward pressure on prices. Right? This is a simple, basic economics question, and he would not answer the question directly.
As I said, the basic framework is clear: Lower rates stimulate demand. If demand rises faster than supply, inflationary pressures increase, costs for families go up. That is Economics 101. If a nominee for Fed Chair will not directly acknowledge that basic relationship in a public hearing before this body, it is reasonable to ask whether he is avoiding an answer because it conflicts with the policy direction favored by the White House, favored by President Trump.
Now, colleagues, our economy works best when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve implements monetary policy based on their reading of the data, not on the reading of politics. And I am concerned about whether Mr. Warsh meets that standard because we have seen these questions of independence raised even more dramatically under this administration than any before.
And against that backdrop, members of the committee asked Mr. Warsh direct questions. We asked: Would he step down if pressured by the President over monetary policy?
We asked: Would he resist efforts to manipulate the composition or decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee?
We asked: Would he clearly reject political pressure on reserve bank leadership?
And over and over, Mr. Warsh refused to give direct answers.
I believe Americans deserve clarity about whether Mr. Warsh is committed to standing up for the Fed at a time of unprecedented attacks and political pressure from the White House.
And based on his record and his flip-flops and his answers to the Senate Banking Committee, I remain unconvinced. I hope, if confirmed, he proves my concerns wrong. I hope he does act independently, and I hope he makes decisions based on facts and evidence, even when those decisions conflict with the President's preferences.
But on the record before us today, I cannot support this nomination.
Mr. President, today, I am here in the Senate about the Democrat Judiciary Committee minority in the House of Representatives.
They wrote a letter on May 12 of this year that I found to be more than troubling. That letter made disgraceful and wrongful accusations regarding this Senator's helping many FBI whistleblowers.
For the entirety of this Congress, I have been open and very public about my efforts to help whistleblowers. Accordingly, the timing of this letter, so late after settlements occurred in August of 2025, is suspect. If concerns existed, why were they not raised last year?
I have seen a lot, in my time serving the people of Iowa, but this attack on this Senator and my office and whistleblowers is beyond the pale.
Now, you have often heard me say on the Senate floor, over many years, that I feel like honest whistleblowers are treated like a skunk at a picnic. Oftentimes, their only crime is telling the truth. And for telling the truth, they often lose their job. They are hurt professionally, and it discourages other people who want to tell the truth about wrongdoing in government from coming forth. That is why whistleblowers deserve the protection that I and other Senators give them.
So getting back to that letter, this letter from the minority calls my office's efforts to obtain a fix for whistleblowers who faced years of retaliation
The Democrats are dead wrong about what they said, and if they had a sliver of integrity, they would retract that letter. This isn't the way to handle disagreements.
But what is there to disagree with? Patriotic whistleblowers had wrongs against them righted, and I helped make their case right.
This should be a bipartisan celebration, especially since some of these whistleblowers weren't pro-President Trump.
The letter also notes that some of the whistleblowers were properly disciplined, as if suffering retaliation is OK.
The letter further notes:
Now, even publications in this town--and I am going to quote POLITICO.
POLITICO noted in their article:
As an example of how far off base the letter is, one FBI official who was wrongly accused of being a part of a January siege was cleared by the inspector general. His clearance was restored. He got his job back. The FBI Security Division had ignored photo and video evidence supporting that whistleblower's claim.
Indeed, the whistleblower's lawyers have publicly defended their client, noting:
But the records happen to exist, just not the ones that the Democrats want to talk about.
The lawyers for the whistleblowers rightly said the following, publicly:
Those lawyers also noted that they published hundreds of pages ``documenting the flaws in FBI actions against employees'':
President Trump's Justice Department and the FBI should get credit for righting the wrongs against these additional whistleblowers.
And what the Democrats did with this letter may cause tremendous damage to whistleblower reputations for getting the facts wrong.
At my direction, my staff did what many in this town don't understand. When whistleblowers step up to the plate, you have to fight for them. So that is exactly what my office did, and I am not going to back down one bit and let brave individuals suffer more years of ruin. And I am certainly not going to apologize for fighting and winning for whistleblowers.
That doesn't always mean that every whistleblower is going to get the satisfaction and settlement that he or she deserves. But that effort to get them justice must be made, and I make it clear to all of my staff that they must do what they can to get the job done of protecting whistleblowers--in other words, give the effort of protecting whistleblowers the ``old college try.'' That is what the taxpayers expect, and that is my reputation as a whistleblower defender.
I have made a career out of protecting and defending whistleblowers; and never in my time have I, my staff, or my whistleblowers received more attacks for doing that job than in this Congress.
I encourage all whistleblower groups in this town to stand up to what is happening here, just as I stood up for whistleblowers throughout the decades--no matter who they blow the whistle on, Republican or Democrat administrations--whether that is disagreeing with this administration about Mr. Reuveni being a real whistleblower or defending the Ukraine whistleblower, years ago.
In conclusion, I will note that the Democrat letter said:
Did the Democrats forget about FBI Agent Peter Strzok reportedly receiving $1.2 million or Lisa Page receiving $800,000 from the Biden Department of Justice after the damage that they did to this country? Or were they covering up again for a disastrous Biden-Harris administration?
For God and country, this Senator will never stop fighting for whistleblowers.
Mr. President, for the President of the United States, there are few decisions more important than nominating leaders of integrity and good judgment to hold trusted positions in office. And few of those trusted positions are more important than the Chair of the Federal Reserve. Those words were uttered by President Trump during his first term when he announced Jerome Powell as his nominee to Chair the Fed. How times have changed.
During his tenure, Chair Powell served with competency and dignity as he navigated the economic problems of our time, from the COVID-19 pandemic to rapidly rising inflation. Yet he also faced a challenge unlike any other Chair in history: a sham legal battle waged by the very President who nominated him. To President Trump, it seems that exercising good judgment does not mean reliance on the economic facts and data, but instead obedience to his every demand.
Because of Chair Powell's refusal to kowtow, Donald Trump has weaponized the Department of Justice to pressure, belittle, and threaten him. I want to commend Chair Powell for standing firm in the face of the President's tirades. It is not easy to face Trump's vengeful wrath, and it is indefensible that DOJ has kept open the possibility of pursuing these baseless, politicized charges in the future.
But Mr. Powell's term as Chair expires on Friday, and President Trump seems determined to nominate a Chair who will do his bidding, instead of one who is independently minded. Earlier this year, President Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed after Powell's departure. Mr. Warsh previously served as member of the Board of Governors from 2006 through 2011 as a Bush appointee.
Warsh's actions during that time raise cause for concern: Mr. Warsh played a central role in arranging numerous multibillion-dollar bank bailouts, while warning against interest rate cuts even as unemployment soared. He has expressed no regrets about these bailouts and continues to support Trump's Wall Street deregulatory agenda. We already have seen the damage across our government, from the Department of Justice to Health and Human Services, that Trump loyalists can wreck. We cannot allow that chaos in our central bank.
America's economy is trusted by the world because of the belief that our economic policies are determined by facts not politics. Warsh threatens to undermine that.
When President Trump asks him to juice the economy by lowering interest rates, even if it raises inflation, will Warsh have the courage to say no? When one of the President or his allies' many shady business ventures fail, will Warsh stand strong amid pressure to provide a taxpayer funded bailout? When the chips are down, will Warsh make the decisions that best benefit his country or the President who picked him? Warsh's record and his answers at his confirmation hearing indicate the answers are no. Americans are struggling more than ever to afford basic goods, from housing, to gas, to groceries. Yesterday, data showed that Trump's war of choice in Iran has caused inflation to reach 3.8 percent, the highest in 3 years. Working families deserve a central bank that will fight for them, not the President and his billionaire buddies.
I am not convinced that Mr. Warsh has the willingness to do what is best for the American people. For that reason, I will be voting no on his nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, 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.
Mr. President, this week marks National Police Week--a time for our Nation to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and service of the men and women in law enforcement, who work every single day to keep our communities safe. These heroes put their lives on the line to protect our communities.
I want to give a special thanks to law enforcement officers across Nevada, who serve every day with honor and integrity. Every day, they put on the uniform. They kiss their loved ones goodbye and head into situations that most of us hope we never ever have to face. Whether it is a major emergency or a domestic dispute or a routine traffic stop, they face danger every single day. They do it because they believe in service and because they believe in protecting others.
National Police Week is also about honoring the fallen, those heroes who left behind family, friends, colleagues, and the communities they served and helped to protect--heroes like Officer Jason Roscow, who served for 17 years, proudly, with the North Las Vegas Police Department and was tragically killed in the line of duty last year. Officer Roscow devoted his life to serving his fellow Americans--first in uniform for the U.S. Air Force and then for nearly two decades in law enforcement in Southern Nevada.
Today, I am thinking about his family--the two sons he left behind-- his fellow officers, and the entire North Las Vegas community that continues to mourn this tremendous loss.
Unfortunately, Officer Roscow is not alone. In Nevada and across the country, far too many officers have made the ultimate sacrifice to their communities. This week, every week, and every day, we honor their memory. We also honor the work that our officers do.
I want to let Nevada's law enforcement know one thing: I have your back. That means making sure law enforcement agencies have the funding, staffing, training, equipment, and mental health resources that you need to do your jobs safely and effectively. I have worked across party lines to deliver exactly that for Nevada.
Earlier this year, I helped to secure millions of dollars in funding to strengthen public safety and support local law enforcement. That funding included $1 million for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to procure equipment supporting search and rescue operations, to support patrols, and to support large-scale event security.
It included $3 million for Washoe County to acquire a mobile command intelligence vehicle to improve emergency response capabilities.
The bill also included more than $1 million for the city of Henderson to implement a domestic violence and sexual assault response program to better support victims and to improve public safety.
These funds are absolutely critical, and it is one of the best uses of our taxpayer dollars. Any time that we invest in fighting crime and keeping people safe, well, we are investing in ourselves, and we are investing in our communities.
These are so much more meaningful, well, than, let's say, a ballroom because, right now, Donald Trump has proposed spending $1 billion of your taxpayer dollars--taxpayer money--on a new White House ballroom. Imagine that--$1 billion for one room that no one will go to except the President and his friends. Mr. President, $1 billion at a time when police departments across America are struggling with staffing shortages, recruitment challenges, retention issues, and the growing demands every day on officers.
Let me tell you, this $1 billion could do a whole lot to support our local law enforcement. Mr. President, $1 billion?
