We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
22Senate Resolution 898: Expressing the Sense of the Senate That the Additional Tariffs Imposed on Canadian Goods Under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Rhetoric Surrounding The...
23Senate Resolution 899: Recognizing Suicide as a Serious Public Health Problem and Expressing Support for the Designation of September as "National Suicide Prevention Month"
24Senate Resolution 900: Expressing Support for the Designation of the Second Monday in October 2026 as "Indigenous Peoples' Day" to Celebrate and Honor Indigenous Peoples and Their Shared History...
27Senate Resolution 903: Designating October 30, 2026, as a National Day of Remembrance for the Workers of the Nuclear Weapons Program of the United States
30Senate Resolution 906: Supporting the Designation of the Week of August 24 Through August 28, 2026, as the Fourth Annual "National Community Health Worker Awareness Week"
33Senate Resolution 909: Designating September 2026 as "Hawaiian History Month" to Recognize the History, Culture, and Contributions of Native Hawaiians and Reaffirm the United States Federal Trust...
Seventy-four bills and fourteen resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 5494-5567, S.J. Res. 217, and S. Res. 898- 910.
Pages S4993-96
Measures Reported
S. 5526, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031. Page 4993 Measures Passed: John A. Hauser Mental Health in Aviation Act: Senate passed S. 3257, to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to revise regulations for certain individuals carrying out aviation activities who disclose a mental health diagnosis or condition, after withdrawing the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S5017-19
Husted (for Hoeven/Duckworth) Amendment No. 6834, in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S5018-19
Aviation Medication Transparency Act
Senate passed S. 3258, to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to publish the list of medications that the Administrator has compiled for purposes of the medical certification of airmen and air traffic control specialists, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Senate passed H.R. 2388, to take certain Federal land in the State of Washington into trust for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
Page S5020
Telehealth Awareness Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 902, supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as ``Telehealth Awareness Week''.
Page S5020
Day of Remembrance for the Workers of the Nuclear Weapons Program
Senate agreed to S. Res. 903, designating October 30, 2026, as a national day of remembrance for the workers of the nuclear weapons program of the United States.
Page S5020
Gold Star Families Remembrance Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 904, designating the week of September 20 through September 27, 2026, as ``Gold Star Families Remembrance Week''.
Page S5020
National Lobster Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 905, designating September 25, 2026, as ``National Lobster Day''.
Page S5020
Measures Failed
Hostilities with Iran: By 49 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 244), Senate did not agree to H. Con. Res. 89, Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, after being discharged from the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Pages S4962-69
Measures Considered
Protect College Sports Act--Agreement: Senate continued consideration of S. 4668, to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, taking action on the following motions and amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S4959-62
Adopted
By 77 yeas to 23 nays (Vote No. 242), Thune (for Cruz) Amendment No. 6776, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S4962
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
Thune Amendment No. 6779 (to the language proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 6776), to change the enactment date (By unanimous- consent, Senate tabled the amendment.)
Page S4962
Thune Amendment No. 6780 (to Amendment No. 6779), of a perfecting nature, fell when Thune Amendment No. 6779 (to the language proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 6776) (listed above) was tabled.
Page S4962
Thune Amendment No. 6777 (to Amendment No. 6776), to change the enactment date. (By unanimous-consent, Senate tabled the amendment.)
Page S4962
Thune Amendment No. 6778 (to Amendment No. 6777), of a perfecting nature, fell when Thune Amendment No. 6777 (to Amendment No. 6776) (listed above) was tabled.
Page S4962
By 74 yeas to 25 nays (Vote No. 243), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the affirmative, Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the bill.
Page S4962
By voice vote, Senate tabled the committee reported substitute amendment to the bill.
Page S4962
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 3 p.m., on Monday, September 28, 2026, Senate resume consideration of the bill, as amended, post-cloture; that post-cloture time from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the bill, and with the opponent time under the control of Senator Booker; and that the post-cloture time expire at 5:30 p.m., and Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended.
Page S5020
House Messages
Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act: Senate concurred in the House amendment to S. 283, to require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a standard methodology for identifying the country of origin of seafood to support enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
Page S5020
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act
Senate concurred in the House amendment to S. 240, to amend the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 to make improvements to that Act.
Page S5020
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S4998-S5011
Record Votes
Three record votes were taken today. (Total--244)
Pages S4962, S4969
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 4:05 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 28, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S5020.)
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: 54 of 149 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 4668, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Happy news in the fight against fraud: This week, the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud took steps to stop fraud and to prevent bad actors from gaming ObamaCare.
The administration is working to stop fraudulent and improper ObamaCare enrollment. Now, just think, over 600,000 consumers attested to unauthorized enrollment or plan switching.
This task force has the potential to save billions in taxpayer dollars. This action will ensure resources are only going to those who are eligible and have signed up or authorized their enrollment.
Too often, taxpayer money is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. This not only wastes taxpayer dollars, but it also limits how effectively those dollars could be used to help the most vulnerable: those people that Medicaid and ObamaCare were intended to serve.
The administration's action complements my work in the Senate and the work of Iowa's Representatives Hinson, Miller-Meeks, Nunn, and Feenstra in the House, accomplished when we passed the 2025 Working Families Tax Cut law.
The tax cuts law not only prevented the largest tax increase in American history, but it also established program integrity reforms to stop fraud, waste, and abuse as well as preserve programs like Medicaid and ObamaCare.
In the past year, I have come to this floor highlighting how my own oversight along with inspector general audits and Government Accountability Office reports have found taxpayer dollars being wasted on deceased enrollment and providers, enrollees participating in two different State Medicaid Programs and who are dually enrolled in Medicaid and ObamaCare, excess ObamaCare subsidies not being paid back, and consumers being fraudulently enrolled in ObamaCare.
The Working Families Tax Cut Act put an end to much of this fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicaid and Obama programs.
To bolster these efforts, last month I introduced a bill with the title ``Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Improvement Act.'' This bill will improve and will invest in the Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Control Program. That program was created to combat fraud across Federal health programs. But that program needs improvement.
Federal healthcare spending is expected to exceed $24 trillion over the next decade. Through the Working Families Tax Cut Act and by improving the Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Control Program, we can crack down on bad actors stealing the taxpayer's money and really protect resources for the most vulnerable Americans.
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, if there is one thing that quickly became clear at the start of the 119th Congress, it was that anything we were going to accomplish for hard-working Americans we were going to have to accomplish alone. There is always some partisanship in Congress--and healthy disagreement--but it became clear very quickly that Democrats were going to be taking partisanship to a new and rarefied level in the 119th Congress. That started with Presidential nominations.
It has long been standard practice in the Senate to expedite uncontroversial nominations to allow a President to get his team in place. But from the very beginning of the 119th Congress, Democrats made clear that the history of bipartisan cooperation was over. Democrats chose to slow down every single nomination, no matter how uncontroversial, for the majority of the 119th Congress. But slow- walking nominations was just the beginning.
At the top of our priority list for this Congress was preventing the massive tax hike that was set to hit hard-working Americans. And for a party that claims to be the party of working men and women, you would think the Democrats would have been eager to work with us. They weren't. Not only were they not interested in working with us, but every single Democrat in both Houses of Congress voted against tax relief for the American people. They voted against preventing a massive tax hike, and they voted against all the new tax relief Republicans implemented--from no tax on overtime to a new bonus deduction for seniors.
And just in case you thought Democrat opposition was a matter of high-minded principle, since Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cuts, a number of Democrats have tried to associate themselves with some of the tax relief in the bill despite universally opposing the legislation in Congress.
And the partisanship continues. Last week, the Senate attempted to take up legislation on an issue of great importance to working families; namely, energy prices. The legislation we tried to take up, the Ratepayer Protection Act, would have protected hard-working Americans from the increased energy costs associated with data centers. The bill was so obviously commonsense that it passed the House overwhelmingly, with almost every Democrat as well as Republican supporting it. But in the Senate, Senate Democrats objected to passing the bill, and so it failed. Presumably, Democrats wanted to deny Republicans the legislative success in the lead-up to the elections, even though hard-working Americans are the ones that are going to pay the price.
The same thing happened yesterday. Republicans and the White House have been negotiating for the better part of a year with Democrats over permitting reform legislation--a long-overdue priority that would help lower energy bills for American families by streamlining Federal regulations for energy projects. And we closed a deal with them that we could bring to the floor that incorporated essentially all of the Democrats' demands. But when it began to look like we could consider the bill this work period, Democrats changed their tune. Because while they may acknowledge the need for permitting reform, what they really care about is denying Republicans another legislative win. This is an example of, again, just blatant partisanship.
Republicans and Democrats have been working for months on a bipartisan basis with two committees of jurisdiction: the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the two committees that have jurisdiction over all of the elements related to permitting reform. And I have had Democrats come up to me on the floor countless times and say: We really want to get this done. We are working together. The White House will work with us on this or that.
So we communicated with the White House. The White House has been engaged in these conversations and discussions for the past several weeks and essentially gave the Democrats the things they were asking for. Democrats can't take yes for an answer. It is like they caught the car and they don't know what to do. They said ``we want to work on this'' because permitting reform affects not just energy projects but projects in every sector of the economy. Energy projects--of course, obviously, both conventional energy and renewable energy projects are being affected by the delays and the bureaucracy and the redtape and the excessive litigation that comes with trying to do anything in this country of major consequence.
So both sides had agreed this was a worthwhile objective: Let's work together. Let's see if we can sit down and hammer out a compromise that incorporates the concerns, the issues, that both sides bring to the table. And that has been going on for months. I have been watching it, getting regular readouts, talking to Members on both sides--Democrats and Republicans--on both committees of jurisdiction and others who are interested in this issue. And we get to a point where Democrats flat can't take yes for an answer.
So why is that? Well, if you agree on the substance, if you come to an agreement on the policy, which they had--I mean, everybody in these negotiations, in the discussions, have basically said: OK. This is the deal. Here is the counteroffer; counteroffer back; counteroffer back. The last counteroffer from the Democrats was agreed to by the White House, by our Senate Republicans. They couldn't take yes for an answer.
So the only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats have concluded that it is good politics for them not to allow the Republicans to ``get a victory'' or the President to ``get a victory'' in the middle of a political season. That is really the only conclusion you can draw, after literally months and months and months of bipartisan negotiations in which the very last offer put on the table was one made by Democrats and accepted by the White House and Senate Republicans.
That is where we are. That is what it is. Let's call it what it is. It is blatant politics.
So my Democrat colleagues may talk a good game about working families, but the truth is that hard-working Americans take a distant back seat to Democrats' political priorities.
Perhaps the most spectacular example of the party of ``no'' came last fall when Democrats shut down the government for 43 days--the longest full government shutdown in history--over a clean, temporary, and nonpartisan spending bill. That is right. It was clear that Congress would need more time to get the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills finished, so Republicans proposed a clean, short-term funding measure free from poison pills or partisan policies. Let's just fund the government so we can continue the conversation about how we are going to fund it for the full year.
Democrats, well, they just said: No, not going to do it. It didn't matter to them that the bill was nonpartisan. It didn't matter to them that it would only be in effect, actually, for a few weeks. And it certainly didn't matter to them that they were putting literally thousands of Americans out of work. They blocked it. A clean, nonpartisan spending bill, and they shut down the government for 6 weeks.
Of course, the fall 2025 government shutdown wasn't the only time this Congress that Democrats just said no to government funding. In the spring, Senate Democrats initiated the longest partial government shutdown in history due to their unwillingness to fund immigration law enforcement or border security. That is right. The Democrats kept the Department of Homeland Security--the Department of Homeland Security-- shut down for an unprecedented 76 days. And while they eventually agreed to reopen most of the Department, they still refused to fund immigration enforcement or Border Patrol.
Clearly, democratic socialism and its philosophy of zero immigration enforcement and open borders has gained a lot more than a foothold in the Democrat Party.
Whether the subject is protecting opportunities for women and girls in sports or tax relief for hard-working Americans, Democrats have spent the past 21 months throwing up every roadblock that they can. And I am proud that, despite the incredible amount of Democrat opposition, we still managed to accomplish a lot for the American people--from regulatory relief and border security to the Working Families Tax Cuts.
There is more work to be done, and I hope that we will get the chance to continue our work not only in this Congress but also in the next. Given the Democrats' obsession with opposing President Trump and their demonstrated opposition to bipartisan cooperation, I think it is safe to say that hard-working Americans would undoubtedly take a back seat in a Democrat-led Congress. And the American people, they deserve better than the party of ``no.''
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, on the Trump media ban, you can tell Trump's desperate, repressive media ban is flagrantly unconstitutional when it gets blocked by a judge he appointed.
Trump can attack the First Amendment all he wants, but the roots of our democracy run deeper than he could ever fathom. No President should be able to use censorship to escape accountability, to deprive Americans of the truth, and to take our country down the path to authoritarianism.
Is Trump so fragile, so thin-skinned, so desperate that he can't handle reporting that reflects the truth that he doesn't want to hear? If Trump's Presidency and economy are going as well as he claims they are, then he should have nothing to fear from the cameras.
