[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 4, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1471-S1477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE RELATING TO ``GROSS PROCEEDS REPORTING BY BROKERS THAT
REGULARLY PROVIDE SERVICES EFFECTUATING DIGITAL ASSET SALES''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 3) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue
Service relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers
That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset
Sales''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Maine.
(The remarks of Ms. COLLINS and Ms. BALDWIN pertaining to the
introduction of S. 830 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. BALDWIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Nomination of Elbridge Colby
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise today to argue for a swift and
decisive confirmation of Elbridge Colby as Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy.
It is common today to hear leaders in the foreign policy
establishment talk of upholding the rules-based international order and
promoting liberal values and norms. What is much less common is to hear
anyone talk about tangible, concrete American interests. Mr. Colby is a
welcome exception. He believes that America is a real, concrete nation
and people with real, concrete interests and that the fundamental
purpose of our foreign policy is to protect and advance those
interests.
For the past 30 years, American foreign policy has lurched from
disaster to disaster. To be a friend of the reigning consensus is to be
an advocate of the same failed ideas that led us to spend trillions of
dollars and countless young Americans' lives for causes and conflicts
that were not ours, while leaving us woefully unprepared for the ones
that are.
America does not need more of the same. What America needs is a new
approach, a new strategy, a new philosophy of strength for the 21st
century. That is what Elbridge Colby will deliver.
No one could argue that Mr. Colby isn't qualified for this role. He
spent well over 20 years working in defense and foreign policy, serving
in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and various
national security positions at different think tanks.
He served faithfully in the first Trump administration as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development,
where he was the lead author of the 2018 National Defense Strategy.
From there, he founded a think tank, the Marathon Initiative, and wrote
a book called the ``Strategy of Denial'' outlining his vision for
confronting the true geopolitical challenge of our time: deterring--and
if necessary, defeating--the threats posed by a rising China.
President Trump's decision to nominate Mr. Colby to this position was
not a mistake. It was intentional. This administration wants to carry
out a fundamental and long-overdue reorientation of our Nation's
foreign policy, and Elbridge Colby is a critical component of that
mission.
The media tells us that he is controversial. Why? Well, he believes
that our foreign policy must prioritize our core interests, and that
means that we can't be everywhere at once, doing everything all the
time. His critics say that makes him weak. In reality, it is exactly
the opposite. The quickest and most certain path to weakness is to
waste our blood and treasure on Wilsonian adventurism abroad as the
real threats and enemies of America grow unchecked. For years, Mr.
Colby has been one of the lone voices in the foreign policy
establishment with a real and viable vision for American strength.
It is true that Mr. Colby believes that the Iraq war was a mistake.
He does not believe that a hot war with Iran would serve America's
long-term interests. He believes that a costly and unwinnable proxy war
in Ukraine is an obstacle to our ability to rebuild our military and
revitalize our industrial base here at home and that our European
allies must step up and do more to defend their own continent as the
United States transitions to our focus in the Indo-Pacific. On all of
these things, the decisive majority of Americans are on his side even
if the foreign policy establishment isn't.
The political class in this city must come to terms with the fact
that the world most of us grew up in no longer exists. President Trump
intends to drag this city--kicking and screaming if necessary--into the
21st century. That is what we saw at the White House last week--a new
foreign policy centered around uncompromising and unapologetic pursuit
of the interests of the American people.
Mr. Colby will play a key role in that project, and I look forward to
watching him serve as our next Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Department of Government Efficiency
Mr. REED. Mr. President, on day one, President Trump lit the fuse on
Elon Musk's plan to hollow out the Federal Government by changing the
name of an obscure technical office within the White House, the U.S.
Digital Services, USDS, and called it DOGE, without congressional
authorization, and giving it extraordinary reach into the operations of
the Federal Agencies.
Since then, we have heard report after report about how Mr. Musk and
DOGE have rammed their way into Agencies not to make smart decisions,
not to improve efficiency, not to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse,
but to disrupt, denigrate, and demoralize.
And along the way, DOGE has made incredible blunders such as firing
and then scrambling to rehire employees at the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
Let me repeat that. Mr. Musk and his minions fired the people who
keep nuclear weapons safe, and then someone realized, fortunately,
within a few days that they had to come back.
And here is another example: Musk and his hackers made the CIA send
an unclassified email with the names of its recent hires. Boy, if I was
in the Russian Security Service, I would love to get a list--which they
did--of everyone who is going into the CIA.
They also cut staff from the Federal Aviation Administration and the
National Weather Service who prevent and warn every American of travel
and weather dangers. It goes beyond that. Agricultural interests listen
daily to the reports, the accurate reports of the Weather Service, so
they can plan their crops, so they can plan everything--and that is
being withered away. And I think the ultimate goal is to privatize it,
which is not the best way to go.