Well, it could fund nearly 2 years of full funding for the COPS Hiring Program to help communities hire and train and retain more officers. Not only that, it could fund 2 years of the COPS Hiring Program and fully fund 2 years of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. Do you know what the Benefits Program is? It is to help support the families of the fallen officers and the officers who have been permanently disabled in the line of duty. It could fund 2 full years for the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program and, like I said, 2 years for the COPS Hiring Program.
There are a few other things that that $1 billion could do that is a lot better use than a ballroom for our public safety; $1 billion could also fund an entire year of the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which help our local law enforcement agencies combat violent crime, invest in crime prevention, support drug treatment programs, and strengthen public safety initiatives. These are actually investments that are keeping all of our communities safe everywhere--that are keeping all of you safe; that are keeping our officers safe.
That is why I am going to be doing a few things. I am going to be filing two amendments to the Republicans' reconciliation package that would redirect the $1 billion boondoggle of a ballroom. It would take that funding away from the White House ballroom and put it toward the programs that support law enforcement and public safety in our communities.
Remember that. With 2 years here, 2 years here, and another year here for funding for law enforcement safety, for survivors, and benefits, it matters.
If my Republican colleagues truly support law enforcement the way they claim to, then they, too, should support my amendments.
I am doing this because I believe we must do everything we can to give our police the resources that they need to stay safe. They are the ones who put their lives on the line to protect us,
I am going to continue to work with my colleagues here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, on solutions that support our police departments, the officers who serve, and their families because our first responders, our law enforcement run in when everyone is running out. They take that risk every day. They will never go to the ballroom. They need the help in our communities. It is the least we can do.
Mr. President, 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.
Madam President, hurricane season is less than 3 weeks away--3 weeks--and we have to act to make flood insurance affordable again before it is too late.
Last year, thankfully, no hurricanes hit my State. Now, no hurricanes hitting my State is good news for everyone in my State but especially for homeowners who do not have flood insurance.
Every year, more and more people have to drop the National Flood Insurance Program coverage because it is too expensive and too unreliable. So this is about making flood insurance affordable again.
Between 2022 and 2024, 70,000 people in Louisiana dropped coverage. And last year, another 52,000 did. Why? They need it. They are trying to be responsible. They are being priced out. And they are being priced out of flood protection by the rising costs of a post-Biden era flood insurance program. Under President Joe Biden, FEMA implemented Risk Rating 2.0 as a new risk assessment program, even though Congress never gave approval.
Now, look at this.
Since 2023, rates have increased, making people's flood insurance premiums so high they cannot afford them. They have got a certain amount of money to pay for their mortgage, their flood insurance premium, and their property and casualty.
Now, these are hard-working families trying to do the right thing, but having to choose between paying their mortgage, the property and casualty, the flood insurance--oh, by the way, buying food and gasoline, health insurance, taking care of their children, as well as any kind of ancillary expenses.
Now, these are some expenses here. And you can see, after the implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 to Calcasieu Parish, which is in the southwest portion of my State, Property 1 would have almost a $12,000 a year risk of insurance. They would try and decrease their risk of flooding. That is premitigation, before they decrease their risk of flooding. They get a $758 increase, and the post-risk Risk Rating 2.0 is here, and that is their percent increase.
On Property No. 2, instead of a 1,183-percent increase, there is an 867-percent increase.
This is unaffordable for a middle-income family trying to make ends meet.
Now, people want to go to sleep at night knowing they are protected and they have taken care of things, in case a terrible event happens which affects them, for example a flood.
In 2016--it is one example--a 46-foot river crest swept the land completely out from underneath a Cypress Point home, even though they had elevated it above the base-flood elevation. That means, if your average flooding is here, they had built their house above that area--I shouldn't say ``average''--of maximal flooding. What the worst case could be, they had built their house above that. Despite that, the family doing everything right, a natural disaster still wiped out their home.
This is when you want flood insurance. The family has done everything right, but, nonetheless, through an act of God, they lose it all.
But it is possible this family cannot afford their flood insurance. So if Congress has the power to guarantee reliable flood insurance that people can afford--and we do have that power--why don't we do it?
Instead, nearly one-fifth of the people in my State--almost 100,000-- can no longer afford their insurance. And it is not just my State. Millions of Americans across the Nation rely on the National Flood Insurance Program. They are all getting pounded across the Nation by Risk Rating 2.0.
I am leading a group of Republicans who, last year, tried to end the policy, and I recently followed up with FEMA, asking that they would be urgent in addressing the harm Risk Rating 2.0 is doing the National Flood Insurance Program for people in my State and across the Nation.
And President Trump has begun to speak about how we make things more affordable. He understands this. The American people need to be able to afford to live, and right now, the component of their life which is flood insurance is not working.
In 2019, President Trump and I worked together to delay Risk Rating 2.0 for a year. I ask that we do it again, but let's make it permanent. The American people need flood insurance which is affordable and also reliable.
Right now, the NFIP relies on Congress to both fund and authorize the program. Now ``to fund'' means that if funding is ever withheld by Congress, like the Democrats have done multiple times this Congress, the National Flood Insurance Program cannot operate, and that leaves millions of Americans hanging in uncertainty.
Now, Congress must vote every year to reinstate the National Flood Insurance Program. I have introduced legislation to automatically extend the program to operate during a lapse in authorization. It can still issue policies, renew contracts, pay claims, and access funding. Coverage should be there whether politicians decide to act responsibly or not.
And speaking of acting responsibly, Congress needs to act responsibly now and soon because Federal support is critical.
In President Trump's first administration, he created a program called BRIC, B-R-I-C, short for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, which provided costs and lifesaving grants that States across the Nation, including Louisiana, benefited from.
In President Trump's second administration, they assured me they would release more of these funds, and I am pleased to say that a new round has just been released: $1 billion to help States impacted by natural disasters such as Louisiana.
Now, I have been fighting to get these BRIC grant dollars released. I am pleased that it is done.
And this is a picture of one of those projects, which is helping to mitigate the risk of flooding, building storm and flood protection in the West Shore Lake Pontchartrain or the Morganza to the Gulf, two areas of my State which are at risk of flooding.
But as much as we need recovery assistance, we also know that the best way to lower the cost of flood insurance is by trying to make sure you don't flood in the first place. That is why, through my work negotiating the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Louisiana has received so far $3 billion--I am sorry--hundreds of millions of dollars for flood mitigation and hundreds of millions for coastal restoration.
And here we see some of that activity. This is a bargain for the Federal taxpayer. It is easier and cheaper to prevent a flood than to provide recovery afterward.
Right now, if you go from the New Orleans area to Baton Rouge on the I-10, you pass LaPlace, and you will see construction of a huge flood control structure, which I have toured last August. This has received over a billion dollars to build this. It is going to protect flooding, which indeed protects the liability of Federal taxpayers. And this is money which I have helped--a portion of which I helped--to obtain.
And, by the way, if you never flood, the National Flood Insurance Program has less money to pay out. I know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In this case, this money for this levee could prevent billions of dollars in recovery.
If you go to Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, you will go by the Morganza to the Gulf levee project--tremendous local support, the locals putting up hundreds of millions of dollars to build. But I have been able to
And as an example of the positive thing that can occur, this being partially completed--not completely, but partially--when Hurricane Ida came, there were 10,000 homes that did not flood that would have flooded if the flood control structure built at that time had not been built. Put differently, it wasn't completed, but enough of it was built that it prevented 10,000 homes from being flooded that would have flooded had it not been started.
This is how you save money for the Federal taxpayer. This is how you preserve communities. A mother will rest more easily knowing that the home in which she lives will stay safe and dry, even if the rains come, the winds blow, even if the hurricane hits the shore. And the funding that I am delivering gives her that peace of mind.
But there is more to come. I tell folks I wake up every morning and think about how to make life better for the people in my State and my country. And I can tell you that reliable, accountable, affordable flood insurance is part of that. That is what I am working toward as I continue taking Federal investment back to my State for flood prevention to help protect the Federal taxpayer from paying excessive dollars in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Madam President, today, I rise to oppose the resolutions, these three CRAs.
Under former Director Chopra, the Biden CFPB frequently pushed or ignored the limits of the CFPB's authority. Consistently, they ignored their own limits because power--power--was more important than doing the right thing for small businesses across this great country.
He attempted to assert the CFPB in issues far outside its statutory limits, including healthcare, labor, and technology.
The Biden CFPB's guidance documents we are discussing today were highly prescriptive, established new regulatory requirements, and were all issued without formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment process.
This is not speculation. Multiple Biden CFPB policies have been struck down in courts--let me say it differently. Court after court after court struck down nonsense after nonsense after nonsense.
The current administration was right to correct this overreach and refocus the CFPB.
Last year, Congress enacted a Congressional Review Act resolution rejecting the Biden CFPB's last-minute attempt to impose price controls on overdraft fees. These are those junk fees that you heard President Biden talk about during his State of the Union presentations and speeches. It is utterly ridiculous to lump all these things together.
I can't think of a worse way to govern than the Biden administration's approach to the CFPB and the playbook that they used time and time again, putting onerous pressure on small businesses that merely--my words--confiscated millions of dollars from private businesses without actually ending in a finding. This happened over and over and over again. Weaponizing the Federal Government against private businesses is just wrong.
I can't think of anything more clear than how wrong the CFPB has been consistently.
Agencies should not be conducting supervision or exams without explicit statutory authority to do so.
The Biden administration CFPB's medical debt advisory opinion is another example of Agency overreach. This guidance creates serious privacy concerns. Imagine a debt company being able to peer into your medical records to determine which debt should be and which debt should not be a part of their process. I don't want a debt company looking at medical records--certainly not my medical records--and making a determination on what they can and cannot do. That is just utterly ridiculous but consistent with the Biden administration's approach to the CFPB.
We ought not bring that back. We ought not ever bring that back. That means more third parties would have more patient-level health and financial information, increasing the risk of misuse, overcollection, and data breaches. Don't forget the data breach we saw at the CFPB. We don't want more information in the hands of people who can't handle the information they had before.
This is, as we know, Madam President, something we know in Wyoming and South Carolina. We just call it common sense.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose all these motions to proceed and the underlying resolutions.
Madam President, there is a debate right now about the cost of the Iran war. Now, this administration won't or can't give us a straight answer, but Coloradans can.
They are paying $4.50 a gallon for gas that not too long ago they were getting for 2.50 a gallon. That is $25 more every time they fill up their tank.
Shoppers are seeing their grocery bills go through the roof. Since January alone, the price of berries--strawberries, blueberries--has doubled. Today, the average family of four spends over $1,000 a month just on groceries, and that number keeps climbing the longer the war drags on.
