Energy
Mr. President, 12 years ago, Barack Obama drew a target on the back of American energy producers and, specifically, coal. Coal mines were under attack by the Obama administration, and his deliberate goal was to kill clean, affordable coal--the most available, reliable, secure source of energy we have in this Nation.
He tried to do it by shutting down coal mines all across the Nation and do it by shutting down coal powerplants that use that coal. And one of the targets that he painted on the back was that of the Dave Johnston Power Plant in Converse County, WY.
Now, the Dave Johnston Power Plant uses Wyoming coal. Our coal is some of the cleanest, most affordable, most available, most reliable coal in the world. It is low-sulfur coal. People around the world want to use Wyoming coal in coal-fired powerplants. It supports hundreds of good-paying jobs. It delivers affordable, available, reliable energy all across the Rocky Mountain West.
Obama wanted to take a sledgehammer to coal powerplants and, specifically, to the Dave Johnston Power Plant in Wyoming, and it was scheduled to close at the end of 2027.
Now, fortunately, the Trump administration has reversed the Democrats' harmful, heavyhanded regulations. The Dave Johnston Plant will keep its doors open. The jobs will be protected. The power it produces will continue to keep the lights on for families across the West. This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
We just heard the minority leader come to the floor and talk about costs. Well, let me tell you, Democrats love
That is where we are today. Democrats want coal to remain in the ground. They want to treat coal as something to be punished, taxed, regulated, eliminated.
Here is the difference. Republicans understand national security begins with energy security.
When Joe Biden was President, he told his EPA--his Environmental Protection Agency--to prioritize climate over energy that is affordable, available, and reliable, used by the American people.
President Trump and Republicans see it differently. We put American families and American workers first.
Coal is a key economic driver in Wyoming. Wyoming produces nearly half of the coal in the United States. Wyoming truly is America's energy breadbasket. In Wyoming, the royalties, the taxes from mining their coal pays for education for every child in the State.
Coal mining provides jobs for Wyoming workers. These are good-paying, high-tech jobs.
When powerplants know that they will stay open, when they have that commitment, as they do now from President Trump, our coal producers can plan, can invest, and can produce.
President Trump's actions are going to bring down costs for American families.
And it is not just Americans who want Wyoming coal. Our allies overseas, especially in Asia, want it.
Last week, President Trump made a historic announcement. He announced a $75 million investment to support building the West Gateway Terminal Project in Oakland, CA. This facility will expand America's ability to export coal. It is also going to support good mining jobs.
Wyoming's Governor, Mark Gordon, joined President Trump in the Oval Office for the announcement. Governor Gordon told the President about his recent trips to Japan and Taiwan. Japan and Taiwan want American coal. They need it to keep their lights on, and they need it to power their own economies.
We have needed a new port and a facility like this on the west coast for a long, long time. One was supposed to be built 13 years ago, and the location was Oakland, CA.
What happened? Well, environmental extremists protested. They blocked the project. They sued. A decade of lawsuits followed.
This is no surprise to the Presiding Officer. You have seen these sorts of things.
The case went all the way to California's Supreme Court, and, finally, the court ruled with the people that want to develop the port. We need it. It is legal, now approved by the court.
So the new West Gateway Terminal has now been approved and is ready to move forward.
With support from President Trump and the Trump administration, Wyoming coal will soon reach hungry Asian markets. This is what unleashing American energy really looks like. Clean Wyoming coal is the best in the world, and now it is going to continue to help power the world.
Democrats talk like coal lives only in the past. They are wrong. Coal is the lifeblood of an affordable, prosperous future.
Demand for energy continues to grow. We need more energy, not less, and Wyoming coal is there to deliver. And I am grateful that President Trump is doing what he is doing.
Wyoming's energy workers and our coal communities now have the certainty that they need to do what they do best, and that is to power the country with coal--coal that is affordable, available, reliable--a secure source of energy for a long, long time to come.
With the President's historic announcement, last week, the President continues to put American workers, American families, and American energy dominance first.
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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Medicaid
Mr. President, if you or a loved one is diagnosed with a life-altering medical condition, the last thing you want to face is a mountain of government paperwork in order to get your care.
But when Republicans in Congress passed their One Big Beautiful Bill, President Trump's budget--that is what they call it--last year, they placed themselves in the middle of whether or not you get treatment.
In that law, the Republicans created a requirement for all Medicaid recipients between the ages of 18 and 64 to either work 80 hours a month or verify they are too sick to do so in order to maintain Medicaid coverage.
At first glance, that might just sound like a reasonable requirement. The reality is, the plan drowns eligible patients in paperwork, requiring those who are poor and sick to navigate a maze of government redtape to see a doctor.
To qualify for Medicaid, you need to have low or no income or perhaps have a disability. Now the Republicans want to put a paperwork requirement on this to prove that you can't work 80 hours a month.
Last week, the Trump administration took a look at this and decided to make a bad situation even worse. They announced the rules to implement these work requirements. The administration decided that documenting that you have a serious condition like cancer or Alzheimer's is not enough to avoid work requirements. Instead, they are further requiring patients to verify that these conditions actually impede your ability to work.
In case it is not obvious, a 64-year-old cancer patient, traveling 30 miles each direction every week to undergo chemotherapy, might not have the ability to show up to their shift, waiting tables. Under Republicans' work requirements, one misstep by a patient, provider, or State employee could mean the difference between having health coverage or not. Is this a burden?
What if we suggested that you file your income tax returns not only on April 15 but on October 15 as well--twice a year--to make sure we catch up with you? Is that a burden? Of course, it is.
Have Republicans in Congress really deemed you unworthy of getting cancer treatment because a signature was missing on one of the dozens of pages in the forms you had to submit to prove that you are unable to work?
In addition to creating this work requirement, Republicans in Congress also refused to extend the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits in their Big Beautiful Bill--tax breaks for wealthy people but no benefits for those trying to pay their health insurance premiums.
Twenty-four million Americans rely on these tax credits to afford their health insurance, but they expired at the end of last year. Without them, insurance premiums have doubled or tripled for many families, the same families that are struggling to buy groceries, to pay their utility bills, to make sure that they have enough money for rent or mortgage. And how about the cost of gasoline while we are at it? We have decided these folks need to have an additional expense of health insurance premiums, according to my Republican colleagues.
Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune newspaper reported that more than 92,000 people living in my State have lost or dropped their health insurance this year due to the skyrocketing premiums and the Republican policy change eliminating tax benefits to help people pay for their health insurance.
Illinois is no outlier. Millions of Americans nationwide lost their insurance coverage because the Republican decision to change the policy priced them out of care. Listen to one of the stories.