These actions don't just reflect incredible incompetence; they are
dangerous. They undermine national security and increase risks for
American citizens.
In any other setting, blunders like these would be grounds for
firing, but Musk and DOGE operate with arrogance, impunity, and zero
transparency. Millions of Americans are asking: Who are these people?
As the ranking member of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the subcommittee that
ostensibly oversees the
[[Page S1472]]
budget for the White House, USDS, and DOGE, I am asking the same
question. Because Congress, like the American people, is being kept in
the dark.
As appropriators, we typically work together on a bipartisan basis--
no matter which party is in the White House--to get information, to
conduct oversight, to ensure that Federal dollars are spent in
accordance with the laws passed by Congress. But now, without
authorization from Congress, DOGE is recklessly slashing its way
through virtually every Federal Agency, from the Office of Personnel
Management to Treasury to HUD to State to USAID to the Department of
Defense and more.
It is vital that we understand what DOGE is and isn't. While Elon
Musk tells us and the American people that DOGE is ``maximally
transparent,'' it is not. We still do not have answers to fundamental
questions like: What is the scope of DOGE's work? How many people work
at DOGE? And who are they? Do they also hold jobs outside the Federal
Government? What are their financial holdings and potential conflicts
of interest?
Do they have allegiances to foreign governments? Will DOGE respond to
requests under the Freedom of Information Act? What are its plans to
reform Agencies? Who is DOGE firing and why? And many, many other
questions.
And, unfortunately, when DOGE shares information, it is frequently
wrong. As the New York Times reported, five of DOGE's biggest claimed
savings were deleted from its website because they were inaccurate.
This includes a canceled USAID contract for $650 million, which was
counted by DOGE three times; a canceled Social Security contract was
erroneously listed as being worth $232 million, instead of the actual
$560,000; and a canceled ICE contract was listed as saving $8 billion
instead of $8 million.
If you are going to name something the Department of Government
Efficiency, don't you owe it to the taxpayers to actually do a good
job? On top of having zero accountability, DOGE's legal authority to
operate is dubious.
DOGE has, essentially, taken over the USDS, which was originally
established to help Federal Agencies more adeptly utilize technology to
serve the American people. Over the years, USDS helped establish
everything from Direct File, which helps taxpayers file their taxes for
free, to direct-mail COVID tests to a successful online passport
renewal program.
DOGE is now using the hollowed shell of USDS to illegally undo the
American Federal Government, moving from Agency to Agency, cutting
congressionally appropriated Federal spending, priorities, and even
dismantling entire Agencies.
The bottom line is that DOGE, without congressional authorization and
without direct funding from Congress, is acting to undermine the
Federal Government. And, frankly, contempt to the U.S. Congress as a
constitutional body who creates the law.
The President's challenge in the Constitution is to enforce the laws,
not to circumvent the Congress of the United States. Based on press
reports, DOGE appears to be populated by a mixture of unelected
billionaires, tech executives, and unvetted, inexperienced people,
including an individual who was found to have posted racist tweets.
This gang is being granted access to America's most sensitive data
like your bank accounts, your Social Security accounts, and, it would
seem, a host of classified intelligence. And how are they using this
information? How are they protecting this information from our enemies?
Is it being shared with outside entities? Is DOGE simply being used to
give Mr. Musk, his companies, and his billionaire friends an advantage
when competing for government contracts?
We simply don't know what this gang is doing inside the government.
Every single day that passes without transparency and congressional
access to information about DOGE's funding, staffing, and scope of work
is a moment too long.
With the current continuing resolution due to expire on March 14, we
have big decisions to make. My hope is that these decisions can be made
on a bipartisan basis informed by the facts, but we cannot responsibly
fund the government if we do not understand how DOGE has infiltrated
it, made it less efficient and less responsive to taxpayers, and,
essentially, has circumvented the constitutional responsibilities of
the U.S. Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Members be permitted to speak prior to the lunch recess: Myself, for up
to 15 minutes; Senator Murray, up to 10 minutes; Senator Cantwell, up
to 5 minutes; and Senator Britt, for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Joint Session of Congress
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as everybody knows, tonight, President
Trump will give an address to a joint session of Congress. I look
forward to attending the President's address, and I am happy to welcome
my friend Abraham George, who will join me as a guest tonight.
In addition, three other Texans will be joining the President tonight
as his guests. Alexis Nungaray from Houston, TX, is an angel mom who
lost her lovely 12-year-old daughter Jocelyn. Jocelyn was tragically
murdered by two illegal immigrants who, just weeks before, were
apprehended and released by the Biden administration.
Next from Texas, Roberto Ortiz from Weslaco is one of our brave
veterans who has served nearly a decade in the U.S. Border Patrol.