Mortgage rates jumped half a point in 2 months, costing most home buyers trying to buy a house over $100 additional each month.
Just yesterday, President Trump admitted he doesn't ``think about Americans' financial situations.'' He doesn't think about the financial situation of Americans when making the decisions on the war in Iran-- well, finally the truth. The American people know this, and they have seen how the policies of this administration are costing lives overseas and exaggerating a cost-of-living emergency here at home.
While the White House has a hard time keeping track of what it is spending on the war--there was no plan at the beginning; it doesn't seem we have a good off-ramp--American families are struggling just to deliver their basic needs. To the administration, these might be just numbers on a spreadsheet, but to the rest of us, these are our family members, these are our neighbors, it is all of you.
Last week, I met an Uber driver named Kareem. It costs him $68 every day to fill up his tank with gas. Kareem's expenses now exceed his take-home pay. He had to find a second job just to support his first job. He told me he worries every day about having enough money to feed his children.
It is not just the President's war that is increasing costs; this comes on the heels of numerous Republican efforts to gut and eviscerate our healthcare subsidies and our healthcare system and to, in whole terms, slash the social safety net.
Last week in Denver, I met a guy named TJ. He told me his marketplace premium went from 30 bucks a month to $500 a month. These are real numbers. This happened right at the time when he was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer. TJ couldn't afford his marketplace plan, so he was forced to drop it. He had to move in with his parents just to stay afloat.
I also met with a Denver resident who is living with a rare neurological condition they picked up from COVID. Last year, in the middle of an endless health battle, her husband was diagnosed with cancer. Their marketplace premium doubled. They couldn't afford for both of them to stay on insurance and have healthcare at the same time, so her husband put off his chemotherapy so that she could get a badly needed treatment.
Let me say that again. In the wealthiest Nation on Earth, a man with cancer was forced to go without healthcare to make sure his wife got a fair shot at beating her sickness, just so his wife could get that chance. That is shameful.
Her words are going to stay with me. This woman told me that she has come to terms with death and with the severity of her husband's cancer, but what she can't accept is the daily battle to afford her healthcare when the cost of staying alive might well turn out to be bankruptcy.
These Coloradans aren't outliers. Over 1 million Americans--1 million Americans--had to drop their health insurance plans in January after this Congress--the Republicans--refused to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits that eliminated a big chunk of those subsidies. So 1 million dropped off. Of the Americans who stayed on with their insurance, over 3 million missed their monthly payment in January. So 1 million dropped off, and 3 million have stopped payment as of January. So we could have up to 4 million people newly uncovered. How long before those 3 million people lose their health insurance? We don't know.
It is not just people in big cities; farmers across America, farmers across Colorado were already being crushed by a cost-of-living emergency. Now soaring food and fertilizer costs are making a grave situation a crucial one.
One sweet corn farmer in Montrose, CO, told me that fuel normally takes up about 15 percent of his operating costs. Now it is 65 percent. He said: If I didn't have a son that was crazy enough to farm, I would probably quit because the unknowns make it impossible to plan.
Let me tell you, if a farmer can't plan, if he can't make a plan for how he is going to make the whole year work, he can't plant. Think about that, because the unknowns make it impossible to plan.
Farmers are now paying 40 percent more for nitrogen-based fertilizer and, as I said, 60 percent more for diesel. With just a few weeks remaining in the planting season, 70 percent of farmers and ranchers in America are saying they can't afford their operating costs.
Add in the tariffs, which are diminishing the futures market for whatever they are selling, and the worsening drought conditions, the climate change-caused drought, it is no wonder that so many Colorado producers are choosing to fallow their land instead of farming as they have always done.
You don't need a crystal ball to see what comes next. Fewer crops are suddenly going to mean higher prices. That will be good for those few farmers who did take the risk--probably an exceptional risk--to go forward with planting with such unknown outcomes.
As one farmer told me, a country that can't feed itself cannot survive.
We are hearing stories like this all the time. It doesn't matter if we are meeting farmers or teachers or restaurant owners, rural or urban, Republican or Democrat, we are hearing the same thing: Costs are too high, and Americans need help.
This cost-of-living emergency didn't start with the war, but the war is making it far worse, and the President's response has just been to spend more--not on you but on this war. The President recently requested $1.5 trillion--$1.5 trillion requested to fund the Department of War, what used to be the Department of Defense.
Madam President, $1.5 trillion--that is money we don't have, money we are going to have to borrow and add to our ballooning deficit. To put that in perspective, $1.5 trillion is the equivalent of borrowing roughly $18,000 for every American family. We are passing $18,000 per family on to the children of those families.
Now, you ask yourself: Do we really want to take on the cost of that war when we have no clear path to victory? we don't know what the off- ramp looks like?
And that doesn't even cover the full cost of the Iran war. The White House budget director told Congress that a separate funding request is coming. We are being told to expect up to $200 billion just for operations and to replenish our stockpiles from the war in Iran--$200 billion. With that money, we could fully fund pre-K for every kid in America; we could have free community college all across this country; we could get much closer to universal healthcare coverage.
I think our Nation's priorities have somehow gotten backward. We have money for ballrooms and bombs and tax breaks for billionaires but very little for hard-working Americans, the people that make this country work. It is just plain wrong.
The MAGA Republicans are giving the White House a blank check while all of you get stuck with the bill.
We need to end this war and stop asking the American people to carry costs they never agreed to bear.
The President sometimes treats billions like a rounding error. Coloradans don't have that luxury. Every dollar counts, and hard- working families are paying the price.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Madam President, Senate Democrats are on the floor today to fight back against President Donald Trump's actions to raise the cost of living for American families.
Now, you may remember that Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Instead, he is deliberately raising them. His war in Iran sent gas prices soaring. His chaotic tariffs are jacking up the costs of everything from coffee to housing. And as we will discuss today, his attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cost families at least $19 billion in just 1 year alone.
The CFPB is the financial cop on the beat for American consumers. Since 2011, it has been working to catch financial crooks, putting over $21 billion right back into the hands of hard-working families that had gotten cheated.
From protecting consumers from predatory medical debt to cracking down on hidden fees and shotty credit reporting practices that raised the cost of loans for families, the CFPB has taken action to shield consumers from getting tricked or trapped by giant banks and big corporations.
But the Trump administration is hell-bent on destroying the Agency. Let me count the ways: They tried to fire the entire staff. They tried to end all funding for the Agency. They told CFPB employees to stop working to protect consumers--literally, to stop working. They turned loose lenders who had been caught cheating Americans. They rolled back commonsense guidelines to protect consumers. And they pretty much have advertised that there is no financial cop on the beat, inviting scammers to do their worst to families that are already struggling to make ends meet in Trump's economy.
Today, we are going to hear from 20 Senators about how the Trump administration has hurt American families by rolling back commonsense CFPB rules, and we are going to hear how Congress can make it right.
We are going to vote to undo 20 different ways that the Trump administration has abandoned consumers and is making life more expensive for them.
I urge my Republican colleagues to listen with open ears and cast their votes on behalf of the consumers that they were elected to represent.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 2 minutes for debate on each motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in defending the consumer protections that the Trump administration is working so hard to unravel.
During the financial crisis of 2008, Americans lost trillions because of deceptive and abusive and irresponsible financial practices. And I saw firsthand what this meant in North Minneapolis and in other communities around Minnesota. I saw what happened when families lost their homes, when properties went vacant, when whole blocks went vacant. It has taken years for my communities to recover.
So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the aftermath of this crisis to be the strong advocate for consumers. In a financial marketplace that too often is rigged in favor of the big financial institutions with so much power and influence, the CFPB was charged with standing up for the little guy, and it worked. When people got ripped off, when they were faced with consumer fraud, the CFPB was there to enforce the law.
The CFPB has done its job. It has actually worked. It has returned more than $21 billion stolen from consumers.
But in 2025, when the Trump administration came in, they began undoing all of this good work and dismantling this Agency that was created by Congress, by us, to protect the people.
So, today, I want to talk about just one example of what this means. This is a true story about how these predatory lenders, these predatory land contracts, and contracts for deed have created such a serious problem in my home State of Minnesota.
S.J. Res. 149, which we will be voting on today, would ensure that consumer protections apply to these predatory land contracts.
So here is how this swindle works and how people get taken advantage of. This is a real story about a father. He worked as a long-haul truckdriver, and he rented an apartment in the Twin Cities for years. But it was just too small for his young children, and they were sleeping sometimes three to a room, all together. But he honestly didn't make enough money to qualify for a mortgage.
The father heard how he could move into a home with room for each of his children to grow, how there was this great backyard for them to play in, and he could do so using a contract for deed.
So what he does is he puts together a hefty downpayment, and they move into this home. And even though these contracts can seem like a mortgage, they lack the critical protections in a standard mortgage.
What that means is unscrupulous sellers could take advantage of unsuspecting buyers. For example, with a land contract, a single missed payment--a single missed monthly payment--can mean that a family forfeits all of the money that they have paid in years of payment, and then they face eviction. They have been able to build no equity at all. In actual fact, what happens is that they lose everything.
So here is what happened with this Minnesota truckdriver.
After a few months, the cost of diesel went up, and he had fewer shifts available to work on, and he struggled to make those monthly payments.
In a story that was published in the Sahan Journal in Minnesota, he talks about how ``his family'' then found themselves ``at risk of losing not only the house, but about $100,000`` that ``they have paid'' in, ``including'' their entire ``down payment.'' And ``he never understood the disadvantages and'' the tricks of this ``contract for deed.'' But, at this point, ``it [was] too late to get out of it.''
Now, none of this would have happened if he had the protections of a traditional mortgage. And I want to be clear. I know that the President represents farming interests. I don't know if it is this way in your State, Madam President. But in my State, contracts for deed can be legitimate tools for financing real estate transactions.
But predatory land contracts can be designed to fail, and that is what happened here. A set of bad actors specifically targeted Minnesota's Muslim families, who, under the tenets of their faith, were limited in paying interest with traditional mortgages.
And families thought they were realizing their dream of homeownership only to be sucked into these contracts that are so-called ``interest free,'' and they found themselves intentionally in situations designed by the seller where there is no way they can succeed. They lose their homes, and they lose all their money with no recourse.
This is not a rare problem. Over 8 million Americans have used contracts for deed to purchase their home. They deserve the same basic protections as anyone with a mortgage.
I held a subcommittee hearing on this topic a few years ago with my colleague Senator Lummis, and we dived into this, and we developed some bipartisan solutions for establishing just even basic reporting requirements around this.
And I want to thank Senator Lummis for that partnership.