Sharon Dunham, from Grand Rapids, MI, told the Wall Street Journal that she beat cancer twice and has multiple health challenges, but she had to drop her insurance altogether--drop her insurance altogether-- this year when her monthly premiums increased by $300.
With inflation, which the President embraced yesterday and said that he
Sharon plans to go without insurance until she turns 65. She prays that she will last long enough to reach the Medicare eligibility age. In the meantime, she is terrified that her cancer might return and knows that without health insurance, ``I can't do anything if it shows up.''
Think about that for a minute. A vote here on the Senate floor has put this lady in a situation where she is battling cancer without health insurance.
Countless other families are making similar heartbreaking decisions like Sharon. Without health insurance, they are just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy.
Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill doesn't stop just at that point. It also enacted the most severe cut to the SNAP program in history. From July 2025 to February 2026, more than 3\1/2\ million people have lost access to the program that actually puts groceries on their table.
One SNAP recipient, Presley Nassise, told the Public Broadcasting System that his benefits went from $200 to zero after the Republican cuts, after which he could only afford 1\1/2\ meals a day.
Go to your local food bank and ask them what is going on. They are being deluged and swamped by people who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay for groceries.
And folks with limited income need a helping hand. I have been there. I have seen those food banks. And thank goodness for the people who open them, the churches and the volunteers that keep them open.
It is no wonder that more Americans are going without the food that they need now in 2026 than during the peak of COVID-19.
As the Big Beautiful Bill's provisions take effect, Republicans can no longer hide behind the statement that they have only tried to target waste, fraud, and abuse.
Americans are waking up to the reality that Republicans abandoned working families so they could provide tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country.
While Republicans are content to act like nothing is wrong, Democrats are continuing to fight to restore these programs.
It may not be popular in some circles to speak out for the poor and low-income people in this country, but I think we have an obligation to do so. If these people are trying to get by--struggling to get health insurance, to put food on their table, to be able to go to the kind of healthcare that keeps them alive--we have got to speak up for them.
I don't believe these are cheaters and chiselers and frauds. These are people who are trying to get by. And putting additional paperwork requirements on them--making it more and more difficult--making someone who has Alzheimer's file papers regularly with the government to prove they can't go to work, for goodness' sake, what has this Nation come to? We can do better than that.
I yield the floor.
Remembering Melissa and Mark Hortman (Executive Session)
Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Minnesota Senator Smith on a somber anniversary week for our State and for our country.
One year ago, a horrific act of political violence took two Minnesotans from us who represented the best of our State, the best of us, Minnesota State Representative and our former Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her dear husband Mark Hortman.
This is them with their kids, with Colin and Sophie who have been true to their memories since that date, grieving through the entire time, but always holding up their parents' memories.
That same night, State Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette were also shot. Despite taking nine bullets, as his wife Yvette took eight, John has courageously returned to the State senate with a tireless dedication to improving the lives of Minnesotans.
Melissa and Mark left behind a State in mourning, but their two incredible children Colin and Sophie rose through their grief and best captured their parents' legacy as they said:
And that is exactly what Minnesotans have done. Thousands lined up to pay their respects to the Hortmans at the State capitol where Melissa was the first woman in Minnesota to lie in state. People planted trees to honor Melissa's efforts to strengthen urban and rural forests.
Donations poured in to Helping Paws the service dog nonprofit where the Hortmans volunteered and where their beloved Gilbert, who was also shot that night, was trained.
The organization established the Hortman Heroes Fund to train service dogs to help first responders and veterans with PTSD. Their dog Gilbert was actually going to be part of that program. And they trained their dog, but in the end, it was decided their dog was just too friendly to be part of the program in the end, and Melissa and Mark were happy to have him back. And he died with them that weekend.
Minnesota stood up in their names, for Gilbert, for their family, and mostly for Melissa and Mark, and we remember them.
Our State has lost a lot this year. Just weeks after we lost Melissa and Mark, we were once again shaken to our core by a deadly mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church and then the winter with 3,000 Federal Agents and the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
Our State has been at the center of America's heartbreak, but we have also been at the center of its courage and its hope. No one exemplified our State's courage and hope more than Melissa. I wish everyone in this Chamber knew Melissa. We treasured her in Minnesota. She is the epitome of what you want in a public servant, the epitome of someone who stood up for her neighbors.
I first got to know her when we were both running for office around the same time, both with little kids, me for the county attorney's office, her for State legislature.
We went door to door together, and even back then it seemed like she knew every story and every family in her district. She left a lasting impact on each of us, and over her 20 years in the Minnesota State House, she left a lasting impact on our State. As minority leader and then speaker, Melissa always guided her caucus with conviction and a sense of humor. She was always there to support her colleagues, but she also wasn't afraid to call out the all-male card game taking place when they should have been on the floor debating.
And after being chosen by her colleagues to be their speaker, the first thing she did for the State house was to get rid of the speaker's mute button because Melissa always listened to her colleagues, and she said at the time:
And with that gavel, Melissa became one of the most consequential and arguably the best speakers in the history of our State. Because of Melissa, all Minnesota students get a school lunch so hunger doesn't stop them from learning and reaching their potential.
Because of Melissa, Minnesota voters can cast a ballot that works best for them, whether that is early voting, mail-in voting, or same- day registration.
Because of Melissa, women in Minnesota can access reproductive care and continue to make their own decisions about their futures.
And because of Melissa, who created the Minnesota Community Solar Program, which now bears her name, our State is a leader in clean energy and protecting the environment.
She was a generational leader. She led with integrity and courage. She consistently reached across the aisle to make life better for Minnesotans.
And her husband Mark, he was compassionate, smart, kind. I met so many people who worked with him in his workplace over the years and loved him just as much as the legislators loved Melissa.
As we remember Melissa and Mark, we must also continue to address the significant increase in threats and acts of political violence we have seen across the country against people of both parties. I want to extend my gratitude to the local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who responded that night and who have continued to be there for our State.
It was Melissa, who once said that ``in politics, often the easiest thing for anyone to do is run to a microphone, sharpen their dagger, and see who has the best press conference. But what's excruciatingly difficult in all this high emotion is to get people to the table,'' she said, ``and to slog through the work that has to happen.''
She was right then, and her words hold true today. Each of us has a responsibility to bring more people to the table and to take on the hard work.
Melissa and Mark met as volunteers, working to help kids in their community, and their dedication to serving others never wavered.
In her wallet, in her purse, after she died, they found a prayer that she always carried, by St. Francis of Assisi. It said this. It said:
May we all be instruments of peace just like Melissa.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Klobuchar, who knew and loved and worked closely with Melissa for so many years. I know that this is a personal moment for her, to think about the loss that we experience every day not having Melissa with us but also just being able to capture who she was as a person.
