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.
03Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Education Relating to "William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan...
Thirty-nine bills and seven resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 2, 4578-4615, S.J. Res. 193, and S. Res. 741-746.
Pages S2415-16
Measures Reported
S. 2, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33. S. 1890, to establish a grant program for certain State and local forensic activities, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4615, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System.
Page S2415
Measures Passed
General George C. Marshall House: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was discharged from further consideration of S. 603, to designate the General George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and the bill was then passed. Barbara L.
Page S2387
Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was discharged from further consideration of S. 790, to redesignate the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, as the ``Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center'', and the bill was then passed. Gerald E.
Page S2387
Connolly Esophageal Cancer Awareness Center
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3490, to require the Government Accountability Office to produce a report on esophageal cancer, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S2397-98
Trey's Law
Senate passed S. 3966, to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual clauses that restrict disclosure of sexual abuse of minors.
Pages S2398-S2407
Stop Stealing our Chips Act
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was discharged from further consideration of S. 1473, to amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to establish a whistleblower incentive program and provide protections to whistleblowers, and the bill was then passed, after agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S2424-26
Barrasso (for Rounds) Amendment No. 5445, in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S2424-26
Safe Cloud Storage Act
Senate passed S. 3023, to limit liability for certain entities storing child sexual abuse material for law enforcement agencies, after withdrawing the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S2426-28
Barrasso (for Blackburn) Amendment No. 5444, in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S2427-28
Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program Reauthorization
Committee on Finance was discharged from further consideration of S. 4460, to provide for an extension of the rural community hospital demonstration program, and the bill was then passed.
Page S2428
Authorize production of records
Senate agreed to S. Res. 745, to authorize production of records to the United States Attorney.
Page S2428
National Brain Tumor Awareness Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 746, designating May 2026 as ``National Brain Tumor Awareness Month''.
Page S2428
Measures Considered
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: By voice vote, Senate rejected Kaine motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 182, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program''.
Page S2407
Appointments
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: The Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, upon the recommendation of the Majority Leader, pursuant to Public Law 105-292, as amended by Public Law 106-55, Public Law 107-228, and Public Law 112-75, appointed the following individual to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: CeCe Heil of Tennessee.
Page S2424
Nomination Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nomination: By 52 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 130), Evan Rikhye, of the Virgin Islands, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years.
Pages S2386-87, S2430
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: Charles Baldis, of Virginia, to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel, for the term of five years. Jules Hurst III, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). Routine lists in the Army and Navy.
Page S2428-30
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S2417-21
Record Votes
One record vote was taken today. (Total--130)
Pages S2386-87
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 5:59 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 21, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S2428.)
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: 44 of 132 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I discussed some of our accomplishments here in the Senate, and one of those accomplishments is restoring regular order consideration of appropriation bills.
Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2025, we were forced do a full-year CR after the failures of the previous Democrat majority and the Biden administration to enact full-year bills in a timely manner.
But at the start of this year, we were on the verge of concluding an open, Member-driven, and bipartisan appropriations process and passing the full compliment of 12 full-year appropriations bills. It is what I said I wanted to do when Republicans took the majority last year, and we were about to get it done--that is, until Democrats reneged on our bipartisan DHS funding bill. A bill, I might add, that included bipartisan reforms and money for additional body cameras for immigration enforcement. When they backed out of this deal, Democrats said they just needed two more weeks to negotiate additional reforms on immigration enforcement. Republicans were willing to do that, and we began negotiations.
But then that 2-week deadline came and went without much progress. And pretty soon it drug on into 40, 41, 42, 43--45 days. Instead of agreeing to fund the Department of Homeland Security while negotiations continued, Democrats shut the department down.
Meanwhile, the White House implemented reforms of its own. As negotiations continued, the White House repeatedly offered Democrats a robust package of legislative reforms. But as the weeks dragged on, it became clear the Democrats weren't interested in reforms at all. And, eventually, they just walked away.
Now why would they do that? If reforming immigration enforcement is as important as Democrats were claiming, why would Democrats choose to walk away from reforms? I suspect it is either that the reforms that the Trump administration implemented were adequate to solve the problem at hand or--and I think this is the real reason--Democrats weren't interested in reforms at all. They wanted a political issue, something that would please the far left.
And apparently they decided that defunding law enforcement would be a winner for them because that is what we are talking about here. Democrats voted to defund border security. They voted to defund immigration enforcement--not reform, defund, and defund completely. It is really quite shameful.
A few weeks ago on the floor, the Democrat leader said that ICE and Border Patrol are two agencies that ``nobody respects in this country.'' Nobody
Apparently, the fact that there are men and women risking their lives against drug cartels and gang members doesn't merit respect from Democrats. Not only that, but Democrats apparently don't think we should have these Agencies that go after criminals, stop illegal drugs from entering our country, fight human trafficking, and enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
And that last one is, I think, the real issue here. Do Democrats believe we should enforce our immigration laws? It really seems like they don't.
For years now, Democrat-led cities and States have implemented sanctuary policies to prevent their law enforcement agencies from cooperating with immigration authorities. Those policies have had deadly consequences. The murder of Laken Riley is just one example. Yet Democrats still defend these misguided policies.
Then, under President Biden, Democrats' embrace of open border policies reached its zenith. The Biden administration clearly did not believe in enforcing our immigration laws, and the result was year upon year of recordbreaking illegal immigration. As even the New York Times has reported:
Still Democrats embrace open borders. And make no mistake, that is exactly what Democrats are embracing when they opt for giving no funding--zero funding--to Border Patrol and ICE. What they are suggesting is that we have no physical presence at our borders. They are suggesting that we don't have law enforcement officers taking criminal illegal immigrants off of our streets.
And I really have to wonder who they are doing this for because letting illegal immigrants enter our country unchecked and allowing criminal illegal immigrants to roam free is certainly not putting the American people first.
Democrats have made their choice. They would rather have applause from the far-left ``defund the police'' crowd than keep the American people safe. They would rather have a political issue this November than do their jobs.
As I say, they have made their choice. Fortunately, Republicans can fund these critical Agencies without Democrats' assistance. And we will be moving forward with the final steps of that process shortly.
As I said at the top of my remarks, I wanted to restore regular order, bipartisan consideration of funding bills, and we were doing that. And despite Democrats' partisan games, we are still going to get the entire Federal Government funded. We are going to ensure our immigration laws are enforced and criminal illegal aliens are not allowed to live freely in our country.
And if Democrats want to play partisan games and vote against border security, well, they are free to do that. But Republicans are going to do our jobs and ensure that law enforcement can do theirs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, it has been a hell of a bad week for Donald Trump and his Republicans, maybe the worst week they have ever had. Bogged down by Donald Trump's stunningly corrupt MAGA slush fund, Trump's billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded ballroom, and the recordbreaking gas costs as we approach the Memorial Day weekend, Republicans are having a terrible, terrible week--one that may even rival the week they had when they passed their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which America hated. And it is only Wednesday. It is only Wednesday. But however bad this week is for Republicans--and, believe me, it is bad--it has been even worse for the American people.
First, on Trump's nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund--incredible depravity, disgusting selfishness--yesterday, Trump's Department of Justice expanded the settlement he made with himself, granting him and his family immunity from tax audits.
Did you hear that, America? Trump just gave his family a license to commit tax fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more. He is using nearly $2 billion, America, of your taxpayer dollars that he has placed in a slush fund to enrich his MAGA loyalists. Trump doesn't have to pay his taxes, and meanwhile, he is using your tax dollars, America, to line the pockets of his family and his far-right cronies.
The naked corruption, something as low and depraved as we have ever seen, is absolutely egregious. Only in Trump's Washington could a President sue himself, settle with himself, and somehow stick the American people with the bill. Who would have thought that even a man as depraved and low as Donald Trump, as dishonest and as selfish, would do something like this? Trump's slush fund is a heist where the robber owns the bank, runs the police department, and gets to pardon himself on the way out.
Just as egregious as how Trump stole this money is who he plans to give it to: his billionaire cronies, convicted criminals, and the cop beaters who maimed our brave U.S. Capitol Police on January 6. Meanwhile, Trump is making a deal with himself, shaking hands with himself on a corrupt deal as he shakes down the American people.
Republican Senators should make no mistake--Democrats are going to force Republican Senators to vote on this slush fund on the floor in the upcoming reconciliation bill in the next day or two. Republicans will not be able to duck or hide.
Republicans, are you for the slush fund--this evil, corrupt slush fund--or are you against it? Are you going to bow down to Donald Trump when you know how egregious, how despicable, how nasty, how disgusting this slush fund is? Will you bow down to Trump? Will you vote for the slush fund or against it?
Democrats are going to force Republicans to take a stand in the next day.
Now, a second chapter--the next chapter that is part of Trump's terrible, terrible week is the ballroom. Yesterday, Donald Trump defended his billion-dollar, gold-plated, taxpayer-funded ballroom, calling it ``a gift to the United States of America.'' A gift? Let's call Trump's ballroom what it is: a boondoggle, a vanity project, an insult to every American--especially those struggling to make ends meet right now. This ballroom is no gift to the American people; it is a congressional Republican personal gift to Donald J. Trump--right. It is the Republican Senators here in this Chamber giving Donald Trump the personal gift of a billion-dollar ballroom.
Trump said yesterday--again, he just lies--Trump said yesterday that the ballroom is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer. Then why have Americans watched Republicans work around the clock on proposal after proposal to grant $1 billion to build Trump's ballroom, all at the taxpayers' expense? When Trump says it ``is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer,'' it is flagrant, shameless lying. He is very good at that.
Fortunately, Democrats stopped Republicans' first attempt to fund the ballroom through reconciliation, but rest assured the Senate GOP is working to take money out of your paycheck to finance Trump's palace, America.
Republicans are in such disarray as they scramble over the ballroom, now they are slow-walking the whole process. We still don't have a reconciliation bill on our desks.
Regardless of whether the ballroom funding makes it into the reconciliation bill--and Democrats will keep fighting to ensure that it doesn't--Republicans have already showed America their true colors. While Democrats are fighting to lower Americans' costs,
Republicans can change the pricetag of the ballroom. They tried to rewrite the text. They even attempted to hide this boondoggle in the bill, but we caught them. Republicans will not be able to distance themselves from this corruption. Democrats will make sure of that. No matter what happens, we will make sure the American people know where Republicans stand. We will make sure Republicans have to go on the record and show what they are really fighting for when we vote this week: Trump's gilded palace--not working families, not lower costs, not for the American people.
The American people want lower costs. They are giving money to the ballroom. They are giving money to the slush fund. How out of touch are they? How harmful are they to the average working family's interests?
Then, the third part of Trump's terrible, terrible, terrible week is the continuing increase in gas prices. As Americans pack up the car and fire up the grill ahead of Memorial Day, they are getting crushed by the skyrocketing costs of Trump's disastrous war in Iran.
With gas selling for over $4.50 a gallon, up nearly 45 percent--45 percent--since this time last year, many Americans are canceling their Memorial Day plans because they simply can't afford to drive.
Americans can't afford a barbecue when the cost of the beef they put on the grill and the propane they use to fuel it are both going up too.
Republicans ought to take note that among the States that have seen the greatest increase in gas prices since the war are the battleground States of Ohio, Michigan, and Alaska. One report says those are the three highest. They are the battleground States.
What did Donald Trump have to say yesterday about these surging gas prices across the country? He said:
Can you believe this guy? Donald Trump thinks the hundreds of extra dollars Americans are shelling out at the gas station each month are peanuts, a pittance.
What does he know? Does he ever fill up his own tank with gas? No.
Trump should tell the American people that he thinks it is a pittance and tell that to America's small businesses, which suffered their biggest decline in 2 years, last month, because of the surge in costs.
Trump should tell that to American farmers, who are struggling to afford fuel for their tractors and agriculture equipment, after facing rising costs from tariffs and now increased costs of fertilizer.
The GOP continues to stand by Donald Trump's handling of this war, but the cracks are starting to form.
Yesterday, Democrats convinced enough Republicans to break ranks and advance our War Powers Resolution to end Trump's war. Our vote on our War Powers Resolution yesterday was an important step toward ending Trump's war, but we won't stop pushing and pushing and pushing until Republicans finally join us in ending this reckless war. Democrats are going to keep the pressure up.
In conclusion, this has been a terrible week--a terrible, terrible week--for Donald Trump and Republicans, and it will get only worse for our Senate Republicans during vote-arama because Democrats are going to force Senate Republicans to vote on amendment after amendment about Trump's ballroom, Trump's slush fund, and the rising costs of Trump's war. They are not going to be able to hide.
The American people are going to see the clear difference between the parties. We are for working people. We are for getting costs down, going after corruption, ending the chaos. And yet they, by backing Donald Trump, make all three worse.
I encourage the American people to watch this debate, though they already know what they will see: Republicans fighting for Trump, Democrats fighting to lower costs.
And, finally, to make matters even worse for this terrible, terrible week for Republicans, I will utter one final word: Texas.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I have a simple message for the dedicated men and women of ICE and Border Patrol: Help is on the way.
You spent the last 5 months guarding our borders and protecting our communities. You were defunded by the Democrats. You were demonized by members of the media. Your homes and your families were threatened by radicals.
Courageously, you carried out your mission. And you do it with patriotism, professionalism, and resolve. Your commitment makes America safer. Republicans are fighting to send you the support you need, as you continue to do your duty.
For the first time in 4 years, the United States now has a secure border. Under Joe Biden and the Democrats, 10 million illegal immigrants flooded into our country. Democrats' catch-and-release policies turned every State into a border State.
Today, under Republicans, catch-and-release has been replaced with detain-and-deport. Zero illegal immigrants have entered our Nation in the past year. Hundreds of illegal immigrant criminals are being removed each and every week.
In just 2 weeks last month, officers in Houston arrested 277 illegal immigrant criminals--criminals who had been convicted of a total of 751 offenses. This isn't an innocent group of people. It is convicted murders. It is child abusers. It is drug dealers. It is violent gang members.
This is just in one city--Houston, TX.
Let me state the obvious: Illegal immigrant criminals do not make our communities or our country safer. They make our communities more dangerous.
Republicans want the law to be upheld. We want to continue to remove illegal immigrant criminals from our communities.
And President Trump has made significant progress making communities safer. Republicans will protect this progress and keep it going into the future.
That is what this week is all about here in the U.S. Senate. Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to fully fund the men and women of immigration enforcement. It is called the Secure America Act.
The Secure America Act fully funds Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. It fully funds U.S. Border Patrol. It funds them for not 1 year, not 2 years, but 3 full years. It guarantees full funding for ICE and Border Patrol for the entire Presidency of President Trump.
This is an urgent priority.
Since January, Democrats have blocked critical funding for ICE. They have blocked critical funding for Border Patrol. Democrats continue to try to defund law enforcement in America at this very moment. Democrats don't respect law enforcement. They will not honor their sacrifice, and Democrats refuse to fund them.