Here is what happened. In August of 2024, the CFPB took action on these predatory land contracts. I stood alongside the Director in Saint Paul, where they issued an advisory opinion affirming that financial products should be subject to the same consumer protections as traditional mortgages.
But now, the Trump administration is tearing up that work. They are tearing up that advisory opinion. Rather than cracking down on the people who are ripping off families, the President is making it easier for bad actors to get away with predatory practices like this, by stealing money from Americans and from Minnesotans.
Colleagues, we should not be on the side of making it easier for our constituents to get swindled, to make it easier for bad actors to take away people's homes.
We should be on the side of hard-working Americans, making it easier for them to afford their lives and making it harder for these bad actors to rip them off.
That is what this resolution that I offer today would do, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Madam President, it is not enough that President Trump has injected chaos and inflation into the economy with his illegal tariffs, unauthorized war, and his so-called Big Beautiful Bill. He is also stripping protections for average Americans against being defrauded and scammed out of their money.
Case in point, through Russell Vought, who is moonlighting as the Director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the CFPB, Trump is dismantling the Military Lending Act or MLA. He has fired the CFPB staff responsible for enforcing this law, dismissing active cases against lenders for defrauding and scamming the troops, and refusing to supervise financial companies to make sure they comply with the Military Lending Act.
Back in 2006, the Senate passed the Military Lending Act by unanimous consent. I strongly support this law because as a former military officer, I have seen how servicemembers have had their lives and careers ruined by predatory lending.
And in 2010, the Senate strengthened this law again in a bipartisan fashion--completely bipartisan--by giving the CFPB powerful supervision and enforcement authority.
Since then, the CFPB has returned $360 million to servicemembers and veterans. They have won major cases for violations of the MLA, and as result, corrected the behavior of many predatory lenders.
But Mr. Vought is unilaterally defanging this Agency--taking it apart. Besides removing staff, he has issued guidance stripping the Agency of its authority to supervise nonbank lenders for compliance with the MLA.
Who are these nonbank lenders? These are the payday lenders who set up shop outside military bases and target young servicemembers with loans
Mr. Vought wants to give these lenders free rein to go after servicemembers to take away their well-earned compensation, and in many cases--I have seen it personally--to put them in a financial spiral that pushes them out of the service and into a very, very difficult and challenging life.
Today, this Senate can go on record, as it has in the past, in a very strong bipartisan vote to rescind Mr. Vought's guidance and protect our servicemembers.
Now, every one of us goes back home and gets with the veterans groups and says: We owe you more than we can pay you. We respect what you have done.
And those servicemen who are serving today in the Persian Gulf, they have to get the support they need, and frankly, they don't get it.
It is an easy choice: the troops or Russell Vought's attempt to suppress these troops who are serving us.
And I would urge passage of this proposal.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
I rise today in support of my resolution to restore the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule restricting medical debt collections. This rule protected Americans from paying for medical services they did not receive or paying debt they already paid off.
Medical debt leaves Americans in serious financial jams. It wrecks lives. Folks go to the doctor one day for a bandage or some minor injury and end up leaving with a financial burden the size of a mortgage. It could happen to any one of us.
Georgia ranks among the top 10 States with the highest rates of medical debt, to the tune of $855 per Georgian, in large part because of the State's refusal to expand Medicaid. In fact, more than a quarter of rural Georgians have medical collections on their credit report--one in four--and that is 10 percentage points higher than the national average.
Americans face more barriers as a result. Their mortgage costs increase. Their access to car loans can be restricted just because they got sick and went into debt for care.
That is why I led 30 of my colleagues in a letter to the Trump administration defending the CFPB's work on protecting families from the consequences of medical debt. But the Trump administration's actions will make it easier for debt collectors to aggressively go after sick or struggling Americans and prey on families already saddled with medical debt. That is just cruel and unnecessary.
I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, colleagues, overdraft fees are among the most abusive junk fees in our financial system. The average overdraft
So I want you to imagine that you are walking into a 7-Eleven. You are a little short on cash. You want to buy a cup of coffee. You go to the ATM machine. You take out 50 bucks. You buy a $2.50 cup of coffee, but it costs you about $40; and you don't even know it because the bank doesn't tell you.
And then the next day you go to buy some groceries. This time you use your debit card, and they charge you another 35 bucks and don't tell you you have overdrawn.
Well, these fees fall hardest on families living paycheck to paycheck. Federal law requires that these banks can charge an overdraft fee on these withdrawals only if consumers opt in--if they opt in. But many financial institutions use deceptive tricks and confusing fine print to get consumers to enter into these programs and then do not inform them of the costs. And banks not that long ago made about $30 billion in one year from these overdraft fees.
So in 2024, the CFPB issued guidelines requiring banks to show proof that one of our constituents--one of our consumers--actually opted in, and that is what the Trump administration got rid of. They got rid of the enforcement mechanism that prevents our consumers from being gouged.
I know a 35-buck fee is a drop in the bucket for Trump and his billionaire buddies. I know he is focused on his billion-dollar ballroom, but we need to focus on our constituents.
And I will close with this. Just yesterday, President Trump said:
Well, when they got rid of this rule, he proved he did not care about the financial situation of people living paycheck to paycheck. We should care. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Tariffs, a war, and a golden ballroom. We are in the middle of an economic crisis in America, but instead of working with us to help bring down costs, this administration weakened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, gutting protections and making it harder for Americans to afford daily life.
The unemployment rate is 4.3 percent and rising. Our housing market is in turmoil. Bottom line: Americans are struggling to get jobs, rent apartments, and secure mortgages. And the last thing they need to deal with is inaccurate background screening reports. This is especially true for those seeking a fresh start. My resolution would address that.
Now, we have all been there where you have submitted your paperwork, you sit for an interview, you provide references, and you are just waiting for the background check. This should be a breeze, right? Well, for many Americans it is not that easy--especially for our returning citizens.
That is why red States and blue States across the country have recognized the need to address a portion of this problem passing clean- slate legislation to give people a fair shot and a fresh start.
The Biden CFPB issued guidance to crack down on inaccurate background screening reports, but the Trump administration withdrew this guidance stating it was too onerous. You know what is onerous? Jumping through hoops to prove your background check was wrong while hoping to get an apartment that you applied for is still available. Or fighting with the credit bureau to prove you have a clean record to keep your job--that is onerous.
It has been proven that protecting consumers from error-filled background checks can be done. Equifax--one of the big three credit bureaus--recognized the importance and continued to handle customer complaints, despite the Trump administration's rescission of the rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Federal Government should do the same, and I urge my colleagues to join us because nobody deserves to lose their job or their home because of false or outdated information.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Clearly, the noes have it. The motion is not agreed to.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I rise today to offer a joint resolution of disapproval that would restore critical privacy protections for consumers that the Trump administration did away with.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act is one of our foremost laws aimed at protecting the privacy of the American people. The law requires that a consumer report, like a credit report or a background check, can only be provided if the report's requestor, like a creditor, landlord, or employer, certifies that it has a permissible purpose to obtain a report on a specific person.
Despite these requirements, far too many Americans have been subjected to serious, outrageous breaches of privacy when companies sharing the report for one person include information pertaining to someone else.
In 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--our Nation's consumer watchdog--took action to protect Americans' privacy and crack down by issuing new guidance on the rules that surround crucial credit report privacy.
The advisory opinion did something that ought to be common sense: It made it clear that your sensitive financial information couldn't be shared with landlords, loan sharks, or used car salesmen just because you had a similar name to somebody else.
Once your credit info is in the wrong hands, scammers, criminals, and shady data brokers can easily use your personal information, and then they go rip you off.
This was a huge win for consumer privacy, and Donald Trump gutted it.
I will close with this: My resolution is simple. It would restore this advisory opinion that Trump withdrew as part of this administration's ongoing war against consumers and privacy.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rolling back Trump's war on consumers by supporting this joint resolution that will once again restore important privacy measures for the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
It appears the noes have it. The motion is rejected.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--CFPB--has played a critical role on the side of people to help them avoid junk fees, predatory medical debt, payday lenders who take advantage of people in need, including so many of our military servicemembers.
So it should come as no surprise that Donald Trump is no fan of the CFPB--he has always sided with big special interests over average folks--and he has undermined its protections for the American people.
Senate Democrats have made clear time and time again: Donald Trump's policies are one big broken promise in lowering costs to the American people.
Trump undermining consumer protections is just another example of Trump's betrayal--betrayal--of working people.
So today I am defending the CFPB for the same reason I helped authorize it years ago: American consumers need to have someone-- someone--in their corner. This is a critical tool to reducing people's everyday costs from healthcare and banking to housing.
So I am heading up this joint resolution of disapproval with many of my colleagues against the Trump administration's decision to reverse CFPB protections on mortgage lending called contract for deed transactions that without the proper guardrails can devolve into predatory practices against Americans trying to buy a home.
For millions of Americans who can't access a traditional mortgage, a contract for deed can seem like a lifeline, but too often, these arrangements are simply traps.
The buyer takes on every obligation of home ownership immediately-- the taxes, the repairs, the risks--but doesn't receive the deed until they pay every last dollar.
This is a formula for failure. Miss a single payment, and you can lose everything--no equity, no recourse, evicted like a tenant. Mr. President, 200,000 New Yorkers are in this position. We must stop it, and I urge a yes vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The motion is rejected.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I rise today in support of my resolution to restore CFPB guidance that prevented mistaken identity on credit reports, which can destroy someone's credit through no fault of their own.
Credit and background reports are incredibly important to the lives of Americans. The difference between good credit and bad credit can decide whether someone gets a house, an apartment, or a job. It determines how much money they will spend in order to afford a house.
These reports may include criminal records or eviction records, so they need to be accurate.
If they are inaccurate because of lazy name-matching practices, they can result in you being denied a job or apartment based on the wrong person's criminal or eviction record--a case of mistaken identity. And by the time you figure out what went wrong and jump through all the hoops to fix the problem, it is often too late for that job or apartment.
The CFPB, under the previous administration, tried to fix this problem by saying companies need more than just someone's name to identify someone, but the Trump administration has torn up this guidance and made the lives of ordinary folks harder--harder to get a job, harder to find an apartment. I don't get it.
I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on my resolution to restore this simple guidance to stop credit report mistaken identity by companies and debt collectors.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, in a remarkable gift to Big Tech, President Trump eliminated the digital marketing rule, which means they are not subject to the same kind of consumer protection laws or rules that apply to traditional advertisers and other kinds of interests.