And this really is a somber day for us. It is almost exactly a year since Melissa and Mark were assassinated at their home, along with the loss of their dog Gilbert, the same night that John and Yvette Hoffman were also shot and, thank God, survived.
You probably can relate to this because I know every party and every State has a big party dinner, and it was kind of incredible for us because Melissa and Mark were shot in the wee hours after our big party dinner. And so we had all been together just hours before we lost them.
And it was a horrifying act of targeted political violence that shocked our State and also transfixed the Nation as law enforcement searched for the perpetrator of this horror. And we collectively searched for meaning in these senseless acts.
And it is 1 year later, and in most ways this loss still feels so fresh to all of us. This solemn anniversary, I know, will probably bring a fresh wave of opinions and think pieces trying to answer the questions of what Melissa's death means and where we go from here, what this says about the state of American politics or what it might reveal about our frayed democracy.
And I have to tell you, honestly, that I don't have answers to those weighty questions, but what I know is that, today, I want to remember my friend Melissa and how she really exemplified what it should mean to be in public service, to be a public servant.
I love that Amy read that quote from St. Francis because that was all about the value of being a servant in the cause of helping people's lives be better. Melissa was born in Fridley, MN, which is a suburb of the Twin Cities. She was gifted. She was smart. She excelled because she worked really hard, not because anything was ever handed to her. And she really pretty much thought that any job that was worth doing was worth doing right. And that is the mantra that she carried with her, whether it was her first job making burritos to her last job leading Minnesota's House through a dramatic and consequential legislative session.
She felt a deep responsibility to put her talents to work in the cause of service. And, you know, it is interesting. She started in public service as an intern in this very body. We have interns here on the floor today. So think about that, where this woman's life took her.
She was an intern for Senator Al Gore and then Senator John Kerry and then she decided to go to law school. And there she served the cause of justice in the State courts and as a prosecutor where she fought against housing discrimination, and she won those cases.
And then she decided to get involved in local politics. After volunteering on campaigns, she decided to run herself. And she actually ran for office twice before winning. So she was tenacious. She was not afraid to persevere, even when she faced some headwinds because she really believed that she had something to offer, yes, but that she also had a responsibility to help.
Melissa and I got to know each other well when I was chief of staff to the Governor of Minnesota and she was coming into leadership in the State house.
And, you know, we all know well in this body that writing and passing legislation is an incredibly rewarding activity, but it also can be tiresome and frustrating, and it takes a really long time. It is inconvenient, and it can be pretty annoying too.
So when you are in those moments--as Senator Klobuchar was saying-- and you are trying to hash it out and work it out and get people to the table, you need somebody like Melissa there because she knows how to get the job done. She would always be ready with a fresh idea about, like, what is it going to take to deliver a result here.
And she also was really funny. She was quick with a quip and a funny joke
I can tell you from personal experience that she also was pretty fun if you wanted to get together after all that work for a margarita.
As a legislator and eventually as speaker of the Minnesota House, Melissa approached her work in this way: by leading with compassion and respect, always staying in touch with our shared humanity. And, of course, she was unafraid to demand the same respect in return, both for herself and for others.
She was a woman leader, a leader who was a woman in a time when, sometimes even to this day, women are sort of not paid as much attention to as they deserve.
And Amy was referring to this. Once on the house floor, Melissa called out a group of male legislators who were playing cards in a back room rather than paying attention to women legislators that were speaking on the floor about how a criminal justice bill was going to impact their communities.
And so Melissa called them out. And, I mean, they were pretty pissed. They were unaccustomed to being confronted by their rude behavior, and they actually demanded an apology. And Melissa's response was characteristically honest and simple. She said, ``I'm really tired of watching women of color, in particular, being ignored. So [I will not apologize].''
And this became kind of a thing. The next day, all over the Minnesota State Capitol, people were wearing T-shirts that said, ``I will not apologize.'' It was quite--it was quite a moment.
Melissa stood up for others. She spoke truth to power, and she insisted that we treat each other with dignity and respect because public service should be--you know, even in a climate like we are in today, public service is serious business, unlike some of the nonserious activities that we see every day here in Washington.
So here is Melissa's true legacy: Millions of Minnesotans are better off because Melissa Hortman did the work that she did.
They have healthier drinking water because Melissa secured the funding that will eliminate lead water service lines in Minnesota.
Minnesotan schoolchildren will be able to focus on their learning. They won't be hungry because Melissa helped pass free breakfast and lunch for all Minnesota families with their kids in school.
Starting this year, Minnesotans will have access to paid leave. Every Minnesotan will have access to paid medical and family leave to care for their new babies, to take care of a loved one who might be ill because Melissa never gave up on that project and believed that that should be something that everybody has.
One year after her death, I still can't quite believe that she is gone. We had our big party dinner just last Friday night, and I kept looking around and wondering--forgetting that she wasn't there.
And I know this summer, this fall, when I am out door-knocking, that I and a lot of people will be thinking about how she was always out there, doing the organizing of politics.
But, today, I am really focused on what Melissa and Mark meant to me and to all of us who had the privilege to know them. And my heart is with their family and their friends and especially their children Sophie and Colin. I know that they are comforted by the fact that so many people loved Mark and Melissa so much.
And I think that we would all do well to follow the advice of their children Sophie and Colin. And when they were asked so many times in the days after Melissa and Mark were killed, what people could do to help, this is what they told us. They said:
That is a good inspiration for all of us every single day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park Wild Horses Protection Act
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent to pass two bills--S. 1377, my Theodore Roosevelt National Park Wild Horses Protection Act and Senator Gallego's Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act. I want to thank my colleague for joining me here today and for his work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of these bills today.
In the case of my bill, for generations, horses have been a living, breathing part of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota. Their presence in the Badlands predates the establishment of the park itself and traces back to the region's early ranching heritage. Today, the horses remain one of the park's most recognizable and beloved features, enjoyed by more than 700,000 visitors annually when they come to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
But the horses are much more than just a visitor attraction; they are an important part of the historic landscape that reflects what Theodore Roosevelt himself experienced during his time in the Dakota Territory. His years in the Badlands helped shape his character, and they inspired the conservation ethic that would later define his Presidency. He was a rancher, so he was on horseback all of the time. He really credits North Dakota in that experience for rounding out his strength and vitality, which are some of the attributes that he needed to go on and be elected President. As a result, the horses of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park have become an enduring symbol of that legacy.
Yet, despite their importance, there have been repeated efforts to remove them from the park, including as recently as in 2022. Each and every time, those efforts are met with overwhelming public opposition not just from people in North Dakota but from people across the country who recognize the contributions the horses make to the park's incredible and colorful history. That is why we have introduced this legislation.