Roberto's courage in the face of danger has been tested repeatedly as
he has been shot on multiple occasions by cartel members while on the
line of duty near the Rio Grande River in my home State.
And, finally, Elliston Berry from Aledo, TX, is a 15-year-old victim
of computer-generated deepfakes. I applaud Elliston for her courage in
joining us here tonight and for using her voice to speak out against
the dangers posed by new technologies.
Border Security
Mr. President, President Trump has rightfully turned the page on a
wide array of President Biden's disastrous policies, from reforming our
runaway spending through DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency,
to prioritizing investment in semiconductors and manufacturing, to
bringing our hostages held in Gaza back home to their families. But
perhaps one of his most significant accomplishments thus far--and it
has only been about 6 weeks--has been when it comes to border security,
something near and dear to my heart and the heart of my 31 million
constituents who call Texas home.
Border security played a significant role in the mandate that the
President got last November. The past 4 years were marked by President
Biden's failure to enforce the law and to secure our border. And this
was, without a doubt, a crisis--a humanitarian and public safety
crisis--of the former administration's own making. This was truly a
manmade crisis.
Starting from the campaign trail, President Biden invited the massive
wave of migration by promising a ``surge to the border'' for asylum
seekers. Can you imagine a President inviting a surge to the U.S.
border of asylum seekers? This is one promise that, unfortunately, he
kept.
But President Biden's failures went far beyond just his rhetoric. In
the early days of his Presidency, President Biden basically reversed
every policy President Trump had put in place, including the ``Remain
in Mexico'' policy, which has been remarkably effective. In other
words, people seeking asylum need to remain in Mexico while their claim
is being processed.
And the truth is, only about 15 percent of people who claim asylum in
America who appear in front of an immigration judge ultimately are
granted asylum. They meet the legal criteria; whereas, the other 85
percent do not.
The Biden administration also halted construction of President
Trump's border wall and instead used Federal funds to store already-
paid-for wall materials. So not only did the taxpayer pay for those
materials, they had to pay for the storage of those materials when they
weren't used for their intended purpose.
As the border crisis continued to evolve for the worse, President
Biden ended title 42, the COVID 19-era policy that was our last line of
defense to keep a lid on the migrant crisis when
[[Page S1473]]
President Biden refused to enforce other laws.
After undoing the successful Executive orders made by the first
President Trump administration, President Biden then decided to
circumvent Congress and attempt to make illegal immigration legal using
temporary programs that were never intended for that purpose. His
Department of Homeland Security created the CBP One app--short for
Customs and Border Protection--an app for your phone which allowed
migrants to literally schedule a visit to a port of entry so they could
then claim asylum and then enter the country.
Another Biden-Harris administration program allowed up to 30,000
migrants a month to enter from four countries--Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua,
and Venezuela. So that was 360,000 migrants who were basically told, if
you come, you can stay in the United States. But they were conferred a
temporary status that left them all in legal limbo.
Let's not forget the Biden White House cooking the books on illegal
immigration by abusing the parole system. ``Parole'' is a word that
people who are familiar with the criminal justice system understand.
But this is different. In immigration terms, parole means simply you
were released into the United States even if you didn't claim a right
to be able to stay--for example, a right to asylum. You are just simply
released as a border control measure to avoid bad publicity at the
border when people were sleeping in the streets and lines were stacking
up.
Of course, we know what the tragic consequences of these misguided
policies look like--a crisis of mass illegal immigration, human
trafficking, drug trafficking across our southern border.
Approximately, 100,000 Americans die each year as a result of drugs
that come across the southern border--approximately, 70,000 from
synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, which is the leading cause of death
for young people between the ages of 18 and 45. During all 4 years of
the Biden administration, a number of illegal migrant encounters with
CBP totaled over 10 million. That is basically 10 million people
showing up and saying let me into your country, and the Biden
administration said: Come on in.
But on top of that, there were about 1.7 million ``got-aways.''
``Got-aways'' are people who were evading law enforcement who appear on
some sensor--a camera or some other sensor--and evade law enforcement.
Of course, now we know they are freely roaming the interior of the
United States.
Let me ask you this. If you know that you could show up at the border
and be allowed to enter--basically, ushered into the country--why in
the world would you evade Border Patrol? Well, I think the simple
answer is these are people who knew that they would not be able to
enter because of criminal records because they were transporting drugs
or engaged in some other illegal activity. Yet they made their way into
the interior of the United States.
Fentanyl, which I mentioned a moment ago, was manufactured from
Chinese precursor chemicals, smuggled through the open border, which
has taken tens of thousands of lives. And the people in Texas--the 31
million people that I am honored to represent--have felt the burden of
President Biden's disastrous border policies most acutely because we
are closest to the problem. We are ground zero.