Banks, fintechs, and other financial institutions partner with Big Tech to use consumer data and targeted advertising tools to reach specific consumers online, including financially vulnerable individuals.
This means unchecked exploitation, which creates opportunities for bad actors like scammers. This need for the rule is not just hypothetical or hyperbole. It is real. Big Tech has brought in billions of dollars from scams.
According to internal documents, Meta projected it would earn roughly 10 percent of its total 2024 advertising revenue--that is approximately $16 billion from ads linked to scams, fraud, and prohibited productions--maybe not accidentally. Some of those Big Tech executives are on President Trump's plane to China.
In response to that revelation, I, along with Senator Hawley, led a letter to FTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Meta for enabling and profiting from these scams that harm consumers.
President Trump has left consumers at the mercy of Big Tech, using social media to target and exploit consumers. It is clear that this kind of cozying up to Big Tech puts corporate interests above individual consumers, and I urge my colleagues to join my joint resolution of disapproval of the Trump administration's decision to rescind the digital marketing rule.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I rise today to defend something rather simple: Americans' right to access their own credit and background reports.
We have a law already on the books--the Federal Credit Reporting Act--to protect this right, but we are seeing companies and others finding creative ways to skirt this responsibility, and working Americans are the ones left paying the price. That is why we must pass this joint resolution of disapproval I filed today and reassert this law's authority.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act gives every consumer the right to obtain a copy of the information in their file, entitling them to one free credit report per year from annualcreditreport.com or from ``specialty'' reporting companies like tenant screeners or background check companies. When these companies choose to cheat the system, they are able to make a profit, while American consumers are left in the dark about their own credit.
That is why, in January 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, our Nation's consumer watchdog, stepped in to stand up for consumers and hold credit reporting companies, tenant screeners, and others accountable to the law.
Last year, though, the Trump administration threw this work out the window. And while the law is still clear, scrapping CFPB's work was a glaring signal to credit bureaus and background screeners about what they can get away with.
In New Jersey alone, over the past year, there have been over 157,000 complaints with the CFPB about credit reports or other consumer reports--hundreds of them about not being able to get to their credit report or score.
Everyone knows these moments when a credit score matters: applying to rent an apartment, at the car dealership, opening a new credit card. Credit is foundational to people's financial mobility and staying out of financial hardship. Without the transparency consumers deserve, people can go unaware of mistakes in their reports and have no way to get them fixed. Without the accuracy consumers deserve, people's financial stability and mobility are put at risk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to "Fair Credit Reporting Act...
Mr. President, as the Trump administration has walked back from protecting American consumers to help all of its creepy billionaires who it loves so much, States have had to step up into the breach and enact commonsense protections for regular consumers. That includes 15 States, like my State of Rhode Island, helping to make sure medical debt does not send consumers, American families, into a financial tailspin, blocking their access to credit.
While the Fair Credit Reporting Act continues to provide some key protections for consumers, this rule is particularly concerning at a time the administration has sidelined the CFPB at every turn. Rhode Island consumers have filed almost 13,000 complaints about credit reporting with the CFPB in the past year.
We need its help again. We need vigorous, empowered State enforcement more than ever as well.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I rise today because the American dream of owning a home is getting further and further out of reach, and as working families get crushed by Trump's economy, Congress needs to take steps to make life more affordable.
I filed this joint resolution of disapproval today to do just that and reinstate commonsense guidance at the CFPB that protects hard- working families from being forced or threatened into paying debts that they don't legally owe.
These time-barred or nonenforceable debts are appropriately named ``zombie'' debts. Nearly all States have laws that make it illegal to start a lawsuit after a fixed number of years since a legal claim arose. However, that isn't enough to stop debt collectors from trying to extort money from homeowners by threatening legal action that they have no right to take. These ``zombie'' debts are another example of how American homeowners continue to be plagued from fallout from the 2008 mortgage meltdown.
It doesn't have to be this way. In 2022, CFPB issued guidance to set out clear rules for how to rein in foreclosures on stale mortgage debts. The Trump administration, though, withdrew this commonsense rule, leaving homeowners at risk.
With this vote, we can restore this guidance; we can protect homeowners from zombie debt; we can restore accountability and make sure debt collectors compensate consumers for the harm inflicted by their unfair, deceptive collections; and we can stand up for millions of Americans that need us to have their backs.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I filed a joint resolution of disapproval to restore the CFPB's existing rule against charging consumers a convenience fee to pay their bills a certain way. Adding these surprise pay-to-pay fees to bills are useless and unnecessary in general but especially in a time when American families are struggling with the growing affordability crisis.
During my time here in the Senate, I have worked to lower costs and fought to make everything from housing to groceries more affordable for Maryland. I am also fighting these unfair fees because our residents have also had to contend with these unfair debt collection practices.
Maryland consumers have now filed nearly 24,000 complaints against debt collection with the CFPB. The CFPB has stood on the side of consumers, creating an advisory opinion to clarify debt collectors' obligations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and explicitly prohibiting debt collectors from charging pay-to-pay fees.
Unfortunately, this administration has chosen the side of making things harder for American consumers by withdrawing this rule. Although underlying statutes like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act continue to prohibit abusive debt collection practices, this administration's rescission of this guidance signals to bad actors that they may have leeway to charge convenience fees without fear of facing any real consequences from the current CFPB.
That is why I filed a joint resolution of disapproval to restore the CFPB's rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Senate Democrats and the CFPB have been committed to protecting working families, and fighting these unlawful fees is another step to making life fairer for all of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, imagine this: Your kid is studying abroad, and they call to tell you their laptop has been stolen; they can't do coursework--or, worse, that they were in an accident and ended up in the hospital. They need your help financially. So you send them an international money transfer.
Your kid needs help very fast. So you use a company that promises it will get money to them in 24 hours. In reality, however, the transfer takes days. On top of that, you are hit with a hidden junk fee of 8 percent or more. That is a scenario the Trump administration has made a whole lot more likely.
In 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warned companies against deceptive remittance advertising like claiming that transfers will be delivered within a certain timeframe, even if that is not true, or claiming the transfers are free when, in fact, fees are charged.
The Trump administration withdrew this commonsense guidance, signaling to bad actors that they can engage in deceptive marketing about remittance transfers without fear of facing any real consequences from the current CFPB.
My joint resolution of disapproval, which comes before the Senate today, would restore the previous guidance and make clear that we don't stand for companies that deceive and overcharge Americans.
Right now, hard-working Americans are struggling just to get by. For those who use what little they have left over to help family and loved ones abroad, we shouldn't be making life any harder for them. Consumers deserve clear, honest pricing. That is why I have introduced the One Fair Price Act, to outlaw surveillance pricing, and the Junk Fee Prevention Act, with Senator Blumenthal, to crack down on deceptive, excessive, and hidden fees on everything from hotels to concert tickets.
And that is why I introduced this resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, payday loans are notorious short-term loans, often with interest rates of 100, 300, or 500 percent. They put families into a vortex of debt they often cannot escape. Any way you slice it, at those interest rates, it is loansharking.
Many States, including Oregon, have outlawed these loans and put reasonable sideboards on it--a good thing to do. But now the industry has changed its language. Instead of calling it a payday loan, they call it an earned wage access product. Instead of calling it a loan, they call it an advance. Instead of calling it a fee, they call it a tip.
The CFPB provided some national protection, including what States did separately--basically, Truth in Lending Act fair disclosure.
I offer this joint resolution of disapproval to suggest we restore that basic Truth in Lending Act disclosure and other protections the CFPB had provided--just sideboards to help reduce the most harmful aspects of these predatory products.
So, quite simply, if you are against unregulated loansharking and want to end it, vote aye. If you are for loansharking, vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed a landmark piece of legislation, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The ECOA was put in place to protect people from what was widespread discrimination in getting and using credit. Congress knew how vital credit is to Americans, and they worked to expand that not just to women but also to minorities.
In the five decades since, the ECOA has always protected people not only when they get a loan but from unfair treatment once they have it-- whether they can renew the loan, whether the terms change during the loan, and more.
Now, look, as recently as 2022, a study found that women in America paid an extra $40.3 million annually in higher premiums for auto loans they received at car dealers compared to men. This is wrong. We have a nation on the principle that all are created equal and deserve equality.
And so, despite these problems, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, our Nation's consumer watchdog, saw that banks and lenders were closing more accounts and doing more unequal things, and they acted-- again, because credit discrimination is not just about getting the credit you need; it is about making sure you have fair treatment.
These decisions to deny credit, to revoke credit, to charge unfair prices are wrong, and we all know that. We know that when people have challenges, we should be there to make sure there is equality.
In 2022, the CFPB took action to make sure the laws and the practices that are at the heart of fairness in our country were put into place. Unfortunately, the Trump administration scrapped the ruling that helped to make sure we get to equality.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I am asking my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 128, which is my amendment to restore commonsense protection from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop companies from putting illegal terms in their contracts.
Since it opened its doors in 2011, the Consumer Protection Bureau has returned over $21 billion to more than 200 million American consumers after finding that companies violated the law and took advantage of them. That is why we have the Consumer Bureau to go after those bad actors. When companies use the fine print in their contracts to work in illegal provisions that exploit hard-working Americans, the Consumer Bureau is empowered to prosecute them.
But the restitution the Consumer Bureau has won for consumers is by nature a response. It comes after Americans have lost precious time and money or sometimes after they have signed away their rights.
There needs to be more efforts to proactively discourage companies from abusing the fine print and taking advantage of consumers in the first place. That is what the Consumer Bureau did under the Biden administration. They issued guidance warning companies that creating contracts with unlawful or unenforceable terms is illegal. It doesn't get more common sense than that.
No one should be coerced into signing away their rights, like the right to counsel or the right to pursue your claim in court, just to be able to open a bank account, open a credit card, or get a loan. These predatory practices are exactly what the Consumer Bureau was created to stop.
Unfortunately, this administration has withdrawn this guidance. They are intentionally allowing bad actors to break the law and put illegal provisions in contracts that will hurt Americans. It is just wrong.
That is why I am encouraging my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 128, to restore this protection against fine-print traps. Deception is not a business model, and Americans across the country are paying the price for the Trump administration's anti-consumer policies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I am encouraging my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 129, which is my amendment to restore the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule that gives States more power to protect their consumers.
In 2022, the Consumer Bureau issued an interpretive rule declaring that the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is the Federal law that regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer credit information, can mostly be overridden by State law. That means States are allowed to regulate credit reporting without the Federal Government stepping in to say that they can't.
For example, 15 States have laws on the books banning medical debt from counting toward credit reports, and several States have limits on which eviction records are included in credit reports, easing the burden on tenants who are having trouble renting.