S. 1377 provides a balanced, commonsense, and durable solution. It ensures the National Park Service will continue to manage a healthy horse herd while providing permanent protection for an important part of the park's identity. Specifically, the bill directs the National Park Service to maintain a herd of not fewer than 150 horses--a population level consistent with the need for responsible management of a genetically diverse herd.
I greatly appreciate my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine for joining me in introducing and sponsoring this legislation. Senator Kaine understands firsthand the important role of the wild ponies of the Chincoteague and Assateague Islands on Federal lands in his own State.
I also appreciate the support from the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service and their willingness to provide certainty for the future of horses in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
This bill is about ensuring that future generations can experience the same landscape that helped shape one of our Nation's greatest conservation leaders. By passing this bill, we can ensure the future of wild horses at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
I would also like to thank Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and the Energy Committee's staff for their work in helping us advance this important legislation.
I am also pleased to work with Senator Gallego to pass his Cross- Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act today, and I appreciate his partnership.
Therefore, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 1377 and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 430, S. 2033, and S. 1377.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bills by title.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged of the relevant bill (S. 1377), and the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc, (S. 2033) which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
I further ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment to S. 2033 be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, where amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2033), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
The bill (S. 1377) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Mr. President, with that, again, I want to thank my colleague Senator Gallego and turn to him for his comments.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise today to mark an important step in the fight against wildfires with the passage of my Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act.
Like many Western States, my home State of Arizona is a patchwork of Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands. The fires do not stop at property lines. That is why we need an all-hands-on-deck approach to reducing wildfires and improving wildfire mitigation across land ownerships no matter who owns that land.
When fires move faster than governments can coordinate, the fire has the advantage. The Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act takes a practical step to fixing that. The bill supports the kind of collaboration between Federal, State, Tribal, and local partners that we know works. By studying and identifying the gaps in current Federal rules that present coordination between land ownership boundaries, we can bolster our firefighting efforts.
This couldn't be more timely. The West is getting hotter and dryer every year. In Arizona, we watched more than 200,000 acres burn across the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and the Kaibab National Forest.
The Dragon Bravo fire, one of the largest in Arizona's history, devastated iconic landscapes and the local businesses that depend on them.
In the face of these conditions, it is vital we have the research and coordination tools to ensure effective wildfire management.
At the same time, funding for the Forest Service's State, Tribal, and private forestry program is at risk. That is the funding that enables exactly the kind of cross-boundary collaboration this bill is designed to work with.
Congress needs to send a signal that we know this work matters, and we have the chance to do so today.
As we approach peak wildfire season, I have heard from people on the ground that cross-boundary collaboration is a top priority to keep our fire season from growing more dangerous and more expensive, and they are right.
The cost of inaction in lives and lands and dollars keeps climbing. So thank you, Senator Hoeven, and his team for helping me lead this effort. Today we take a very important step in that direction.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA, is a critical national security tool. Well over half of every item in the President's daily brief is derived from section 702.
It has stopped terrorist attacks. It has stopped the flow of deadly drugs into our country. It has protected our troops overseas. It has allowed us to rescue troops overseas.
Regrettably, the Democrats, led by the two minority leaders, are going to allow this critical authority to expire tomorrow night.
Again, this program, which has been on the books for almost 20 years, is one of the most important intelligence tools that we have.
And why are they going to let it expire? I guess the minority leader is mad about who Donald Trump chose to run an intelligence Agency on an acting basis--an Agency that, by the way, has very little to do with section 702.
To the extent it does, legislation I proposed with Senator Warner and other leaders in this Senate would impose more guardrails on that Agency.
And, by the way, if the law expires tomorrow night, all the guardrails on that, and every other Agency, expire as well.
So even though we haven't been able to pass the legislation that Senator Grassley and I coauthored with Senator Warner and others, the responsible next step is to have a short-term extension of this legislation, especially as we begin welcoming literally millions of foreigners to this country for the World Cup and for the America 250 celebrations right around the corner.
If we don't extend it for at least a few weeks while we continue to try to work on our differences, the consequences could be severe. The consequences, to be frank, could be fatal. Americans should not have to face that risk because of partisan game playing by the minority leader of the Senate and the House.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Reserving the right to object is particularly relevant here, because I am sure my colleague is aware that the bill--the 3-week bill--was just defeated in the House on a strong, bipartisan vote this morning.
The House is not back until the 23rd. So my understanding is you can't do anything.
Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate have now rejected what I consider to be the surveillance status quo. I believe there just have been too many abuses of Americans' rights across multiple administrations, and Members of Congress are now standing up and saying: No more.
The only viable path forward is one that leads to real reforms. The Congress has already punted on section 702 twice this year. Every day that 702 is in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are under threat. I believe Americans deserve new guardrails. If Congress is going to extend these authorities--and that is what we are talking about--those guardrails are essential. And, at a minimum, Americans deserve transparency about how these surveillance powers have been abused.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, let me try to respond to that fog of misunderstanding and misleading statements.
Section 702 does not surveil Americans. It is, to put it simply, about foreigners in foreign countries: so, say, an IRGC leader in Iran talking to one of his operatives in Lebanon; or a Russian in Moscow talking to a Russian in Mexico--all of whom are usually up to no good. The government is not permitted to use section 702 to target Americans, either here or in other countries.
It is called section 702 because, as is usually the case, laws have other sections to them--like title I has sections of the law that govern any targeting of an American--and those sections require a probable cause warrant, which is the Senator from Oregon's great crusade.
So-called reverse targeting of Americans, using section 702, is prohibited. Requiring a probable cause warrant for this information is akin to requiring a police officer to get a new warrant every time he goes into the evidence room to review lawfully collected evidence.
Now, for all the talk about transparency and oversight and privacy protections, I would point out that the legislation I have introduced has more than a dozen additional measures to include, for instance, criminal penalties for any abuse, to include more congressional involvement in the FISA Court's processes, more reporting to the committees on which the Senator from Oregon sits--just like the law we passed 2 years ago had many additional transparency measures and privacy protections.
And, as I pointed out, if this law is allowed to expire tomorrow night, so do all of those transparency measures and all those privacy protections.
So it is regrettable that we have reached this point, Mr. President. I just hope that the American people don't pay the consequences for the Democrats' reckless intransigence.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, again, like yesterday, I am making what I believe is a real offer now. I am offering, again, to extend section 702 of FISA for 5 weeks and give the public more facts about how these surveillance powers have been abused.
Defenders of the status quo seem to think that there is already enough transparency around government surveillance. So let me be very specific about what the bill that I am now proposing would do. It would require more public disclosure about violations of our surveillance laws, including section 702.
It would require more public disclosure about warrantless searches targeting politicians, journalists, and religious leaders. This particular category of searches more than tripled in 2025, and the FBI has refused to explain why.