Governor Abbott, our outstanding Governor, and the Texas Legislature
filled the gap when the Federal Government refused to do its job along
the border. An international border is the responsibility of the
Federal Government, not the State government. But what is the State
supposed to do if the Federal Government says: ``We don't care about
the law. We are not going to enforce it. It is up to you''?
Well, Governor Abbott and the Texas Legislature stepped up, and they
spent roughly $11.1 billion to fill the gap that should have been
filled by the Federal Government. For that reason, I am insisting that
Congress fulfill Governor Abbott's request to be reimbursed $11.1
billion that the State taxpayers had to spend, that rightfully should
have been the expense of the Federal Government and Federal taxpayers
all across the country.
There can be no doubt that this historic crisis was the direct result
of President Biden's policies. That is one of the reasons why I believe
not only did he not run but that Vice President Harris lost the
election. It was a rejection of those open-border policies.
I am looking forward to hearing the President discuss tonight the
incredible strides his administration has made in just about 6 weeks
since his inauguration. Nowhere is that success more apparent than when
it comes to border security.
After 4 years of record highs, CBP is now facing record lows. The
Border Patrol tells me: Now we can do our job. We are not relegated to
changing diapers or transporting migrants from one facility to another.
We can actually keep out the worst of the worst and enforce the laws
when it comes to border security.
As soon as President Trump was elected, even before he took office,
the migrant flows began to subside. That is called deterrence. If you
know the law is going to be enforced and you know you are not going to
be successful making your way into the country, why would you spend
thousands of dollars in order to pay off a cartel member to smuggle you
up to the border?
During November and December of last year after the election,
encounters were at their lowest levels between the ports of entries--
the lowest levels since August of 2020. In the first 2 weeks of
January, Customs and Border Protection encounters were nearly 50
percent lower than they were at the same point in January 2021--50
percent lower. During the latter half of the month, when President
Trump actually took office, apprehensions fell by a staggering 85
percent compared to the same period in 2024.
You know, the statement is often said: Elections have consequences.
One of the most important consequences of President Trump's election on
November 5 was we are now reestablishing border security. And the
people of this great country are safer for it.
During the entire month of January, there were less than 1,500
apprehensions a day, a nearly 40-percent decline from December of last
year. And just 1 week ago, Customs and Border Protection hit a 15-year
low of only 200 encounters in 1 day at the southern border. These
numbers are pretty impressive, but they are not at all surprising. They
are a direct result of the deterrent effect created by President Trump
and Secretary Noem's policy changes. Migrants know that a Trump
administration means our laws will be enforced.
If you can make your way into our country using legal means, by all
means, do so. As I mentioned earlier, our country is the most generous
in the world when it comes to legal immigration. We naturalize about a
million people a year. So if you have a desire to come to America, do
it through legal means, not through illegal means.
Instead of rolling out the welcome mat like President Biden,
President Trump started his second administration by turning the
traffic light red instead of green. On day one, President Trump
declared a national emergency--which it was--at the southern border,
giving him greater flexibility to implement his Executive orders. He
reinstated the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy and ended President Biden's
disastrous catch-and-release policies.
Secretary Noem, our new Secretary of Homeland Security, began her
tenure in the President's Cabinet by sending a clear video message to
migrants that she intends to enforce the laws that prevent illegal
immigration. But she didn't stop there. Under President Trump and his
administration, ICE arrests--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE
arrests have increased more than 600 percent, which include arrests of
criminal migrants which have doubled. They returned to a commonsense,
case-by-case approach to humanitarian parole, which had been abused
under the Biden administration, where it was used as a way to have mass
releases of migrants at the border who had made no legitimate claim to
be able to stay. They were just released.
Secretary Noem has also clawed back the $80 million a month spent by
FEMA to house illegal migrants in luxury hotels in New York City. That
is where your tax dollars went--to put people who had no legal claim to
stay in the United States in hotels in New York City to the tune of $80
million.
These policies are welcome. They are good news to my constituents in
Texas and I believe to people across the country.
[[Page S1474]]
There is a reason why Secretary Mayorkas, the former Secretary of
Homeland Security who was responsible for implementing the border
security measures of the Biden administration--there was a reason why
he was impeached by the House of Representatives. He simply did not do
the job he had sworn to do. Well, Texans have had to bear the brunt of
open borders for 4 years, which includes rampant crime and deadly
fentanyl.
I look forward to working with President Trump and Secretary Noem to
continue the important work they have begun to keep Americans and
Texans safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Government Funding
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, no one wants a shutdown--well, actually,
no one except Elon Musk, who recently said that sounds great, or Donald
Trump or Russ Vought.