Under the Consumer Bureau's 2022 rule, these laws would stand, but now, the Trump administration is trying to replace the Consumer Bureau's rule with one that does the exact opposite. This new rule would make Federal law preempt State law, so States can no longer take action to ensure that consumers get a fair shake when trying to buy a house or get a loan. That is rich coming from an administration that supports States' rights.
So as a former attorney general, I believe strongly that States need the ability to protect Americans from financial exploitation. The Trump administration is working to gut the CFPB Bureau, and that leaves consumers in every State open to abuse. It is just unacceptable.
In the absence of a Federal Government that wants to protect Americans, individual States are stepping up and passing their own laws to support their residents.
If the Trump administration isn't going to support a strong Bureau, then they should let the States do what they refuse to do, but instead, this administration is trying to stop States from stepping in entirely. That is why I filed this joint resolution of disapproval, and I would ask my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I was proud in 2008 during the financial crisis facing this country to join a majority of Senators in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This Bureau has been a watchdog for consumers ever since.
Congress took steps to strengthen consumer protection laws after this crisis which centered on mortgage lenders profiting on loans doomed to fail. Millions of Americans lost their homes. The unemployment rate was 10 percent.
Shortly after, Congress passed this Consumer Financial Protection Act to address consumer protection failures and to ban abusive financial conduct to ensure fair dealing and protect consumers.
The CFPB issued guidance on what constitutes financial abuse, warning bad actors, and making it easy to enforce the law.
In 2023, the Biden CFPB issued a policy statement that spelled out by legal definition the abusive conduct and provided summaries and explanations as how to analyze the abusers. For example, the CFPB explained that abusive practices include obscuring or withholding information on mortgages in a
Now, I ask those who want to stand up for families that are struggling with their expenses today to vote yes and those who want to approve of low-rent, bottom-feeder, sleazy conduct by cheaters to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 134, which would restore the CFPB's rule to ensure that consumers are granted critical protections when they are using ``buy now, pay later'' loans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, there is now widespread and growing use of ``buy now, pay later.'' The reason families are doing that is to buy things like school clothing, not some incidental that is a discretionary expense.
The reason ``buy now, pay later'' is so much increasing in demand is because people are really broke. They are struggling with the high gas prices, they are struggling with record inflation, and at the end of the month, there are more bills than there is money.
The people using ``buy now, pay later'' are in every single State of the Union--in West Virginia, in Vermont--and they are good people that we care about and are concerned that the economy is not working for them, and they are struggling with very severe shortages of income.
These products can be risky. You know, most of us wouldn't recommend ``buy now, pay later.'' It is much better if you have the money to pay cash and you don't get in a risky situation. But the fact is, this is a necessary tool for some families.
Why in the world would we all not want to take the necessary action to protect those vulnerable families from abusive practices? That is what the CFPB did with its rule. I am absolutely mystified--absolutely mystified--that the administration would rescind that because, as I mentioned and as we all know, this is a protection that helps people that each and every one of us represents.
I know there is every bit as much concern on the Republican side of the aisle as there is on the Democratic side of the aisle to protect people from getting ripped off, particularly vulnerable people who work full time but can't pay their bills.
So the Trump CFPB withdrew this rule, and it obviously sends a clear signal to ``buy now, pay later'' that they can get away with what they want.
Vote with us to rescind this rule.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to the Withdrawal of the Rule...
Mr. President, the CFPB promulgated a rule to protect whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers have historically revealed information about abusive practices and rip-offs in organizations where they had the ability to see what happened and to stand up to protect the rule of law and to stop rip-offs.
The biggest proponent of whistleblower protection in this Chamber is our President pro tempore Senator Grassley, and I have such admiration for him in his steadfast commitment to whistleblowers.
The corporations that don't like whistleblowers are now forcing them to sign nondisclosure agreements that are overly broad, and it means that a whistleblower has no protections because they are being threatened with lawsuits, and they are being threatened that they are going to be accused of breaking the law or that they are engaged in corporate misconduct if they essentially blow the whistle on bad practices that are hurting the people we represent.
I don't know why the Trump administration rescinded that rule. Whistleblowers, as Senator Grassley has eloquently stated over and over again, protect us, protect the taxpayers, and protect us from abuse of practices.
I believe, as Senator Grassley believes, it is absolutely critical for Congress to act to protect whistleblowers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 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.
Mr. President, today I recognize Kyler Gohlke, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Kyler is a graduate of Waconia High School in Waconia, MN, and a recent graduate of Concordia College in Moorhead, MN, having earned a degree in finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kyler for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, today I recognize Hayes Hansen, an intern in
Hayes is a graduate of Custer County High School in Miles City, MT, and a recent graduate of Black Hills State University in Spearfish, SD, having earned degrees in political science and international studies. This fall, Hayes plans to attend the University of Nebraska College of Law in Lincoln, NE. Hayes is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Hayes for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, today I recognize Elijah Suwyn, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Elijah is a recent graduate of Biola University in La Mirada, CA, having earned a degree in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Elijah for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 114, the adoption of S. Res. 690, Authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 115, the motion to close further debate on confirmation of the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 728, Kevin Warsh, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of fourteen years from February 1, 2026. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 116, the Confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 728, Kevin Warsh, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of fourteen years from February 1, 2026. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 117, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 727, Kevin Warsh, of Florida, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
Mr. President, I rise during Police Week to honor the brave men and women in North Carolina and across the Nation who serve in law enforcement. Police Week is a solemn and humbling experience, as thousands of officers and their families come to our Nation's Capital and pay tribute to their fellow officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their communities.
Every name that is added to the memorial wall is a monument to that officer's heroism and legacy of courage, selflessness, and ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. This kind of heroism and sacrifice is one far too familiar for North Carolinians who have heard stories of brave officers giving their last full measure of devotion while protecting our State. Today, I wish to list and honor five of these heroes that North Carolina has lost since last year's Police Week in May 2025.
Often, we hear of the dangers law enforcement faces in their profession, but rarely do civilians truly grasp the real risks borne by officers which exist even during ``routine'' parts of the job, even something as normal as transporting an inmate to a hospital to receive medical care can turn deadly.
Officer Flattes, a detention officer for the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office in western North Carolina, was fatally shot when an inmate who was being transported for medical care took a detention officer's firearm during a scuffle. Officer Flattes was 56 years old and was shot by the inmate he was seeking to help. This story and others like it are sobering reminders of the true risks facing law enforcement everywhere. Officer Flattes is survived by his wife, who also served with the Cherokee County Sheriff's Office, as well as his 6 children and 15 grandchildren. To them and to Officer Flattes, I rise to say thank you for their sacrifice and his heroism.
We must also remember WakeMed Campus Police Officer Roger Smith, who shares a story far too similar to Officer Flattes. Officer Smith was working in the WakeMed emergency department when a struggle ensued with an armed individual that left Officer Smith shot and wounded. Despite the best efforts of doctors, Officer Smith succumbed to his wounds later that morning. Officer Smith is survived by his two daughters, mother, brother, granddaughter, and long-time partner. Officer Smith previously served 16 years as a Knightdale police officer and as a volunteer firefighter, making his loss one felt throughout his community.
The next person to honor is North Carolina Master Trooper Stien Davis, Jr. Trooper Davis was killed in a single-car crash on NC Highway 130 just after midnight when he lost control of his car before riding off of the road and flipping his vehicle upside down in a swamp. What is especially tragic about this loss is who Trooper Davis leaves behind; his young son, mother, siblings, and fiancee, all of whom have felt and shared a loss that escapes words. This tragic accident resulted in the death of a young trooper who loved his family, his community, and his career in law enforcement.
Sadly, there is another master trooper that I rise to honor today, Master Trooper Steven J. Perry. Trooper Perry was killed when his patrol car was struck in a head-on collision by someone driving the wrong way at 3 in the morning. Trooper Perry was 30 years old and had served the State of North Carolina for almost 7 years when he was killed. He is survived by his then 9-month-old daughter. Because of one person's bad choice, the State of North Carolina has lost one of its finest sons.
Finally, I rise to honor Forsyth County Sheriff's Deputy Kaleb Mitchell. Deputy Mitchell, like the other heroes mentioned before, was killed during what was a routine moment of his day. Deputy Mitchell was killed when he was struck by a driver going over 100 miles per hour in a 55-mph zone, who then crossed a dividing line and hit Deputy Mitchell. Deputy Mitchell was later pronounced dead after being taken to a hospital immediately after the collision. He is survived by his expectant wife, his 2-year-old child, his parents, and his siblings. One of his brothers also serves with the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office. There are no words to fully express the heartbreak and loss these families have suffered, feelings that are only sharpened by the ordinary nature of what was happening when each officer died.
There is simply no speech, no award, no memorial or honor that we can bestow upon these officers and families that can lessen their sacrifice or ease their pain, but what we must do no matter what is remain thankful for their sacrifice and honor the legacies of these men who died protecting our State and its people.
In my remaining time in the Senate, I will continue to push for the passage of the Protect and Serve Act, legislation that I introduced that makes it a Federal crime to intentionally harm, or attempt to harm, a law enforcement officer. It also gives prosecutors new tools to penalize criminals who target law enforcement.
Officers go to work every day prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their communities, and they need our support now more than ever. The Protect and Serve Act is supported by law enforcement groups across the Nation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Police Officers Defense Coalition, the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the Major County Sheriffs Association.
To every officer serving today: Thank you for your unwavering courage; you have earned our unending gratitude. To the families of the fallen: Your loss is shared by a grateful nation. We will never forget your loved one's service, nor their sacrifice. God bless them. God bless law enforcement. And may God bless the United States of America.
Mr. President, National Police Week serves as a solemn reminder of the courage and sacrifice shown by the men and women in law enforcement who lost their lives in service to others. This week, we set aside time to honor their memory and recognize the families, friends, and fellow officers who continue to carry their loss with strength and grace.
Behind every officer is a family that serves alongside them. They share in the sacrifices, the uncertainty, and the responsibility that comes with a life of public service. These officers are more than public servants. They are parents, neighbors, mentors, coaches, and leaders who play an essential role in the communities they call home. In my home State of Mississippi and across the country, we are so proud of these dedicated individuals who serve with integrity, professionalism, and honor.
This year, we honor the three Mississippi officers whose names have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, three heroes who protected our communities and whose legacy will live on.
We remember: Joshua Brashears, a Jackson County Sheriff's deputy who died from injuries after his patrol vehicle struck several horses on a dark road in Stone County on October 17, 2025. He served in law enforcement for more than 21 years and is survived by two children and his parents.