It would require more public disclosure about warrantless surveillance of Americans outside of FISA, which the public knows virtually nothing about. And it would require the executive branch to redact and release a March 2026 FISA Court ruling that found serious violations affecting Americans' rights.
The executive branch is already required to release this ruling eventually. The chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, in fact, asked them to release it by May 15. But, unfortunately, they just brushed off the chairman and the vice chairman's request.
Mr. President, so as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4740; 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. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Arkansas.
You bet there is, Mr. President.
Mr. President, all of these ideas are totally unworkable and also beside the point.
The Senator from Oregon has never voted for section 702. He is an implacable, ideological opponent of this law.
These measures, too, are for what--a 5-week extension that he would then extend permanently? That doesn't sound like a very reasonable offer to me.
But almost every one of them is designed to make this program unworkable and to expose Americans to grave risk.
There are already, again, dozens of transparency measures and privacy protections in place under a law passed, just 2 years ago, by a Democratic Senate, signed by a Democratic President.
The legislation that Senator Grassley and I drafted with another Democratic Senator, the vice chairman of my committee--the Intelligence Committee--has nearly two dozen more. It is never enough for the Senator from Oregon.
So perhaps the minority leaders of the Senate and the House will eventually come to their senses and vote to support legislation that key leaders in their party have drafted to protect this country. But it will never be enough for the Senator from Oregon.
So I, of course, object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, just very briefly on this last point, the proposals I made yesterday and the proposals I made today are longer than anything else on offer--5 weeks--and I think that is the relevant fact.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
A 5-week extension for permanent, radical unworkable reforms. That is a farce.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. President, what the Senator from Arkansas and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee just said is absolutely accurate: The Senator from Oregon has consistently tried to kill this program and has never believed in it, has never voted for it. And it is a program that makes Americans more safe. That is a proven fact.
You ask any intelligence expert, any military planner in this country, the intelligence derived from the 702 program is something that has saved American lives in theaters of conflict, preventing terrorist attacks, preventing drug runners from getting drugs into this country.
Mr. President, 90 percent--90 percent--of the fentanyl disruptions coming into this country were stopped because of this program. This is a program that saves American lives.
And I have to ask the question. I mean, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the Democrats continue to support policies that make this country less safe. TSA agents, I think, this year have worked without pay for almost as much time as they have worked with pay because Democrats have wanted to shut the government down, shut TSA down.
More recently, Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, two Agencies that are critical to keeping this country safe--they don't want to provide a single dollar--zero--zero dollars for ICE and CBP, making this country less safe.
And so what did we have to do? We had to use reconciliation to do something that ought to be a no-brainer around here: protecting the American people, keeping our borders secure, protecting people in our communities in this country from criminal illegal aliens.
I just don't understand this. And now this, blocking something that was negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, House and Senate--the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, his Democrat counterpart; the same thing on the House side--with reforms, a lot of reforms. Something was negotiated in a bipartisan way to get a bill on the floor that we could use to extend this program and continue to keep Americans safe.
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee made some public statements earlier today, and one was that having this shutdown is ``obviously a high risk proposition.'' That is a quote. He went on to say that he believes it is ``dangerous''--``dangerous''--for section 702 to lapse.
And what this is all about is a temporary acting position at DNI. So Democrats have decided to block a vote against something that many in the past have supported, that is keeping this country safe, because they don't like the person that President Trump is putting into a temporary acting role. These aren't linked.
This is a program that works, and it works effectively to keep Americans safe. And the reforms that have been proposed, the legislation that has been agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, ought to be able to pass the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, 100 percent of the President's intelligence priorities are informed by the 702 collection--100 percent. I am just really--I don't get it. I just don't get it.
So what I am going to do is suggest, because this acting temporary person doesn't even get into the acting temporary position until a week from tomorrow, June 19, I am going to suggest that we do at least a 1- week extension to keep the lights on at this Agency, at a time when we are hosting the World Cup. We have got 250th anniversary celebrations going on around this country.
This is a time of risk for the American people, and Democrats here in the Senate said: Well, sorry. We don't like this guy in the acting temporary position, and so we are going to shut the lights off on this program and put at risk the American people. It is an untenable, irresponsible position.
But since he doesn't take that position until a week from Friday, I think we ought to at least extend this program through a week from Friday and allow for some more time for people to figure out the long- term solution, if there is one.
So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk. I will further ask that that 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. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Reserving the right to object.
Mr. President, as the majority leader knows, the bill that came up in the House had a strong bipartisan vote this morning. It was not something that one party simply tried to jam something through on the other; it was a strong bipartisan vote. It was defeated. The House is gone until the 23rd, so they can't do anything.
Now, with respect to a couple of the details made by the majority leader, I have already indicated that on offer is my proposal, which is longer than anything that has come up in the last day. It is a real offer.
By the way, it is not changing any surveillance powers at all. All my proposal does is offer some transparency, and I think transparency information is relevant when there has been evidence of Americans being spied on, and I think that is why it is important.
So for those reasons, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Let me just, again, say for the record, because the Senator from Oregon's proposal is designed to kill the bill--and there was a vote in the House. And I want to say there were 190 Republicans in the House who voted for a 3-week extension. And there would have been a lot of Democrats if they hadn't been told by their leadership, like they have been told here, not to vote for an extension.
This is an extension. This is an extension of current law. We have a proposal that has been negotiated by both sides that would be a longer term extension.
So if you are rejecting the 3-week extension, what I am suggesting here, and what you just objected to, because my understanding is-- correct me if I am wrong--that the reason all the Democrats went south on this, in both the Senate and the House, was because of the nomination of a gentleman named Bill Pulte to be the acting temporary Director of the Office of National Intelligence.
If that is true and if he doesn't take office until a week from Friday, what objection could there possibly be--possibly be--to extending this program's authority until at least next Friday, so that we don't have a period where this program lapses, this program goes dark, at a time when there are literally hundreds of thousands of people coming into this country for the World Cup.
A 1-week extension, that is all we are saying. And the Democrats are going to object to that.
So, again, I will simply say this is, on its face, an irresponsible position that makes America and Americans less safe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, I will make my remarks very, very brief.
For those watching on TV, wondering what their government did this week, what you just witnessed on the floor of the U.S. Senate is one Democrat, at least, who is willing to have his position stated. The other ones are hiding because they know what they did today was so wrong.
At the end of the day, the most important job we have is to protect the American people. And because of Democrat political posturing, they made this country less safe.
And I hope and pray to God that nothing happens in this country where an American is killed or something happens to this Nation as a result of what we just witnessed here today.
This is another low point in the history of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Smith nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent for the previously scheduled rollcall vote to commence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 742, Justin D. Smith, of Missouri, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Justin D. Smith, of Missouri, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted ``yea.''