We all know what this media ban was about. Trump himself told the real truth when he said he was trying to protect his reputation with this ban. To protect his reputation--can you believe it? The chutzpah of a President to say, ``I am going to shut down the media because I don't like what they are saying,'' when he knows that 250 grand years of freedom of speech has been the hallmark of this country.
Of course, his statements were so out of line--and even his supporters criticized it--that Trump had to backtrack by trying to label these news outlets a so-called ``national security risk.''
No one bought that excuse for a second. The only thing Trump was trying to defend was himself.
Trump knows he is in rough shape. He knows the American people are furious with him and his party. He knows just how much of a disaster his record is. And since Trump can't clean up his mess, he tries to sweep it under the rug, and he failed miserably.
Trump can't outrun the press, and he can't outrun his record.
You hear that, Donald? You can't outrun the press, and you can't outrun your miserable record.
Mr. President, on the Xi Jinping visit, Trump's soft-handed treatment of the Chinese Communist Party is on full display this week during Xi Jinping's visit. No sooner had Xi landed yesterday, than the Trump administration announced it is extending its trade relief to China for another 2 months.
Really? Trump ought to take that trade war truce up north to Canada, instead of giving it to China and Xi and his authoritarian regime.
As usual, Trump acts based solely on who flatters him at the moment, where the nearest photo-op is, and what headline he covers.
If you are foreign or authoritarian, Trump just won't invite you to America; he will greet you planeside. That is what Trump did, sort of as a supplicant for Xi yesterday. That is what Trump did for Putin in Alaska last year.
This man has an atavistic attraction to dictators, to bad people. Something is so wrong up there with him.
And now Trump and Rubio want to roll out the red carpet for Putin again at the G20 in Florida this year.
Trump needs to finally show some backbone. America can't afford for Trump to roll over on blocking China's access to our advanced AI tech, stopping the flow of fentanyl, protecting oil workers, strengthening American innovation, and holding the CCP accountable for aiding our adversaries or any of the other pressing issues we face with the PRC.
Meeting an authoritarian at the bottom of the stairs is easy. Standing up to them at the negotiating table is the hard part. So far, Trump hasn't managed it.
Mr. President, on the Iran war, as Trump tries to tread water as his disastrous war with Iran gets worse by the day, the American people are drowning in costs. Gas is nearly $4.50 a gallon, and diesel is still breaking highs at $6.51 a gallon because of Trump's war.
It is madness. Americans are getting crushed at the gas pumps. Working families are getting cleaned out at the grocery store counters. And family farms are going under because Trump took this country to war without authorization, without a plan, without a second thought to the consequences.
We have lost at least 19 brave servicemembers. Hundreds are wounded or maimed, and tens of thousands remain in harm's way. That is just what we know, since this administration keeps withholding information from Congress and the American people about the true number of casualties in this war.
All the while, Iran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz and other key chokepoints has grown tighter, and the entire situation in the Middle East has gotten worse. Trump's war has been one of the biggest foreign policy catastrophes in the history of this country. And, of course, as I said, the price of gasoline and the price of diesel keep going up.
From the start, I have said this war is bigger than politics, and Senate Republicans--if they knew what was good for them--would have joined us in pushing for an end to Trump's war 7 months ago.
Well, Senate Democrats will force a vote on another War Powers Resolution to end Trump's disastrous war and bring our troops home, at last, very soon. Americans will remember who votes to end Trump's war today just as they will remember who voted for the war to continue, time and time and time again, for 7 long months.
Mr. President, and on the Trump Big Oil corruption report, Donald Trump's flagrant corruption costs the American people dearly every single day. We all know that.
Just this morning, I joined Senator Whitehouse to unveil our Anti- corruption Working Group's staggering new report on how Trump's corrupt dealings with Big Oil billionaires are costing the American people a fortune. It is a tale as old as time in Trump's America.
In 2024, this then was brazen. I knew we were headed for trouble when I saw it back then in the papers, because in 2024 Trump invited Harold Hamm and all those Big Oil guys down to Mar-a-Lago and asked them for a $1 billion--$1 billion--for his campaign in exchange for political favors to boost their bottom line.
It was appalling then--pay-to-play--and openly done, bragging boldly. I mean, that shows these people have no shame. They have no worries about the strictures of democracy, of morality, of what America has always been all about. No, they brag about it: We will give you $1 billion. Help our oil companies, ho ho ho.
But the American people paid the price. Big Oil paid up and, boy, did Donald Trump deliver.
Trump blocked clean energy projects that would have brought down families' energy costs and powered millions of homes. The administration shut down the cheapest and fastest source of energy to build and get--the cheapest source of energy, the fastest source; it is the one that goes quickest on the grid--just so billionaires, Big Oil billionaires, could get even richer.
Many of the same people making these policies are profiting off them. Trump appointed numerous fossil fuel industry leaders to his administration.
Trump's corruption is not a victimless crime; it never is. Every
Trump's greed isn't just costing Americans more for energy; it is costing them their health. A report found that the pollution from Trump's Big Oil blitz is driving up Americans' healthcare costs too.
I want to salute Sheldon Whitehouse, who had a strong hand in putting together this report. He has been steadfast, brilliant, and hard-nosed on fighting this corruption, and I salute him again. Americans--all Americans--should salute him for his efforts.
Trump may think he can hide his corruption in the shadows, but we, Democrats in the Senate, will continue turning over every rock to expose how his greed is costing the American people.
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 if the order with respect to H. Con Res. 89 is executed following the cloture vote on S. 4668, the Senate vote on adoption of H. Con. Res. 89 at 1:45 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 23, as follows:
The amendment (No. 6776) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 4668, a bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
Mr. President, on behalf of the two leaders, I ask the Chair to execute the order of August 8, 2026, with respect to H. Con. Res 89.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Committee on Foreign Relations is discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 89, and the Senate will proceed to its immediate consideration.
The clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Thereupon, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak: Kim for up to 8 minutes, Schiff for up to 8 minutes, Moreno for up to 20 minutes, Slotkin for up to 5 minutes, Merkley for up to 10 minutes, Murphy for up to 8 minutes, Baldwin for up to 5 minutes, Welch for up to 2 minutes, Kaine for up to 5 minutes, and Klobuchar for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today as Donald Trump continues to wage a war in Iran in our name, on our dime, but without our say--a war that is nearly 7 months old, a war that has cost Americans billions, a war that seemingly has no end in sight but that Congress has the authority to end.
The Senate has just returned to the Capitol after over a month back home, and in that time, Americans have continued to be loud and clear at townhalls, at protests, and in letters and phone calls to our offices. They are sick and tired of this reckless and expensive war. They are sick and tired of this war, and they expect us to do something about it.
This is a moment for us to step up and show the American people that we are listening and we are ready to take action.
Democrats have taken action. We have come to this Chamber 11 times, in the past 208 days, to try to bring this war to an end.
I have been encouraged to see some of my colleagues join from across the aisle to do the right thing and join us.
It is not just the right thing to do; it is the right thing to do right now. It is about standing up for our Constitution--that this war, which Donald Trump said would end in about a month, has lasted over six times as long; this war, which Donald Trump wouldn't even admit to being a war, has resulted in damage done to our national security and the spread of chaos across the Middle East and the world; and this war, which Donald Trump said was worth the cost, keeps costing the American people more and more.
So what has it cost us? It has cost us American lives. We have lost at least 19 servicemembers, brave men and women; over 750 injured. It has cost us economic security. Inflation is up--gas prices, just filling up the grocery carts as well.
These are costs that Donald Trump is bearing upon the American people. It is costing each and every one of our American families hard- earned taxpayer dollars.
A report last week by the Congressional Budget Office showed that the war has cost nearly $40 billion in the first 4 months alone.
It has cost us our readiness and our ability to keep Americans safe from global threats. These are the things that we are seeing that are making us weaker and why it is that we need to end this now.
So with this vote today, we can alleviate the cost of the war. I want to talk a little bit more about why alleviating this cost is so important to the people we represent, to our national security, and to our future.
When we hear from so many of our constituents, when I hear from a woman back home in New Jersey, she is talking about just the challenges that she is facing raising her family, about the challenges that she is seeing as gas prices continue to skyrocket, as mortgage rates are hitting higher and higher. She paused and she looked at me, she said-- all of this that is happening, the Iran war, all these different actions--she said: But what about us? What are we supposed to do?
And her question is one that all of us should be considering here in the Chamber. What about the American people? What are they getting out of this? Well, they are getting footed the bill. They are getting footed the sacrifice. They are the ones that are bearing this brunt.
When we have a third of Americans already unable to handle a $400 emergency, that is not theoretical, that is their life right now. We see it as we see estimates already of gas prices going up so much that it is--what?--over $115 billion more than American families have had to bear, nearly $900 per household more since the start of this war.
And over and over again, is this making us safer and more secure? Very clearly, no. And we see that just with the continued attacks, the continued violence, the spread of this now with Saudi Arabia, the Houthis. We are seeing this all over the place through the Middle East. I have worked in war zones; I have worked in the Middle East as a State Department officer, as a diplomat; and I have seen where this heads.
Chaos is not a negotiating tactic. Trump is simply in over his head here. The entire administration is in over their head, and, again, the American people are the ones bearing this cost.
As we talk about that cost to our future, the war has cost a lot of money. I have shared with you the costs at the gas pump. We see how much we have had to pay in the past for the previous wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not want that going forward.
I literally just yesterday celebrated the birthday of one of my sons. I do not want him and his generation to bear the burdens of these reckless decisions made by Trump.
This is something we need to make sure we are pushing forward on. I think a lot about that woman in New Jersey that I mentioned. I wonder how she is holding up since I last talked to her, how she is bearing the cost of this war.
And when we recess here shortly, I want to be able to go back to her and tell her what I heard, tell her what I tried to do, tell her what we tried to do here in the Senate. I wanted to tell her that I did everything that I could so she could breathe a little easier, be able to support her family in the way that she wants, that we--Democrats and Republicans--were able to come together and recognize that the cost to the American people is too great and that we need to work together to stop this war.
So please, I ask my colleagues here at the Senate: Join me. Let's pass this resolution and do the right thing for the American people; do the right thing for our Constitution; do the right thing for our servicemembers in harm's way; do the right thing by ending this war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, ever since the USS Abraham Lincoln was commissioned in the waning days of the Cold War, it has been known for many things. After a volcano erupted in the Philippines in 1991, the Lincoln led the largest peacetime evacuation of United States military personnel and their families. A baby was even born on board during the evacuation and named Abraham Lincoln.
In 1993, the Lincoln became the first carrier in the Pacific fleet to integrate female aviators. But today, as a result of the President's war with Iran, the Lincoln has achieved another distinction, one it neither sought nor wished to claim. And that is for more than 300 days, over 5,000 sailors and marines aboard the Lincoln were at sea, without visits to their family or their loved ones, without visits to friends apart from fellow servicemembers.
In fact, the Lincoln set a modern-day record for consecutive days at sea without a port visit and a record away from its home port of San Diego. And even now, just recently, after stopping in Thailand for its first regular port call in nearly 9 months, hull rusted, paint peeling, the Lincoln and its crew were still a long way from home. As the President's senseless war has dragged on, it has taken a heavier toll on the lives and well-being of our servicemembers and their families, many of whom are in California.
So how does the Commander in Chief respond when asked last month if carriers like the Lincoln had been deployed too long? Donald Trump said, and this is a direct quote:
Not nearly long enough?
It was long enough that our sailors had been working 12- to 16-hour shifts, at times facing the danger of enemy missiles. It was long enough that they were forced to ration food and water, shortages that have reportedly caused severe weight loss and health impacts.
It was long enough that crew members have had severe mental health crises, which created significant distress for their families as well to the point where some servicemembers sought to jump off the carrier into the sea. It was
Doug, a constituent from California, wrote a letter to me expressing his deep concerns over his son's service on the Lincoln. His son had to be medically evacuated from the ship after suffering a collapsed lung, which Doug believes was connected to malnutrition and overexertion.
During that time his family spent thousands of dollars sending him food, but only about half of it arrived.
Doug went on:
What he told me as a father and veteran turns my stomach and must be brought to light.
Another constituent of mine, Annabelle from San Diego, shared her story about her husband attempting to jump overboard from the Lincoln during his deployment. ``He is scared'' she said. ``He thinks he will get a dishonorable discharge.'' And just because he was burned out, his 13-year career was ruined just like that.
That is not fair. That is not right. That is not what he should be worrying about right now. But this is what Annabelle and her three kids are now living with.
Shelby, a high schooler whose mom is deployed on the Lincoln, spoke about how hard it is to start her senior year without her mom. She asked ``Will she be back before homecoming? my birthday? Christmas?''
I have no idea, and that is all that I think about.
This week, we learned from the Acting Secretary of the Navy that eight U.S. Navy personnel assigned to the Lincoln's carrier strike group attempted suicide during the prolonged time at sea.
The Navy also confirmed that one sailor went overboard from the ship this summer, while another attempted to go overboard. After months of denials, the Defense Department confirmed what has been reported for months, and that is deteriorating mental health aboard the Lincoln and multiple attempts by sailors to jump overboard.