That is why I have been at the table this entire time ready to pass a
bill that protects key investments and makes sure that Congress--
Congress, not Donald Trump or Elon Musk--decides whether or not our
public schools or our lifesaving cancer research gets funded.
Unfortunately, Republican leadership told their Members last week to
walk away from the negotiating table--which raises the risk of a
shutdown--in an attempt to pass a clean yearlong continuing resolution
that would actually give Trump and Musk exactly what they want, fewer
restraints and more power over Federal spending so they can pick
winners and losers as they see fit, which would hurt all of our
constituents.
Nonetheless, I am urging Republican leadership to come back to the
table, if they are willing to do that, and work with us on full-year
funding bills, the type of work we do together every year and prevent a
shutdown while we do that.
We cannot stand by and accept a yearlong power grab CR that would
help Elon take a chain saw to programs that families rely on like yours
or keeps our Agencies together, that keep our communities safe.
We actually have a job to do here, Republicans and Democrats, to be a
voice for our constituents, to advocate for the funding they need, and
to get support back to our communities.
I heard my House Republican colleagues say they will not restrict a
Republican President's powers. I want to be clear. What I am asking for
is to work together to make sure, as we write and negotiate these full-
year spending bills, that our laws get followed. I welcome and I want
everyone to know I am open to any and all ideas about how we can work
together to do that.
I am confident we can get this done. I am ready to pass a short-term
CR immediately to take down the risk of a shutdown so that we can
finish our negotiations and write our full-year spending bills, which
is our job to do. Today, on a topic I believe appropriators actually on
both sides of the aisle would agree with, we need far more information
and transparency and accountability from the Trump administration in
order to write these bills because here is one big problem: How are we
supposed to fund the government when many of our Agencies today are not
responding to our questions and we have no picture--clear picture--of
what is actually or who is actually in charge of many of our Agencies?
It is clear as day there have been a lot of dramatic changes made
across the government. Agencies are being illegally shuttered; workers
are being fired by the thousands--again, often in direct violation of
laws we have passed--and hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal
programs and grants have been frozen, unfrozen, and frozen again. We
have had contracts that have been recklessly canceled, some
accidentally and then restarted, not to mention the workers who were
fired and rehired.
It is incredibly chaotic, and it makes it much harder to write our
legislation that actually responds to these latest developments when
programs are switching on and off again like a 2-year-old who is
playing with a light switch and when the number of people and programs
illegally terminated remains unclear. It is much more difficult to
write funding bills for Department programs when we have no idea what
the Department is actually doing or what the actual plan is for next
year or if it is actually they or, perhaps, DOGE making the plans in
the first place. We are seeing decisions made and reversed and made and
ignored--made by people who have no authority to make them, and yet
they are seemingly being implemented.
It is not just the whirlwind of decisions that is causing this chaos;
it is the complete lack of transparency and accountability surrounding
these decisions from Trump and Musk that makes it all but impossible to
get a straight answer.
When we have questions that urgently need answers, like: Why has this
energy program been frozen or when will the NIH grants start up again
or which VA contracts have actually been scrapped or how many workers
have been pushed out? then it helps if we know who is actually in
charge.
When our constituents have problems that require solutions quickly or
they will have to close a business or lay people off or lose their
family farms, then it matters that we can get the right person on the
phone to get things resolved.
Yet, when there is information we urgently need so we can write our
funding bills and avoid a shutdown, like Agencies' priorities or
unexpected challenges or just the basic nuts and bolts of stuff--to say
nothing of the information we need to address the very extraordinary
circumstances and decisions of the past few weeks--it is totally
unclear who we should actually be talking to if we want answers that
actually reflect the reality of what is happening. It is totally
unclear who is actually making these decisions and who is actually in
charge. Appropriators have now sent over 30 letters to Agencies since
January 20, asking just to understand Agency actions, and that is to
say nothing of the efforts from me and my staff to get answers to our
emails and our calls, but the answers have been few and very far
between.
What is more, just because we hear something from someone who should
know and just because we hear from someone who should be in charge, we
have found that it does not mean it is actually true. There has been
more than one time in the past few weeks when we have been told one
thing only to see the reality is entirely different. Like, for example,
when the OMB funding freeze was implemented and we were told it
wouldn't affect Head Start, except that it did affect Head Start.
Providers in my State were locked out of that payment system for days
even after the funding freeze itself was rescinded.
It seems like the only thing that has been consistent about the last
few weeks is that every time there has been chaos, every time I see
actions that fly in the face of laws we have passed--not to mention
common sense--or contradict what I have heard from Agency leaders, DOGE
has been at the center of it. We have seen DOGE absolutely trample the
authority of Congress and other Federal Agencies, including officials
Congress confirmed.