Today's Democratic Party is more interested in protecting illegal immigrant criminals than it is in protecting law-abiding American citizens. Today's Democratic Party belongs to the radicals who want to abolish ICE and return to open borders. Democrats are willing to sacrifice the safety and security of the American people to illegal immigrant criminals.
That is why Republicans will fully fund law enforcement without a single Democrat vote. Republicans will pass the Secure America Act. This is a choice between safe communities and open borders. This is about protecting America's law-abiding citizens.
Mr. President, on a separate note, in January of 1997, a determined daughter of northern Maine cast her first vote in the U.S. Senate. It was a humble start, and it has grown into one of the most remarkable records in Senate history--an unbroken streak of conservative votes that continues to this very day.
For nearly 30 years, nothing--and I mean nothing--has stopped Senator Susan Collins from coming to this floor and casting her vote on behalf of the good people of Maine. Senator Collins now stands on the threshold of a significant milestone: 10,000 consecutive votes in the U.S. Senate. She hasn't missed a single vote in her entire Senate career--not one. This is a remarkable accomplishment.
Of course, if you ask Susan, she will tell you that it wasn't about chasing a record; it was about reflecting the values of Maine.
Susan votes with confidence, with courage, and with conviction. This is her commitment to her constituents. She works as hard for them as they do for their families. Her dedication is incredible.
As the Senate majority whip, it is my job to count the votes. No matter the topic, I can count on this: Susan will be here. She will vote with intelligence and integrity, and she will be doing it for the people of Maine.
Congratulations to Susan Collins on this historic achievement.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Pastor Rex Petty for devoting decades of his life to serving the people of Liberal, KS, as pastor of Faith Tabernacle Church and to congratulate him upon his retirement.
He started there as an associate pastor in 1984. Rex soon stepped into the role of interim pastor, and the congregation voted to keep Rex on to continue leading the church.
Recently, Rex celebrated an incredible milestone with his congregation: 40 years of ministry at Faith Tabernacle Church.
Delvin Kinser, the news director for Great Plains Christian Radio, said of Rex:
Rex's passion for service extends far into the Liberal community. He has been an involved member of the Liberal Ministerial Alliance, an organization that brings local churches together to care for the needs of the community. He is eager to minister to others, and he has often brought former NFL players to Liberal to share inspirational messages with students in southwest Kansas and the Oklahoma Panhandle.
Rex also served as the coordinator for the local Liberal High School Baccalaureate.
An avid sports fan, he can regularly be seen cheering in the stands at many local youth sporting events.
In a recent interview with the local paper, the Leader and Times, Rex said--this is Rex saying:
Rex is civic-minded. He takes pride in his community. He can often be found leading prayers before local government meetings. He was instrumental in creating the city's slogan: ``From Generosity to Prosperity.''
In this life of service of 40 years, he touched countless lives. Here are a couple of comments that others have made.
Rozelle Webb is the CEO of the Liberal Chamber of Commerce, and she says:
Kansas State Representative Shannon Francis says:
Rex is a high school graduate of Liberal High School.
I would like to recognize an additional person, a person besides Rex. It is the person who supported Rex, and like him, is a cherished member of the Liberal community, his wife Eydie. She is committed to serving and investing in the life of others, including serving as a teacher in the Liberal Public Schools.
This summer, Rex and Eydie will celebrate 42 years of marriage. Together, they are passionate about helping others, and they can always be found volunteering for Liberal's Pancake Day and all other good causes. They passed their desire to serve on to their family, and their son Reid works on my staff as a district representative serving the people of Kansas.
When I am in town, Rex will always meet me with a warm smile and a steady handshake. He has set a remarkable example of service and legacy that will not--will not--be forgotten.
Earl Watt, the publisher of the Leader & Times summed it up pretty well by saying:
I congratulate him. In fact, I congratulate them, Rex and Eydie, for their service to Kansans, and I wish them the best as they enter this new chapter.
I believe the world is changed one soul at a time. Reverend Petty committed his life to serving Jesus Christ. In that service he touched many lives loving his neighbor as himself. Rex Petty, a role model for us all.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody).
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills, en bloc: S. 603 and S. 790.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bills by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged of the bills, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bills, en bloc.
Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bills (S. 603 and S. 790) were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, were read the third time, and passed en bloc as follows:
On page S2387, May 20, 2026, third column, the following appears: Ms. CUMMIS. Mr. President, today I
The online Record has been corrected to read: Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, today I
rise with great joy and pride to celebrate the passage of S. 790, a
bill to rename the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, WY, after former Representative Barbara Cubin, a true Wyoming
trailblazer and a longtime personal friend.Barbara Cubin was the first woman elected to Federal office from our State and one of the most consequential public servants Wyoming has ever known. She gave more than a decade of her life in service to Wyoming here in Washington, and her record speaks for itself. She was a founding member of the Congressional Western Caucus and fought tirelessly to protect our lands, Western heritage, and way of life. Nearly 30 years ago, she secured the very legislation that created the center we are now proud to name in her honor.
Barbara wasn't just making history; she was preserving it for future generations.
For those who haven't yet visited, the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper brings to life the stories of the 500,000 pioneers who traveled the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, and California Trails between 1840 and 1890 in search of land, religious freedom, gold, and a better life. The interactive exhibits, productions, and galleries take visitors through the triumphs and hardships of westward expansion.
Barbara Cubin blazed trails her entire career, not just for Wyoming, but for women across this country who saw in her what was possible, myself included. She proved that a woman from Wyoming could stand in these halls and fight for her constituents with the best of them. She opened doors that had been closed for generations.
I am grateful to my colleagues Senator Barrasso and Representative Hageman for joining me in this effort and to this body for moving this bill forward.
As we celebrate this passage during Alzheimer's Awareness Month, I want to acknowledge the special urgency and meaning behind this honor. Barbara Cubin is today battling advanced Alzheimer's, and it is our deepest hope that she can see the significance of this recognition, that her country, and especially her beloved Wyoming, remembers her and cherishes her legacy.
I can think of no one more worthy of having their name immortalized at these trails than Barbara Cubin. She deserves this honor, her family deserves this moment, and Wyoming is proud to celebrate her. I hope everyone will add the Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper to their list of travel destinations.
Mr. President, there are many days that I come to this floor to talk about a lot of different policy issues and things we need to get done--and there are a lot of things needing to get done. Our list is long here in the Senate.
I did just want to take a moment of personal privilege to not talk about policy for just a moment but to talk about some people.
I have got two staff members that are leaving my team that my State and the Nation may or may not know their name, but they have been exceptionally impactful in what they have done.
Jesse Mahan has been on my team, as he reminds me, so long that when he first came on the team, he was issued a BlackBerry when he first came on the team.
He came on writing letters and doing background work. He led Indian Affairs. He is a Tribal member. He was a terrific hand in a lot of different areas, and he ended up leading a lot of my budget work and then eventually tax work.
He has led through a lot of really complicated issues over the years, and every single time--whether it is Tribal law or whether it is tax law, which both of them are very complicated--he thrived. He did his homework, and he helped this Nation.
There were significant areas of the Working Families Tax Cut last year that we got over the finish line because of his work with some of the staff behind the scenes to be able to explain some of the complexity and to be able to convince some people this is actually good for the economy. He did a terrific job through that process.
Unfortunately, we are losing him in the next week, and he will be dearly missed on our team.
Mr. President, this has nothing to do with why I am speaking, but I was sitting there thinking, listening to Senator Lankford talk about Miss Mona.
Miss Mona, we are going to miss you.
And I was thinking--you know, I know it is a sin to covet, but I wish God had given me a voice like Senator Lankford's. You know, he gave me a voice that scares small children and sets off car alarms. I would love to have a voice like Senator Lankford's. I would also like to have his big brain too.
Mr. President, a billion dollars goes a very long way, especially in a State like Hawaii. With a billion dollars, we could cover out-of-pocket costs for insulin for every person in the State who relies on it for almost 20 years. We could help to provide healthy meals to women, infants, and children in need for almost 40 years. We could cover the cost of childcare for nearly every child under 3 in Hawaii for an entire year, or we could cover tuition for every instate undergraduate student at the University of Hawaii for close to a decade.
But instead of doing any of that, this week, Republicans plan to give Donald
We are the greatest Nation on Earth, and our physical infrastructure should reflect that. So if you want to clean up the parks or turn on the fountains or restore the monuments, count me in. But that is not what this is. This is not a normal beautification project in the District. This is a President who is about to turn 80 and nearing the end of his political career, and all he can think about is building monuments to himself.
Other leaders in this position might be thinking about their legacy in policy terms, but not this President. He is single-mindedly focused on building ballrooms and arches and golf courses, while the rest of the country struggles to put food on the table or to even see a doctor.
The ballroom started out in Trump's own words as ``taxpayer free.'' I will fund it, he said, I am not going to ask the government for money. A year later, he has realized that he needs government money, taxpayer money. And because the administration lost a court case on the basis that this project was never authorized by Congress, they are now looking for any statute that they can use to defend themselves in the future.
This is a priority for one person and one person only, and I know my colleagues are in a very tough spot because it is their President. They agree with him about a bunch of stuff, and it is really important to him. But I can tell you, I have not met a Republican Senator who likes this idea. I have met lots of them who are going to vote for it anyway.
Why are we spending a billion dollars on a ballroom when gas is at $4.53 nationally and $5.64 in Hawaii? What possible justification is there for, on the one hand, ending subsidies that help 22 million Americans to afford healthcare and then turning around and bankrolling a new building just so Donald Trump can throw fancy parties for his rich friends?
And that sounds like something that I am making up, but that is literally what this is. It is a billion-dollar ballroom so he can throw fancy parties for his rich friends. People in Hawaii and all across the country are struggling just to get by. Grocery prices are rising at the fastest rate in years because Trump's war in Iran is driving up shipping and fertilizer costs.
Electricity bills continue to outpace inflation with no end in sight, leaving 1 in 3 Americans struggling to pay their utility bills. More than 900 hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities are at risk or have already reduced services or shut down altogether because Republicans gutted healthcare last year; and because of those very same cuts, 1 in 5 Americans who used to get their healthcare through the ACA Marketplace no longer have coverage.
Millions of others are paying thousands more for the same plan. We could be working to solve any of those issues, but we are not.
Now, here is the thing, the way this weird place works is that in order to enact most statutes, you need a combination of Democrats and Republicans. You need 60 votes. However, there is this weird thing called reconciliation where basically twice a year, if it is budgetary, if it adds to the deficit or it reduces the deficit, so spending counts, you get to do something without the other party.
The majority party basically gets to ignore the minority and pass what it wants. And so when we were in power, we used this unique tool to reduce the cost of prescription medicine. We enacted a corporate minimum tax. We took climate action. We gave people cash benefits so they could survive during COVID.
Look, you can argue about what we did or how we did it. That is fine. That is fair. But it certainly reflected the priorities of the day. But given the chance to do the same, you get these two kind of golden tickets where you get to ignore us, you would think that when you are passing major legislation, one of your two big opportunities, that it would address the cost of healthcare or the cost of fuel or the cost of food or the cost of prescription medicine or the cost of gasoline. But they are using this golden ticket, this twice-a-year opportunity to increase funding for ICE at nearly four times their normal levels and give the President a ballroom.
People are struggling everywhere in red States and blue States, but there is not a dime for you in the bill they are about to pass tomorrow, and it is not by accident.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, earlier this month, when I was back home in Alaska, I had an opportunity to have a two-part field hearing in my role as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. What the committee was seeking to do was to examine the impacts of ex- typhoon Halong. This was a major, major storm that devastated much of western Alaska back in October of 2025. The committee looked to explore the various Federal responses, the mitigation efforts, but also recovery programs that are available for Tribal communities.
As I begin my comments today, I want to acknowledge the ever-present reality of the environmental threats to our coastal western Alaska villages. This has been a problem, a challenge for us for some period of time.
It was 22 years ago that I sat at a different field hearing in Anchorage. It was convened by Senator Ted Stevens at the time. He was, I believe, chairing the Commerce Committee. We heard testimony about the erosion and the flooding that was affecting coastal Alaska Native villages. Even then--22, 23 years ago--Senator Stevens and I heard about the challenges that were faced by these typically very small, very rural communities in our State. Even back then, many of these communities were considering relocation. It was from that initial field hearing that it was identified, the many threatened communities-- threatened by erosion, threatened by permafrost thaw.
So I think it is important to try to understand why we have so many Alaska villages that face this threat. In part, they are in Alaska. We are an Arctic State. We are a State that is seeing the impact of warming more dramatically than any other place in the country. We are also a big, big State. But it also goes back to the way that many Tribal communities were established across the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. We refer to this as the Y-K Delta.
The Native people of that region are largely Yup'ik and Cup'ik people. They were historically nomadic people, and they moved with the seasons. They basically followed the subsistence resource, whether it was the game, whether it was the fish. But when the fall came, which is the time when we see stronger storms, storm surges, they would often move onto higher ground to avoid the worst of the storms' effects.
But history moves forward, and following the purchase of Alaska from Russia and in line with the assimilationist policies of the time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs began to build schools, and this caused families to settle then around the schools. But the settlement locations were not chosen following good feasibility studies or a good, robust cost-benefit analysis. They didn't navigate environmental reviews or work through a lengthy permitting process, nor were they developed in conversation, in consultation with surrounding Native communities whose traditional knowledge about the land may have helped them avoid some ecological hazards.
Then, with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA; the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA; and so many of the other laws regarding land ownership and the environment, what we saw were the Yup'ik and the Cup'ik people were largely unable to relocate as they historically might have. As such, over time, many of these small Alaska Native villages have experienced more and greater natural disasters, and some of them have been extremely devastating.
This is where I would like to speak about ex-typhoon Halong. It is now 7 months after this typhoon hit western Alaska, but that 7 months has not
So you think you are safe when you are inland but not so much when we have these extraordinary, extraordinary storm surges.
There are two villages that were devastated--the Native villages of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok. The damage there to homes and community facilities was so great that the residents had to be evacuated. They were taken either to Bethel or to Anchorage. When I say ``evacuated,'' they were evacuated by the hundreds in the belly of a C-130 that came in and landed in a mass evacuation of these small villages. There are pictures of hundreds--of hundreds--of Native families who are sitting on the floor of a C-130 and flying to safety because their villages had literally been swept away.
I think it is important to keep in mind that Bethel, you know, is 150 miles from Kipnuk; Anchorage, 500 miles. So they are being evacuated from their villages to, in Bethel's case, a hub village, but it is still far away.
When I say these villages were damaged, it was 90 percent of Kipnuk's community infrastructure that was destroyed or rendered entirely unusable.
I was able to go into Kipnuk with several of the military leadership within less than a week after the storm hit. It was eerily quiet. Really, the only sounds that one heard was an occasional dog that was barking, because the people, when they were evacuated, were not allowed to take their animals. It was devastation like something I had not ever seen.