We remember: Martin Shields, Jr., a Hinds County deputy who was shot and killed while responding to a domestic call on February 23, 2025. After serving with the Jackson and Ridgeland Police Departments, he sadly only served with Hinds County Sheriff's Department for 9 months before his death. He is survived by his wife and daughter.
And we remember: Bryan Pippin, a Jackson police officer who passed away from COVID-19 complications. He served with the Jackson Police Department for nearly 20 years, often working parades in the motorcycle unit.
We honor the memory of these fallen officers and stand beside their families with enduring respect.
As we remember those we have lost, we also must continue supporting those who serve today. That means ensuring law enforcement has the tools, resources, and support needed to do their jobs safely and effectively, while also showing appreciation for their sacrifices.
To every officer serving our communities, know that we recognize your service and the sacrifices inherent with ensuring public safety. During National Police Week and every week throughout the year, let us stand together in gratitude for all who protect and serve.
May God bless our fallen officers, the families who miss them, all who wear the badge, and the United States of America.
Mr. President. I rise today to recognize May 11 to May 17, 2026, as National Salvation Army Week.
Founded in 1865, the Salvation Army has been unfailingly committed to serving those in need without discrimination. For more than 150 years, the Salvation Army has provided essential social services, including disaster relief, food assistance, shelter, rehabilitation programs, and youth development initiatives in local communities across the United States.
The Salvation Army serves more than 27 million Americans annually, offering compassion, hope, and support to the most vulnerable populations, including individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, seniors, human trafficking survivors, and those recovering from addiction. Across the Nation, the Salvation Army operates shelters, food pantries, job training programs, and emergency disaster relief efforts that strengthen communities and improve lives.
The Salvation Army continues to be a trusted partner at the local, State, and Federal levels, providing critical services that address poverty, hunger, and natural disasters. Volunteers, donors, and officers of the Salvation Army exemplify the spirit of service, working tirelessly to provide relief and opportunity for those in need--and should be recognized and commended for their commitment to the betterment of others.
I am grateful for the work that the Salvation Army accomplishes every day and applaud its dedication to social service.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize May 11 to May 17, 2026, as National Salvation Army Week. I join the junior Senator from Virginia in expressing my sincere gratitude to the Salvation Army for all they do to support and provide for Americans across the Nation.
For over a century, the Salvation Army has been committed to ``Doing the Most Good.'' This good is carried out in countless ways including feeding the hungry, rebuilding homes, providing addiction recovery services, assisting with disaster relief, and combating human trafficking. For the past 160 years, it has been evident: Where there is need, the Salvation Army steps up.
Today, the Salvation Army humbly serves nearly 28 million Americans annually, offering warm beds, nutritious meals, and financial assistance. I am especially grateful for Alabama's local Salvation Army units for their tireless efforts and impactful work within our communities. After several tornadoes hit our State in 2023, the Salvation Army came to Alabama's aid to provide resources including over 1,800 meals for affected families. Each year, the Salvation Army partners with the University of Alabama at Birmingham to bring gifts and joy to thousands of children during the Christmas season. And in true Alabama fashion, local Salvation Army chapters have mobilized to the frontlines of disaster response across the Nation to lend a helping hand and provide essential supplies to families devastated by natural disasters.
I am extremely proud to celebrate the far-reaching and critical work carried out by the Salvation Army each and every day. Their dedicated volunteers and members step up in communities across our Nation to meet urgent needs with compassion, dignity, and unwavering commitment. This work not only meets immediate challenges, but also restores hope for so many families.
I am honored to recognize National Salvation Army Week and to express my deep appreciation for the Salvation Army's tireless work in uplifting lives, strengthening communities, and ``Doing the Most Good'' for Americans across our Nation.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act of 2026. This critical legislation honors the memory of an Illinoisan who should still be with us today by taking action to address a crisis unfolding inside our Federal, State and local correctional facilities in Illinois and across the country.
Blake Schwarz was a corrections officer at the Federal Correctional Institution in Thomson, IL. He was proud of the work he did every day to keep his community and his colleagues safe. In 2023, Blake died by suicide, leaving behind his wife Michelle and never getting the chance to witness the wonderful smile of his soon-to-be-born daughter. I am heartbroken that Michelle and her family must live with the aftermath of a loss that was preventable.
I had the privilege of sitting down with Michelle last year. She did not come to my office looking for sympathy. She came to make sure that Blake was not just a statistic. She came to make sure no other family in this country has to endure what hers has endured. The legislation I am introducing today is the direct result of her advocacy, the advocacy of Blake's colleagues at FCI Thomson, and the advocacy of law enforcement professionals across our country who refuse to let their colleagues feel abandoned to take on the struggles of mental health alone.
We ask our law enforcement officers to do a job that few Americans understand and even fewer are willing to do themselves. The job is extremely difficult and physically and mentally demanding. Corrections officers in this country die by suicide at a rate estimated to be as much as seven times higher than the rate for the general population. More than one in three corrections officers live with post-traumatic stress disorder, and far too often, corrections officers struggle with their mental health alone because of a culture that stigmatizes any perception of weakness and a fear that they will lose their job if they do seek treatment. This fear and stigma keep people silent.
The Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act gives corrections officers, who risk their lives every day, access to the mental health care they deserve that aids their critical work and prevents tragedies. With my legislation, corrections officers will have readily accessible mental health care both on and off duty. It also confronts the fear and stigma that keep officers silent by guaranteeing that an officer's badge will never be on the line because that public safety officer sought appropriate care for a mental health issue.
Blake Schwarz is gone, and nothing we do here will bring him back. But it is my honor and privilege to introduce this legislation to ensure that his name is attached not to another statistic but to a law that saves lives. I commend Michelle and all the dedicated men and women of FCI Thomson for their bravery, hard work, and steadfast advocacy. I urge every one of my colleagues to take Blake's story as a painful reminder that we must do better for our corrections officers and prevent future tragedies.
S. 4515. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out a pilot program to enhance the mapping of urban flooding and associated property damage and the availability of that mapped data to homeowners, businesses, and localities to help understand and mitigate the risk of such flooding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
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 Armed Services is authorized to meet in open and closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 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, May 13, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 4 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.
Expressing the Sense of the Senate That the President Should Prioritize Securing the Release of Pastor Jin Mingri, Pastor GAO Quanfu and His Wife Pang Yu, Jimmy Lai, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, and Ekpar...
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 728) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Expressing Support for the Designation of May 2026 as "National Beef Month" to Recognize the Important Role Cattle Play in the United States, and to Consumers
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 711.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 711) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of April 30, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to the nominations to be considered en bloc pursuant to S. Res. 690 ripen at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow.
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 Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer well knows-- because I am about to describe the good people of West Virginia as well as the good people of Louisiana and of many other States--most Americans get up every day. They go to work. They obey the law. They try to teach their children values. They try to do the right thing by their children, and they try to put aside a little money for retirement. I have just described millions of moms and dads across the Presiding Officer's State and mine and all across America.
But, unfortunately, many moms and dads, when they lie down to sleep at night, can't. And they can't because they are worried. They can't because they are scared. Worry and fear are inextricably linked. One of the main things they are worried about today in America is the cost of living. Worry and fear also can lead to anger. There is a lot of anger in America today among our middle-class citizens. That anger is shared not only by the folks in the Presiding Officer's State and in my State and in other States, it is shared all across political party lines and all across demographics. Many of my Democratic friends and neighbors are angry just as they are scared and worried. Many Independent moms and dads or many Republican moms and dads are worried, and they are angry.
Why are they angry? First, let me say I understand their anger. It is perfectly predictable. Here is why they are angry, and this is why they are scared: These moms and dads who can't sleep at night because they are concerned about the cost of living look around and they see too many undeserving people--I want to emphasize ``undeserving'' because I don't want to paint it with too broad a brush.
These parents--these moms and dads--look around and see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, and they see too many undeserving people--not everybody but too many undeserving people--at the bottom who are getting handouts. And they are in the middle, and they are getting stuck with the bill, and they can't pay it anymore because of the cost of living.
Now, this started back during COVID when we experienced our first inflation--a rise in the cost of living in America. You don't have to be a senior at Caltech to figure out what happened. The Federal Government, at the suggestion of President Biden, spent bucketloads of money that we didn't have, particularly and especially after the pandemic was over. They just spent
Well, what is the result of that? Inflation. That is how you get inflation. At one point, we had 9-percent inflation in America--9 percent. And inflation is pernicious. It just guts the middle class like a fish. Those at the top aren't particularly bothered by inflation. I don't want to overstate this, but many people at the bottom who depend on public assistance to live are not as worried about inflation because a lot of their public assistance is adjusted for inflation.
But the folks in the middle--the ones who get up every day and go to work and obey the law and pay their taxes and try to do the right thing by their kids--yes, they have gotten some wage increases but not as fast as inflation.
We have gotten that 9-percent inflation down. Before the conflict in Iran, we had gotten it down to 2.5, 2.8 percent. We were trying to get it down more, but inflation is very sticky. It is like a stray dog. Once you feed it, you can't get rid of it. Our goal was to get it down to 2 percent. The Federal Reserve was doing its part, and I would like to think most Members of Congress were doing their part, but we were having real trouble getting it down.
Then, of course, we had a spike in the cost of energy. Now, energy was already up. Under President Biden, the average electricity bill of the average American went up 28 percent--almost a third. So that started the fear and the anger among middle-class Americans. But the conflict in Iran, predictably, raised the cost of energy and particularly the cost of gas and diesel fuel.
I think most Americans understand. They don't like it. I don't like it. It is as painful as hell. They understand that every time you have a conflict in the Middle East, the price of energy is going to go up, and once the conflict is over, it will gradually come down. Usually, it doesn't come down as fast as it went up, but it is still painful.
This fear, this anger at the cost of living predates the conflict in Iran. I don't want to blame it on the conflict in Iran. It was there before because we had inflation there before the conflict. I am not going to say it is just energy prices. It is not just energy prices. We were seeing it in food prices, for example. You shouldn't have to sell blood plasma to go to the grocery store, but a lot of middle-class Americans felt that they just about had to.
Now, I talked to the President about it. He understands it. It frustrates him because he didn't cause that 9-percent inflation. No disrespect, but President Biden did. He did. He spent money that we didn't have like it was ditchwater. I think, if we had discovered life on Mars when President Biden was President, he would have sent it money immediately. That is how much money we were spending that caused all this inflation, but it frustrates President Trump.