For example, while Secretary Rubio instituted a recklessly broad and
illegal freeze of all foreign assistance funding, he publicly announced
exceptions for a limited set of programs, including lifesaving aid, the
basic idea being that we probably shouldn't let HIV spread rampant, and
we probably shouldn't let food grown right here in America rot in ports
while children starve. Causing mass death through pointless negligence
is not really a good strategy for bolstering our global reputation. It
is cruel, and it is self-defeating.
So, as Secretary of State, he made the exception, but DOGE had other
plans, because on the rare occasion that what was left of USAID staff
who had not been sidelined was able to clear these payments through the
Agency's interim leadership--surprise--DOGE staffers would veto those
payments anyway. Keep in mind, we know about this not because DOGE
disclosed it or State disclosed it. We know only because of reporting.
That is not how this works. Congress and the American people we
represent should not be out of the loop, especially given the serious
stakes here and the serious questions that remain, like: On what
authority did they veto those
[[Page S1475]]
payments? Whose orders did they use to overrule the Secretary?
I, for one, would very much like to know, because while the Secretary
is guilty of plenty of attacks on his workforce and programs, it
certainly seems like the Secretary of State got steamrolled on numerous
occasions without even knowing it. If that is the case, who are we
supposed to talk to with questions about States' funding needs--the
Secretary or the two DOGE minions who actually have their hands
directly on the levers of power here?
And let's not forget about what happened at Treasury. DOGE wanted
access to our most secure systems. Agency officials told them no, and
then the Agency officials were told they are fired. That sent a
chilling message to our Federal workers: You stand up to DOGE at your
own peril.
It is not just Treasury. DOGE has been worming its way into
Department after Department, making a beeline for the most sensitive
systems, including ones storing my constituents' sensitive financial
data, and bulldozing over anyone who stands in their way for any
reason. We don't even know who all of these people are or whether they
even have security clearances. They have even had people fired for
denying them access to classified material beyond their security
levels. That is how completely unchecked their power has become. We
have incredibly little insight into what they are actually doing with
those sensitive systems. We have seen DOGE claim they can only view
some data. That is already deeply concerning, but there are also plenty
of indications they have been given more power at times. They are
interested in tinkering around with some of these systems, too, or are
unaccountably blocking payments like we saw at USAID.
Let's talk about the Defense Department because, first, Secretary
Hegseth was saying he wanted to revive the ``warrior spirit'' at the
Department, but now he is telling employees to reply to DOGE's weekly
emails. He is firing thousands of defense personnel, and he is asking
every corner of DOD to propose major cuts.
So, as an appropriator trying to write full-year bills that fund our
military, which is it--major increases or major cuts? And who do I ask
about Department needs? Is it up to the Secretary or up to DOGE? Who at
DOGE is even steering this ship? We need to know this kind of thing,
and we really needed to, like, know yesterday because we have a
deadline coming up for funding the military.
We have some serious questions for whoever is in charge about how the
administration is approaching things. When I say ``whoever is in
charge,'' I don't mean who is in charge on paper, because it seems like
there is a big disconnect. I mean, Who is actually making decisions and
driving actions at our Agencies and at DOGE for that matter?
Look. First, Elon was running DOGE with Vivek. Then it was just Elon.
Then it supposedly wasn't Elon at all, but then Elon kept right on
posting about hiring decisions like someone in charge and rehiring an
individual who resigned after their blatant racism came to light. He
kept right on doing press availabilities with the President in the Oval
Office to discuss his work at DOGE like someone in charge. So it sure
looks like Elon is still the head of DOGE. Even after we were all
finally told, with great supposed certainty, that DOGE was actually
being run by another person no one had ever mentioned, we then promptly
learned, oh, she is on vacation, and the very next day, we saw Elon
briefing the Cabinet on what he is doing at DOGE.
If that all seems confusing or contradictory, I don't think it is an
accident as much as a smokescreen--one that seems designed to hide the
obvious fact that Elon Musk is the one who is calling the shots at
DOGE. All of us here in Congress really need to know that because he is
the richest man in the world, with billions, actually, in government
contracts on the line. He is, apparently, in charge of his own
conflicts of interest. And we are just supposed to trust him? Has he
recused himself from a single decision? We haven't heard anything about
that.
As a steward of taxpayer dollars who wants to make sure the bills we
write are implemented to help my constituents, not Elon Musk's bottom
line, I would like to know: Did the owner of SpaceX recuse himself from
decisions gutting NASA? Did the owner of Tesla interfere at all in the
funding freezes that hurt his competition in the electric vehicle
market? Does the guy who posted criticizing of Verizon's work for FAA
and pitching his own company's Starlink as an alternative have anything
to do with the reports the government may reverse course now on the
Verizon contract? Did the guy selling satellite internet have any role
in halting funds that were helping my constituents have access to
broadband?