Kipnuk is a boardwalk community, which means it is built on tundra- type land where the land is very wet, very marshy, very spongy, so there are no roads. You drive a four-wheeler along a boardwalk, and you walk around the boardwalk.
The boardwalks had been lifted up and just tangled and tossed, driven into the sides of homes. Homes had been lifted up off of their foundations and had floated--not just floated a couple of feet but floated miles away. Think about what this does when it rips up boardwalks and when it lifts homes off of their very foundations. The communities' water source--gone. The boardwalks, which are their main roads--torn up, impassable. Again, homes were lifted up, ripped off their pilings, and drifted miles away.
This all happened so quickly in the dark of night in October that most people were still in their homes. They hadn't been able to get the word to go to the school, where it may have been safer. These people were in their homes.
Sewage lagoons were breached and failed. They spilled massive amounts of human waste across the local environment, including across many of the key subsistence areas. Then, in the cemeteries, where the remains of their families are interred, the caskets began floating free in the waters.
It is hard to describe the devastation. It is hard to describe even though, as we flew into Kipnuk, you could see across the wide, vacant tundra a random house catawampus over there. I could see small, white oblongs in the tundra that I couldn't recognize. It was only after I landed that I learned that those were caskets that had floated out and were now littered across the tundra.
So 7 months beyond that event, people are still talking about the devastation to their communities.
For those who were evacuated to Anchorage, adapting to life in our State's largest city has also posed its own challenges. As I have said, the people who were evacuated are now safe from the storm, but they are facing other threats that are equally challenging.
Right after the event, I was there--again, it was about a week afterward--and I went to visit the two congregate sheltering sites there in Anchorage to visit the evacuees. I went up to one little girl--she was probably about 6 years old or so--and she was coloring. I went over to say hello, and she was supersweet.
I said: What picture are you drawing?
She showed me, and it was her house.
She said: This is me and my family in my house.
Then she kind of hugged my leg, and she said: Are you afraid of the dark?
I said: No, I am not afraid of the dark. Are you afraid of the dark?
She said: I didn't used to be, but now I am.
I think about that little girl--and that storm is long gone--and the trauma that she shared, because I later learned that hers was one of the families that were drifting for hours in the dark, where their house was spinning around in the current until it slammed into something that ultimately stopped it. So that trauma for that 6-year- old--I don't know how that goes away.
Anchorage is nearly 500 miles away and over 240 times bigger than Kipnuk and Kwigillingok. Kipnuk may be 800 people on a good day. That is probably being generous with the numbers. But Anchorage is an urban place. It is English-dominated. It is close to mountainous terrain. Everything is different from what these people know in their villages. It is impractical to live a subsistence lifestyle in Anchorage.
Just a very quick case in point: Spring is the time of year when Native people who live out in these tundra villages will go out and gather eggs--seagull eggs, goose eggs. It is part of the spring harvest that just brings great delight to them and to their families.
So when I was visiting with some at this hearing that we had a few weeks back, I said: What is the hardest thing about being here in Anchorage?
They said: We can't get subsistence food. Right now, we should be gathering eggs.
I turned to my team and said: There ought to be a way that even in a big city, you can have a subsistence harvest.
Long story short: I was able to deliver 280 seagull eggs that had been collected off the top of tall buildings--not in the way that it is harvested, but they were given then to the elders of these villages who had been evacuated, with the permission of our Federal resource Agencies. But it was just one small thing that makes me think: We can try to put you in a safe place, but when everything else around you is foreign, it still becomes hard.
The language barrier is a challenge. Accessing most social services in Anchorage requires at least a passing knowledge of English. For many of our conversations at our field hearing, we had interpreters who were translating to those who primarily speak Yuqtun. So there are challenges in terms of the gaps we have.
Students have been transferred to local schools in the Anchorage area and to the Bethel schools. They are doing the best they can to adapt to urban life. But culture shock is very real, and we are seeing how it has taken a toll. We have heard that maybe at least one that we have confirmed but possibly two young people have taken their own lives since relocating to Anchorage. Others, we have heard, have fallen victim to substance abuse. Others are becoming homeless and ending up on our streets.
I know there are strong social service organizations like the YKHC, the Southcentral Foundation, the RurAL CAP, the ANTHC, and the Anchorage School District. So, so many are doing their best to provide support to Halong survivors. But the truth is that the systems we have in place to support communities after disasters like ex-typhoon Halong were just simply not built to help relocate communities. They were not built to support evacuated people for long periods of time, nor were they provided with the flexibility to support people for whom English is a second language.
So there were lots of different things that we looked at and said ``These are system failures here, so what do we do?'' because these are Alaskans who need help. From the time of the storm on, it has been my goal to ensure they have the help they need. Our field hearing was yet one more way to ensure people that they are heard and that their issues receive the Federal attention they demand.
So the first part of our hearing was in Anchorage. We heard from elected Tribal leaders and representatives from the Native villages of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok. Sometimes we just call
Lucy Martin, who is Kwig's Tribal resilience and planning assistant, described what it meant and what it felt like to be floating along the river in her home after it was detached from its foundation. Again, you are floating in a current. It is dark. There is nothing to see outside except dark. But what she did see were floating caskets of dead relatives going by her window. She said it was like living through a horror movie.
In his recounting of the evening that the storm hit, Kipnuk chief Paul J. Paul just choked up. He had such a hard time describing being in the house with his family, in the dark, trying to be the strong adult, when his young granddaughter, his 6-year-old granddaughter, said: Grandpa--or Upa--can we sing ``Silent Night''?
She wanted to bring some quiet to the horror they were living in as their home floated away.
When I came before this Chamber last year after the storm--directly after it--I knew how resilient the people of Alaska were and how community members--the National Guard, the Coast Guard, everyone-- everyone worked tirelessly in preparation, rescue, and recovery efforts. I will tell you, no doubt about it, these communities are resilient, and we saw that on display in our field hearings as leaders recounted their personal traumatic experiences but at the same time advocated for their communities and urged what the path forward should look like for their communities and also for others that may be threatened.
But here we are, 7 months after the storm, and it is clear that evacuees are just kind of in this limbo place. They have clearly expressed their preference to relocate, but they continue to grapple with a Federal response system that can only facilitate their assimilation to a community that they are uncomfortable with, Anchorage or Bethel--it is just not home; it is different--but also a Federal Government that says: We will help you, but you have to return to the site of the tragedy.
So FEMA says: We are there for you, but you relocate where you are. You rebuild where you are. And in this case, it is a site that is now unstable, likely highly, highly contaminated. Lucy Martin, again, she described the ground there as ``like walking on a Jell-O pad.'' She also said it felt like walking on a waterbed. So how do you reestablish a home in an area like that? These should not be the evacuees' only options.
But we know, firsthand in Alaska, how challenging it can be to actually help communities relocate. It was actually the very first bill that I ever got signed into law here in my time in the U.S. Senate, and it was a land exchange that authorized or helped to facilitate the relocation of the Western Alaska community of Newtok. They wanted to relocate because, again, low-lying, marshy, very much on the coast, threatened by just the land around them. And so they had voted to relocate to a new site 9 miles upriver, a new site called Mertarvik. And we introduced the land conveyance bill, the land exchange bill. It was signed into law by President Bush back in 2003.
I wish that I could take credit for all the origins of this, but, quite honestly, they go back to the seventies and the eighties when Newtok community members first became alarmed by the nearby riverine erosion.
But it took until 2019 for the first Newtok residents to actually be able to relocate to Mertarvik. And, to this day, the residents, now relocated, they are dealing with substandard housing, housing that perhaps went up too quick. I am not going to assign blame for it, but the housing is still a challenge. Community facilities that are still-- still--not what we would like them to be. It has been painstakingly slow, and that is probably the best way to describe this process.
Relocation also requires local communities to work together and to engage with Federal, State, and regional partners for success. And my view on this whole issue of relocation, as hard as it is, is that we have got to figure out how we can be responsive to community needs, especially if these communities--like Kip and Kwig--have experienced a disaster so destructive that the environment around them has fundamentally changed to the point of being unlivable.
So if relocation is a community's top priority, how do we respect that? How do we ensure that there is a path available for it?
We also need to do a better job supporting all communities that are affected by natural disasters. So the second day of our hearing kind of underscored that. In Bethel, we heard more about ex-Typhoon Halong and about the effects of Typhoon Merbok. This was a 2022 storm that, again, had pretty much ripped through that entire region--through the Bering Strait, all the way down to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.
And in between 2022 and 2025, they had a massive flooding event just this last year. So, again, consecutive disasters that are coming through these regions.
And what we heard on the second day of that field hearing was a lack of rural emergency response infrastructure. There are barriers to accessing FEMA and State assistance, and the fact that there is no coordinating entity at the Federal level for disaster response and relocation efforts.
We have, in the State of Alaska, a regional commission, the Denali Commission. It is well-positioned in Alaska. But truth of the matter is it lacks the funding to address every need associated with relocation. And utilizing the Denali Commission alone would not solve similar issues that are faced by lower 48 communities.
After the field hearing on that same day--it was a long day, but it was an important day--we hosted a listening session for Tribal leaders and their designees. And what I heard was, even in the communities that were not hit by ex-Typhoon Halong or were just hit mildly, the effects of recent disasters and ongoing ecological changes are just dramatic in the region and are stretching into these out years, maybe decades into the future.
We heard, for example, the Native village of Chefornak's Tribal President, Janet Erik. She shared that the community is combating a combination of riverine erosion, permafrost degradation, and overcrowding.
And so Chefornak is not just sitting and waiting. They are pursuing a managed retreat strategy. They are building new homes on higher ground. They are putting them on pilings. They are putting them away from the adjacent river, while they are also working to remediate and remove buildings that are just literally close to falling into the waters there.
In contrast, Kipnuk and Kwigillingok residents did not evacuate from Chefornak in the wake of Halong. Only about 10 homes sustained damage, and the community actually took in several evacuated families.
So I think it shows that when you look at this through the lens of how can we be proactive to put ourselves in a safer situation like they were doing--in the process of doing in Chefornak--it can make a difference.
But even there, in Chefornak, the sewage lagoon, the landfill were washed out, contaminating land where community members pick their berries, gather their greens, and hunt, as well as the waterways where they fish.
And the land has changed. The waters have changed. An entirely new waterway has formed near the land along the road to the airstrip; and their boardwalks are sinking, again, due to the melting permafrost.
So these are realities on the ground for Alaskans living in coastal and riverside communities. It is not a question of if the next typhoon will hit but really a matter of when.
And, Mr. President, I know we all have disasters that impact our States and communities. You come from a State where you see tornados coming through that bring about massive destruction. And I think we have to appreciate what happens in our respective States and the challenges, then, that we all have in responding.
Alaska's challenges, perhaps, are a little bit accentuated because our geography is so--so--massive and our communities are so isolated. When I describe an evacuation, it is not just getting in your car and being able to move to safety. You have to wait for a C-130 to be able to land and do a mass
And we also know that what happens is these communities were in the news, certainly in Alaska when all this was going on--small community, big impact. But we have this tendency to just move from what we are seeing unfolding on our screens to the next disaster that has hit somewhere else. And the people who are living with that trauma and looking at the disaster still in their area, they can't look away. And I can't look away, you know, when arctic typhoons--arctic typhoon. Just think about ``arctic'' in the same space as ``typhoon.'' There were no typhoons when I was growing up in Alaska, regardless of where I was living.
But we are seeing these phenomenons impact us growing more frequent. Mr. President, 50-year floodplain estimates are now being reached in closer to 2 or 3 years, and so it is just hard to move away from the growing reality.
We have got an emergency response manager. He is an extraordinary professional, Bryan Fisher. He has been with the State of Alaska--30- year career in emergency services. And he testified to us in that hearing that out of 198 disasters that he had led the State response to, Typhoon Halong, he said, has been ``by far the most catastrophic.''
We know increased community threats from natural disasters, again, are not just a problem in Western Alaska or in Alaska in general. We have heard the stories from colleagues from North Carolina, from Tennessee, from Georgia who were here to talk about the devastation following Hurricane Helene and the challenges that those communities have faced with Federal disaster relief and recovery.
There were also stories of Tribal communities in Southwest Washington State and Louisiana that face worsening extreme weather events and sea level rise.
So after our field hearing, it is even more clear to me that the systems in place to protect our communities don't work as we need them to.
Going back to my example of Newtok moving to Mertarvik, people want to view that relocation and say ``success, we have relocated a village.'' And I suppose it is if you want to consider the simple idea that the community wanted to move, voted to move, and they have since moved.
But a closer look reveals many difficult, expensive lessons learned along the way. That relocation was a generation-plus in the making. Its great success is now arguably measured in the lives not lost during ex- Typhoon Halong. And I just think about that, and I think that we have got to have a higher bar than that. Success cannot be measured only in terms of life or death. It also must include the dignity afforded to communities that our constituents call home.
So where does this put us? What do we do going forward?
We all need to pay attention, show up for the people we serve and for each other. And in the coming months, my team and I will continue working with Alaska communities, the State, and other Federal Agencies to chart a path forward. And our goal is to establish a more nimble system for the communities facing environmental threats, one that works with them and for them.
So a couple suggestions here: First, I think you need a lead agency. Back in 2004, witnesses from the State of Alaska expressed that this is just too much for the State to take on alone. That was true back in 2004; that is still true. And with the communities threatened across the country, there is a Federal nexus. And we will do better if we can pool experience and lessons learned and work from a centralized vantage point.
Next, we need to take another look at the way that we have siloed community resilience away from disaster response. We need to ensure that all parties are communicating, they are pulling together on infrastructure hardening, predisaster planning and mitigation, disaster response, recovery, and relocation efforts.
And we also need to ensure that these systems are easier to navigate. I hear this all the time. These systems have to be easier to navigate for the communities that--they are strapped for resources. So narrow grants that have to be pieced together--oftentimes over the course of years--are not the most cost-effective way to address the problem, especially for Tribal communities that are already struggling with low capacity.
Right now, Tribal leaders like Janet and her fellow council members in Chefornak, they are being asked to choose between building new homes for families that have moved in with relatives since their old homes were literally leaning into the river or decommissioning and decontaminating old buildings that are also about to fall into the river.
I do want to acknowledge, and we are very grateful for the $16.7 million that the BIA just awarded to Chefornak through the Tribal Community Resilience Program, but this is just a start because those are impossible choices that are facing too many of our communities. It is not just Chefornak.
In the meantime, I promise not to look away and to keep bringing folks up to Alaska to see, to understand, to hear. As conversations continue about the best way to structure our disaster response system, I want to work with colleagues--both sides of the aisle, wherever you are--to address not only the unique needs in my home State, but of all our States and make sure that they are adequately addressed. Our disasters and the response to them may look different. I get that. But our people all deserve the same access to safety and disaster response. And I don't think--we just can't lose sight of that.