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 43, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 47, the nays are 43, and the motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
Chicago Bears (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, before we leave town for the week, I wanted to comment, share some really good news for the great State of Indiana. You might have seen the news late last week, but last Friday, June 5, the Chicago Bears board announced that they voted to officially advance the process of building a new stadium not in downtown Chicago but rather in Hammond, IN. I am a lifelong Indianapolis Colts fan, but today I want to talk about the Chicago Bears.
The No. 1 question that I have received over the last week is, Will the Chicago bears change their name to the Indiana Bears? And I have been assured that that will not be the case. They will remain the Chicago Bears, but their board, as I mentioned, voted to start this process to build their stadium in Hammond, IN.
Hammond is a part of, in Indiana, what we call ``The Region''-- Northwest Indiana, Lake County. Communities like Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond are blue-collar, working-class communities, rich from those steel-producing jobs that have been in that part of my State for generations, that have employed so many Hoosiers.
This is big news for Indiana. It is a shot in the arm for a part of my State that can really use it. And a lot of people are going to benefit from the development that will occur around this new site that is just 18 miles to the east of where the Chicago Bears are currently located, Soldier Field in downtown Chicago. It is only about a half-an- hour drive from the current site to where this new site will be in the community in Hammond.
And the reason I want to come and talk about this today is this isn't just about sports. This is about the tale of two cities, the tale of two States--a State with leadership, vision; a State that is open for business; and a State that is bankrupt, literally a State that has gone bankrupt with failed leadership, with blue-State policies that we have seen around the country, in other States like California. But Illinois, they take the cake in Illinois for liberal, leftwing policies.
And there is a lot--a lot--to unpack here about why the Chicago Bears--this iconic, over 100-year iconic football team and their ownership--made this decision to come to my State and abandon the policies of Illinois and the city, the once-great big city, great city of Chicago, that they are fleeing from.
I just want to suggest to you today that when it comes to States like Illinois--a liberal State, a high-tax State, an anti-family State, an anti-business State--it is a State that is destroying itself inside out. And then talk about a Republican, low-tax, pro-family, pro- business State like my State is thriving, and this great news just goes to prove it.
Now, I wanted to point out a few statistics that I have recently become aware of. According to CNBC data from last year, Indiana is the second-best State in the country when it comes to cost of living; Illinois, 34.
Indiana is ranked, according to CNBC--the same data--the best State in the country when it comes to the cost of doing business. We are open for business in Indiana. Illinois ranks among the worst States in the country for doing business.
Indiana, the ninth best State in the country for businesses--period-- and that number keeps getting better for our State because we passed right-to-work laws. We have reduced our property taxes, income taxes, the tax burden in our State.
And by the way, in Indiana, we actually pass balanced budgets at our State legislature every 2 years. Illinois is a bankrupt State. They have so much debt in their State that the taxpayers are holding the bag for it.
So when it comes to cost of living and the cost of doing business, Indiana is a far better environment for families and businesses than Illinois.
But you also have to look at crime statistics because this tells a big part
And I submit to you that is because Chicago and Illinois are truly on the frontlines of the ``defund the police'' mantra of the Democratic Party today. The soft-on-crime policies of blue States and leadership coming out of Illinois and Chicago tells a far different story than my State, Indiana, where we are focused on law and order. We support our police officers. We back the blue in Indiana. There is a big difference when it comes to crime statistics coming out of both States too.
I also want to talk about job statistics because I think this is important as well. It helps tell the story about why the Chicago Bears made this historic announcement last week.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Indiana's unemployment rate right now is 3.2 percent. Illinois? Over 5 percent, 5.1 percent unemployment rate. That is nearly 60 percent higher unemployment in Illinois than it is in Indiana.
Then you talk about--you talk about tax rates, as I mentioned a little bit ago. The property tax rates in Illinois are nearly twice as high as they are in Indiana. Individual income tax rates--this is the same deal--almost twice as high in Illinois as what they are in Indiana.
And you are starting to see a bigger picture here. Why did the Chicago Bears make this incredible announcement to come to Indiana? Lower taxes, better for families, lower crime statistics, just 30 minutes to the east than what they deal with in Chicago.
The Presiding Officer and I know that people vote with their feet. In this case, an entire football team is voting with their cleats. The whole program is just moving 18 miles away into a State that works with better leadership in Indiana.
According to the Illinois Policy Institute, 40,000 residents left Illinois for other States in 2025. Meanwhile, more people have moved to Indiana than have left Indiana. That is another huge difference.
And also, according to the same organization, the Illinois Policy Institute, Illinois ranked No. 2 in the country for the most business losses of any State in the country.
I mean, this is a massive, giant, big sucking sound coming out of Illinois and Chicago--businesses that are taking their jobs, folding up their tents and their businesses, and moving to States like Indiana that are open to business, while Illinois pushes them out the door.
Illinois has lost at least 218 businesses--big and small--to other States since 2023. I mean, this is another testament to what the difference is between our States.
But then the last issue I want to talk about is what Illinois has done to make themselves--not just Chicago but the whole State of Illinois--the whole State of Illinois has designated itself as a statewide sanctuary jurisdiction, not a sanctuary city but the whole State of Illinois is a sanctuary State for illegal immigrants.
And just since January 20 of this year, according to the Department of Homeland Security, 1,768 criminal illegal aliens have been released in the State of Illinois--just over the last several months since January 20.
Compare that with my State, where my Governor, one of his very first acts as Governor last year, was to sign an executive order. And he told the Indiana State Police that in Indiana, the State police and all State agencies will assist President Trump and the Federal efforts for mass deportation to get violent illegal criminals out of Indiana, get them off of our streets. That is the type of leadership that America is looking to and the opposite of the type of failed leadership that you see coming out of Illinois.
I wanted to read just a couple of statements from leaders in my State about this historic announcement because it is such a big deal for us, the Chicago Bears moving to Indiana. Gov. Mike Braun said:
Governor Braun went on to say:
The speaker of the house in Indiana, my friend Todd Huston, who represents a State house district on the north side of Indianapolis and Hamilton County--Speaker Todd Huston was pivotal in the efforts at the State legislature to round up the incentive package to lure the Chicago Bears during the last session. He deserves a lot of credit for making this happen through his leadership.
Speaker Todd Huston said:
Mayor Tom McDermott is actually a Democrat--a Democrat mayor of Hammond, IN. That shows the bipartisan nature of the leadership in my State that made this historic announcement possible.
Mayor Tom McDermott, the mayor of Hammond, said:
I want to compare this a little bit. I mean, you heard from the Republican Governor, the Republican speaker of the house, the Democrat. Those are quotes from the Democrat mayor of Hammond and the other two.