What about all of the watchdogs who have been fired--people reviewing
Neuralink devices at the FDA? people at the Agency that reviews the
safety of Tesla's self-driving cars? or the inspector general looking
into Elon's connections to foreign governments?
Despite what Musk likes to pretend, it is not in the slightest bit
transparent for him alone to be deciding what he hides and what he
shares about his role in government, nor is it transparent when DOGE is
posting updates that are often completely inaccurate--from getting
basic math wrong to getting wrong basic timelines of what Trump did
versus Biden to not understanding how our contracts work and counting
the same cuts over and over and over again. They aren't being
transparent. They are muddying up the waters with falsehoods and
disinformation and making it that much harder for us to write
meaningful funding bills in the next few days.
I mean, if DOGE doesn't even know what programs they have cut and how
much they have cut, how are we supposed to understand how these
decisions hurt our constituents? How are we supposed to write
legislation that rejects the cuts we find harmful or even aligns if
there are areas of agreement?
We need real answers from DOGE, and we need them as soon as possible.
So, once again, I am requesting that Elon Musk come before Congress for
a hearing in order to be held accountable to the American people. Tell
us: What exactly are you doing? Why are you firing Federal employees
whose salaries are covered by fees, not by taxpayer dollars? Why are
you firing our veterans by the thousands who are doing work to support
our communities? Why are you planning to fire the people who make sure
seniors get their Social Security checks? Who are the people who work
for you? How were they vetted? What are your long-term plans for this
Agency? Based on what authority are you overruling our Secretaries,
directing Federal workers, and ignoring the laws we have passed here in
Congress?
America is waiting. We are losing valuable time. Congress and the
American people deserve answers, and we need them to do their jobs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Trump Administration
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on important
public policy issues related to my State's economy and appreciate the
opportunity to follow our senior Senator, Senator Murray, who is
articulating the impact of some of these so important public policy
issues on the State of Washington.
Trade is the lifeblood of the State of Washington and our economy.
Farmers in my State export $7.5 billion worth of agriculture products a
year. That was the number from 2023--$7.5 billion. So anytime somebody
starts a trade war, I guarantee you, you are going to get our
attention.
Under the President's trade war, the farmers in my State are going to
be the first victims. Trump said to our farmers yesterday on Truth
Social, ``Tariffs will go on external products on April 2. Have fun!''
Have fun? Have fun? When retaliatory tariffs strike our farmers, just
as they did in the first Trump administration, it is not going to be
fun; it is going to be a nightmare for our farmers. And many of the
farmers in my State worry that they will be able to farm at all.
It is not like they are going to lose farmland. There are rich
people, billionaires, software executives who will buy farmland. We are
going to lose farmers. I know this because we have already been through
this trade war, with many of my farmers struggling to overcome the
damage that was wrought during the first Trump administration.
The last time we went down this road, we lost the apple market
because
[[Page S1476]]
of retaliatory tariffs. We had a $120 million market that basically
collapsed, practically overnight, in India. And I traveled to India and
worked hard over several years to lift those tariffs, and now, we
finally are back growing our exports exponentially, but the market
still isn't fully recovered, and now, people are questioning what is
going to happen next.
I heard from a grower in my State who said, ``The alarms in ag are
sounding. The band has stopped playing, and the last lifeboats are
leaving the ship. We cannot endure another cycle similar to the one
that was started seven years ago when tariffs were first put in place.
And without meaningful, long-lasting solutions, you may very well be
looking at the last generation of farm families.''
That is just one of my constituents. He doesn't sound like he is
having fun. These family legacies, built on generations of work, cannot
be lost in a trade war. You can't get them back once they are gone.
I hope my colleagues will slow down on this tariff tirade. Under
article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power
to set duties and regulate foreign commerce. However, Congress has
spent the last 80 years delegating its tariff authority to Presidents.
You can say, okay, well, that might have been okay because previous
Democrat and Republican Presidents worked to lower tariffs and to open
up markets. I have voted for many of those trade agreements. But this
President, I believe, is abusing this authority. He calls it an
emergency. He is using the trade wars to supposedly force countries to
do things like changing their border policies.
I believe it is time for Congress to start taking back some of that
power and considering how we are going to protect the family farm.
We know this--that in my State, families are paying more for
groceries. They are paying more at the gas pump. They are paying more
for electricity bills. And they are seeing the stock market plummet
because, as businesses grapple with Trump's unnecessary trade war,
businesses are concerned about the long-term impacts of the supply
chain and the cost of those tariffs.
The American people want to see the administration tackle inflation
and the high cost of everything. When President Trump was on the
campaign trail, he talked about inflation. He said, ``Starting day one,
we will end inflation and make sure that America is affordable again
and bring down prices on all goods.'' Well, I don't think that is what
is happening today.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board put it well this morning when
they wrote: ``Trump takes the dumbest tariff plunge.'' I agree. We
don't need to be doing this.