I also want to acknowledge Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Billy Kirkland. Assistant Secretary Kirkland and his staff showed up for the people of my State. He sat with me for hours as we heard from the people of Kipnuk and Kwigillingok when we had our field hearing in Anchorage, and then he travelled with me to Bethel as we heard from Tribal leaders across the YK Delta on these very important issues. As we listened, I was struck by some words from Charlotte Nayagak. She is from the Chevak Native Village, and she has worked on disaster recovery and prevention in the region for many years.
She went up to the mic, and she had like 2 minutes to speak, but she started off by saying:
So imagine spending decades watching, as Charlotte described, the erosion of your land getting worse and worse each year, happening faster and faster, and just feeling like nobody from outside your community, nobody from outside your State is listening.
We should all be listening. We should all be working together to provide a better future--even after the darkest disasters--for the people we serve no matter where they live. So I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to do just that.
Mr. President, we are looking at Memorial Day weekend and certainly on Monday taking that time to pause and reflect on the brave men and women from Tennessee and, indeed, across the entire country who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending our freedoms right here.
Tennessee is really so blessed to have a very strong military community. In our State, we have more than 400,000 veterans that call Tennessee home. They, indeed, enrich our communities with their records of service and sacrifice.
We also have several major military installations in our State. There is Fort Campbell, which primarily sits in the State of Tennessee. There is Arnold Engineering Development Center, an
To each and every one of these individuals that call Tennessee home, that raise their hand, take that oath, and serve, we say thank you.
It is an honor to represent so many servicemembers and veterans in our State. These veterans and servicemembers do represent the best of what this Nation has to offer. They are leaders, public servants, warriors who put their lives on the line every day. And the loss of any single one of them is deeply felt in their home communities and across our State.
Mr. President, I am here on the floor of the Senate today because I want to talk about what is happening this week with the reconciliation package that Republicans are attempting to move this week.
For many that might be watching--or maybe it is just my family who is watching. Who knows? But for many that are out there, let me just say that what is happening right now is that our Republican leaders in Congress in essence are trying to give billions of dollars more in funding to out-of-control Federal immigration enforcement Agencies that are brutalizing our communities.
I want to be clear about something. We all agree that we need strong border security and that criminals need to face justice. I am going to say that again. We need strong border security. Criminals must face justice.
President Trump said his administration would be going after the worst of the worst, but what really is happening is that masked and unidentifiable agents are roaming around, arresting and even killing American citizens, racially profiling people, including Latinos, and deporting Dreamers.
I am here to tell my colleagues that if you are not paying attention to the American public when you are listening to them--because if you are, you are hearing that they are saying: Enough. They want safe communities but not lawlessness and fearmongering.
That is why my Democratic colleagues and I have been clear since February: You will not get our votes on new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol unless it includes commonsense guardrails to rein in these Agencies' abuses. But over the last several months, unfortunately, President Trump and Republican leadership have showed us, time and time again, that they are simply not interested in doing the right thing here, even the popular thing.
Now, I want people to keep in mind that Republicans have already given these two Agencies $150 billion in their so-called Big Beautiful Bill. They did that with another reconciliation package. They have plenty of money. ICE and CPB have plenty of money to operate for years to come--because their annual budget is only around $8 to $10 billion. They have $150 billion.
But now, what is happening this week is that, at the request of Donald Trump, Republicans now want to add another $70 billion to these Agencies, on top of the $150 billion they have. That multibillion- dollar check isn't for lowering the price of groceries for Americans. It is not lowering the cost of energy for Americans or healthcare or even helping them put more gas in their tanks at a lower cost. That is not what this is. It is not bringing back the manufacturing jobs this administration has lost us. And it definitely is not making our communities any safer.
We know that because we are seeing what Federal immigration enforcement has been doing with the $150 billion they already got for their mass deportation efforts. Let me tell you, they are not spending it on going after the worst of the worst. They are not doing
In March of this year, I stood right here, and I told 10 stories of Dreamers who have been detained or deported by Federal immigration enforcement. Dreamers and DACA recipients--they are our neighbors, they are our friends, they are community leaders, they are teachers, they are doctors, they are small business owners in my State and other States, and they are not criminals. In fact, they have had to follow the law to the letter in order to maintain their DACA status. And yet I have heard story after story of DACA recipients being detained or deported by ICE and Border Patrol. And I want to tell you some of those stories about how Federal immigration enforcement under Donald Trump is choosing to spend the taxpayers' dollars.
I heard directly from Maria, who had active DACA status but was detained by Federal immigration enforcement anyway. She said it was one of the most traumatic experiences of her life, and I believe it. Now, because of this administration's delays in DACA renewals, Maria is afraid her renewal--her renewal--won't come in time for her to heal and rebuild her life.
I also heard from Stephanie, a U.S. citizen who spoke to me on behalf of her husband Juan, who is a DACA recipient. Juan did everything he was supposed to do. He got an education, started a family, and always followed the law. Just days after Stephanie gave birth to their youngest daughter, Juan was on his way to the NICU unit to deliver milk for his new baby and for his wife when he was approached by ICE agents. And even though he had active DACA status and work authorization, the ICE agents told him it didn't matter, and they arrested and detained him.
Juan applied for the DACA renewal 5 months before the deadline, and it still wasn't enough. His DACA status expired while he was sitting in detention.
Stephanie told me:
Thankfully, just a few days ago, after 3 months in detention, Juan was finally, finally released back to his family and his newborn daughter.
I also heard from Brenda, whose husband Jahasiel is another DACA recipient detained for no reason whatsoever. He had just dropped his kids off at school when ICE detained him, even though he had done nothing wrong. A judge finally ordered ICE to release him because there was no basis to hold him in the first place.
Maria, Juan, and Jahasiel are the kinds of people that President Trump and Republican leadership want to spend billions of dollars going after. These, to them, somehow, are the worst of the worst, when they have not committed a crime and they have followed the rules that we have set. They have followed the rules that Congress has passed, that the President signed, and they are following those rules.
How does that make sense?
Even the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, those who have sacrificed so much for our country, are having their lives torn apart by Federal immigration enforcement.
I recently saw the story of SFC Jose Serrano, whose wife Deisy was arrested by ICE during a routine immigration appointment. She showed up for her appointment like she was required to do. Deisy has lived in this country over 10 years, and she was granted legal protection in 2019. But on April 14, despite being the wife of a soldier, she was arrested during a routine appointment with immigration services. Over a month later, Deisy was finally released from custody, thanks in part to public pressure, as well as advocacy from my colleague Senator Duckworth.
I also saw the story of SSG Matthew Blank and his wife Annie Ramos. Annie is a Dreamer who has called the United States home since she was 2 years old. They were newlyweds checking in on base to get Annie her military ID and activate her military spouse benefits. Instead, Annie was detained and threatened with deportation. Again, after advocacy from my Senate colleagues, she has been released, but ICE is still trying to deport her.
Now, think about this. You know about this because these stories have been public, but there are many others. There are many others that are not public. There are many others who have done nothing wrong, who are sitting in detention right now, and the public has no idea. And it is time--it is time--that, as Americans, we understand this and we stand up to an administration that thinks it is OK to deport people who have done nothing but lived in this country, tried to abide by the laws, tried to pay taxes, tried to have a good job.
I do not think it is controversial to say this is not what immigration enforcement should be spending their time on and this is not what we should be funding. That is why my Democratic colleagues and I have been blocking funding for ICE. It is because of the abuses of power that we are seeing, and it has to stop.
We are asking for reforms that are easy to implement, and we have said: Listen, if you want more funding, if you think that you need more funding--which is just so abusive as it is--then you have to comply with commonsense requirements that local law enforcement in my State and across the country comply with, that our State law enforcement in my State and across the country comply with.
And this is what Democrats were asking of this administration and our Republican leadership--common sense: Reform ICE.
And here are some of the reforms: Immigration enforcement can't detain and deport U.S. citizens, especially not based on the way they look. Federal agents can't go into someone's home without a judicial warrant. Federal agents can't wear masks. And they must clearly show their badge numbers, and they must wear body cameras.
By the way, Nevada law enforcement have been wearing body cameras, I want to say, since 2016, 2017.
Federal agents must also undergo deescalation training, just like State and local law enforcement, who patrol our communities every single day, do.
Nevadans in my State are asking for this. Americans across the country, in all States, are asking for this. Local and State law enforcement already abide by these guidelines, and they are the ones who are keeping our neighborhoods safe every day. Federal law enforcement should be held to the same standards. It is not controversial.
This is an issue my Republican colleagues could have solved months ago. We shouldn't even be here today. It has been 4 months of Democrats asking for commonsense, popular reforms to rein in the President's clearly out-of-control Federal immigration enforcement.
And, all the while, Senate Republican leadership has done nothing to help families. This administration has done nothing to address Americans' prices that are skyrocketing. And it is time that we actually listen to the people and listen to Americans and solve their problems, not create the problems that we think need to be solved.
I would say to my colleagues and to this administration: The American people, they deserve better.
Mr. President, I am compelled to start my remarks today by highlighting absolutely horrible things that were posted by someone who wants to serve as a Member of Congress and who is allegedly a member of the Democratic Party. Running for a House seat in Texas, she said she wanted to turn an ``ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists.''
Yes, you heard that right.
And while this is clear and direct anti-Semitism that everyone, on both sides, has rightfully called out, it is not the first time that she has shown herself to be an anti-Semite. Earlier this month, it was reported that she posted a video where she talked about the ``Jews who own Hollywood'' as members of the ``synagogue of Satan.''
I called it out right away. But perhaps this was not as overt as calling for putting Jews in internment camps. It did not get the same overwhelming condemnation as her more recent comments.
Similarly, there was a Republican Member of Congress in Kentucky who lost his primary election just last night and made a joke in his concession speech that his opponent was ``in Tel-Aviv,'' simply because he is a strong supporter of Israel. It similarly
There lies the problem. It usually starts with a joke, a slur, a comparison. It starts with what might be called casual acts of anti- Semitism that can be just easy to brush off. If left unchecked, this rhetoric can manifest into overt acts, like the vandalism of Jewish institutions and houses of worship, threats and verbal abuse meant to intimidate Jewish communities, and so on and so on and so on.
If those acts are left unchecked, the next and final step is physical violence: beating up Jewish college students, arson and destruction of Jewish institutions, and, horrifically, the murder of Jewish individuals.
These are patterns that are starting to emerge once again. Over the last decade, anti-Semitism has been on the rise. Year after year, we are seeing record numbers of anti-Semitic incidences, especially after the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel.
According to an ADL report released a few weeks ago, 2025 was the third highest year for anti-Semitic incidents since the ADL began collecting data, and physical assaults against Jews were higher in 2025 than ever before.
Just think about that. Physical assaults against Jews were at the highest since ADL began tracking this data nearly 50 years ago.
We are fortunate we live in a country that values and protects our freedom to express our beliefs, with our words, through our acts of peaceful protest, and at the ballot box. But it does not protect or condone acts of violence or incitement of violence. Surely, we can all recognize that political and ideological disagreements and differences never--never ever--justify hatred or violence. And we all must agree that the intimidation, discrimination, violence, and even murder of Jews is just plain wrong and unacceptable.
As one of only a few Jewish women to ever serve in the U.S. Senate and as the first and only former synagogue president in the Senate, for me, this distinction is deeply personal. This work is not abstract. As a Jewish American, I, too, have faced instances of hate where I was targeted simply because I was Jewish.
When I was just a little girl--about 2 years old--my family took a trip to Florida. My mom had me in the hotel pool, and, out of nowhere, a lifeguard told my mom to get me out of the pool because I was ``dirty.''
My mom was confused. She was kind of taken aback. She looked at the lifeguard. She said: I just gave her a bath. She is clean.
She was clearly confused by what the lifeguard had told her.
Then the lifeguard told my mom what he really meant. I was dirty because I was Jewish. Get that dirty little Jewish girl out of the pool.
My mom didn't say another word. She scooped me up. She packed up her stuff. We left. I know she never brought me back to this pool. In fact, my parents switched to another hotel.
I know this story so well because my mother told it over and over and over again as a life-changing moment for her, as I heard my parents recall the pain throughout my entire life. It stayed with them, the hurt, the humiliation, the shame. As I got older, and now my parents are gone, that story stays with me too.
And if you think becoming a U.S. Senator puts a stop to those attacks, well, I am going tell you that you are sadly mistaken. A few years ago, a man called my office, said some very vile things. He threatened my life. And among other things, he promised to--and I guess I will quote here, sadly, ``finish what Hitler started.''
Thanks to the swift work of law enforcement--I am grateful for law enforcement--this man is now behind bars. But if he thought that he would intimidate me and force me to be quiet, the effect was quite the opposite because here I am. Here I am. And it fueled my passion to continue working across party lines in the U.S. Senate to raise awareness and fight back against anti-Jewish bigotry.
That is why I have been working for the better part of a year with my friend James Lankford on our bipartisan Jewish American Security Act, which we introduced yesterday, to take sweeping action to combat anti- Semitism at the Federal level.
This comprehensive bill will help keep Jewish students safe, help secure community institutions, and help fight anti-Semitism online.
It will protect Jewish students by establishing a new position, an anti-Semitism coordinator at the Department of Education to lead efforts to combat anti-Semitism. It will create a comprehensive title VI infrastructure on college campuses, and it will make sure that campus hate crime--that hate crime data actually shows all of us who is being attacked and who is being threatened.
This bill will protect Jewish communal institutions, houses of worship, community centers by making a historic investment of $1 billion toward the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and will keep our houses of worship safe.
This bill will also make a series of long overdue reforms to this program to make sure that it actually works for at-risk institutions. And this bill will combat rising anti-Semitism online by requiring transparency from social media companies, well, about how they really treat anti-Semitic content, including instances of such content, how much anti-Semitic content was promoted, recommended by their platform, and whether such content was leaked to an inauthentic account, and consider it an FTC violation if they fail to provide us with this information.
I know the road ahead for this legislation will be long, but I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will provide their support because at the end of the day, we can all agree that Jewish Americans deserve to be treated--and to be safe--treated with respect, meant to be safe, well, the same as every other American.
But at its core, this is more than just about policy. It is about people. It is about dignity. It is about ensuring that no child, no family, no little girl like I was at a public swimming pool had to experience what I did and my family did or even worse.
You know, I often think back to that little girl in the pool. She is still there. That little child is in all of us, and I think about the world that I want for her, a world where she is not told that she is less than for being Jewish, a world where she is not excluded from activities because of her faith, and a world where she is safe, respected, and proud of who she is.
I have a daughter. That is the world I am creating and hoping for her and for all the other children in this world as well. This bill will go a long way in helping to make a difference in making that world a reality.
Mr. President, I want to commend my friend the Senator from Nevada for her powerful comments and the fact that she knows that I and many other Senators will stand totally united with her in fighting back against any rise in anti-Semitism--further rise, because we have seen amazingly outrageous things happen. Thank you for your story.
Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to complete a unanimous consent request.
Tomorrow, it will be 1 year since we lost Congressman Gerry Connolly. I first met Gerry Connolly when he was a rising supervisor on the Fairfax County Board in the late eighties. Jerry took great pains to never forget his Irishness, the famous St. Patrick's Day party.
He was a fighter. He was kind and funny; but boy, you did not want to get on the wrong side of Gerry Connolly because sometimes that fighting spirit would show itself in his relentless--relentless--efforts. Getting in an argument with Gerry was not something anybody ever looked forward to.
So it was a great loss that we lost him. Literally tomorrow will be a year. But beyond the personal loss to his family and to folks like me and my friend from Virginia as well Tim Kaine, both considered him a longtime friend. And frankly to communities in Northern Virginia and beyond, Federal employees lost a leader who never, ever stopped fighting for them, never stopped fighting for their rights, never stopped fighting for their due process, and never stopped making the case to
And in his final days, Gerry continued to center Federal employees in his work. Two days before he died, he introduced H.R. 3490, which will direct the Government Accountability Office to report on esophageal cancer in Federal employees.
The bill directs GAO to help us understand the landscape of esophageal cancer among Federal employees and retirees, particularly access to early screening and early treatment.
For some folks, they have a precancerous condition that if treated early, can help prevent esophageal cancer completely. This bill is simple. It would ask GAO to study if Federal employees who are at high risk are getting screened as early as possible to help them make sure they get the care they need as early as possible.
The bill was passed unanimously, 42 to nothing in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and then passed by a voice vote on the floor.
In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we pass this bill here on the Senate floor, but before I make that request, I want to defer and yield my time to the Senator--fellow Senator from Virginia Senator Kaine.
Mr. President, I am so pleased to be with my colleague Senator Warner to talk about Gerry Connolly prior to offering a unanimous consent motion on this bill.
If you met Gerry once, you would remember a very, very fun and colorful guy. He studied for the priesthood to be a Maryknoll priest and then left the priesthood to marry his wife ``Smitty'' who studied to be a nun and then left her order.
His first job after he left the seminary was a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then he went onto this wonderful career, as Mark described, on the Fairfax Board of Supervisors before eventually becoming chairman of that board and then coming to Congress.
Gerry personified a pride in Irish Catholicism. As Mark said, his St. Patrick's Day parties were absolutely legendary in Virginia, and he was a tireless advocate for so many.
The point that Mark made about esophageal cancer and its effect and its growing effect in this country is important to underline. This was the condition that claimed Gerry's life, but how powerful not even 2 days before died, he was trying to advance our understanding of this.
Esophageal cancer is the fastest growing cancer among men in the United States. We are not exactly sure why, but we can get more data and do more analysis of this and then provide options for care should this resolution pass.
That is why I am so glad to stand with my friend Senator Warner to honor a great public servant, a great American Gerry Connolly.
Mr. President, as if in legislation session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3490 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3490) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I rise today to share the story of a young man who didn't have the opportunity to share his own story.
His name was Trey Carlock, and for years, he struggled in silence with the trauma and the wounds inflicted by someone he once trusted at a summer camp he attended for many years. So let me share Trey's story.
Trey was a young man who loved the Lord. He loved his family. He loved his friends. And he proudly resided in my home State of Texas. As a young boy, Trey attended summer camp in Branson, MO, where he and dozens of other campers were sexually assaulted by the camp director.
And as an adult, Trey sought accountability. He filed a lawsuit against the camp he attended in an effort to hold the camp responsible and to seek justice, not only for himself but for others.
But instead of justice, Trey was offered a settlement, and that settlement came with a nondisclosure agreement which mandated Trey's silence. After years of fighting to recover from abuse, Trey's settlement reminded him that his voice could be bought, that his story could be buried, that the price of compensation was silence.
Trey once told his therapist ``They will always control me, and I'll never be free.'' Not long after, Trey died by suicide. He was only 28 years old. No child who has endured sexual abuse should be forced to carry that horror in silence. No child should be forced to walk alone in that pain. And no child should be forced to accept agreements that protect the abuser.
In Trey's case, and, tragically many others, nondisclosure agreements are used to shield the abuser. Children are the most vulnerable and most precious members of our society. As legislators, as parents, as human beings, we have a moral obligation to stand between children and those who would harm them. That is why I have introduced TREY'S Law.
TREY'S Law will protect, defend, and support children who are the victims of sexual assault. It ensures that nondisclosure agreements cannot be used to silence minors who have endured abuse. At the same time, the bill preserves the confidentiality of settlement amounts and allows victims themselves to insist on privacy if they so choose. What it does not allow is the forced silencing of victims in order to protect abusers.
TREY'S Law establishes a clear national baseline: no NDA may be used to silence the disclosure of child sexual abuse. And importantly, this legislation does not prevent the States from going further. Versions of TREY'S Law have already passed in Texas, in Alabama, in Missouri, Tennessee, California, and other States have also taken steps to prohibit the use of NDAs in cases of child sexual abuse. These are meaningful steps in the right direction, but we owe it to Trey and every victim to ensure that they have the right to speak about their experiences, they have the right to rely on those around them, that they know their stories will not be silenced, and, most importantly, that they are not alone.
In just a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass TREY'S Law to make sure that no other children feel controlled or defeated by the system that is supposed to deliver them justice.
TREY'S Law has already passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and I want to thank Senators Gillibrand and Britt and my colleagues on the entire Judiciary Committee for working on this legislation and helping us push this across the finish line.
And with that, I yield the floor to Senator Britt.
Mr. President, I rise today to stand with Senator Cruz. Senator Cruz's leadership on this important issue has led us to today where I am hopeful that the Senate will provide a unanimous vote for TREY'S Law.
You heard Senator Cruz tell the story that tugs at your heartstrings; it is unimaginable. As a parent, I cannot imagine my child enduring that and then that child being forced into silence. It should never happen again.
Victims should be in control of when and where and if they tell their story. They should never be silenced or sidelined.
TREY'S Law has built momentum across the country. That is because, as Senator Cruz will tell you, Elizabeth Carlock, Trey's sister, has fought tirelessly to ensure that this never happens to another individual and another family ever has to endure this pain.
When we are looking at this, I am very proud that Alabama has led the way. Alabama passed TREY'S Law, along with a number of other States. And in our State, Representative David Faulkner and State Senator Matt Woods ensured that TREY'S Law was signed by Governor Ivey into law.
Today, we ask our colleagues to join us in this commonsense and bipartisan piece of legislation that will ensure that no victim of child sexual abuse will ever be silenced.
I urge the House to pass this bill and to send it to President Trump's desk.
Look, there are a lot of times that we are out and talking to people in our States. We hear from constituents. We hear stories that tug at our heartstrings. I commend Senator Cruz and the Senate Judiciary Committee--and I am certainly proud to be a part of that--for actually doing something about the tragedies that are facing everyday Americans.
Today, let's honor Trey's memory. Let's ensure that abusers are not protected. Let's ensure that victims have a voice, and let's prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again.
I yield back to my distinguished colleague from Texas.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Britt for her kind remarks and for her passionate leadership fighting alongside me to get this passed.
If and when the Senate passes this, it will be a victory for Trey, a victory for his sister Elizabeth, who has been tirelessly fighting to honor the memory and legacy of her brother, a victory for the entire Carlock family, and a victory for kids who tragically have been the victims of sexual assault across the country.
After the Senate passes this, I hope the House takes this legislation up quickly, passes it, and puts it on the President's desk to be signed into law.
Mr. President, therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 413, S. 3966.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which was reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3966) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows:
Mr. President, when Lisa Smith was just 3 years old, she was trafficked--just a sweet little toddler, blond hair, the cutest little thing, not much younger than my daughter is now. When she should have been outside, kicking a soccer ball, playing with dollies, on a playground, with little friends, she was, instead, being abused--and in the most brutal, brutal fashion.
Her predator abused her and mutilated her and took pictures of it and videos and posted them to the internet, to the dark corners of the web, for the sick adulation of other predators.
This went on for months and then for years. And that is where Federal investigators first found Lisa, first noticed her, first saw the images. They could see this beautiful little girl. They could see the sick torture that she was being forced to endure. They could see the pain in her face. But they had no idea where she was.
They had all of the images. They saw all of what she was suffering through. They knew that she was out there. They knew that somebody was posting this over and over and over again. She knew that other predators were looking at it, and they were responding to it, but they didn't know where to find her. They didn't know how to rescue her.
I wish I could say that Lisa's case is unique. I wish I could say that there were no other children like her in America. But the sad fact of the matter is that Lisa's case is increasingly common in the United States of America today.
I want you to take a look at this poster. This is the United States, and these red dots represent the IP addresses of individuals who have shared child rape images in just the last 6 months. There are 338,000 dots on that map. Let me say that again: 338,000 dots of known instances where a predator has shared, posted to the internet, images of child rape, child abuse, child sexual exploitation.
The number of child exploitation reports last year increased to 20.5 million in this country--20 million reports of child exploitation, the vast majority of those tied to online child exploitation.
Interpol estimates that there are 90,000 images that the government has of child rape, child exploitation, child sexual abuse. But what we don't know is who the child is or where she is--90,000 of these images but we don't know where they are. We don't know how to rescue them.
This is the crisis that is increasingly confronting every American family. Every family with children faces the risk that their child-- when they log on, when they post something on the web, when they get a phone--that they will be solicited by a predator, that they will be lured into a dangerous situation by a predator, that they will themselves be trafficked--children taken from their homes, children lured away and kidnapped, children forced into sex slavery all across this country.
We know they are out there. We can see the images, but we don't know how to find them. And the internet has made this a crisis all across the country. It has made it a pressing crisis for every family in America.
The truth is, while child abuse is, sadly, a longstanding phenomenon, child predation and child trafficking now are fed and nourished and nurtured by social media, by companies that know that these images are being posted and don't do anything about it, by the purveyors of online platforms that allow their entire platform to be taken over and essentially run as a child trafficking ring.
The internet has made it much, much worse. It has made it a crisis. It has brought this problem to the doorstep of every family in this country.
And the question that I want to ask today is: What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do for the tens of thousands of children, like Lisa, who are out there, who are in need, who are being abused, who are being brutalized? Even as we stand here on this floor, for those children who need rescue, what will we do for them today?
Because the time has come to do something. The time for merely standing by and sitting back and hoping for the best has passed. There are too many children whose lives are being destroyed, even as we speak.
We have terrific Federal investigators whose job is, whose work is to identify and find these children. At the Department of Homeland Security, there is an entire unit called the cyber crimes unit that contains and includes forensic investigators who analyze the sorts of images that were posted here, that you see reflected on this map, who analyze them and try to find where the children are.
Here is the only problem with that. There are only seven of them. That is right. There are seven forensic analysts, seven experts who can analyze these images--90,000 images, at least, that the Government knows of, with these lost children; 20 million reports of sexual exploitation; and yet only seven analysts who are able to identify and rescue these children.
If you look at this map again, there is a sea of red dots. If you look closely, there are also blue dots, but you would be hard-pressed to find them. The blue dots represent the number of active investigations of child sexual abuse, of child online predation. They are completely lost in the sea of red.
Our children are increasingly lost to predators, to traffickers, to abusers. And, yet, our government is not doing nearly enough about it.
The investigators are there. They are capable. They are ready. They need help.
What can they do? What could the Department of Homeland Security, what could law enforcement do if they had the resources, if they had the support that they needed?
Well, I will give you a sense of it. They could do what they did for Lisa. What happened was Lisa's predator posted images of her online, and an investigator in the cyber crimes unit at Homeland saw the pictures and started drilling down on them.
He started analyzing every frame, every second of the videos, every little detail of the photos, everything he could get his hands on. And he started noticing a few telling signs, a few clues that maybe Lisa was somewhere in the southern part of the United States.
And then, one day, he was able to make out a playground and able to drill down, to zoom in on the playground equipment with enough specificity that he could begin to run it across other images of playgrounds in cities across the South. And, sure enough, in time, he was able to isolate which playground this was in the particular city in the South.
And after that, Homeland sent a team of investigators to start walking blocks--that is right; get out on the streets and walk them--to start walking up and down to see where exactly is that playground. Would Lisa come back to it? Where else might she be?
And here is what happened. They found her. They found her. As it turns out, she had never left home. You see, her predator--her abuser-- was her father, who from the time that she was an infant serially raped and brutalized her and posted all those images.
And, you know, he thought he was really clever about it. He took a lot of careful steps to keep his identity a secret. But these investigators, these great law enforcement, these cops--that is really what they are at Homeland Security--they were better. Oh, they are good. They are very good. They found her. They got him. They rescued her.
There are tens of thousands of other children just like Lisa. It is time to rescue them. We can do it. We can help them today. We can send more investigators into the streets. We can put more cops onto the beat. We can stand up a program to train State and local and Federal law enforcement agents together, to combine their efforts, to work together to bring home children like Lisa. We can do it. The time has come to do it.
And I am here to say we will do it because in the Homeland funding bill that this body will take up in short order, there is the largest investment in anti-child trafficking in the history of this body. This bill contains funding and directives for 200 new agents and investigators to go after child traffickers--from 7 to 200--200 new cops who can analyze those images, who can go after the traffickers, and who can go rescue children like Lisa.
It also contains new funds for programs to bring together State and local and Federal law enforcement to coordinate their efforts and to deploy them together into the field to rescue our children.
It was an incredible privilege to work on this legislation and to get it into this bill. And I particularly want to thank my dear friend and a terrific advocate for children across this country, Tim Tebow.
Yes, you heard me right: the Heisman Trophy winner and NFL quarterback, who I think will be known, when it is all said and done, for something other than sports. I think what Tim will be best known for is his love and compassion for the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable.
Tim has been working on this for years. He has been to Homeland. He has seen the cyber crimes unit. And, together, he and I worked on this legislation to create these 200 new investigators--200 new cops--to get out there and go rescue kids--new programs for State and local law enforcement. And with his support and the support of my colleagues, it is now in this legislation.
I hope, in 48 hours' time or less, we will be able to say we have voted to send these rescuers out onto the streets; we have voted to save these children.
The time is now. This is a moral challenge for this body to stand and protect the most vulnerable among us, our children--to stand and protect those who need it most, to say that we will no longer sit back and make excuses, but we will act to save. We will act to rescue. We will act to help the weak. We will act to save these children.
Mr. President, last year, the city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, lived under President Trump's mass deportation operation, which was dubbed by the administration as ``Operation Midway Blitz.''
While instances of ICE agents tear-gassing neighborhoods, firing rubber bullets at protesters, and using violent force to detain individuals have slowed since that monthslong campaign, arbitrary immigration enforcement continues to grip the city. There is fear in the neighborhoods as to what is next with ICE.