These are just some of the alarming, dangerous, and shameful conditions our sailors and marines have endured aboard the Lincoln and also what our families are going through while Pete Hegseth posts workout videos and Donald Trump renames lakes and pores over blueprints for the gilded ballroom.
For Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies, events in black tie; for our servicemembers aboard the Lincoln, showers and meals with black mold. Could there be a clearer encapsulation of this administration's misplaced priorities?
So the American people were told that the war would be over very soon. That was March 9--10 days after the war started. Now the United States is more than 6 months into this disastrous war. Months of negotiations to end the conflict have failed, but the President promises us that the war will soon come to an end after the election.
And what have we achieved in this war that has cost the lives of 19 U.S. servicemembers? Prices at the pump and grocery checkout have skyrocketed. Diesel prices, fertilizer prices are crushing farmers while resultant food prices are crushing the rest of America. Utility and medical bills are out of control. Everyone but the President and his buddies are painfully aware that we are experiencing an affordability crisis in America while the President says ``not long enough.''
In the closing days of the Mexican-American War, our 16th President, whose name the Lincoln proudly carries, was a freshman here in Congress. He wrote to his law partner:
Lincoln wrote--
Lincoln wrote--
We need to take Lincoln's words to heart. This Congress is not a royal court to do the bidding and bow and scrape before an all-powerful sovereign. We are a coequal branch of government, and 250 years into this experiment in self-governance, we should show Lincoln's resolve.
Will we continue to place the President where Kings have stood, or will we say at long last, ``enough''?
Will we make it clear that this war, illegal from the start, has gone on too long?
Will we insist on the removal and return of our troops?
I pray that we will, and I urge support on this resolution.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Connected Vehicle Security Act.
I want to acknowledge what a rare thing this is as we sit on the floor, myself and Senator Moreno, a Democrat and a Republican, working together on an issue of common cause.
It is a bipartisan bill that would protect America's auto industry and would protect our manufacturing base and protect our national security above all else. Now, I am completely biased. I am the junior Senator from Michigan. The auto industry helped build America, helped invent the middle class.
Millions of workers in the State of Michigan work in some way associated with the auto industry. And that is why I feel very strongly that we must ban Chinese cars from ever being sold in the United States.
Now, on our national security, I am a former CIA officer and Pentagon official. This is my bread and butter. I just want to be clear that Chinese cars--with their high-end video, with their LiDAR, with their geolocation, with their ability to collect on our important infrastructure sites, our military bases, the ability to track where an individual leader is driving, the ability for these cars to be hacked and remotely piloted--it does provide a threat to the everyday American and our national security.
It is literally a driving spy machine on wheels. All of that data and all of that information goes back to Beijing. It is not held in the United States. These cars connect to the internet. They take videos of our kids. They track individual movements.
Now, we all know that as the Senator from Michigan, I am going to care about our economic security. A million plus jobs are associated in the State of Michigan with the auto industry. But the advantage that I think the Chinese are trying to get is to get a foothold into the country, start bringing those cars over our borders, over our bridges and our tunnels, set up shop here in the United States so that they can get access to the extremely lucrative market in the United States.
What this bill does is it bans vehicle hardware and software that are designed, developed, or manufactured in China by Chinese companies. That means they can't be imported, manufactured, or sold here.
This is not a partisan issue. We have sent out the bill to all of our colleagues, and by a very, very strong majority, they have come back and said yes. That doesn't happen every single day. It is supported by our automakers, by organized labor--a broad coalition of individuals and institutions that know that if we threaten our American auto establishment and we threaten our manufacturing base, we threaten our ability to be a powerhouse in manufacturing across the world. It is cosponsored by more than 50 Senators on both sides of the aisle.
I want to thank Senator Moreno for his cooperation and his team's cooperation. We have worked this painstakingly over months to keep stakeholders
I want to thank everybody who came and worked hard in this partisan environment to send a very strong message that Chinese cars are banned here in the United States.
Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Michigan for working so well together on this bill. We don't agree on a lot. We do agree 100 percent that Ohio State has a better football team.
But, look, I think, for the people watching, Americans ultimately--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, you just want a government that works for you. You want a government that functions, that isn't chaotic, that is actually laser- targeted on not only fixing problems but avoiding problems. This is a huge problem that is coming up.
If you were to go back in a time machine about 26 years, in this Chamber, they passed a bill called the China Normalization Act. The idea was that if we could normalize relations with China, China would enter the World Trade Organization, and it would be absolutely phenomenal for the United States because we would get a place to make things really inexpensively. But what has happened over 25 years, 26 years is that China has built a massive military machine.
We go into meeting after meeting, and whether it is election integrity and the assault on that, whether it is the assault on our critical infrastructure, whether it is the fact that they have blatantly stolen our intellectual property--you were the Ambassador to Japan. You dealt with this every day, with the Japanese saying: Look, the threats from China are real; they are ever present.
If we only could have avoided that vote 26 years ago. I can tell you that what we are talking about here today is even more existential.
As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, it was the auto industry uniquely that built the middle class in this country.
I believe that in a future time, a future Congress, we are going to unite, Republicans and Democrats, around one simple concept: that our job here collectively is to make certain that an American citizen can graduate from high school and get a good enough paying job that they can afford a home, afford to get married, afford to start a family, be able to live in a safe community, and most importantly, retire with dignity. It seems to me that is actually the essence of the American dream. But these jobs are few and far between. They are hard to get. The auto industry can do that.
Let me show just a little chart here for my colleagues. It shows just how important the auto industry is to America--963,000 factory jobs, direct factory jobs.
In your State, I don't have to tell you--I can only imagine how many auto plants you have visited, whether it is Nissan in Smyrna, GM in Spring Hill, or Volkswagen in Chattanooga. You have autos all over your State. These are really, really good jobs. The people who work in those factories meet the definition I just said. We have to make certain, as policymakers, that we do everything possible to make certain those jobs are protected.
If you look at the entire auto industry, when you look at the supply chain--because there are a lot of pieces and parts that go into a car. It is the second largest purchase somebody will make after their home. Mr. President, 2.4 million good, high-paying jobs--these are not minimum-wage jobs; these are family-sustaining wages--and 11 million jobs when you think about the effects. In Chattanooga, TN, the fact that Volkswagen is there, you have all kinds of businesses that exist because of the employment there, because of those wages that allow people to buy homes, spend money.
Now, what is the counter? What is the threat here? What are we really doing? China understands this, I think, better than we do, honestly-- the importance of building their middle class--so what they have done over the last two decades is targeted the auto industry, not to compete in the auto industry but to conquer the auto industry, to create what I have dubbed ``automotive fentanyl'' where they create these predators that go out and don't just compete--because General Motors, Ford, Toyota--you name it--can compete with any car company on Earth. They can't compete with a country that is hell-bent on total conquest.
They now make almost four times as many cars as we do here in America. They export almost as many cars as we make here in America. While their domestic market is dropping, they are producing ever more cars. They need to feed that beast. They need to feed that machine. So what do they do? They go into countries like Germany where, when you are born, the first words from your parents are ``You have to buy a German car.'' Thirty-four percent of hybrids sold in Germany last month were Chinese--in a country that is culturally inclined to buy German vehicles. You look at countries like Ecuador. Fifty-seven percent of the new cars sold in Ecuador are Chinese vehicles. Mexico and Canada are starting to go there. All over the world, you are starting to see this total domination.
In the case of Germany again, Volkswagen Group, which is partially owned by a government entity in Germany, for the first time in their history had to lay off 150,000 workers. Why? Because they can't compete with the nation of China that is hell-bent on destroying their industries.
This is the reality of what we are talking about--$1.2 trillion in GDP. This is what is at stake.
So I will conclude with this. It is really hard to pass legislation. We know that. Our Founders wanted it that way. They wanted to make certain that two Senators from every State, big or small, would have to come together to figure out how to get to a compromise. That requires enormous effort. Introducing bills that will never pass--that is easy. We keep the clerks very busy with papers for bills that will never pass. This is a bill that has almost 100 out of 100 Senators on board. People have totally different ideological points of view, but on this, we have united, which is we cannot allow this threat to happen.
I am confident and hopeful that I can come back to you, Mr. President, next week with my colleague from Michigan and that we can pass the Connected Vehicle Security Act and that when the House comes back on November 8, that the House take up an identical version of this bill that Congressman Moolenaar and Congresswoman Dingell have been working on and that we can get this bill in the hands of the President.
I know that he feels the same way I do, which is that we are not going to let these cars into our market; we are going to make certain that we defend the U.S. auto industry.
So thank you again to my colleague for the hard work. Thank you to all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that have provided input and have gotten us to the point where we have a phenomenal piece of legislation. I am very, very hopeful that we will absolutely get this done next week.
Mr. President, the Chinese Government will do anything, at any cost, anywhere in the world to silence its critics.
Freedom House has documented hundreds of cases of the Chinese Government stalking, intimidating, even assaulting people outside of China, people all around the world--a lot of people right here in our United States of America. This stalking and intimidation of people on our soil is absolutely unacceptable.
This goes by the term ``transnational repression.'' It is China taking its tactics of suppressing dissent and extending them right here where we have freedom of speech in the United States of America. Thus, while President Xi is here in Washington, we need to send a message that says that this is unacceptable, that our Constitution guarantees that every person here in the United States has the right to speak
So I am calling on the Senate today to affirm our belief in and commitment to this principle of free speech. That is why this resolution is a bipartisan resolution, with Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator John Curtis bringing it forward, to say that these Chinese tactics to suppress freedom of speech in the United States and intimidate our citizens are unacceptable.
We have seen what China has done at home. We have seen what they have done to enslave the Uighurs with facial recognition technology. We have seen what they have done to force Tibetan children into boarding schools. We have seen what they have done in Hong Kong to arrest and imprison those who criticize the Chinese Government. We have seen their journalists jailed for reporting the truth.
But it hasn't been enough for China simply to conduct these practices on Chinese soil; they are exporting those practices here to the United States of America. Freedom House calls this ``the long arm of authoritarianism.'' It is stretching beyond the borders of China, all around the world--countless stories of how China has intimidated people on our soil into silence.
I was struck by a woman in California who said: This individual walked up to me, said ``We know where your family is located in China,'' and walked away.
Why did that happen? Because she had expressed disagreement with some of the policies of China, particularly their oppressive strategies back home.
Last week, I spoke with a woman who told me that a member of her family had criticized the Chinese Government, and in retaliation, the Chinese Government had arrested dozens of her family members, not one or two--it should be zero--but dozens.
I spoke with journalists from Radio Free Asia. More than 70 relatives of Radio Free Asia's Uighur news service have been imprisoned or harassed in China in retaliation for reporting done here in the United States by American journalists.
Beijing has been abusing international institutions, like Interpol and the U.N., to smear and stalk people who are testifying to what is happening to the Uighurs, what is happening in Hong Kong, what is happening to the Tibetan children.
In July, Beijing made their long arm of authoritarianism official law. Article 63 of a new Chinese law called the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law claims authority for the Chinese Government to hold people and organizations outside of China legally liable for undermining unity and creating division. That is obviously code for ``criticizing the Chinese Government.'' It is unacceptable that we are allowing this to happen right here.
We want to reinforce President Trump in conveying to Premier Xi that this is not OK or acceptable. There are lots of other discussions taking place about ships, about critical minerals, about trade, but absolutely we should affirm as a Senate that we stand behind freedom of speech and reject China's ability and authority to intimidate, stalk, and oppress people on our soil.
This week, I led my Senate and House colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and others urging them to protect our freedom of speech here at home.
As noted by the FBI, ``If you are in the United States, including a U.S. territory, your freedoms are protected.'' That sums it up. Your freedoms are protected. And that is why we need to send this message.
Let's send this powerful, bipartisan message that in the United States of America, people are free to speak, that authoritarians don't get to bring their repression onto our American soil.
With that, let us fulfill our oath that we took to our Constitution to defend it, including defending our freedom of speech, and unanimously pass this resolution that says that the long arm of Chinese authoritarianism is unwelcome here in the United States, that it is unacceptable here in the United States.
And to do that, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 247, S. Res. 226; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution be amended as agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to be considered be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the author of ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I take a backseat to no one in my opposition of socialism, communism, or any other form of collectivism.
In ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I wrote:
My concern is far greater that America will succumb to socialism by choice than by foreign invasion. The question is, Will this next generation follow the path of previous generations? Will today's youth emerge from their parents' basements and begin to earn a living, discover that their success depends on their merit and hard work or will they succumb to the allure of something for nothing?
In ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I pull no punches about the tyranny and violence of Mao and the panopticon of China's surveillance state today. But I draw a distinction between articulating the horrors of Chinese authoritarianism and Senate resolutions intended to embarrass Chinese leaders who are visiting our country.
The art of diplomacy is the art of pulling punches, avoiding insult, attempting to find common ground. Diplomacy creates a space to refer to someone as ``President'' even though the world knows they were elected by a small group in a single-party state.
The leadership between the United States and China is the most consequential of the 21st century. As such, we should strive to at least have decent working relations with one another. That is why I fully support President Trump's overture to meet with President Xi.