And these are my words, not his, but I have heard him say, in effect: Why are people mad at me? I didn't cause this inflation. Yes, I did what I had to do in Iran, and gas prices and diesel prices have gone up and fertilizer prices, but the American people aren't stupid. They don't read Aristotle every day because they are too busy earning a living, but they understand the energy prices will gradually come down after the conflict is over.
But the President says: Why am I getting blamed?
And I have told the President gently: Mr. President, I understand your frustration. You didn't father this child--you are not the daddy-- but you have got to raise him. You have got to raise him because you are the President.
And I don't want the American people to think we have been doing nothing. We have done a lot already, as the Presiding Officer knows. We passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. Now, I could stand here--and most of the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill which are going to help with the cost of living are just now taking effect. People are already seeing tax refunds bigger than they have ever seen, and that is going to help. It is a breathtaking piece of legislation. I don't think I have ever--I know I have never voted for a bill that was more impactful and that covered more subjects.
I have talked before about no tax on tips and the fact that we prevented a $4.3 trillion tax increase. I am not going to go into that, but I do want to highlight one of the things we did--one among, frankly, thousands in the One Big Beautiful Bill--to try to help people in the middle class who are scared and who are angry.
I will give you an example--and the Presiding Officer knows this. We have a program called the child and dependent care tax credit. Now, we have made it as complicated as hell, as the Federal Government is wont to do, but this is what the child and dependent care tax credit basically does: Basically, if you are a mom and dad and you are working and you have to pay for childcare--which is outrageously expensive; I am not blaming the childcare providers, but it is just really expensive--under the child and dependent care tax credit, we will pay a portion of your childcare expenses.
This program has been around since 2001. In the One Big Beautiful Bill, we amped it up. We don't talk about it much, but we did. For about 4 million working families, they are going to get more money to pay for childcare. For many families, that is going to mean an extra $900 a family to pay for their childcare. I am very proud of that. We heard the American people, and we did something about it.
We also have another program--way too complicated--called the employer-provided childcare credit, 45F. Let me tell you what it does in simple terms. It basically says, if you are a businesswoman or a businessman and you want to help your employees and you want to attract new employees because you need them, we will give that company a tax credit to pay for a portion of the childcare expenses of those employees. So that is the second way that we have, at the Federal level, to try to help people pay for their childcare. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, we expanded that dramatically. That program has also been around since 2001.
To make a long story short, which sometimes is difficult for me to do, basically, in the One Big Beautiful Bill, we have given employers all across America more money so they can, in turn, help their employees by giving them more money to pay for childcare. We don't talk about it enough, but parents with kids will start feeling that immediately.
We also have a third program at the Federal level that we beefed up in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It is called the child tax credit. It is really the simplest of the three. Basically, if you have a child in America, we will give you a certain amount of money to defray the cost of raising that child.
Now, look, children are worth it, OK? I don't need to talk in just purely financial terms. I love my son more than life itself. I remember, when I was young, my dad used to tell me: Son, you will never know love until you have a child.
He would tell me--he said: Son, it is not like the love for a spouse or the love for a dad or a mom or a sibling.
I just can't describe it, Dad would say.
And I would say: Ah, Dad. OK, you know.
Well, he was right, and you can't know that until you have a child. So I don't mean to talk about children just in financial terms, but it is expensive to raise children. We increased in the One Big Beautiful Bill--right now, we give parents $2,000 per child to defray the expenses. We raised that to $2,200 a child. But more importantly, had we not acted--we not only acted, but we increased the child tax credits. But had we not acted, it was going to go back to $1,000 a child. So I think it would be fair to say that we increased the child tax credits from $1,000 to $2,200.
I don't want to get too partisan, but I was very disappointed that my Democratic colleagues--not a single solitary one voted for this.
We also increased the adoption tax credit. We basically decided to give more money to people who want to adopt children.
I could go on, but I won't. I could talk about the Dependent Care Assistance Plan. I could talk about the paid
This is just one small part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Let me tell you what else we are doing. We are doing a lot of stuff, but I will just mention one in particular: housing.
You know, it wasn't that many years ago--I think maybe 10 years ago, 15 years ago--that the average age of a first-time homeowner in America was 29. You know, most people who wanted to buy a home bought their first home when they were 29. Today, it is 39--damn near middle-aged-- because the cost of housing has gone up.
Now, that is great if you already have a home and you bought it early enough. God bless you. I am happy for you. You know, you built up equity, and your home is worth more. But it is terrible for our young people who want to buy a home and they just can't. It is not just the downpayment. It is not just the mortgage rates. It is the price of the home.
Now, the Federal Government, the U.S. Congress, is not in charge of housing. That is not part of our job description. That is an issue for local government--State government, yes, but especially local government. Why? Because the supply of housing is determined in large part by municipalities, by cities and counties.
If you increase the supply of housing, the cost is going to go down.
One of the reasons homes have become so expensive is because we don't have enough houses for people to buy. The other reason is that people who have bought and locked in cheap interest rates don't want to sell. But I digress.
The main reason is that we don't have enough housing. If we had more housing, the price would go down, and you wouldn't have to wait until you are 39 years old, for God's sake, to be able to buy a home.
But we at the Federal level can't tell our colleagues in local government--or we shouldn't try to tell them--how to increase the supply of houses. That is their job.
One way to increase the supply of housing is to change your zoning laws. A lot of our local governments--a lot of them--make it terribly, terribly, terribly difficult to build. They do. It is not just the fees and the permits and the regulations; it is the zoning laws.
You know, we all need zoning laws. I am not saying we don't. But there is no appetite by many folks on the city council and many mayors to increase housing starts by relaxing the zoning laws.
I don't want to be the one to tell them how to do their business. That is their business. I don't want to have the Federal Government get in the middle of zoning laws. That is up to local government because they are closest to the people.
But we have a bill--it has passed the Senate twice. It is in front of the House of Representatives right now. There are one or two Members of Congress over there that are holding it up, and I hope they will let it go. But we passed it twice. In fact, this bill is called the Build Now Act. It is a bill sponsored by myself and Senator Warren from Massachusetts. I have had it put on the crypto bill that we are going to mark up tomorrow. We have passed it twice, and it is in front of the House now, but in case something goes wrong over there, I am going to send it to them again through the crypto bill.
What does it do? It doesn't tell local government how to do their job; it just tells them: We will give you extra money if you will do your job.
Every year, the Federal Government sends about--I don't know--$3 billion in cash to our local governments. We call it community development block grant money. But it is free money. We give it to the cities. We give to the counties. There are very few strings attached.
The local governments love it. They love community development block grant money like the Devil loves sin. I mean, it is just free money. They can pretty much spend it on what they want. And we give it to them every year, $3 billion, just like clockwork.
What Senator Warren's and my bill would do is, it says to our friends in local government: We are not telling you how to do it, but if you will increase housing starts, if you will allow the private sector to build more houses--how you do it is up to you. You change zoning laws, whatever you do. We are not going to tell you how to do your business. But if you will encourage more housing built by the private sector and increase housing starts, we will give you extra money from that pool of $3 billion from community development block grants.
That is the good news.
The bad news for local government is--because you are saying: Well, heck, we are already giving them $3 billion, Kennedy. Did you just parachute in from Pluto? We have a huge deficit. You want to add more?
No. Senator Warren's bill and my bill wouldn't cost anything because, yes, we will reward with extra money those counties and cities that increase housing starts. Where are we going to get the money? We are going to take it from the cities and counties that don't increase housing starts. So the net effect is going to be a wash.
Now, we are not telling local government how to do their job. They don't have to do a dadgum thing if they don't want to. But if local government will work with us to increase housing starts, it will be good for them and good for us. If they don't want to work with us, they don't have to, but those that do work with us will get extra money, and those that don't will get less.
I know this will work. I have seen it with my very own eyes. You have, too, Mr. President. Just look at Austin, TX. About a year or so ago in Austin, it was the hottest housing market in the country. Prices were going through the roof. Why? Because Austin had all these people that were moving in, wanted to live in Austin.
You know, I always have loved their expression and their slogan in Austin. It is ``Keep Austin Weird.'' Austin is a great place. The University of Texas is there. It is just a great place.
Now it is a hub for technology, and people were moving into Austin from all over the country. The supply of houses was remaining the same, and the cost of housing was going through the roof. Nobody could afford a house, and nobody could afford an apartment.
Well, Austin said: You know, this is very uncool.
They changed their zoning laws.
They said: We are going to relax our regulations to try to increase more houses and more apartments.
Do you know what? They did. They did. And the price of homes, but just as important, the price of rent has gone down dramatically.
You increase supply, and price will go down every single time.
You know that. I know you know that, Mr. President. You have been very successful in business.
Most people who weren't playing frisbee in the quad near Econ 101 know it too. So that is what our bill would do.
So I just wanted to come to the floor and say to the American people: Look, I get it. We get it. You know, I wish there was a magic wand and we could just fix it, but we are trying. And it starts with the One Big Beautiful Bill.
We need to do more. We have passed the housing bill that will help if we could get our friends over in the House of Representatives to just take it up and pass it. There is talk of a third reconciliation bill, and I am all for it.
There are things we could do in a reconciliation bill if we could get it past the Parliamentarian. One idea I have: insurance. It is killing people. It is just killing folks. And it is not just homeowners insurance, it is flood insurance, it is car insurance, it is all kinds of insurance.
What I am about to say is going to give all of our insurance commissioners--they are all going to have a grand mal seizure when I say this, but what I think we ought to do--right now, if I want to buy insurance, I have to buy it in my State. I can't say: Man, the quote I got on my homeowners is too high. I want to see what kind of deal I can get in West Virginia or Alabama.
You can't do that. You can't buy insurance across State lines. Craziest thing I have ever seen. Craziest thing I have ever seen.
I want to introduce a bill--I may try to put it in our reconciliation package--that says: Henceforth, you can buy insurance across State lines.
I am sorry that the insurance commissioners are upset, but, you know, enough is enough.
We have--and you know this, Mr. President. You have dozens of ideas. I have them. We all have them. We are working on them.
I just wanted to come to the floor tonight and point that out to the American people, that we get it. We get it. And I am sorry for that worry and that fear among a lot of middle-class Americans. I am sorry for that anger. But we are working on it, and we are trying, and we are taking some steps to try to make your lives better.
That is it. My work here is done for the evening. I don't know what I am supposed to say next, except--what? Let's go home? Is that what you are saying?
Well, we are done. I am done. I can show myself out.
Whatever the magic words the Parliamentarian is telling me to say, I want to say it, and we will be recessed until we are supposed to come back. How is that?