I would like to share one story with you. Two months ago, a high school student named Ricardo Hernandez-Navarrete and his mother were arrested in Chicago by ICE while they were at a routine check-in for their family's pending asylum case.
Do you remember what President Trump told us about ICE, what he promised us with ICE? They were going after the rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, the criminally insane, the child predators, and those who would kill you and should never have crossed our border--the ``worst of the worst'' in the words of Donald Trump.
Well, let me tell you about this mother and son. They have no criminal record whatsoever--none. Ricardo is a student at Mather High School in West Ridge, IL, who also plays soccer with the iProSkills Academy. He has committed to play for Truman College in the fall after his graduation. He describes it as the answer to his prayer.
The good news is that yesterday, a Federal judge ruled that Ricardo's mother must be released from ICE custody. Unfortunately, Ricardo, who is only 18 years old, remains in detention.
Does Ricardo sound like one of the worst of the worst that the President promised would be his target--the murderer? the rapist? the terrorist? Not to me.
After being detained, the two were taken to Kentucky from Chicago, put in jail for detention, and separated by the Trump administration. They have not seen each other for 2 months. Ricardo said being in detention ``plays tricks on your mind'' and that the bathrooms are ``filthy'' with practically no privacy.
He continued, saying:
Ricardo and his mother followed the rules. His mother came to the United States in 2022 when Ricardo was 15. She filed for asylum, and that petition remains pending according to court documents. Both have been model neighbors ever since they arrived.
I will also note that a case like Ricardo's is one of the many reasons Senate Democrats continue to fight to rein in lawless, rogue ICE agents, including by making sure Federal agents follow the same standards of law, in compliance with the Constitution, as State police departments already do. That is not too much to ask. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are continuing to muscle through a partisan spending bill which would give to the ICE agents a blank check.
The memory of what happened with the ICE agents in Chicago and certainly what happened in Minneapolis is not gone. We still remember that when wearing their masks, they were harassing people and killing innocent American citizens. It happened twice in quick succession.
Giving ICE a blank check is a mistake--to the tune of tens of billions of dollars--to continue this campaign of terror unchecked. I am going to vote no on that bill.
I urge ICE to release Ricardo and reunite him with his mother as soon as possible.
(The remarks of Mr. DURBIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 4608 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, like citizens in Ohio, Vermonters like to work hard. They get up each day and face the day, and they don't fear hard work. They are glad to do that to protect their families and to improve their communities. But, you know, they work hard, but they don't like paying for wasteful things, and right now, President Trump is demanding--demanding--$1 billion to build an East Wing, which, by the way, is an East Wing that he destroyed. He tore it down. Now he has promised Americans that he will rebuild it and that it will be through private contributions, but he is asking--demanding, really--the U.S. Congress to spend $1 billion to rebuild what he destroyed. Vermonters don't like that at all.
It has been said that a budget does reflect our shared values, not the personal preferences of any one individual, including the President of the United States.
So let's just talk about some of the other ways $1 billion could be spent that would have a significant benefit to Vermonters who are working hard, who
With $1 billion, we could extend the ACA premium tax credits--that you and I worked on, by the way--to make healthcare more affordable for 30,000 Vermonters.
With $1 billion, we could provide really important title I funding, which helps rural and underserved schools in Vermont, for 23 years.
With $1 billion, we could provide $153,000 in relief for every single one of our 6,537 farms, which are all struggling.
With $1 billion, we could provide a $12,000 small business loan-- small businesses being really essential to Vermont--to all 82,000 Vermont small businesses.
With $1 billion, we could restore the SNAP Program for every Vermonter who has been kicked off nutrition assistance because of the Trump tax bill. Mr. President, 4,547 Vermonters have lost what we call 3Squares. Terrible.
With $1 billion, we could fund the Women, Infants, and Children benefits for Vermonters for 147 years.
With $1 billion, we could provide childcare for every child under 5 in Vermont for a year and a half.
With $1 billion, we could fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, in Vermont for 50 years. This vital program provides home heating and cooling aid for more than 26,000 Vermonters.
With $1 billion, we could help provide $50,000 loans to 20,000 Vermonters who have been impacted by flooding or other natural disasters in the past 3 years.
With $1 billion, we could support FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which is operating in immediate-needs-funding status, meaning everything is precarious.
As I mentioned, if you want to show me your values, show me your budget. This reconciliation budget bill, which adds billions of dollars to an already bloated ICE budget and CBP budget with absolutely no reforms and no oversight and gives hundreds of millions of dollars-- potentially $1 billion--to President Trump's ballroom, is a statement of values. This $1 billion won't help communities or families from Barre, VT, to Biloxi, MS.
You know, I want to give just a straightforward, rhetoric-free reading of just a few headlines we saw this week alone. This is the world we are in, and it reflects how the administration is spending its time and resources.
The Washington Post: ``Millions expected to lose Affordable Care Act coverage as costs spike.''
Associated Press: ``Under Congressional Scrutiny, Blanche Defends Nearly $1.8 [Billion] Fund to Pay Trump Allies.''
The Washington Post: ``EPA wants to repeal limits on `forever chemicals' in drinking water.''
The Associated Press: ``Trump distorts recent revisions of scientific projections of global warming.''
The Washington Post: ``Health worker shortage will worsen with federal loan limit.''
NOTUS: ``Trump's Latest White House Makeover Includes a Helipad.''
The New York Times: ``Deported Despite DACA: Dreamers Face Uncertainty Under Trump.''
The President of the United States has been clear: He is choosing a go-it-alone approach on his ballroom, he wants to fund ICE and CBP on a partisan basis with none of the reforms so many Americans are demanding, and he is going to totally bypass regular order and any hope of a bipartisan budget.
It is really a waste of taxpayer dollars. The folks that you represent and I represent, who are willing to work hard, who are willing to pay their fair share, really wonder: Why are we spending $1 billion on a ballroom?
Mr. President, the month of May is a very busy time of year: graduation season, recital season, and, of course, planting season for American farmers. Here in the Senate, lawmakers will burn the midnight oil this week to pass a reconciliation bill that delivers essential funding for national security and public safety.
Well, I want to assure my colleagues that this Senator is never too busy to set the record straight, and today, I come to the floor to set the record straight on E15.
E15 is a higher blend, higher octane fuel that is 85 percent gasoline and 15 percent homegrown American ethanol.
Last week, the House approved landmark legislation to make year-round E15 the law of the land and lower gas prices for Americans from coast to coast. The driving force behind the House victory was Iowa's House delegation. That shouldn't surprise you because Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol. That victory was led by Congressman Randy Feenstra, Congressman Zach Nunn, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, and Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks. I applaud all four of these House Members for their effort and for supporting a major industry in Iowa and probably about 40,000 jobs in Iowa, and I am glad to take up the baton with a bipartisan coalition here in the U.S. Senate.
With those generalizations, I would like to shed some light on what year-round E15 would do. E15 would offer Americans a lower price fuel option when they fill up at the pump, giving families somewhere between 10 and 30 cents per gallon. That is a big savings. Making E15 permanent delivers more choices for the consumer and year-round savings for families who are facing these higher gas prices that we have seen since the war in Iran started. So it is very simple: A vote for E15 is a vote for lower gas prices.
Year-round, nationwide E15 would bring certainty to fuel refineries, to the marketers, to the retailers, and the renewable fuel producers. No more costly switchovers in the summer when, under law, ethanol cannot be sold in certain parts of the country. It would end a patchwork of regulations from one year to the next, boost the domestic gas supply chain, and it would surely unleash America's domestic energy dominance. Unleashing E15 stops Americans from being held hostage to foreign crude oil. It reduces carbon emissions and tailpipe pollutants and would pump $14 billion into the U.S. farm economy. On top of all those advantages, E15 is pro-environmental. At a time when farmers are looking for expanded markets, E15 would deliver for corn farmers and create more jobs in rural America. E15 puts American families, our farmers, and our biofuel producers in the driver's seat to power forward clean, affordable, homegrown fuel.
Here is what year-round E15 does not do, and I emphasize this part of my remarks because there is a lot of lack of knowledge about E15 and maybe a lot of lack of knowledge about ethanol generally. And this is from what I have been hearing from my colleagues. It would not force Americans to fill up their gas tank with E15. It would not force fuel retailers to even sell E15. In short, it would not create a mandate. And how many times have I heard from my colleagues that it would be a mandate? In fact, EPA Administrator Zeldin confirmed this very fact to my colleague from Nebraska just last week. E15 is not a mandate, and that is from EPA Administrator Zeldin.
President Trump delivered his seal of approval for year-round E15 during a visit to my home State in January. He called on Congress to pass E15 without delay and said he would sign it as soon as it reached his desk.
Vice President Vance and Secretary Rollins have also traveled to Iowa to endorse E15 because they know what I know: Ethanol is good for national security, good for the farm economy, and good for U.S. energy independence.
My efforts to help get homegrown fuels from the field to the pump started five decades ago during the energy crisis of the 1970s. That energy crisis was called that because--it was referred to as an oil embargo, and it was something that OPEC forced upon the entire world.
Two decades ago, I worked with President George W. Bush to create and expand the renewable fuel standard, known here in Washington among energy people as RFS. Last year, the RFS celebrated 20 years of success, paving a cleaner, more energy independent future for Americans. Within those 20 years, I have worked with the Obama, the Trump, and the Biden administrations to expand E15 into our domestic fuel supply.
Having said all that, guess what happened. The sky didn't fall. No refineries shut down.
So that brings me to the Chicken Littles inserting themselves into today's debate, and I am talking about the so-called midsize refiners. They are running around this town trying to gut the hard-fought year- round E15 victory that passed with bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. It is interesting this coop of Chicken Littles is now crowing.
After 8 years of Presidential waivers that allowed for E15 summertime sales, the refineries are now trying to convince people in Washington-- including some of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate--that the sky will fall if we pass permanent year-round, nationwide E15.
So let's get back to the facts. We have had E15 by Presidential waiver since 2019. Ambassador Zeldin has confirmed that in these 8 years, not one refinery closed because consumers had the choice to purchase E15.
For those saying that refineries have been ignored in the E15 debate, that is surely not the case--and after 16 years of working on this issue, I would know. Refineries have been deeply involved in negotiations for years. There have been very high-level talks on the topic of E15, and the Rural Domestic Council in the House was specifically created to hear from people with these refineries.
In her remarks here on the Senate floor last week, my colleague from Iowa mentioned that the annual earnings of the Nation's six midsized refineries are more than all of America's family farmers combined.
Now, there is nothing wrong with making money--that is the beauty of the free economic system that we have in America. It has powered our economy and fueled innovations for the last 250 years.
However, we shouldn't let this bill's opponents talk out of both sides of their mouth. You can't take in record profits on the one hand and claim you are a step away from bankruptcy because of E15 on the other hand.
Homegrown E15 is an example of the entrepreneurial spirit and discovery that makes America great. E15 powers up American domestic energy, lowers prices at the pump, and boosts the farm economy.
You add all that up, and E15 is a win for America and for Americans. America's farmers and families are counting on this.
The commonsense choice is very clear--America needs permanent year- round E15 from sea to shining sea.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I come to the Senate this afternoon with a simple proposition and a resolution that recognizes that simple truth, and that is that: Climate change is real.
Earlier this year, I came to the floor, and I asked my colleagues if they could all agree on this simple scientific fact.
On this occasion, I also asked my colleagues to acknowledge what the fossil fuel industry has known for nearly 60 years, which is not only that climate change is real but also that they are the primary cause of climate change--their emissions. Unfortunately, Republicans refused to acknowledge those facts.
So I came back and asked for a simple recognition that sea levels were rising as a result of climate change, and Republicans refused to acknowledge that.
I came back and asked that we recognize, very simply, that oceans are warming because of climate change, and Republicans refused to acknowledge that fact.
So let's try this. It is super simple.
That is the text of this resolution. It is a simple, four-word proposition that I hope we can agree on.
But just to show the fact base that this simple fact stands on, we can start with NASA. NASA has pretty good scientists. They are actually driving rovers around on Mars. They are pretty good at what they do. And here is what NASA maintains:
And if you don't trust NASA, if you don't want to take their word for it, you can just take a look at the data. It is pretty straightforward.
This graph reflects the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is a known thing. It is done by measurement. I hope we still believe, in the Senate, in measurement. This chart shows what is called the Keeling curve--daily atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured at scientific observatories. The historic data going back is actually collected from testing air bubbles frozen in ice sheets. And I have been to the Ohio State lab where some of those ice cores from old glaciers are maintained, from where they take those measurements. The Ohio State scientists know what they are doing. The measurement is not that complicated. So that is the track of CO2 in the atmosphere according to the Keeling curve.
Here is the next fact: Global average temperature is increasing at an accompanying rate as the CO2 emissions climb. You can see how well it tracks. Global temperature is not that hard to measure. Again, we are dealing with measurement--in effect, thermometers. It is not that hard.
And if you look, as I said before, at what is going on with the heat in the oceans, here is how that tracks. And the reason that the ocean heat tracks the CO2 concentration and the land heat measures is because most of the excess heat that fossil fuel emission causes gets absorbed by the oceans. We would already be on an unlivable planet if it weren't for the oceans absorbing 90 percent of that excess heat.
And the amount of heat that the oceans absorb is pretty astounding. You have to measure it in zettajoules.
Last week, I explained that we are now warming the oceans by 23 zettajoules a year, breaking the ocean heat content record for the ninth consecutive year.
As I said before, what is a zettajoule? A zettajoule is the unit of heat measure--the joule--with 21 zeroes behind it. That makes it a very big number. That is actually a billion trillions or, to put it the other way, a trillion billions. It is an enormous amount of heat. It is more than 40 times the total amount of energy that human beings generate on all of planet Earth to warm ourselves, cool ourselves, drive our cars, run our motors, push refrigerators--whatever it is we are trying to do. The whole energy footprint of humankind on planet Earth is half a zettajoule. And the oceans, because of that excess fossil fuel emission, are absorbing more than 40 times that much. It has a huge magnifier effect.
And that does things like drop the Antarctic ice shelf. And when the Antarctic ice mass shrinks, the ice that is on the land that goes into the water does what? Raises the sea level.
You can test that proposition for yourself by putting ice in a cup and letting it pour into another cup as it melts, and you will see the level of the cup rise.
So here is where global sea level has been going. Again, we are not dealing with complicated stuff here. We measure heat with thermometers. We measure sea level rise with tide monitors. It is basically a yardstick, and you go and look at the time of day when the tide is the same, and you measure where on the yardstick the sea level is. This is not something that is complex or amenable to much legitimate confusion or dissent.
Here we can look at the areas burned by wildfires. It is not just coasts and oceans that are getting clobbered by our emissions, but the area in the United States burned by wildfires keeps climbing and climbing. And the harm that this causes goes on and on. Hurricanes driven by warmer seas are becoming stronger and wetter. Wildfires driven by drought and wind are burning far more land.