We should not advance symbolic condemnation that unnecessarily undermines United States-China diplomacy with no tangible benefit to United States' interests. Instead, we should encourage more United States-China dialogue given the consequences of a hostile relationship, not symbolically poke them in the eye before the first state visit in 10 years.
Diplomacy is fast becoming a lost art. I, for one, hope that President Trump's diplomacy will lessen the tensions between the United States and China.
Mr. President, this resolution says the Senate condemns China for a systematic campaign of transnational repression, affirms that all individuals residing in the United States have the right to live free from foreign government intimidation, coercion, and surveillance. I do not understand--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to assert its constitutional authority and to demand accountability for the grave costs that servicemembers, their families, and the American people have shouldered because of the President's war in Iran.
After more than 6 months--6 months--it is clear that the President had no plan when the war started and has no plan for how to end it.
To be clear, Iran is a terrorist state and should never have a nuclear weapon, and the regime's aggression in the region and repression of Iranian citizens must end. That is why I have long supported sanctions against Iran as well as the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by President Obama and our allies. And I opposed President Trump's decision to take us out of that agreement.
Our ultimate goal must be peace in the region. But more than 6 months into this conflict, American servicemembers have been killed, including my constituent MSG Nicole Amor, who was among those killed by an Iranian strike on a United States facility in Kuwait on March 1. Innocent civilians across the region have also been killed, and the costs keep mounting.
Beyond the toll on human life, the costs of the war to taxpayers is staggering. The Pentagon recently estimated that it has already spent $42 billion on this unauthorized war so far--$42 billion.
This is money that could be used to expand childcare or to restore healthcare premium tax credits to help millions of Americans who have seen their healthcare premiums double or triple this year or how about the 8 million people who, just this last year, have given up coverage entirely? That $40 billion, that could have extended the tax credits to help people afford their insurance premiums for over a year. And now the President is asking for $70 billion more. That is 2 more years of those tax credits.
As a result of this war, American families continue to face spiking gas prices, costing consumers more than $800 per family in higher gas and diesel costs. American people, outside of what I just outlined that the Pentagon has spent of its taxpayer money, have spent over $100 billion on this war in higher prices.
In Minnesota, gas prices are up more than a $1.50 since the day before the war started. Diesel prices--right as farmers are going to harvest--have doubled across the country.
These higher fuel prices also make trucking, in addition to farming and freight, more expensive, hitting families and small businesses over and over again when you add to that the tariffs.
That is why Congress must step up and assert our authority under the Constitution. Congress did not authorize this war. And more than 6 months in, Congress still has not authorized this war--6 months in. And our colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep just giving up their authority.
Why even come here? Why even take this job if you are going to just let one President run over you and be able to make his own calls and just say: Hey, we are going to a war. It is going to cost the American people over $100 billion. It is going to spike up prices across the country. Innocent people are going to be killed, and then we are going to lose soldiers at the same time.
In fact, both Houses of Congress have passed resolutions to stop this unauthorized war. I have voted a dozen times to stop this war, unless Congress passes an authorization, and I will continue to vote that way until Congress restores its role in decisions of war and peace.
The American people are asking what this war has accomplished:
Are we closer to a strong and strict agreement to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions? The answer is no.
Are we now dealing with Iranian leaders who are less hardline? The answer is no.
Have we preserved open shipping routes that are so important for trade? Answer, no.
It is time for the President to end this war. It is time for the work to bring costs down for the American people and foster lasting peace in the region. This is our moment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I am on the floor today to support yet another resolution to end the war in Iran.
Here is the latest poll regarding public support or approval. Eighteen percent of respondents--this latest CNN poll--say that President Trump's decisions around the war in Iran are helping the United States. Seventy percent of Americans say that his decisions around the Iran war are hurting Americans. That is a stunning number.
Basically, it is only the hard-core MAGA supporters that still believe this war is a good idea. Everybody else--Independents, Democrats, independent-thinking Republicans--have all decided that this body needs to vote to end this war. And it is not hard to figure out why.
Here is a chart that is familiar to my colleagues. This is the unreal spike in gas and diesel prices that has occurred solely because of this war.
If you are in Indiana right now, diesel is $7 a gallon. That is why farms are going bankrupt right now in the Midwest at record rates; the tariffs and the high price of diesel. But for American consumers who are just filling up their tank with gasoline, the same disaster: in California, above $6 a gallon; in many States, above $5 a gallon. And it is just going up and up and up.
But Americans also see this has been a national security disaster for the country. It has obviously been an economic nightmare. Mortgage rates are at 7 percent again, by the way, if you hadn't noticed. That is because of the war, primarily; the tariffs as well.
But Americans oppose this war 70 to 18 in the current poll because they know that it is hurting our national security. We have not had a resolution on the floor in a number of weeks.
So I just want to talk about four things that have happened in the last few weeks that show how this war is spiraling and spiraling out of control. Every single day, this war becomes more dangerous for the region, more of a disaster for the United States.
One of the things that the administration said that was a motivating factor for the war was getting rid of Iran's missiles. I don't know how many times we heard Secretary Hegseth tell us that the goal was to destroy Iran's missiles and missile capacity. And back in April, he claimed that they had functionally destroyed--that is his word-- ``functionally'' destroyed Iran's ability to make new missiles.
Well, the Wall Street Journal just reported that Iran is producing ballistic missiles again at scale. And we only were able to eliminate around 30 percent of the missiles. They have most of their stockpiles from before the war, and now they are producing missiles. Again, satellite imagery shows that Iran is rebuilding bridges and roads to production sites; they are restoring tunnel entrances; and they are building capacity again.
Iran is building missiles again. This is the whole reason we were going into the war--a total failure--to eliminate Iran's missile capacity.
What is the strain on our servicemembers? Well, we just learned this week that eight Navy sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln have attempted suicide. Two of those sailors, as we all know, tried to jump overboard to end their lives. This is a ship that has been without a port call--was without a port call for 286 days. That is abdication of leadership, an abdication of the responsibility to care about our troops' safety by our Department of Defense leadership.
We have sailors and soldiers and airmen that are in crisis right now because we have put them in harm's way for far longer--for far longer-- than any brave man or woman who has signed up to defend this Nation deserves to be in harm's way.
We have a new war that has broken out. A new war has broken out in the last 2 weeks. This was totally predictable.
Everybody said: If you go to war with Iran, the Houthis are not going to stand put. They are going to start firing inside Yemen and at the Saudis, and that is exactly what has happened.
Drone strikes from the Houthis have knocked out Saudi Arabia's bypass pipeline earlier this month. They have seized control of routes along the Red Sea. And, functionally, the Red Sea is now shut down as a means for the Saudis to move oil out of the region. This is part of the reason why gas prices continue to go up.
The Strait of Hormuz is partially open again, but at what expense? Prewar, it cost a supertanker $200,000 to move through the strait. Today, it costs--this is a per-day cost. Today, it costs $1 million per day for a supertanker to move through the strait, five times the cost before the war. That alone adds $26 to the cost of each barrel of oil. So, even though we are moving some transit through the Strait of
Finally, there has been satellite imagery in the last few weeks that has shown new construction inside Iran around a complex called Pickaxe Mountain. This is probably their new, most important nuclear site. It looks as if they are digging a very deep bunker--deeper than Fordow--to restart their nuclear research program. As one expert said, the window to strike Pickaxe Mountain has already expired because the regime has dug so far underground that we can now not hit it.
So they are restarting the nuclear program. They are restarting their missile production program. We have not eliminated their drone capability. We are leading up to a mass suicide and self-harm crisis amongst our servicemembers. Costs are spiraling out of control for consumers and for farms. A new war is breaking out in the region that threatens the stability of the Middle East and further drives up gas prices.
That is why support for this war is at 18 percent in this country. We are supposed to be a democratic body that listens to the will of the people. The people--whether they are Republicans, Independents, or Democrats--are telling us loudly and unequivocally: End this war.
And it is not like we can't. This resolution is a chance for this body to end the war. So we are pleading, once again--it is the tenth time that we have had a resolution like this--for our colleagues to join us. The American public is making it clear: They can't handle the costs of this war, and they can't stand for the national security harm it is doing to the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, today, I rise, once again, in strong opposition to Donald Trump's illegal war in Iran.
For more than 6 months now, American families have paid the price for this President's war of choice. This conflict has cost the lives of 18 of our servicemembers. It has cost American taxpayers $43 billion, and it has cost families, small businesses, and manufacturers, as the price of just about everything has skyrocketed.
I have been traveling across Wisconsin to hear from my constituents as to just what this war has cost them.
In Milwaukee, I have heard from veterans about the cost of war on our soldiers, their families, and their communities.
In Madison, I have heard from parents who are seeing a 20-percent increase in the cost of back-to-school essentials, like lunch boxes and notebooks and paper.
In La Crosse, I heard from a hardware store owner about the impact of the rising costs on goods in his store and what that means for his customers.
In Green Bay, one manufacturer told me that his supplier of raw aluminum in the Middle East--a product that he can only get overseas-- was literally bombed. That is on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased costs from tariffs and the war generally.
Our Wisconsin farmers are just getting hammered. They had higher fertilizer costs at the planting season, higher fuel costs just to run their equipment, and because of Trump's trade wars, they have fewer places to sell their produce. During this year's planting season alone, Wisconsin farmers spent nearly $44 million more on diesel fuel than they did last year. As of today, the price of diesel in Wisconsin is a whopping $6.59 a gallon for our farmers and our truckers.
The devastating impact of this war cannot be overstated. These families are trying to put food on the table. Small business owners are trying to stay afloat. Farmers are just trying to break even.
Wisconsinites never wanted this war. Yet they continue to pay for it every day. They are paying more at the pump, more at the grocery store, and more to keep their businesses and farms running.
The American people deserve better than an endless war that is costing American lives and making it harder for them to get by at home.
I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in bringing an end to this war of choice and vote yes on this resolution.
Mr. President, this war in Iran absolutely, immediately must end, and it will only end if the person who started it with the unilateral decision to go to war decides to end the war.
We in the Senate have voted numerous times to end this war. We can't do it unless we get votes from the other side of the aisle, but it is absolutely disgraceful that the United States is in this war.
It was a decision of two men, not of two legislative bodies and not of two votes of the American people, but of two men--Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu was in the Situation Room, making his case that we should go to war with Iran. Any of the advisers to the President said it was a bogus claim that it would be done overnight, which is essentially what the assertion was.
So our President made a decision--and it was a unilateral decision by him, a unilateral decision--that we go to war. He told the American people it would be over in a couple of days, just like in Venezuela, and that the people of Iran would rise up and take out the Ayatollah. Many Iranians did rise up, and they got slaughtered.
The President bragged about the military might--and we do have a strong military--but his strategic thinking was totally flawed and foolish. He thought bombing could resolve something that it couldn't. So, yes, we bombed. Yes, the leadership in Iran was wiped out.
But then Iran did what military advisers knew it would do, but the President could not listen. They used an asymmetric response--drones-- to close the Strait of Hormuz. The impact here has been going on for over 6 months, and the only way we can assess what has happened is to come to the conclusion that the President's policy was a complete failure. It is not working.
The President continues to promote a nonpolicy and to assert we are putting the squeeze on Iran.
Mr. President, you are putting the squeeze on farmers in Iowa. You are putting the squeeze on the tourist industry in Vermont. You are putting the squeeze on manufacturers in Wisconsin. You are putting the squeeze on the American people.
You know, for a farmer in the Midwest who wants to fill up his combine with diesel, it is 1,500 extra dollars a day. And for what? For what? For the ego of a man who capitulated to the pressures of Binyamin Netanyahu--and that is what he did--and who does not have the leadership ability or the character to assess what has happened in these past 6 months and acknowledge that it is time for a change?
This is a day-to-day catastrophe, and the man who started this must end it. But we, as U.S. Senators, with the responsibility and the trust given to us by the people who elected us, have a say, and it is time for us to say: End this war. End this war now. Arrogance is not a substitute for good judgment. Arrogance is not an expression of toughness and resolve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, President Trump's war against Iran has been deeply unpopular--from the very first day--in Virginia and among Americans, and it is growing more and more unpopular with each passing day.
It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see 18 troops lose their lives. They don't want to see the Pentagon undercounting troop deaths.
It is unpopular because the American people don't want to see hundreds of combat casualties for no legitimate purpose and a concern that the Pentagon is undercounting combat casualties.
It is unpopular because Americans--and Virginians, in particular-- don't want to see extended deployments of carrier strike groups and their loved ones away from home. A report came out yesterday that there were eight attempted suicides in the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group because of the extended deployment.
It is unpopular because having your sons and daughters deployed overseas,
It is unpopular because diesel prices are going up, and other prices are going up.
It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see a U.S. missile hit a school and kill hundreds of kids.
It is unpopular because Americans don't appreciate a leader who would tear up a diplomatic deal that was working and, instead, prefer a war that is not working.
It is unpopular because it is depleting our munitions.
It is unpopular because it is adding to our debt.
It is unpopular because Americans have spent now more than 100 billion extra dollars in fuel costs than they would have without this war.