These tariffs are attacks on groceries bought by every American.
Canada is the largest exporter of meat to the United States, while 77
percent of fresh vegetables are imported from Mexico and 11 percent are
imported from Canada. So costs are going up on every American who is
buying, and that means they will also buy less.
The tariffs on Canada and Mexican goods that President Trump is
planning would cost American families an estimated up to $2,000 per
year. According to Anderson Economic Group, tariffs could raise the
price of a new car as much as $12,000. I am pretty sure nobody has
extra money for a new car.
Housing costs--one of the biggest drivers on inflation, but President
Trump's tariffs would drive up the cost of construction material,
making it even more expensive to address our housing shortage, slow our
new home construction, and one analysis found that tariffs could push
home construction up by 4 to 6 percent over the next 12 months.
I can tell you, we already have expensive housing in the Northwest.
We can't afford another 4 to 6 percent. And the tariffs also create
supply chain disruptions, making it harder to find alternative sources
of materials, delaying projects that are already underway, and these
short-term sticker shocks will put long-term pressure on housing
affordability, making the problem worse--not solving it.
Just last week, when people want to talk about GDP and where this is
going, it was amazing that the Atlanta Fed was forecasting GDP growth
over 2 percent for the first quarter of 2025. That is literally what
this line here was discussing, that the consensus was 2 percent, and
even the Fed was weighing in on that.
But we can see when we got to February, we fell off a cliff. We fell
off a cliff. And why? Because now the Atlanta Fed is saying we had one
swing of 5 percent in just 1 week. And now, this drop is the
representation of a cliff that President Trump is pushing the American
economy over.
So you can see they are going down to negative--not just zero growth,
but negative. We can't afford that, and we can't afford the stock
market dropping 700 points yesterday.
The only way that we can work together is that if my colleagues here
will start talking about these tariff issues. We don't need to weaken
our institutions here; we need to strengthen them. And our colleagues
need to work together to resolve these issues.
I would say, too, that as my colleagues start to plan how we deal
with these budget issues, that we should also keep in mind that some of
the cuts that these Agencies have been facing are really the cuts to
some of the most technical jobs the U.S. Government has.
Whether you are talking about NOAA or the National Weather Service or
the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation or
the U.S. Department of Agriculture--they have all been targeted for
reductions. These Agencies are critical to our economic growth and to
our security. And at a time when we are seeing more extreme weather
events or more floods or more wildfires, why shouldn't we be investing
more in weather forecasting, not less?
And when you look at NOAA workers who support our commercial and
recreation and Tribal fisheries--they employ 1.7 million people,
including thousands in the State of Washington. Why would you cut
specialized workforce that are helping support the growth of GDP?
Because you want to basically cut those technical workers at the same
time you are putting on tariffs?
In 2023, the National Institute of Health awarded $1.2 billion in
highly competitive grants to the State of Washington--65 different
organizations. This supported 12,000 jobs and generated $3 billion in
economic activity. But DOGE wants to cap the overhead expenses of
research. University of Washington Medicine tells me that this would
leave them with shortfalls and that they might have to stop clinical
trials that are underway. You can't just stop medical research like it
is a faucet.
Once halted, the research, the data, the clinical trials, the
patients, the laboratories, the equipment, all that led to innovation--
will be lost. You think you just turn that back on? You know, these
kinds of ideas sound great, but they are not well thought out. It is
literally throwing tax dollars away.
Tonight, my guest at the State of the Union will be Dr. Paul Lange
from the University of Washington. With support of Federal funding, Dr.
Lange helped develop early detection tests for prostate cancer. Because
of these tests and other treatment breakthroughs, we have seen a
decrease in the death rate from prostate cancer. From 1993 to 2022, it
dropped by one-half--significant progress.
That is why we need research dollars to save lives. Similarly,
Washington State University researchers actively test on novel drug
treatment for advanced prostate cancer at Sharma Lab. If its work is
disrupted, they say that ``risk potentially is high, not being able to
replace data, and endangering the ultimate viability of potentially
lifesaving treatments.''
There are lives that might not be saved because of these budget cuts.
So it is time that Congress gets involved, that we fight for the
science that we believe will save lives, move our country forward and
grow our GDP, and help our farmers by stopping these trade wars, and
putting our farmers back in charge of growing an economy for the
future.
I hope that we don't cut ARS funding that USDA depends on. I hope
that we will give hope to our future constituents and the growth that
we need to grow our economy instead of cutting our opportunity.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S1477]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
(The remarks of Mrs. Britt pertaining to the submission of S. 846 and
S. 847 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mrs. BRITT. I yield the floor.
____________________