And it is not just scientists who are reporting what they measure. You can actually go back to a very interesting and somewhat unique dataset. In Japan, in Kyoto, believe it or not, the Japanese people have been measuring the peak bloom of their cherry trees for 1,200 years. It is one of the longest datasets on the planet: 1,200 years of when Kyoto's cherry trees hit peak bloom.
And you can see, going back to the year 800, it moves fairly steadily along
So that is where we are. We have more violent storms. We have more ferocious and damaging wildfires. We have hotter temperatures. We have a dramatically warming ocean.
And as I have said, climate change has moved from the science department to the economics department because all of those science measures bring costs onto the American public. Droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes disrupt agriculture and the transit of groceries, and they make food more expensive for Americans.
These climate impacts drive up homeowners insurance in regions where the climate risk becomes unmanageable. And they drive down property values, because when your homeowners insurance cost doubles or triples and threatens to double or triple again, that cost knocks down the value of your home. And we are seeing that right now in Florida.
And then, of course, all of this drives up energy bills at a time when oil prices are already extremely high because of Trump's mad war in Iran.
All of this is real in family budgets today, and it is a big deal. It is a big cost when homeowners insurance, which starts as a big number, doubles, as it has in Iowa in recent years. It is a big deal when you get told by your insurance company that you are fired, they are not going to insure your property any longer, and now you have to scramble to find insurance. And when you do, it is worse. It is more expensive, provides less coverage. There is a huge cost factor, and there is a huge hassle factor for real Americans right now.
That is our reality. Climate change is real. Can we agree on that simple truth? That is my question today.
Mr. President, therefore, I ask, as if in legislative session, unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 553; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am down here now for the third time with a smile on my face. This is humorous. It would be humorous if it weren't so tragic.
The good Senator from Rhode Island, when he was chairing the Budget Committee, held hearing after hearing about these enormous costs caused by manmade climate change. But what he refuses to acknowledge is the fact that the reaction of the scaremongering, of this alarmism, has been that somewhere between $6 to $10 trillion is what we have spent globally trying to hold back the tides--$6 trillion to $10 trillion. The costs he is talking about pale in comparison to that massive--the largest malinvestment in human history.
So make no mistakes. The simple resolution--by the way, I don't deny climate change. Climate change is real. It has always changed; it always will. The debate is to what extent does man cause it, and I would argue that an even greater debate would be: What can we do about it?
I mean, he is down here, again, scaremongering and--in an alarmist fashion--obviously acknowledging that the $6 trillion to $10 trillion we have already wasted in this greatest malinvestment in human history hasn't even made a dent.
But I want to point out--I am glad he talked about measurements, about science, about a long dataset. Here is a long dataset. These are charts of the Vostok ice core sample. This is about 400-some-thousand years of climate history. I don't know how they do it, but they know how to measure different gas percentages in the atmosphere. They can calculate temperature going back actually more than 800,000 years. This one is 400,000.
The most famous dataset from this occurred in 1999--Petit, et al.
But as you can see--this is in Celsius. But these--it is hard to call them cycles, but we will call them cycles of temperature variation. We have had one, two, three, four of them in 400,000 years. They are approximately 100,000-year cycles. Almost a 23-degree Fahrenheit change in temperature.
Now, what the Senator from Rhode Island is all concerned about is a little moment in time here. Take a look at charts and blowing them up and doing the hockey stick effect and then freaking out about little, minute movements over geologic time.
Now--then he--then he--and all the climate alarmists do this, they blame it on us, fossil fuels. We weren't burning fossil fuels 400,000 years ago. Somehow, temperatures rose and temperatures declined four times over 400,000 years, almost 23 degrees.
That is why I am not freaked out about this. That is why I am not a Chicken Little. That is why I oppose this simple resolution that has all kinds of ideas behind it, all kinds of policy implications, all kinds of new proposed malinvestment, trillions of dollars' worth to try and hold back the tide.
You see this red line underneath here. Not only do they measure temperature over time, they measure CO2 levels over time. There is no doubt about it, it tracks very closely with temperature. Within that dataset of Petit, et al., not very well publicized, kind of understated, they say, well, this doesn't really mean anything is the fact that CO2 isn't the leading indicator; it is the lagging indicator.
First, temperature rises or falls, and then CO2 either rises or falls. There is approximately about an 800- to 1,000-year lag.
So again, they try and--you know, the climate alarmists try and put this--oh, look, the CO2 is up causing temperatures--no. Temperatures rose and then CO2 rose.
And there is actually a pretty easy explanation for it. Most CO2--CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere, a trace element--not even a percent, a fraction of a percent.
Most CO2 on Earth is locked up in our oceans. So as the temperature rises probably because of solar activity, wobble in our axis, these macrotrends that actually cause climate change, the massive--the majority of climate change, as those factors cause temperatures to rise, temperatures of the ocean rise releasing CO2 and then CO2 raises. It is not the other way around.
It is not: CO2 went up causing temperature to increase. Temperature increased to cause CO2 to rise. These are measurements. This is science. This is a very long dataset. It just shows why--again, I don't know exactly to what extent man certainly can impact the environment. We all want a clean environment.
But the extent that man has caused climate change, obviously we weren't around back here to cause this climate change. Something else was doing it.
So again, I just don't freak out about it, and I certainly am not going to subscribe to any resolution that would cause policy here to spend trillions--misspend, waste, trillions of dollars on a fool's errand trying to hold back the tides.
Mr. President, I just want to make sure it is absolutely clear that that argument is what Republicans have sent to the floor of the U.S. Senate to question the measurements and the facts of climate change. That is what they sent to the floor.
The questions are the talking points of the fossil fuel industry. To what extent does man cause it? Here is what NASA says:
And lest it be not clear that human activity is fossil fuel burning and emissions. That is not a question. That is a known thing, just ask NASA.
And what to do about it? Well, one good thing to do about it would be to bring more clean energy onto the grid, and that doesn't cost trillions. Over time, that will save trillions.
Just in my State of Rhode Island, we tried to bring clean energy onto our
And the Trump administration tried twice illegally to stop it. We would have saved a lot of money had we gone to clean energy.
Look at any one of America's grids and look at what power sources run first. It is the clean stuff. Why? Because they operate by the rule of running the less expensive power first. Wherever you go in the country, clean energy is the least expensive power. It lowers costs for people. If you want a solution, there is an easy one that protects against the dangers of climate change, and that lowers costs for consumers.
I would only advise my friend from Wisconsin that he just might want to consider running his argument by the University of Wisconsin before trotting it out on the Senate floor.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise to discuss a CRA resolution that we will be voting on soon, and it is a CRA resolution to challenge a regulation of the Trump administration concerning the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program is a venerable and bipartisan program that was first included in the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, supported in a very bipartisan way during the Presidency of President George W. Bush.
The conference report including this program passed the Senate with a 79-to-12 vote, and many of my Republican colleagues, for example, who were there at the time--Senators Grassley, Barrasso, Collins, Murkowski--are still here in the Chamber strongly supporting this program. It has been very bipartisan.
The program is pretty straightforward. It does what it says. It provides loan forgiveness for college and even some graduate loans for students who decide to go into public service careers. The longer you stay in that career, the more you get your loan forgiven. So it was bipartisan recognition that we want people to pursue public service careers.
The administration of public service loan forgiveness was put in the Department of Education, and during the first Trump administration, his first Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, and officials at the Department dramatically reduced the number of public service loans they would forgive. At one point, Secretary DeVos made a comment along the lines of, why is it important to go into public service rather than go into the private sector? They were not approving the forgiveness of loans for those who had gone into public service careers because they didn't fundamentally believe in the program that Congress had in a bipartisan way put into law.
President Biden restored the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program to what it was intended and forgave the loans of many people who are pursuing public service careers.
Just, you know, doing what Senators do, what the Presiding Officer and I do, traveling around the State, it has been pretty heartening to meet people and be told, the forgiveness of my student loan at age 35 or at age 45 after a long career as a teacher or another public service or healthcare professional has meant so much to my family and so much to my ability to move ahead.
So that is what the program is--an important one, a bipartisan one, still in law.
The Trump administration has decided--in the midst of dismantling the Department of Education--Secretary McMahon and the President have said they want to dismantle the entire Department. And they are taking pieces of it--career and technical education, for example--and trying to give it to the Department of Labor, which doesn't even want it and isn't really suited to managing it.
Or they are taking the administration of student loans and trying to hand it first to the Small Business Administration, who didn't want to administer it, and then maybe to the Department of Treasury.
In the midst of dismantling or handing off or divesting many programs, the Department has also decided it wants to go after Public Service Loan Forgiveness. But they are doing it in a fairly pernicious way that has earned the objection, not only of folks on my side of the aisle but also the objection of groups like the Cato Institute that are traditionally conservative policy organizations.
What is the regulation that we are challenging? The Trump administration proposes to allow the Secretary--in this case, Secretary McMahon--to individually determine whether or not an individual's job is, in fact, public service and to make that determination based on the Secretary's view of the political viewpoint of the organization for which the individual works and whether that organization is doing something that the administration doesn't like.
Now, this is a pretty dramatic and radical power to put in the hands of the Secretary of Education. Imagine if there was a Democratic President and we said we would give to the Democratic Secretary of Education the ability to determine whether or not a particular student or particular public service worker would receive loan forgiveness after they have chosen their profession to go into.
Now the administration has sort of marketed this as: We don't want to consider for public service jobs that may be doing things that are illegal.
So they said, for example: We would not want to forgive the loan of a person working for an organization that aids and abets people who are here without legal immigration status.
Well, I will give you an example. Public school systems in the United States are required to serve all who register, regardless of immigration status, pursuant to a Supreme Court decision that is about 50 years old. A teacher who works in one of those schools is assisting an undocumented person, a young student who is required by law to serve.
Is that teacher, because the teacher teaches English as a second language or the teacher teaches in a school and offers services to students who do not have lawful immigration status--is that abetting illegal immigration?
The Trump-era regulation would allow the Secretary of Education to say: Yeah, you don't get your loan forgiven because of the particular students you work with because of the particular class you teach-- English is a second language class--because of the percentage of your students who might be here without legal documentation.
So get this. The teacher is required to offer services to those students by a binding Supreme Court precedent, but the Trump-era regulation could allow the Secretary of Education to take that teacher, who has been in that classroom for 10 years or 20 years, and suddenly say: But you don't get Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and the regulation vests that sole decisionmaking authority in the hands of the Secretary of Education.
Give you another example. Part of the healthcare safety net in this country is free clinics. Free clinics provide medical services through physicians and other allied health professionals to all comers, and they generally don't inquire about someone's immigration status.
We need healthcare workers, nurses, doctors, and others to work in free clinics. Someone could say to one of these healthcare professionals, who don't make great salaries in these institutions: Wait a minute. Your clinic provides services to people who are not here with legal documented status. Therefore, we are not going to forgive your loan.
After you have chosen a path and done a job and done it for years and now you feel like you are entitled to have your loans forgiven, suddenly the Secretary of Education could just say: We don't want to forgive your loan.
There is another provision in the regulation that I found challenging. It said loans could not be forgiven for any
But the Trump administration has been pushing universities and threatening to cut off their funding if they have diversity programs, arguing that those programs are illegal discrimination, without any court ruling saying that they are illegal discrimination, without other legal justification for their illegal discrimination.
And they have even gone so far as to pressure the president of my flagship university, the University of Virginia, to resign because of diversity programming on the campus. And they threatened to force out the president of another university in Virginia, George Mason University--that president refused to resign--because of the completely unsubstantiated allegation that diversity programming on campus is illegal discrimination.
Now the Trump administration has not been able to get a court to say this is illegal discrimination, but they are forcing universities to even push for the firing of the presidents on their view that diversity programming is illegal discrimination.
So say you have worked and now you are a faculty member or say you have worked and now you work at the university health clinic or say you have worked and now you work for a university custodial service or the university campus police--and you are providing a public service in that way--but the Secretary of Education says: Yeah, but I don't like George Mason's diversity programming. I don't like UVA's diversity programming. So because I don't like the institution you work for, I am going to deny you Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
The administration says it wants to go against those who might be working for sanctuary jurisdictions. This is not a label that I have a lot of firsthand experience with in Virginia because I don't believe there are any sanctuary jurisdictions in Virginia, but there are communities in the United States that have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions. There are cities and counties. I don't believe any States have.
So what if you are a hardworking police officer and you had a career for a community and after a city council election, there is a new city council that suddenly says we want to be a sanctuary jurisdiction?
The Secretary of Education could say to the hardworking police officer, the hardworking firefighter, the hardworking teacher in the public school system: I don't like what your city council did. Therefore, you are not entitled to Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
I think the idea of politicizing this and giving the Secretary the power to deprive individuals of something they should be entitled to by statute is very, very dangerous.
Let me read some concerns that we have heard expressed. Here was a comment that was made against the Trump regulation from someone in Pennsylvania: My husband's military service is qualifying employment for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The promise of PSLF was, and continues to be, a significant factor in our family's long-term financial planning, helping to make the sacrifices inherent in military service more manageable. We planned our financial future with the understanding that this program exists. To have the rules change significantly or become even more complex would feel like having the rug pulled out from under us. Military life already presents unique challenges for tracking payments and certifications through the frequent moves and deployments.
Streamlining must mean making PSLF more transparent, reliable, and truly manageable for servicemembers and their families with clear communication and accurate tracking. Putting the rules about PSLF up to the determination in each individual case of the Secretary worries a family like this.
Here is another comment submitted for the Record in response to this regulation: PSLF is a critical background to current military readiness directly because of medical services. We are only able to partially fund training of required doctors. We only pay them 20 to 50 percent of what they can make in the private sector. We retain them because of their deep patriotism and the ability to make it make sense by having PSLF after 10 years of public service.
All of these medical specialists and their families give up many other things in service of our troops, dependents, and country. They are not seeking to rob an education from a high-dollar school. They are accepting the lowest-paid medical job because of their passion for the military.
Taking away PSLF for military members or those providers who serve them just makes the sacrifices they make so much more difficult.
And here is a submission from a citizen in Alabama who commented on the proposed regulation: As a physician in Birmingham, AL, I am writing to urge you to protect the PSLF program and income-driven repayment plans. We have many poor and underserved patients in America, and many of these patients are treated by nonprofits who help cover the cost of their care. Without PSLF, physicians are incentivized to, instead, find the highest-paying job or even leave direct patient care in order to find more lucrative positions in the insurance industry or consulting.
PSLF has helped me maintain my values and seek out a job in a nonprofit, serving patients who need them most. Please maintain this program to allow physicians like me to serve their patients.
These are the kinds of concerns people have--hardworking public servants--who would be entitled to loan forgiveness under the bipartisan program that was enacted in 2007.