The good news is that we can do something about it. We don't have to stand back and just say: Wow, the President has decided, for silly reasons, to start an illegal war, and I guess we just have to go along.
And that is what this vote is about.
We have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution says the President cannot declare war, only Congress can. There has been no congressional declaration of war. The President is violating the Constitution with this war.
There is a statute that allows the President to defend the country for 60 days without Congress, but it requires that that military action expire at the end of 60 days. We are well past 60 days. The President is not only not following the Constitution, he is not following the War Powers Act.
Third, we have passed a concurrent resolution--Congress, both Houses, under a Republican majority--declaring the war illegal. The President has ignored that.
We directed him: Withdraw troops or get an authorization.
He has done neither, and it is not likely he will do either.
But the American public is speaking loud and clear and saying: You in the Senate--you can do something about it.
And that is what this resolution is about.
The House, for the second time, has passed a concurrent resolution provided under the War Powers Act. We will now vote, and it is my hope we will vote with them to declare, yet again, that this is an illegal war and that the President should stop it.
In closing, I will just say this: The President appeared at the U.N. earlier this week and said it was his decision as to whether to do a peace deal or whether to annihilate the nation of Iran. We have never had a President who talks like this, and we never should again. But it is not his decision; it is our decision.
The time to make a decision to end this war is upon us. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the concurrent resolution.
Mr. President, the last time that Congress passed a full farm bill was in 2018; that was 8 years ago, and that law expired in 2023. We should have passed a new bill by then, but Congress has only passed short-term extensions. A lot has changed over the past 8 years, and the farm economy looks vastly different.
To be frank, America's farmers and ranchers are struggling. Drought, high input costs and low yields have made it a very trying time.
I heard some of these concerns firsthand in August during a livestock roundtable in Crawford, NE. I also heard this at our State fair where I listened to ag producers from across our State.
These producers are in dire need of a modern farm bill, and we owe it to them--the people who feed, fuel, and clothe us all--to enact policies that promote stability and markets to sell their products.
I keep this goal front and center as a member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. And I am proud to say that last week, we advanced the farm bill out of committee. We are one step closer to giving America's farmers and ranchers the long-term certainty that they need.
But I am disappointed in how long it took us to get there. You know, we first tried to move the farm bill in July. The Agriculture Committee took a vote, but it failed. Every Republican voted yes. Every single Democrat voted no. This was particularly disappointing given that this year's farm bill includes numerous priorities led by Democrats.
Republicans worked in good faith to include their legislation to help the producers in their States. I am proud of those bipartisan priorities in this bill. I worked with Chairman Boozman to build policies that support a safe, steady supply of food, fuel, and fiber.
Importantly, our bill also includes locking in permanent year-round E15. This is one of the most direct ways that Congress can provide relief without subsidies, by strengthening domestic demand for corn and ethanol.
We cannot continue to operate on the current waiver system. For 8 years now, we have needed a Presidential waiver for E15 to be sold during the summertime. And these waivers, they have been granted every year. But this uncertainty makes it harder for producers and retailers to invest and plan.
Permanent year-round E15, well, that would create a consistent, predictable market. It would allow farmers, ethanol plants, and fuel stations to operate with confidence.
Our biofuels producers and our retailers need that certainty. They deserve a stable market 12 months out of the year, and I have been fighting for this for over a decade. It is long overdue.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there circulating around E15. Let me be clear: This bill is not a government mandate. It simply gives fuel retailers the choice if they want to sell E15 at their gas station. And it also gives consumers a choice to fill up with E15 at the gas pump and to save some money.
The Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that E15 is completely safe in cars made in 2001 or later.
Let me repeat that. If you have a vehicle manufactured in 2001 or later, E15 can be used in your car. It does not hurt your engine.
So please, colleagues, public, quit saying that.
E15 expands domestic fuel options using American-grown corn. This reduces vulnerability to global supply
In addition to E15, this year's farm bill includes my precision ag package, three bills that will help America's producers harness the full potential of precision agriculture. We need to make it more affordable for our farmers and ranchers to be able to access these cutting-edge tools.
In turn, we can help their operations become more productive, more efficient, and less resource intensive.
This farm bill also includes my legislation to prevent future food shortages in our Tribal nutrition programs. By incorporating input from Tribes on contracting decisions, we can strengthen this important resource for communities that depend upon it. And I was very, very happy to work with my Tribes in making sure that we got that included in this bill.
Additionally, I secured a provision to safeguard Federal conservation funds from being exploited by America's adversaries. This is going to protect U.S. taxpayers and our domestic manufacturers from being taken advantage of.
And, finally, I am very pleased to see my colleague Senator Ricketts' FENCE Act included, a bill that I cosponsored. Senator Ricketts' bill will give farmers and ranchers an opportunity to use virtual fencing as they build and recover from natural disasters, and this is especially helpful after the historic and devastating wildfires that blazed across Nebraska earlier this year.
All of these provisions are needed. Together, they make a 2026 farm bill a strong bipartisan legislation that truly serves our farmers, our ranchers, and rural Americans.
As a committee, we did the work. We agreed to include good bills from both Democrats and Republicans. We built strong bipartisan support for year-round E15. We offered a fair compromise on SNAP cost-share concerns.
We compromised on many items, and now we need to get this done. Let's pass the farm bill. Let's give America's farmers and ranchers the stability that they need.
To my colleagues, please, join me, and let's get this over the finish line.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor someone who has changed the lives of millions of Americans, though until this moment, they may have never heard her name: Kalina Thompson, my chief of staff, who is leaving our office at the end of the month, after more than a decade by my side.
Kalina and I did not meet as kids. We met when I was already a Congresswoman. But in a way, it still feels that we grew up together, as we learned from each other and leaned on one another from my early days in the House, finding out what it truly means to serve this great Nation, to lead, to not just get through long workdays in order to simply make it until tomorrow, but to make sure that tomorrow is even better than yesterday for the good of those coming up behind you.
Kalina is someone whose passion for public service is matched only by her compassion for others. And don't be fooled by her soft voice; when she believes in something she will fight harder than you can imagine to transform a pipedream into a reality, to do some good, to do right by a constituent who is desperate for someone, somewhere to lend them an ear or a hand.
You know, it is rare to find someone whose North Star so closely aligns with your own, but that is what I found in Kalina; a kindred public servant, a trusted sounding board, a truthteller who will call me out when I am wrong. She somehow stays unshakable, even in moments of chaos, and beyond it all, a fiercely loyal friend.
We were there for one another as we each became mothers, and we were there for one another as we worked day and night to make sure that other new moms would have an easier time than we did.
It is thanks in large part to Kalina that my FAM Act became law, helping ensure that nursing moms traveling through airports would have access to private, clean, and accessible breast-feeding rooms.
She recognized that we would never expect a traveler to eat lunch in an airport bathroom stall. Yet, for so many new moms, they had no choice but to breast-feed in one. She saw a wrong, and she righted it.
It took 5 years, but in doing so, whether they know it or not, she bettered the lives of countless women across this country. So every time you are heading to your airport gate and see one of those breast- feeding pods, think of and thank Kalina. I know I do. That is just who she is.
She is someone who so thoroughly and thoughtfully thinks of others that sometimes she does forget to think about herself.
So it doesn't matter that folks in question are halfway down the block or halfway across the world, if she hears of someone in need, she will go sleepless until she exhausts every avenue of service.
I have watched her sacrifice time with her own family to do everything possible to help families escape war-torn countries in the Middle East. She has made calls to fellow moms across the globe just to let them know they are not alone, that we are fighting for them, that we would never stop fighting for them.
She has redefined the word ``compassion'' with every call she made, every ounce of hard work she put in, every time she went the extra mile for a stranger thousands of miles away.
Kalina is also a leader who has taken the lessons she has learned along her own career journey, and she used them not just for herself but for all of those climbing the ladder rungs of success behind her.
As legislative director, then as deputy chief of staff, and now as chief of staff, she has made sure that the women in our office always-- always--know and fight for their worth.
Now, because of her, there is a whole generation of female staffers that believe in themselves more fully, and Congress is a better place because of it, because of Kalina.
I could go on and on about the constituents Kalina has helped, the bills she has helped to pass, the lives she has changed, the lives that she has saved, starting with her own work fighting to pass the Affordable Care Act; but let me just tell one more story.
As Democrats, we like to say that we are the party of middle-class families, which is true. But Kalina took it upon herself to make sure our office didn't just offer the standard family Senate policies for staffers, when it came to things like FMLA or parental leave. No, she wanted to set a new bar for congressional offices.
She said to me: If we want our constituents to truly believe that we would fight for their families, then we have to fight for the families of those who come to work for us every day as well.
And it wasn't simple. At first, it seemed like it would be too big of a resource hit to actually go through with the plan she was proposing. Could our budget afford it? Could our workforce afford it?
It would have been easy to just scrap the idea, to backtrack, to stick with the status quo. But Kalina refused, arguing that if we want to actually live up to our policy ideas, to our political party's ideals, it starts with us in our own backyard.
And you know what? She was right. So we became the first office in either the House or Senate to grant 16 weeks of paid leave to new parents. And then we extended our family leave policy. We made sure that we didn't just talk the talk as Democrats, but that we also walked the walk as employers. And because of her, staffers have been able to go care for their fathers battling cancer; because of her, new moms have had the time necessary to look after themselves and their little ones in those precious all-important first few months after birth. Because of Kalina, no one in our office has had to make the impossible choice between earning the paycheck that puts food on their table and being there for an ailing mom, sister, child, or spouse.
Try as hard as she might, Kalina could not singlehandedly change family leave policy for the entire country. But this was a proof point, making it clear that it is possible for an office to be there for its staffers and do its work without missing a beat, because it actually benefited our office in the long
And I will say, she and I don't agree on everything. There are some differences that have divided even our office right down the middle. For instance, Kalina and our former legislative director Steph would literally sit in our office in those cubes in Cannon and horrify the rest of us by happily digging into a giant mason jar of sauerkraut, eating sauerkraut right out of that jar, for instance.
But on nearly everything else, I just feel beyond fortunate to have found a partner so courageous in everything that she takes on, from learning English in America after moving from Bulgaria as a little girl to her ``Love Story'' karaoke performances to going head to head with the Senate Rules Committees to help me change our Chamber's bylaws to let parents take newborns onto the Senate floor.
No challenge has been too daunting for her and no task too small. She simply cares. It is who she is, and it is why I am endlessly grateful to have been able to have her by my side for so long through so much.
Let me finish by saying thank you to Kalina, of course, but also her family--Sandy, Wills, and Sofie--for lending your wife, your mom to us for those countless late nights and weekends.
Kalina, I will miss you more than I could ever say, but just know how proud all of us are of you and how lucky I feel that I got to watch you grow into the force for good that you are today.
Bon voyage, my friend. I know you are going to continue to do good for the rest of the world.
Madam President, it is my honor to rise today and give somebody gratitude for my first and, so far, only chief of staff, Mark Libell. Mark was with me from my first days in the Senate.
I have spent my entire adult life in ministry. This was my first public office. So as I made my way to the Senate, I knew that I needed someone who knew his way around here--you can relate--someone who knew where the bathrooms were and who knew how to get things done around here.
Mark was a Senate veteran and well respected by everyone who knew him, and it didn't take me long to understand why. He came to DC as an intern in 2003, and he decided he would intern until he found a job or ran out of money. He clearly was hooked. And if he ran out of money, he planned to pack up his car and return home to Alabama.
Well, luckily for all of us, Mark did not stay an intern for long. He went on to work for my friend Senator Debbie Stabenow, Representatives Bart Gordon and Linda Sanchez, and Senator Jay Rockefeller.
After 10 years working on Capitol Hill, Mark took his talents to the Federal Reserve Board but returned to the Senate a few years later to serve his beloved home State of Alabama as deputy chief of staff and legislative director for my friend Senator Doug Jones.
So when I say Mark knows the Senate, I mean he really knows the Senate. Although he hails from Alabama and everybody knows how serious that rivalry is between Georgia and Alabama football, we have never held that against him. He has seen this place from every angle, he has done just about every job there is to do in a Senator's office, and he has been a major asset to my mission and my work.
That is part of what makes Mark so special, because he saw so many roles. He sees himself in every staffer. He has a deep respect in every role that a person plays in a Senate office no matter their title.
Staff assistants and senior staff alike know that Mark's door is always open. He will make time to offer career advice or to solve a problem. And when staffers walk out of his office, they feel respected, and they feel heard. Most importantly, they feel like someone is in their corner rooting for them to succeed. And on more than one occasion, he has been a confidante and trusted counsel to me.
Mark has the heart of a public servant. He wrote his thesis on Bobby Kennedy. Even in a place as cynical as Washington, DC, Mark is leaving the Senate as much of an idealist as when he arrived over two decades ago. He has always believed in this institution's ability to make a difference in people's lives, and that is why Mark fought for me to keep on the entire casework team from my Republican predecessor and friend, the late Senator Johnny Isakson. That casework team that Mark advocated for has gone on to help nearly 68,000 constituents and is nationally recognized as one of the best casework teams in Congress. They get great things done for Georgians all the time. Because my name is on the door, I get the credit, but they do the work under Mark's leadership.