By the way, the Illinois Legislature, before they left their State capitol last week, completely fumbled an opportunity to provide some kind of package to keep the Chicago Bears in Chicago. Their pattern of failed leadership was on full display as they left their statehouse last week. And it was after that that the Chicago Bears organization, leadership, ownership made this historic investment.
As you can imagine, a lot of embarrassment for the leaders in Illinois with this big announcement. In fact, Gov. JB Pritzker, this is what his office had to say--the opposite of what the Indiana leader had to say. This is what Governor Pritzker and his office had to say last week after this announcement was made.
According to Governor Pritzker's office:
He is blaming the Chicago Bears for his own lack of leadership. I mean, this is embarrassing for a guy who fancies himself as a potential Presidential candidate in 2028, and his biggest legacy--for JB Pritzker--is that he lost the Chicago Bears to Indiana. I mean, how embarrassing for a politician to have to live up to that?
Meanwhile, though, this is what Governor Pritzker had to say about illegal immigration. Get this. Governor Pritzker said:
So you see what is going on here. Governor Pritzker is far more focused on protecting illegal immigrants in his State than he ever was on providing any type of leadership whatsoever to keep the Chicago Bears in Chicago or in Illinois. I mean, you see the type of failed leadership in Illinois that the successful leadership of Indiana has seized upon.
Then you hear from the socialist mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson. He had this to say. He said:
Again, the mayor of Chicago is blaming others for his own lack of leadership.
Yet the mayor of Chicago also had this to say:
You see the type of failed leadership in Illinois and the type of successful leadership in my State of Indiana.
I want to just finish my thoughts with this because I think this sums it up. Another great Hoosier, Pat McAfee, sums this up quite well as we talk about what Indiana means and the type of leadership that we have in Indiana and how we have seized upon this incredible, historic opportunity and why the Chicago Bears have said ``enough is enough'' of the failed leadership and the high-tax, anti-family, anti-police, ``defund the police,'' leftwing policies of Illinois. Pat McAfee sums this up quite well.
He said:
That is the type of great leadership that all of America is looking to.
For the first time in my life, I say: Go Bears!
I can't wait to drive an hour and a half up U.S. 30, from where I live, to go cheer on the Chicago Bears when this stadium is built in a few years in Hammond, IN. I think there are going to be a lot more Chicago Bears fans out there when this stadium is built. There are going to be a lot of Hoosiers who are going to go to this new stadium and a lot of people from Illinois who are going to be coming over the State line and seeing even more of the very best of what Indiana has to offer.
So this is good news for Indiana and bad news for Chicago and Illinois, but when you hear statistics like that, you cannot blame the Chicago Bears organization for making the decision they did.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
June 12 Anniversary (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, 1 year ago tomorrow, you may recall that I was in the Federal building in West Los Angeles, on business, awaiting a scheduled briefing, when I was physically forced out of a press conference. I was forced to the ground and handcuffed--not because I had broken any laws, mind you, but for the simple fact that I tried to ask a question of then-Homeland Security Secretary Noem.
I was in that building--I was in that office--in my capacity as a U.S. Senator for a scheduled briefing with the four-star general in charge of U.S. Northern Command because I was seeking answers and had been seeking answers not just for days but for weeks and months on what had become an unprecedented, unlawful, cruel immigration enforcement campaign that Donald Trump had unleashed on Los Angeles.
You will remember the visuals of masked ICE agents not identifying themselves and of CBP officers who were armed as if they were heading into war, indiscriminately stopping people, sweeping up immigrants-- undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, even some U.S. citizens. But they didn't care because they were going after anyone who looked like an immigrant. They were knocking down doors to homes without having signed judicial warrants. They were breaking the windows of cars and dragging people out of their vehicles. They were raiding worksites, the parking lots of home improvement stores, even public parks where kids and families were playing. This was all happening in a matter of days in Los Angeles.
It seemed like the administration was just doing one thing after another to escalate tensions. The President not only federalized and deployed National Guard troops into Los Angeles to assist with this ``mission,'' but at one point, Active-Duty marines were sent into Los Angeles, but it was not for public safety reasons, as this was done against the wishes of the Governor, against the wishes of the mayor, and against the wishes of the police chief and the sheriff.
So, yes, I wanted answers--answers that weren't coming from the Department of Homeland Security here in the Senate during formal committee hearings and answers that weren't coming in response to formal inquiries that we had made as Senators or in response to letters that had been submitted by me and by several of my colleagues.
Instead, as I was in the Federal building awaiting a briefing and was told my briefing was delayed because the general was in a press conference with the Secretary of Homeland Security, I thought: Well, let me try to go in and listen. Maybe I will hear some of the information that I had been trying so hard to get.
So I was escorted by a National Guard member and an FBI agent to the press conference, where I stood to the side quietly and just listened. I heard not for the first time and not even for the first time that day that Secretary Noem shared with the public that the mission of this operation was to ``liberate'' Los Angeles from its duly-elected leaders. At that moment, I was compelled to speak up because that is not enforcing the law; that is an abuse of the U.S. military and of Federal law enforcement--a reflection of the desires of a wannabe dictator.
As you have seen from the video, before I could even get a question out, they did their best to try to silence me. They were sending a message. This wasn't just about me. They were trying to make clear to anybody in Los Angeles and anybody throughout California and anybody throughout the country what can happen if you dare disagree with this administration, because they don't like being questioned. That is for sure. They think they are above the law. They think the rule of law does not apply to them.
The good news is that is not what the American people believe. As one point of evidence, 2 days after that Homeland Security press conference experience, there was the first of the No Kings days that we have seen in the United States this last year--millions of people taking to the streets in their communities and cities across the country to declare ``No Kings.'' Instead of being scared into silence, they did not feel intimidated; they stepped up, and they spoke out.
The American people have continued to speak out for our rights ever since. Across the country, Americans have been looking out for their friends, for their neighbors, for their coworkers, and for their communities. They have been documenting a lot of the abuses that they have seen in an effort to hold not just Federal agents but the Federal Government accountable. They have been speaking up for our rights through organizing and protesting--and not just in locations where raids and apprehensions and arrests have been taking place. We now see mobilizations around detention facilities, where we have heard reports of brutal, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions.
Just a couple of weeks ago, my colleague from New Jersey Senator Kim was out there with protesters. Again, he was the victim of cruelty, unnecessary physical abuse against a Member of the Senate. No American should have to experienced that.
What we have also seen at this time, again, is not just the mobilization of the American people, the voice of the American people, but we have seen the impact on the President's approval ratings and on his polling.
In this administration, I grant you, by the numbers, the President enjoyed strong approval ratings when it came to immigration, generally speaking. Flash-forward to today, and poll after poll shows that he is at historically low approval ratings both overall but especially when it comes to the cruelty of his immigration agenda.