And my argument to my colleagues is giving this Secretary of Education--or any Secretary of Education, including under a Democratic administration--the ability to cherry-pick this person and that person and say: No, I don't consider you worthy of loan forgiveness because I don't like the politics of the city you live in, the State you live in, or the organization you work for, is a very serious danger.
And I will conclude and just give a related example that is very, very recent of how giving a Cabinet Secretary this power is likely to lead to abuses, and it is related to education. It is not Public Service Loan Forgiveness, but it is related.
In early March, Secretary Hegseth the Secretary of the Department of Defense said that 13 universities in the United States would no longer be eligible to have senior service corps fellowships, and that is senior members of the military assigned to fellowships at the university.
One of the universities was William & Mary in Virginia, the College of William & Mary. And the reason cited for removing the eligibility of these 13 universities was the Secretary decided on his own--as this regulation would allow Secretary McMahon to make this decision on her own--Secretary Hegseth said that William & Mary and the other 13 universities were woke and weak. Because of wokeness and weakness, no longer will we allow senior military service to get fellowships at these universities.
Woke and weak.
We just had an Armed Services Committee hearing. I got to ask the key Pentagon official at the Pentagon: What is woke and weak about the College of William & Mary? It is the Nation's oldest public university. It educated Thomas Jefferson. Its most--one of its most recent chancellors--who is kind of the titular head of the university--was Bob Gates, who was Secretary of Defense under Republican administration. But according to Pete Hegseth, it is woke and weak.
Three weeks after this declaration was made that William & Mary was woke and weak and, thus, could not sponsor senior service corps fellowships, militaryfriendly.com ruled--awarded William & Mary the label as the most military- and veteran-friendly university in the United States. And that was based on data--1,600 students at William & Mary who are active or a veteran--an active ROTC program in the Army; an active ROTC program in the Navy; a clinic at the law school, the Lewis Puller clinic, where law students help veterans access VA benefits; a unique program in the school of education at William & Mary that--it might be unique in the country--that trains individuals to provide counseling to members of the military and their families.
The same publication militaryfriendly.com said that the MBA program at the College of William & Mary was the best MBA program in the country for military members and veterans. And yet a Cabinet member said that is woke and weak.
And so you could easily imagine people who are serving veterans at William & Mary in the veterans clinic, people who are providing counseling training in the counseling center, working other programs, who themselves might feel like they qualified for Public Service Loan Forgiveness--but now the Secretary of Defense has said the whole institution is woke and weak--you could easily see them because of that capricious and arbitrary label, which is against all evidence, you could see them deprived of the opportunity to have their loans forgiven.
This regulation just puts too much power in the unaccountable hands of a single person. We should not allow it to happen under either a Democratic or a Republican administration. For that reason, I will bring this motion to the floor presently.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Education Relating to "William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan...
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, today I recognize Herreid, SD. The town of Herreid will be celebrating its quasquicentennial June 26-28, 2026. Herreid will host quasquicentennial events, including parades, live music, class reunions, and much more.
Herreid is located in Campbell County, nestled in the beautiful rolling prairies and open farmland of north-central South Dakota. The Herreid community was born when the Soo Line Railroad expanded into the area, creating new opportunities for farmers, ranchers, and other settlers. These early residents persevered through many challenges, but set the foundation for a community rooted in hard work, strength, and neighborly values. Home to more than 400 people and multiple businesses, Herreid is known for its rich historical heritage and robust rural spirit. Since its beginning 125 years ago, the community of Herreid continues to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions.
I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Herreid on their town's quasquicentennial and wish them continued prosperity 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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, tomorrow, the State of Tennessee is planning to end the life of Tony Carruthers, a man with severe mental health conditions who was forced to represent himself in a murder trial 30 years ago.
Forensic evidence never connected him to the crime. Key witness testimony has been discredited. Fingerprints and DNA found at the crime scene were never fully investigated
When I was first elected to Congress many years ago, I was part of the majority of Americans who supported the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Over the years, my views began to change for a number of reasons.
First, there have been numerous cases of potentially innocent people who have been executed, including as recently as 2024, and over 200 people who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated since 1973. One study found that more than 4 percent of the individuals on death row were likely innocent, and this figure does not include those who pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit to avoid execution.
For many on death row, their punishment stems from their inability to afford counsel and their struggles with mental illness. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, approximately 90 percent of people facing capital charges cannot afford an attorney. Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found that 43 percent of individuals executed between 2000 and 2015 had been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point in their lives--43 percent. The death penalty is not a punishment reserved for the worst of the worst; it is one reserved for the poorest of the poor.
In addition, it is a penalty disproportionately faced by Black Americans. Despite being 13 percent of the U.S. population, Black people make up 41 percent of all the prisoners on death row. A coincidence? Numerous studies have found that Black defendants are more likely than their White counterparts to face the death penalty.
On top of all this, it is far from clear that the death penalty even serves its primary purpose. There is yet to be conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the death penalty deters people from committing heinous crimes compared to the threat of spending life in prison.
Faced with all of this, 15 years ago, I announced that I could no longer support the death penalty. Luckily, I was in good company. I was not the first public official whose thinking about this issue changed. Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens had a similar journey to my own. While both initially ruled in favor of the death penalty, they eventually came to the same conclusion: that after decades of trying to make it fair, we had largely failed as a nation.
In the year 2000, in my home State of Illinois, George Ryan, a Republican Governor, instituted the first statewide moratorium on executions in the Nation. In 2003, Governor Ryan cleared death row by commuting the sentences of 167 inmates to life in prison.
In 2021, in his first year in office, President Biden instituted a moratorium on the Federal death penalty. Then, in December 2024, in response to a request from me and 11 other Senators, President Biden commuted the sentences of most individuals on Federal death row to life in prison.
Today, I am reintroducing the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act. This legislation would prohibit the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for any violation of Federal law and require the resentencing of those previously sentenced to death row.
This bill is particularly important today. Last month, President Trump's Department of Justice announced that it was bringing back firing squads and seeking to return to the use of electrocution and lethal gas for executions. Meanwhile, the State of Alabama became the first government in the world to carry out executions by nitrogen suffocation, an untested and inhumane death penalty method.
The Supreme Court has declined to intervene, over the dissent of Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
Listen to what Justice Sotomayor wrote:
These barbaric tactics will be remembered as a stain on our Nation's history. We must not engage in the very conduct we seek to punish. My bill would ensure we do not.
I understand this subject brings up people's strongest emotions. When faced with the horrific acts of some of the people on death row, the hatred they hold, and the pain they caused, it is understandable to want them to face a punishment commensurate with their crimes. But how many innocent people must be put to death to feed a feeling of vengeance? How many Americans must be denied justice in the name of grief?
State-sanctioned killing is not an effective way to make our country safe. It is not guaranteed to only punish the guilty. It is not who we are.
I hope my colleagues will join me and together end this cruel and unusual punishment in America once and for all.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 4611. A bill to provide for alignment of the Job Corps with the defense industrial base, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. President, we need to revitalize our Nation's defense and maritime industrial bases, and we need to develop the workforce to achieve this goal. Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs have the track record and capacity to support this effort. Yet current law limits the ability of the Department of Defense and key entities in the defense and maritime industrial bases to invest in partnerships with these programs. To address this challenge, I am introducing the bipartisan Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act with Senator Collins. Our bill will formalize and strengthen the partnership between Job Corps, registered apprenticeship programs, and the defense industrial base. I am grateful to Representative Joe Courtney for leading the bipartisan effort in the House.
Over the next decade, the submarine industrial base will need an estimated 100,000 skilled workers to build the submarines critical to our national defense. In the next year, Electric Boat, a key contractor in this effort, plans to hire 5,000 workers in the skilled trades, including 3,000 in Rhode Island. Our Job Corps centers have been important partners in filling the workforce pipeline, but with additional resources and flexibilities, they could do even more.
The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would promote greater alignment between our armed services, defense industrial base, Job Corps, and registered apprenticeship programs to prepare young workers to contribute to our national defense. It would extend eligibility for the Navy Shipbuilding Workforce Development Special Incentive to Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs, and it would enable Job Corps centers to receive grants from the Department of Defense and other sources to fund training curriculum. It would also provide Job Corps centers with the flexibility to make staffing and professional development decisions, enter into agreements with local partners, and engage stakeholders, while acting within existing budgets.
Additionally, the Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would provide new avenues for participation in Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs. Our
The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act is a win-win-win piece of legislation. Our national security will be strengthened by providing more skilled workers to address critical defense sector needs; young people will get life-changing career opportunities that will put them on a path to economic security and personal success; and the taxpayer will benefit from greater government efficiency in leveraging existing programs to address national priorities. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.
Mr. President, tomorrow, the State of Tennessee is planning to end the life of Tony Carruthers, a man with severe mental health conditions who was forced to represent himself in a murder trial 30 years ago.
Forensic evidence never connected him to the crime. Key witness testimony has been discredited. Fingerprints and DNA found at the crime scene were never fully investigated
When I was first elected to Congress many years ago, I was part of the majority of Americans who supported the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Over the years, my views began to change for a number of reasons.
First, there have been numerous cases of potentially innocent people who have been executed, including as recently as 2024, and over 200 people who were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated since 1973. One study found that more than 4 percent of the individuals on death row were likely innocent, and this figure does not include those who pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit to avoid execution.
For many on death row, their punishment stems from their inability to afford counsel and their struggles with mental illness. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, approximately 90 percent of people facing capital charges cannot afford an attorney. Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found that 43 percent of individuals executed between 2000 and 2015 had been diagnosed with a mental illness at some point in their lives--43 percent. The death penalty is not a punishment reserved for the worst of the worst; it is one reserved for the poorest of the poor.
In addition, it is a penalty disproportionately faced by Black Americans. Despite being 13 percent of the U.S. population, Black people make up 41 percent of all the prisoners on death row. A coincidence? Numerous studies have found that Black defendants are more likely than their White counterparts to face the death penalty.
On top of all this, it is far from clear that the death penalty even serves its primary purpose. There is yet to be conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the death penalty deters people from committing heinous crimes compared to the threat of spending life in prison.
Faced with all of this, 15 years ago, I announced that I could no longer support the death penalty. Luckily, I was in good company. I was not the first public official whose thinking about this issue changed. Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens had a similar journey to my own. While both initially ruled in favor of the death penalty, they eventually came to the same conclusion: that after decades of trying to make it fair, we had largely failed as a nation.
In the year 2000, in my home State of Illinois, George Ryan, a Republican Governor, instituted the first statewide moratorium on executions in the Nation. In 2003, Governor Ryan cleared death row by commuting the sentences of 167 inmates to life in prison.
In 2021, in his first year in office, President Biden instituted a moratorium on the Federal death penalty. Then, in December 2024, in response to a request from me and 11 other Senators, President Biden commuted the sentences of most individuals on Federal death row to life in prison.
Today, I am reintroducing the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act. This legislation would prohibit the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for any violation of Federal law and require the resentencing of those previously sentenced to death row.
This bill is particularly important today. Last month, President Trump's Department of Justice announced that it was bringing back firing squads and seeking to return to the use of electrocution and lethal gas for executions. Meanwhile, the State of Alabama became the first government in the world to carry out executions by nitrogen suffocation, an untested and inhumane death penalty method.
The Supreme Court has declined to intervene, over the dissent of Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
Listen to what Justice Sotomayor wrote:
These barbaric tactics will be remembered as a stain on our Nation's history. We must not engage in the very conduct we seek to punish. My bill would ensure we do not.
I understand this subject brings up people's strongest emotions. When faced with the horrific acts of some of the people on death row, the hatred they hold, and the pain they caused, it is understandable to want them to face a punishment commensurate with their crimes. But how many innocent people must be put to death to feed a feeling of vengeance? How many Americans must be denied justice in the name of grief?
State-sanctioned killing is not an effective way to make our country safe. It is not guaranteed to only punish the guilty. It is not who we are.
I hope my colleagues will join me and together end this cruel and unusual punishment in America once and for all.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, we need to revitalize our Nation's defense and maritime industrial bases, and we need to develop the workforce to achieve this goal. Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs have the track record and capacity to support this effort. Yet current law limits the ability of the Department of Defense and key entities in the defense and maritime industrial bases to invest in partnerships with these programs. To address this challenge, I am introducing the bipartisan Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act with Senator Collins. Our bill will formalize and strengthen the partnership between Job Corps, registered apprenticeship programs, and the defense industrial base. I am grateful to Representative Joe Courtney for leading the bipartisan effort in the House.
Over the next decade, the submarine industrial base will need an estimated 100,000 skilled workers to build the submarines critical to our national defense. In the next year, Electric Boat, a key contractor in this effort, plans to hire 5,000 workers in the skilled trades, including 3,000 in Rhode Island. Our Job Corps centers have been important partners in filling the workforce pipeline, but with additional resources and flexibilities, they could do even more.
The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would promote greater alignment between our armed services, defense industrial base, Job Corps, and registered apprenticeship programs to prepare young workers to contribute to our national defense. It would extend eligibility for the Navy Shipbuilding Workforce Development Special Incentive to Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs, and it would enable Job Corps centers to receive grants from the Department of Defense and other sources to fund training curriculum. It would also provide Job Corps centers with the flexibility to make staffing and professional development decisions, enter into agreements with local partners, and engage stakeholders, while acting within existing budgets.
Additionally, the Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would provide new avenues for participation in Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs. Our
The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act is a win-win-win piece of legislation. Our national security will be strengthened by providing more skilled workers to address critical defense sector needs; young people will get life-changing career opportunities that will put them on a path to economic security and personal success; and the taxpayer will benefit from greater government efficiency in leveraging existing programs to address national priorities. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.
Mr. President, I have 12 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 closed session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 3:30 p.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 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 20, 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 20, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed business meeting.
The Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Innovation and Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1473 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the Rounds substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5445) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to, as follows: (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
The bill (S. 1473), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 345, S. 3023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
Mr. President, I expect that the Senate will soon pass by unanimous consent the Blackburn-Klobuchar Safe Cloud Storage Act. This bill will enable Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to use modern cloud computing services to store and process digital evidence when investigating online sexual abuse and exploitation. Senators Blackburn and Klobuchar worked closely with me to make important changes to this bill to strengthen the cyber security requirements for the tech companies storing such sensitive digital evidence so that hackers are not able to steal and then redistribute the extremely sensitive images and videos documenting abuse that law enforcement agencies have entrusted to these companies. I sincerely appreciate their partnership on this important issue.
I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Blackburn substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 5444) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to, as follows:
The bill (S. 3023), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 4460 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 4460) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 745 and S. Res. 746.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for records related to an investigation of an individual who made a threat against the President in a communication sent to Senator Mark Warner's office. The U.S. Attorney's Office investigating the matter is seeking documents from Senator Warner's office for use in its investigation and in any future legal proceedings arising in this matter. The Senator would like to cooperate with this request by providing the requested documents from his office.
The enclosed resolution would authorize the office of Senator Warner to produce documents to the U.S. Attorney in this matter.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 21; 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