Mark believed that we could cut child poverty in half, and he helped me to do that when we passed the expanded child tax credit. He believed we could ban private equity from mass-purchasing homes, and we did just that. He believed that we could come together and lower the cost of insulin, and we did just that.
But what I most appreciate about Mark is that he always believes in this country's ability to do better, to be better. That idealism he saw in Bobby Kennedy is very much alive in him.
Mark believed in a country where a State in the old Confederacy could elect its first African-American Senator and first Jewish Senator in one fell swoop and where a kid from Florence, AL, could go on to become one of the most influential staffers serving today in the U.S. Senate.
Because no one achieves anything alone, I would also like to thank Mark's wonderful wife Carrie for the support she has shown to Mark and my entire operation through early mornings and late nights. I would also like to thank his mother Lynn and his brother Adam. I know his father, who about a year ago passed into the light, smiles from someplace in eternity.
While Mark may be leaving the Senate tomorrow, he leaves behind dozens of staffers whom he has inspired with his patriotic idealism that a career in public service is worth it, is worth the sacrifice, that the small wins add up, that they make the difference in the lives of ordinary people, and that our future is brighter when we choose to have faith in one another.
So, Mark, from me, from my staff, and from the people of Georgia, thank you so very much. God bless you and your future endeavors. Keep the faith, and keep looking up.
Madam President, I think we would all probably agree that we are living through in realtime the biggest technological transformation in generations.
I was lucky enough to be involved in the beginnings of the wireless industry. As an investor, I invested in companies in the internet. As significant as both of those are, they pale in comparison to what we are facing now with this transformation, and there is a lot of good that will come out of artificial intelligence. We all know that AI is already changing the way Americans work, the way businesses compete, the way scientists conduct our research, and, frankly, as to what our government should do to protect our country. Let me be clear at the outset, America has got to continue to lead this transformation.
I am down, today, with two of my colleagues--the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from New Jersey--to say that we can't dawdle at this moment. Each of us has got a whole series of AI legislative items. I have got ideas about data centers, about kids' safety, about liability for AI agents, national security. Senator Rounds and I, for example, today, talked about a workforce transformation.
But we have been at a moment in time, over the last few weeks, where the AI companies themselves have acknowledged that they are creating tools and entities that they may not even be able to control. We have seen one company, OpenAI, launch a series of 3,000 AI agents that jumped over the security barriers, attacked a different company, Hugging Face, came back and tried to attack their own company--these AI agents together. The
I have met, over the last couple of weeks, with business leaders from finance and from across corporate America who all say: What are you guys doing?
This is the issue of our time. Yes, I have got frustrations on data centers, but this is the issue of our time. This is going to be the biggest transformation of our lifetimes, and we don't have even de minimis safety protocols. We are completely relying on the good will of these large AI frontier tech companies to kind of do the right thing. That is irresponsible. You know, I am proud of the role I play in the national security domain. I have been chair or vice chair of the Intel Committee for the last decade.
Another company--not OpenAI. That was the Hugging Face incident. Anthropic created a new model called Mythos, and our head of cyber security--CYBERCOM--and the National Security Agency, General Rudd, said, basically, that Mythos is going to change warfare almost as much as drones. Luckily, we got a first look at that but only because the one company was willing to give that forward.
So we ought to have a time to have a fulsome debate about data centers, kids' safety, liability, and other issues, but right now--and we were going to do this today, but we are going to come back on Monday because the Senate has left. We are, kind of, the three of us--and we are talking to other colleagues on both sides of the aisle--saying: Let's strip back all of our personal ideas, and let's just put a marker down that potentially we could act on because we hear from some of the technology leaders that we might lose, you know, the ability to control some of these tools not in years or months, but some folks say--and I am not fully believing them--in weeks. I don't believe--I am not a ``doomer'' on AI--I don't think the robots are going to take over the world--but I do think, if we had an event where an AI tool went out and took over a hospital or took over a water system or shut down a power system--and Americans are already concerned about the rate of this technology change--they could shut down this innovation, and that would be the worst for our country. We need to lead this in terms of some of our competitors like China.
So what we are going to be proposing is, I think, as simple as possible. Before any AI model coming out of these frontier labs is released to the public, it ought to be tested to make sure it is safe. A lot of these big companies also do some self-testing, but they do it in what is called a sandbox, where they are supposed to protect it. Well, we have seen that some of these sandboxes are pretty sloppy. We ought to create basic cyber security standards for that sandbox. When you start at the very beginning of how an AI model is developed, we ought to make sure that company has some basic safety protocol in place. Then, God forbid, if there is an incident, there ought to be an incident reporting so we know what is happening because the difference is, in past innovation, you could have a mistake, but it might--the amount of damage that could happen would be fairly limited. Potentially, this could be so much greater, and we literally are having the companies themselves say: Help us.
Now, Lord knows we have got to make sure this is not an effort to simply ensconce the four or five biggest companies. We have got to make sure smaller tech--VC--has a place on this safety panel, but we need national security.
We need our top scientists. We propose NIST. We are open on how to do it better, but it needs to be a public-private relationship that has a safety board. We wouldn't climb on an airplane or you wouldn't get in a car or you wouldn't get a new financial product without some regulatory oversight. With something that is as big as this, we should not miss the moment. God forbid, you know, we go away for our campaign season, and in the interim, something happens, and we have no safety in place. I spent a career in technology before I got involved in politics, but I never felt a moment like this. So I hope that we will act.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Hawaii.
Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and also thank Senator Kim, the Senator from New Jersey, both of whom have real expertise in this area and as it intersects with public policy.
This is really about one simple thing, and that is, humans in control of the code and not the code in control of the humans.
We are at a seminal moment in world history, not just in American history, where it is possible for this code to escape human control. That is not an apocalyptic statement from a person who wants to make a point in a political context; that is a fact that is new to all of us. This code is capable of escaping our control, and it is potentially capable of something they call recursive self-improvement, which means the code can write its own code and that humans would find the code that was written by AI so inscrutable as to not be able to control it at all.
So what we are proposing--and I want to reiterate what Senator Warner said. When we were in private conversation, he said: Nobody can bring their pet rock to this conversation.
What do I mean by ``pet rock''?
Everybody has got a bill on AI. By the way, they are really important things--energy use, the safety of children, the future of work, the future of intellectual property--but we are not going to solve that in a 10-day period. So what we sat down on a bipartisan basis to do with AI safety groups, with companies that are in the business--with experts--is to say: How do we reduce the acute risk now, not the societal risk over the long run, not to balance the equities between whatever it may be 2, 3, 4 years from now. How do we take down what some people are calling civilizational risk? Some people find that too apocalyptical. Fine. Let's not call it risk of extinction. Let's not call it civilizational risk. Let's just call it a high risk of something very terrible happening, and that should be enough for us to be on the floor to say: Well, why don't we try to take down that risk?
There is a very straightforward pathway. First of all, it is predeployment testing, but one of the things, I think, we have all learned is that, by the time a company is ready to deploy what they call a frontier model, it has been through some testing. So it is important to test it before it is commercially available, but the truth is that the Hugging Face incident, in particular--that thing jumped the fence way, way earlier than when you would do the predeployment testing. So we need third-party review from the jump.
And the thing about a sandbox--and I was taught this term of art about 10 years ago, and I remember talking to my tech expert in my office: What is a sandbox?
And they said: You should think of it like an actual sandbox, sort of where you experiment, where there are no wrong answers, where it may get a little messy.
So the configuration of these sandboxes has been like that--for experimentation, almost casual, very entrepreneurial.
But the problem is, these things can escape control at the sandbox level so it is not enough for predeployment testing. We also need third-party review of the process at every stage because we don't know at which point an agent--an AI--or a swarm of agents could escape human control. Then, at the end of it, we need postdeployment breach notification, analysis, transparency so that, if there are big, dangerous events, we know how to prevent them from happening in the future.
So that is all this bill does. It says: Let's get third-party review all the way through the process and then all the way up to predeployment testing. Then, if something goes badly, we have transparency on the back end. We threw out all of our ``pet rocks''-- nothing partisan, nothing like my longtime priority on AI, but rather the very narrow question, which is: Don't we have an obligation, if there is any risk of a power grid going down, if there is any risk of a financial system buckling, if there is any risk at all, don't we have an obligation to take down that risk
The kind of ironic thing about this Congress right now is that the private sector is begging to enshrine what they are starting to promise to do in Federal statutory law because they are about to say: Here are all of the safety measures we are doing. But there is a reason you don't regulate toxic chemicals or biomedical research or aviation by voluntary agreement. You need a Federal statute, and then the private sector can work toward compliance on that Federal statutory standard.
But you don't want 90 percent of the AI companies--the frontier models, the hyperscalers--complying and then the other 10 percent saying: Wait, I don't have to do that, do I? I don't have to do that, do I?
So all we are asking is that this bipartisan proposal--and it is bipartisan. We are working on it in very, very good faith to try to narrow the scope of disagreement but not narrow it to the point that we pass nothing but, rather, narrow it to the point where we pass something that takes down the immediate risk and allows us to look our constituents in the eye and say: We did something on this very, very serious and urgent matter.
With that, with the permission of the ranking member, I want to bring in the Senator from New Jersey, who has a background in tech and has a background in national security that I think adds a lot to this conversation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Schatz for working with me and working on this project going forward.
I actually find this experience here being on the Senate floor right now really important because we are here because this is what the American people want. The American people want their elected leaders to be focused on the concerns and the threats that they worry about, that keep them up at night.
As mentioned by my colleague from Hawaii, I come to this Chamber as somebody who served in national security, someone who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, in war zones in Afghanistan to the Situation Room at the White House. This path of mine started just a little over 25 years ago when I saw from my own home State of New Jersey the threats that we faced on national security because of September 11.
I was not someone who thought I was going into national security until that day, but by 6 p.m. on September 11, I said that I am going to do and dedicate the rest of my life to doing everything I can to try to keep this country safe. Yes, that led to a lot of work in war zones and on counterterrorism, but it was always about this broader goal of, how do we ensure that safety?
I come at this now not just as someone who is concerned about national security but as a father of two little boys, one of whom just celebrated his 11th birthday yesterday. And as excited as I am about seeing these two little boys grow up, I will be honest with you, I worry about what kind of world they are growing up in, the level of anxiety that I have as I see the type of technology that will define their generation. It will define not just their jobs and their education but so much about their security. So I think about them because it is not just us here in this Chamber; we are here because we are trying to answer the call of the American people.
I just did a townhall the other week. Overwhelmingly, people are calling upon us, saying that they want urgency; they want this Chamber to move with the speed of urgency that they feel.
So what I appreciate here is that we are engaged in this effort right now to do one simple thing, which is meet the moment. That has a lot of implications, but one is just the fact that no Senator in this Chamber is going to have all the answers. There is not a single one of us that knows all the answers. Neither do all the tech leaders. They don't know all the answers either. But that cannot be an excuse for inaction; that, instead, we should channel that humility and that urgency to be able to move forward and recognize we do not have time to be able to design something that will handle the entirety of all the concerns we face when it comes to AI and this technology we are concerned about but just say: Look, we need to be able to move forward, to show some progress, to show some responsiveness to the concerns raised by the American people.
I think this legislation is that effort to try to come up with tangible things that will move the needle. It is not going to solve all the problems, but that is the point. It is about trying to build up that muscle memory in this Chamber that we need to find. It is a muscle memory that this Chamber has found in the past when it has confronted different national security challenges in the past. We need to find that yet again at a time of great division in this country but setting it aside for us to be able to, again, meet this moment.
So I am just grateful, again, for the leadership of Senator Warner, Senator Schatz, and other Senators that we are engaged with. This is an invitation to others to join this effort to stand up and say: Let's get something done. Let's not get totally bogged down in just the divisions that we see stalling progress on so many other fronts. The American people are demanding of us to act. Now is our time.
Madam President, I will wrap it up here. I have been in Virginia talking about this for a while. We have a lot of data centers, which is of some concern. But, boy oh boy, there was a seismic change starting as the companies themselves started to say: Holy heck. And just think about that. Mythos came out in March. National security and others said: This is going to change warfare. The OpenAI Hugging Face incident happened in July. That was 3,000 agents working together. In August, OpenAI got 10,000 agents to work together. It was on a different problem; they solved a math problem. But the idea is that there is kind of an exponential increase in sophistication, as these agents work together to cover their tracks, that, as Senator Schatz said, potentially could move beyond human control.
If we just say ``Well, that is still hypothetical,'' let me give you two last comments.
Just today, we found that actually a model had already been released from OpenAI that attacked the Australian healthcare system. If it attacked our system, I think we would be pretty upset.
Even more compelling--some of us have written a letter to both the folks on the intel side and on the defense side--there was a ship from China sailing towards the Middle East, and we got very close to bombing that ship because the AI tool and the intel said there might be weapons on that. Thank goodness that at some point, somebody did a little more checking, and we didn't do that, but we were close to a geopolitical event that could have been catastrophic.