It turns out that when Americans witness the President's policies not as he campaigned on--remember, he talked about going after the worst of the worst, but what we have seen in practice is anything but. So when we see the reality of what Donald Trump is doing, Americans don't approve. They don't approve of troops being deployed into American cities. They don't approve of Federal agents making indiscriminate stops, arrests, detentions, or even deportations. They
It is shameful that there is now a term--the ``Kavanaugh stops.'' A Supreme Court Justice sanctioned stops based on one's appearance, accent, occupation.
You don't enforce the law by violating the law. That is racial profiling, plain and simple.
And, of course, the American people have been horrified when they see U.S. citizens--including Alex Pretti and Renee Good--shot and killed in broad daylight by Federal agents for exercising their First Amendment rights.
This country has recoiled from this cruelty because this is not who we are as a country. We are better than this.
And, sadly, we know this administration pays close attention to their polling numbers, so they know public opinion has turned. Instead of rectifying, instead of being smarter on this, more responsible on this, they are simply just changing tactics. And what was once happening in plain sight is now intentionally being played out in areas that are a lot less visible--certainly not visible to the public.
We have learned recently, for instance, that immigration courts are scheduling massive mega master hearings is what they are calling them. Instead of a judge processing maybe 15 cases at a time--that is a significant workload--now they are hearing 100 or more. Oh, and by the way, there is also a lot fewer judges hearing these cases because the administration has fired more than 100 judges.
You combine fewer judges with less access to counsel by people who have a right to counsel, it comes down to the denial of true due process. That is their recipe for ramming through and ramping up deportations.
They are also trying to shut down legal immigration altogether. Let me repeat that. They are trying to shut down legal immigration by making it harder to seek asylum or even apply for a green card when you are eligible. They are increasingly targeting DACA recipients. With over 260 that have been swept up this last year and at least 86 of them deported from the only home they have ever known.
Even worse--again, adding to the cruelty--this administration is also running out the clock on renewing their DACA protections to the point where the protections expire and they become not just unemployable but far more susceptible to deportation.
But nothing exemplifies this administration's ongoing cruelty more than the conditions at detention centers like the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in my home State of California; the Dilley Detention Center in Texas filled with children; and, of course, Delaney Hall in New Jersey that has been in the news of late. We are constantly hearing reports about how overcrowded and unsanitary these facilities are. We are hearing about detainees given food that is infested with mold or maggots, inadequate access to clean drinking water, and how many are being denied medical care, including critical medical care.
The damage this administration is doing is incalculable. We do know that conditions in these facilities have contributed to the deaths of 51 detainees since the start of the second Trump administration--19 of them just in this year alone.
Again, most of these people do not have a criminal record. I have got to point that out because, again, for all the talk by President Trump, by the White House, by DHS, by a lot of our Republican colleagues about going after the ``worst of the worst.'' If this administration was only targeting the dangerous, violent criminals that they so often talk about, there would be no debate. There would be no discussion because there would be no disagreements.
But the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the people that have been detained, that have been arrested, that have been deported, do not have violent criminal convictions.
And to the cruelty of the kicking down the door of your home, the terror of the broken car window and being dragged out, the pain of somebody being detained for days or weeks or months with challenging contact with family or lawyers, the conditions in these detention facilities--the vast majority of people that have been subject to this are not dangerous, violent criminals. Many may be undocumented, but they are otherwise hard-working, tax-paying, family-raising contributors to communities and our economy.
Last year was the deadliest year for people in ICE detention, and this year we are on track to surpass even that record.
And now on top of that, we learned just yesterday that this administration has detained 500 babies and toddlers who are now in ICE custody. That is right, 500 babies and toddlers locked up in these ICE facilities. Are they the ``worst of the worst''? No. Are they the transnational gang leaders? Really? Babies and toddlers.
Look, all immigrants are human beings and deserve to be treated like it. They deserve better than what this administration is doing, which is why it is important for Americans to keep speaking out, exposing these abuses. Because exposing these abuses is part of our responsibility; stopping them is the other responsibility.
The American people deserve a better vision and a better plan for immigration than what this administration is delivering. The American people deserve and expect a plan that is rooted not in fear, but one that is rooted both in security and dignity, a plan that doesn't strive to just be tough on immigration for the sake of being tough, but one that is smarter on immigration policy and how we administer it.
We can secure our borders, but let's do it in a way that is secure and orderly and humane, while ensuring pathways to seek safety for those who need it. That has been the tradition of our country.
We can and must modernize our legal immigration system to keep up with global competition while protecting American workers. Those two objectives are not mutually exclusive; they do go hand in hand.
We must ensure the law affords due process and keeps families together.
We must provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, for farm workers, and other long-term residents of the United States.
You know, I am not naive enough to suggest that all this is easily done, but we have to keep trying because the status quo confronting us today is clearly not working. Before we can even begin the work of modernizing our immigration system, we have to confront the abuses that are happening right before us. Again, it is not one or the other; we have to strive to do both.
The need for stronger oversight of ICE and CBP--which had been allowed to get away with far too much for too long--is undeniable. The need to ensure independent scrutiny of detention centers and these awful conditions is undeniable. But, again, DHS is putting up roadblocks even for Members of Congress to conduct our oversight responsibility in these Federal facilities. We need stronger protections for the civil liberties and the constitutional rights that define us as Americans, beginning with the First Amendment.
And should the American people vote Democrats into the majority next election, Democrats will wield every tool in our power to achieve these reforms.
But the most important thing that we can do as Americans in the meantime is to never stop speaking up in the face of cruelty and injustice.
Again, 1 year ago tomorrow, I was handcuffed for trying to ask a question. Not a day goes by that I don't see somebody here in Washington, in California, or many places in between, that they don't come up to me--complete strangers--acknowledging what happened and how it hurt them.
I thank them for sharing. I thank them for caring. And I remind them: Don't just remember that I was put to the ground and handcuffed, remember what happened immediately after. I got back up, and I spoke out. And I have continued to speak out, not because I am particularly brave, not because I am particularly determined, but because the people expect and deserve answers and they deserve leaders who, like them, refuse to be intimidated into silence.
A lot of the television cameras have moved on from what is happening in communities. The headlines have faded
But the need for oversight on the Department of Homeland Security-- and ICE and CBP especially--is absolutely there. The need for accountability remains. The need to defend due process and civil liberties and basic human dignity has not faded away.
One year ago, this administration tried to send a message, again, not just to me, to the country. And for the past year, I am so proud that the American people have been sending a message right back to the President.
And as long as I have the privilege of serving in this Chamber, I will continue to do the same. I will continue to stand by the American people and to keep asking questions and demanding answers. We have a lot of work to do. Let's keep going.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