These tools are already built into our systems, and clearly, you know, the way our military executed on Maduro--you may not agree with the greatness of it, but it was brilliant. But we don't have safety protocols.
So we are not asking for the world. Let's do the testing early. Let's make sure that you have a safety standard in all of these companies. Let's make sure we do the sandbox right, report on the incident.
We could discuss, you know, who is on that panel. It needs to be mandatory. It needs to have government. It needs to have national security. And Lord knows we need to have researchers, scientists. All of these individuals are asking for this. Who are we to turn that down?
I am going to go back to where we started. This will be the most significant technology innovation in our lifetimes. It will make wireless and the internet and the cloud small in comparison. There could be enormous positives coming out of this. There are also going to be disruptions. But if we don't do this in a safe manner, then shame on us.
Again, I come back. You wouldn't climb on an airplane that hadn't been checked. We are just saying let's do those basic safety checks.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Madam President, I wanted to add one last thing. I want to acknowledge the great work that Senator Klobuchar and Leader Thune are doing on this and Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz. There are a number of other Republican Members.
This has a sense of urgency. We need to come together. We could put everybody's name on it. But history will not judge us well if, God forbid, we have an incident and we put no protections in place, for our country and for this innovation.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I rise today to honor MG Gregory Porter and his 40 years of service to our country, State, and the Wyoming National Guard.
After graduating from the University of Wyoming, General Porter began his service in the Wyoming Army National Guard as an aerial observer in the 115th Field Artillery Brigade. At the start of Gov. Mark Gordon's administration, Greg was selected to lead the Wyoming National Guard as the Adjutant General.
Throughout his time as the Adjutant General, Greg has led the Wyoming Army and Air National Guard through many deployments overseas to the Middle East and Africa. Most notably, under his command, the Wyoming Army Guard 2-300th Field Artillery Regiment completed their first full battalion deployment for a field artillery mission in over 70 years. The 2-300th were also under the command and control of the 115th Field Artillery Brigade Headquarters, another first. I have had the honor to visit many of these Wyoming soldiers and airmen overseas on Thanksgiving.
Over the years, we worked shoulder-to-shoulder to secure eight C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for the 153rd Airlift Wing. This effort stands as a testament to the determination of the hard-working Wyoming servicemen and women who serve our State and Nation every day.
Through the State Partnership Program, General Porter deepened and broadened cooperation between Wyoming and Tunisia. These of military- to-military and civilian-to-civilian exchanges include education, agriculture, and tourism. The Wyoming National Guard has been in partnership with Tunisia for over 20 years and General Porter is leaving the relationship stronger than ever.
General Porter coordinated the successful Exercise Agile Chariot with the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command and the Wyoming Department of Transportation, WYDOT. Landing a MC-130J with a payload of MH-60 Little Birds, A-10 Thunderbolts, and a MQ-9 Reaper drone on a Wyoming highway is a first. Agile Chariot proved that Wyoming can support multi-domain operations and exercises. This exercise was a preview of the daring rescue mission to recover the two F-15 aviators downed in the mountains of Iran.
From second lieutenant to the Adjutant General, Greg Porter's leadership and dedication have equipped our National Guard with operational prowess.
I want to thank General Porter for his unwavering commitment to the Wyoming National Guard and to our Nation.
Madam President, I rise today in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Programs.
On Saturday, October 10, 2026, at the Wyoming Primary Care Symposium, the Wyoming medical community will gather to celebrate this significant milestone. The UW Family Medicine Residency Programs are tailored to Wyoming and our unique healthcare needs. With two separate residencies in Casper and Cheyenne, these graduate medical education programs ensure residents are well-prepared to treat patients with professionalism, skill, and compassion.
In the 1970s, the Wyoming Legislature, the University of Wyoming, and other stakeholders recognized the need for additional physicians. After exploring options to expand medical education in the State, in 1976, the Wyoming Legislature founded the UW Family Medicine Residency Programs. The programs, affiliated with the University of Wyoming's then College of Human Medicine, were intended to meet the needs of underserved communities and provide quality medical education for the next generation of Wyoming doctors.
Wyoming physicians John Corbett, MD; Charlie Huff, MD; David Driggers, MD; and Arnold Krause, MD, were instrumental in launching the residency programs. As the chair of the Wyoming State Health Care Coordinating Council, Dr. Corbett championed the cause of graduate medical education in the State. As the residency program got off the ground, he served as the acting dean of the UW College of Human Medicine. Dr. Huff advocated for a Wyoming-focused solution as the director of the Office of Rural and Community Health. Dr. Driggers went on to serve as the associate professor, acting program director, and associate dean of the residency program. Dr. Krause served as the Cheyenne residency program director, recruiting faculty and physicians as the site grew.
In crafting the family medicine residencies, Wyoming took a unique approach. The programs were 100 percent State-funded when they were established. The Casper program was established in 1976, received its provisional accreditation in 1977, and graduated its first residents in 1979. The Cheyenne program followed, earning provisional accreditation in 1979, accepting its first residents in 1980, and receiving full accreditation in 1982.
True to the goal of providing quality medical access to the State, the UW Family Medicine Residency in Casper is a 3-year program, with 8 recent medical school graduates accepted each year. Residents perform clinical rotations in a wide range of specialties, including orthopaedic surgery, behavioral medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, geriatrics and advanced family medicine. The program offers five specialty tracks, including a rural and underserved global health track, a hospitalist track, and an osteopathic-focused track. Physicians who are interested in exploring the complexities of aging may pursue the program's geriatric fellowship.
The UW Family Medicine Residency in Cheyenne accepts six residents each year. These residents rotate in general surgery, community medicine, and women's health. Over the 3-year program, their opportunities include working with local patients in pediatric, dermatology, and sports medicine disciplines. The Cheyenne faculty prioritize experiences with rural medicine and treatment of patients of all ages and backgrounds. Residents also serve the local community at Cheyenne Regional Medical Center. Many program graduates go on to practice in Cheyenne and across Wyoming.
Both the Cheyenne and Casper Residency Programs offer a supportive, wellness-focused environment offering future doctors a comprehensive training program tailored with rural and frontier communities in mind. Staying true to the original goal of increasing the physician pipeline in Wyoming, there are approximately 100 UW Family Medicine Residency Program graduates practicing in the State.
The leadership of the UW Family Medicine Residency Programs embodies the values of professionalism, education, service, and excellence. They equip residents to provide comprehensive care to all, including the underserved.
The Casper program is led by:
In Cheyenne, residents work closely with the leadership team of:
It is my honor to recognize the incredible University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Programs. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating their investment in the people of Wyoming.
Madam President, as the Senate considers the Protect College Sports Act, I believe we must clarify its proposed application of the Sports Broadcasting Act to a new collegiate collective entity.
It is important to make clear that the Protect College Sports Act would expand the Sports Broadcasting Act only with respect to the entities which may be covered by the antitrust exemption in selling telecast rights--in this case, the new covered intercollegiate entity.
The legislation expands only the eligible entities selling telecast rights under the SBA, not the scope of the exemption itself. The bill would not modify the scope of the underlying Sports Broadcasting Act's allowance of the collective sale or transfer of media rights to entities beyond those that will make games available via ``sponsored telecasting.''
As a result, the new collegiate entity is only covered by the antitrust exemption in negotiations with media partners that provide games to the public via broadcast, rather than exclusive streaming arrangements. The bill would not modify the scope of activities protected by the underlying SBA and nothing in title II of the legislation should be construed as doing so.
The intent of this legislation is to increase fans' access to college sports on free, over-the-air broadcasting. I encourage universities and conferences to work with local and national broadcasters to make certain college sports are accessible to all.
Madam 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:
Madam 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:
Madam 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:
Madam 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:
Madam 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:
Madam President, I rise today to ask the Senate to join me in recognizing MCPO Kristina Lynne Koch for her 23 years of outstanding Navy Active-Duty service, including her time as my defense fellow in 2023 and 2024, and her subsequent assignment to the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. Prior to her exposure to the legislative branch, she served in the Navy's Office of Women's Policy, where she oversaw the critical parenthood and pregnancy portfolio. In this vital role, she served as a tireless advocate for military families and female servicemembers, spearheading landmark initiatives that modernized naval uniform regulations and directly enhanced the quality of life for thousands of sailors.
Master Chief Koch began her distinguished career as a cryptologic technician interpretive, studying Arabic at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. Her assignments included serving as a language analyst and training branch chief at Naval Security Group Activity, Fort Gordon, GA, Air Operations Leading Chief Petty Officer for Navy Information Operations Command (NIOC) Georgia Air Operations Division, Arabic Apprentice Cryptologic Language Program Instructor at Center for Information Warfare Training (CIWT) Detachment Fort Gordon, and CTI & Intel Program Manager for the Navy Senior Language Authority at OPNAV N1, Chief of Naval Personnel.
As my fellow and during her tenure in Navy OLA, Master Chief Koch had a profound impact, spearheading the coordination of a Supreme Court amicus brief that protected vital veterans' benefits legislation and cementing an enduring legacy by overhauling the Navy's legislative fellows program and ensuring expanded senior enlisted representation.
For these reasons, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude to Master Chief Koch for her exemplary dedication to our Nation as she retires from the U.S. Navy. Throughout her 23 years of service, both in uniform and as the mother of two outstanding young adults Audrey and Austin Pyle, Master Chief Koch has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the defense of our Nation and the future of our country. Her profound patriotism, stellar leadership, and tireless work ethic leave an enduring legacy that has strengthened our national defense.
Madam President, it is with great pride today that I celebrate Katherine Boise, an American patriot whose tireless dedication to the health and welfare of Vermont's children and families is immeasurable. As a Post-Permanency Service Provider at Lund Adoption Agency for over 14 years, Katherine has transformed countless lives of Americans in our country's most vulnerable communities for the better.
Katherine's experience as a child in foster care shaped her life journey and unique career path at Lund. Her decision to turn her own experience into a way to support families through their own journeys in the foster care system is selfless beyond words. She has been relentless in her pursuit to spotlight just how important post- permanency services are to the long-term success of adoption and forever families.
Katherine has lifted the voices and stories of those she has helped to community partners, legislators, and welfare professionals to raise awareness about what can be improved in foster care and secure funding for Lund's Post-Permanency Program. Her compassion, integrity, and strength-based philosophy is vital to making certain that the Lund Post-Permanency Program has the resources it needs to help children and families who need it most.
Vermonters praise Katherine for her dedication and commitment to ensuring everyone can share their truth and thrive. Her extraordinary commitment to empowering everyone to build a meaningful, prosperous life, and at the recommendation of those who have witnessed her dedication, should make all of us reflect on how we can follow her example and better serve our communities.
Vermonters like Katherine Boise exemplify the best parts of what it means to be an American and a patriot and why our State is so special. Her choice to pursue a career that benefits something greater than herself proves why she is a perfect nominee for the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's Angels in Adoption honor.
Mr. President, it is time for a national investment in building a strong and resilient educator workforce to ensure that all schools have the diverse, profession-ready teachers, principals, librarians, counselors, and other specialized instructional support personnel they need to support student development and academic achievement. Today, along with Senators Van Hollen and Wyden, I am introducing the Quality Educator Partnership Act to invest in a national strategy to support the educator workforce now and into the future. I am pleased that Representative Alma Adams is introducing a companion bill in the other body with Representatives Jahana Hayes and Suzanne Bonamici.
We are facing a national crisis in the education profession. A 2024 report from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that across multiple measures, regard for the teaching profession is at its lowest levels in 50 years--from prestige to interest in the field to job satisfaction. Since 2010, the decline has accelerate, with perceptions of teacher prestige falling between 20 percent and 47 percent and interest in teaching careers among high school seniors and college freshman declining nearly 50 percent. Between 2006 and 2021, the number of prospective
History shows that the Nation can rise to this challenge. Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that invested in math, science, and foreign language instruction and the teaching workforce to deliver it. With the rise of new technologies and artificial intelligence, we need that kind of effort today to ensure American students have professional educators that can teach the skills students will need to thrive in a changing environment. In February, a coalition of education organizations came together with a call to action to change the trajectory of the education profession through Federal leadership and systemic accountability, investing in innovation and sustainability, making the education profession an affordable career path, and advancing research and evidence to guide the future of learning.
The Quality Educator Partnership Act is the legislative plan to answer the call to action. Our legislation calls for a comprehensive national strategy to recruit, prepare, retain, and advance high-quality educators from early childhood through secondary education led by a dedicated Office of Educator Workforce at the U.S. Department of Education. It calls for $500 million annual investment in partnerships between school districts and educator preparation programs to address local workforce needs. It includes $500 million for grants to States to design and implement educator workforce strategies. Our bill creates a new National Educator Service Corps that will cover the cost of tuition and living expenses for prospective teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas. Additionally, the Quality Educator Partnership Act calls for new investments in data collection and accountability to track the state of the educator workforce and equitable access to profession-ready educators. It also calls for new investments in research and development to prepare for the future of teaching.
The Quality Educator Partnership Act reflects input from stakeholders across the field about what is needed to recruit, prepare, and support educators. To date, more than two dozen organizations have endorsed it, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, City Teaching Alliance, Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child, International Society for Transforming Education, National Association for School-University Partnerships, National Center for Teacher Residencies, InnovateEDU, National Principals Association, Council for Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions, National Association for Family, School and Community Engagement, Deans for Impact, National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs, 1890 Universities Foundation, ETS, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities, National Association for Music Education, ACTFL, National Center for Learning Disabilities, AILACTE, AMLE, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Council of Teachers of English, UNCF, Teach Plus, and American Library Association.
The Nation's outlook for the future is tied to the strength of the education profession. Our economic prosperity, the health of our democracy and civic society, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change and the information age depend on our students having access to well-prepared and supported educators who reflect the diversity of the students they serve.
Today, the profession is in crisis. It is time to act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Quality Educator Partnership Act and work with me to see that it is enacted into law.
S. 5558. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a grant program to facilitate the installation of evidence- based suicide deterrents, including suicide prevention nets and barriers, on certain infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Barriers to Suicide Act. This legislation would establish competitive grants to help State and local governments fund nets and barriers that have been shown to reduce suicide on bridges and other high-risk infrastructure.
This bipartisan bill would establish a grant program for States and localities to apply for Federal funding under the National Highway Performance Program to install nets, barriers, and other evidence-based suicide deterrents on bridges, buildings, parking garages, highway-rail grade crossings, and at rail stations.
This bill would also authorize a study to identify the types of structures most commonly used for suicide attempts, types of barriers that are most effective in prevention, and additional strategies to reduce jumping deaths.
The CDC estimated that about 12.8 million people seriously thought about suicide, 3.7 million made a plan, and 1.5 million attempted suicide in 2023. There were over 49,000 deaths from suicide in 2023 and between 2010 and 2020, 11,154 Americans lost their lives through suicide-by-jumping.
Research shows that physical barriers on bridges and high structures can reduce suicide deaths at those sites by up to 90 percent.
States and localities should have access to a grant program that allows them to proactively prevent suicide-by-jumping by building safety nets and barriers on bridges, buildings, parking garages, and at rail stations and highway-rail grade rail crossings, with the goal of preventing suicides.
I would like to thank Senator Tillis for introducing this important legislation with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Barriers to Suicide Act as soon as possible.
S. 5559. A bill to provide for the basic needs of students at institutions of higher education; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Basic Assistance for Students in College Act or the BASIC Act, which I introduced today.
I know how important it is to help students cover the full cost of attending college, including tuition and fees, housing, food, transportation, books, childcare, healthcare, supplies, and more.
According to the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, three in five college students experience food and housing insecurity. We also know that rates of basic needs insecurity are much higher for historically marginalized students, including Black, Latino, and indigenous students; parenting students; LGBTQIA+ students; first-generation students; Pell Grant recipients; former foster youth; and justice- involved students.
Our Nation's college students shouldn't have to worry about going hungry or having a roof over their heads. Yet far too many do, and basic needs will be out of reach for millions more students due to the One Big Beautiful Act, which cut food assistance, healthcare coverage, and access to financial aid.
The evidence is clear that addressing students' basic needs prevents students from having to sacrifice their health and well-being in order to succeed in higher education.
That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to authorize $1 billion for a new grant program to help institutions of higher education meet students' basic needs. This funding represents an essential aspect of building more equitable paths to higher education, and it represents an investment in our students, our institutions, and our future. The legislation also helps coordinate assistance across Federal Agency lines.
I want to thank Senator Warren and Representative Torres for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this bill that ensures no student is forced to choose between their education and their basic needs.
S. 5560. A bill to improve fairness and accountability with respect to the arrest and detention of noncitizens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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. 5563. A bill to direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to study the impacts of the dumping of certain waste in the San Pedro Basin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean Protection and DDT Reduction Act. This bill would direct NOAA, in consultation with EPA and DOD, to study and address the impacts of historical toxic waste dumping, especially dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, DDT, and other industrial and military wastes, in the San Pedro Basin off the coast of California.
Dumping of industrial, chemical, and military waste off the Southern California coast occurred from the 1930s until it was banned in 1972 by the Ocean Dumping Act. This included the dumping of DDT, radioactive materials, alkaline and oil waste, and unexploded ordinance and munitions across 14 sites along the coastline from San Diego to Santa Monica.
In addition to the dumping of chemical waste barrels, millions of pounds of DDT and PCBs were discharged through sewer outfall pipes. Roughly 110 tons of DDT ended up in the sediments of the Palos Verdes Shelf, and in 1996, EPA added this 17 square-mile underwater site as a Superfund site.
Recent studies have found tens of thousands of degrading and leaking barrels of DDT and hazardous waste on the ocean floor at a depth of 3,000 ft deep and 8 to 24 miles from the coast of Southern California, posing potential risks to marine life, fisheries, and public health.
New images from 2020 that showed corroded metal barrels with mysterious
This bill would support important research and coordination on the scope and impacts of the dumped covered waste in the San Pedro Basin and the potential of bioremediation, as well as require a report to Congress after 3 years. The bill would also establish a grant program for academic and research institutions to study the mapping, movement, breakdown, and bioaccumulation of contaminants.
Due to slow degradation, DDT is an ongoing hazard to humans and wildlife, with bioaccumulation found in sea lions, dolphins, bottom- feeding fish, and condors. Supporting further research is crucial to addressing the impacts of the toxic waste dumping.
Mr. President, it is time for a national investment in building a strong and resilient educator workforce to ensure that all schools have the diverse, profession-ready teachers, principals, librarians, counselors, and other specialized instructional support personnel they need to support student development and academic achievement. Today, along with Senators Van Hollen and Wyden, I am introducing the Quality Educator Partnership Act to invest in a national strategy to support the educator workforce now and into the future. I am pleased that Representative Alma Adams is introducing a companion bill in the other body with Representatives Jahana Hayes and Suzanne Bonamici.
We are facing a national crisis in the education profession. A 2024 report from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that across multiple measures, regard for the teaching profession is at its lowest levels in 50 years--from prestige to interest in the field to job satisfaction. Since 2010, the decline has accelerate, with perceptions of teacher prestige falling between 20 percent and 47 percent and interest in teaching careers among high school seniors and college freshman declining nearly 50 percent. Between 2006 and 2021, the number of prospective
History shows that the Nation can rise to this challenge. Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that invested in math, science, and foreign language instruction and the teaching workforce to deliver it. With the rise of new technologies and artificial intelligence, we need that kind of effort today to ensure American students have professional educators that can teach the skills students will need to thrive in a changing environment. In February, a coalition of education organizations came together with a call to action to change the trajectory of the education profession through Federal leadership and systemic accountability, investing in innovation and sustainability, making the education profession an affordable career path, and advancing research and evidence to guide the future of learning.
The Quality Educator Partnership Act is the legislative plan to answer the call to action. Our legislation calls for a comprehensive national strategy to recruit, prepare, retain, and advance high-quality educators from early childhood through secondary education led by a dedicated Office of Educator Workforce at the U.S. Department of Education. It calls for $500 million annual investment in partnerships between school districts and educator preparation programs to address local workforce needs. It includes $500 million for grants to States to design and implement educator workforce strategies. Our bill creates a new National Educator Service Corps that will cover the cost of tuition and living expenses for prospective teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas. Additionally, the Quality Educator Partnership Act calls for new investments in data collection and accountability to track the state of the educator workforce and equitable access to profession-ready educators. It also calls for new investments in research and development to prepare for the future of teaching.
The Quality Educator Partnership Act reflects input from stakeholders across the field about what is needed to recruit, prepare, and support educators. To date, more than two dozen organizations have endorsed it, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, City Teaching Alliance, Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child, International Society for Transforming Education, National Association for School-University Partnerships, National Center for Teacher Residencies, InnovateEDU, National Principals Association, Council for Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions, National Association for Family, School and Community Engagement, Deans for Impact, National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs, 1890 Universities Foundation, ETS, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities, National Association for Music Education, ACTFL, National Center for Learning Disabilities, AILACTE, AMLE, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Council of Teachers of English, UNCF, Teach Plus, and American Library Association.
The Nation's outlook for the future is tied to the strength of the education profession. Our economic prosperity, the health of our democracy and civic society, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change and the information age depend on our students having access to well-prepared and supported educators who reflect the diversity of the students they serve.
Today, the profession is in crisis. It is time to act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Quality Educator Partnership Act and work with me to see that it is enacted into law.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Barriers to Suicide Act. This legislation would establish competitive grants to help State and local governments fund nets and barriers that have been shown to reduce suicide on bridges and other high-risk infrastructure.
This bipartisan bill would establish a grant program for States and localities to apply for Federal funding under the National Highway Performance Program to install nets, barriers, and other evidence-based suicide deterrents on bridges, buildings, parking garages, highway-rail grade crossings, and at rail stations.
This bill would also authorize a study to identify the types of structures most commonly used for suicide attempts, types of barriers that are most effective in prevention, and additional strategies to reduce jumping deaths.
The CDC estimated that about 12.8 million people seriously thought about suicide, 3.7 million made a plan, and 1.5 million attempted suicide in 2023. There were over 49,000 deaths from suicide in 2023 and between 2010 and 2020, 11,154 Americans lost their lives through suicide-by-jumping.
Research shows that physical barriers on bridges and high structures can reduce suicide deaths at those sites by up to 90 percent.
States and localities should have access to a grant program that allows them to proactively prevent suicide-by-jumping by building safety nets and barriers on bridges, buildings, parking garages, and at rail stations and highway-rail grade rail crossings, with the goal of preventing suicides.
I would like to thank Senator Tillis for introducing this important legislation with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Barriers to Suicide Act as soon as possible.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Basic Assistance for Students in College Act or the BASIC Act, which I introduced today.
I know how important it is to help students cover the full cost of attending college, including tuition and fees, housing, food, transportation, books, childcare, healthcare, supplies, and more.
According to the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, three in five college students experience food and housing insecurity. We also know that rates of basic needs insecurity are much higher for historically marginalized students, including Black, Latino, and indigenous students; parenting students; LGBTQIA+ students; first-generation students; Pell Grant recipients; former foster youth; and justice- involved students.
Our Nation's college students shouldn't have to worry about going hungry or having a roof over their heads. Yet far too many do, and basic needs will be out of reach for millions more students due to the One Big Beautiful Act, which cut food assistance, healthcare coverage, and access to financial aid.
The evidence is clear that addressing students' basic needs prevents students from having to sacrifice their health and well-being in order to succeed in higher education.
That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to authorize $1 billion for a new grant program to help institutions of higher education meet students' basic needs. This funding represents an essential aspect of building more equitable paths to higher education, and it represents an investment in our students, our institutions, and our future. The legislation also helps coordinate assistance across Federal Agency lines.
I want to thank Senator Warren and Representative Torres for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us in support of this bill that ensures no student is forced to choose between their education and their basic needs.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean Protection and DDT Reduction Act. This bill would direct NOAA, in consultation with EPA and DOD, to study and address the impacts of historical toxic waste dumping, especially dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, DDT, and other industrial and military wastes, in the San Pedro Basin off the coast of California.
Dumping of industrial, chemical, and military waste off the Southern California coast occurred from the 1930s until it was banned in 1972 by the Ocean Dumping Act. This included the dumping of DDT, radioactive materials, alkaline and oil waste, and unexploded ordinance and munitions across 14 sites along the coastline from San Diego to Santa Monica.
In addition to the dumping of chemical waste barrels, millions of pounds of DDT and PCBs were discharged through sewer outfall pipes. Roughly 110 tons of DDT ended up in the sediments of the Palos Verdes Shelf, and in 1996, EPA added this 17 square-mile underwater site as a Superfund site.
Recent studies have found tens of thousands of degrading and leaking barrels of DDT and hazardous waste on the ocean floor at a depth of 3,000 ft deep and 8 to 24 miles from the coast of Southern California, posing potential risks to marine life, fisheries, and public health.
New images from 2020 that showed corroded metal barrels with mysterious
This bill would support important research and coordination on the scope and impacts of the dumped covered waste in the San Pedro Basin and the potential of bioremediation, as well as require a report to Congress after 3 years. The bill would also establish a grant program for academic and research institutions to study the mapping, movement, breakdown, and bioaccumulation of contaminants.
Due to slow degradation, DDT is an ongoing hazard to humans and wildlife, with bioaccumulation found in sea lions, dolphins, bottom- feeding fish, and condors. Supporting further research is crucial to addressing the impacts of the toxic waste dumping.
Mr. President, I have six 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 Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 9:30 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 Thursday, September 24, 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 Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 24, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Oscar Baez, a legislative fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the duration of his fellowship.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 558, S. 3257.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and the Hoeven substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 6834), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to, as follows:
The bill (S. 3257), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 559, S. 3258.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 3258), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam 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 with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2388) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Madam 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. 902, S. Res. 903, S. Res. 904, and S. Res. 905.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
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 resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 28; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 4668, as amended, post cloture; further, that postcloture time from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the bill and with the opponent time under the control of Senator Booker; finally, that the postcloture time expire at 5:30 p.m., the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
