[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3017-S3025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
GUIDING AND ESTABLISHING NATIONAL INNOVATION FOR U.S. STABLECOINS ACT--
Motion to Proceed--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1582, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 66, S. 1582, a bill to
provide for the regulation of payment stablecoins, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Make America Healthy Again Commission
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express
concerns that I have heard from many stakeholders regarding the Make
America Healthy Again Commission. For short, this is called the MAHA
Commission. Their report will be coming out tomorrow.
The concerns that I have heard from food and agriculture stakeholders
center around the difficulty that they have had getting meetings with
the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS Secretary Kennedy is
the Chair of the MAHA Commission.
Many people fear that the contents of this report will not be based
on sound science, that it will be based on opinions and fears instead
of scientific consensus.
When I met with Secretary Kennedy before his confirmation--and that
is a traditional thing to do--we discussed things like pesticides,
genetically modified crops and other important components that come
together to ensure the United States has the largest and safest food
supply on the globe, and how all those things center on making the life
of the farmer producing food as easy as possible. Now, Secretary
Kennedy agreed that these tools farmers use are necessary for that food
supply.
The MAHA report should be based upon sound science. I believe that
Department of Agriculture Secretary Rollins and EPA Administrator
Zeldin have had robust input on this report and that they would
advocate for the 2 percent of Americans that feed the other 98 percent
and the tools that are used to produce the food supply that feeds
America.
We want to remember that we have the reputation of producing food so
that the expendable income of--the average family in the United States
spends roughly 10 or 11 percent of their discretionary money on food--
the cheapest of any consumers in the world.
So I want everybody to know that I am watching this report closely
that is coming out tomorrow, and I hope it reflects what Secretary
Kennedy told me when I met with him in my office and he stands by his
word.
I hope there is nothing in the MAHA report that jeopardizes our food
supply or the livelihood of farmers or jeopardizes the food supply--to
emphasize--for the 98 percent of Americans that buy and depend on the
food that the 2 percent of Americans that are farmers produce.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
S.J. Res. 55
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, as you know, in its final days in
office, the Biden administration gave California--the liberal State of
California--permission to export its far-left electric vehicle mandate
to the entire country. This week, this Senate will end California's
mandate madness.
Now, I listened to some of the Democrats' arguments on the floor
yesterday. There was a lot of huffing and puffing going on about the
sanctity of the Government Accountability Office and about the
filibuster, which, let me
[[Page S3018]]
remind you, every single Democrat has promised to eliminate. There were
wild accusations that the sky was falling on the U.S. Senate.
What nobody who tuned in heard is what these California rules would
actually do to our country. Why not, Mr. President? Isn't that why
Democrats are really so panicked? Isn't that why Democrats and Joe
Biden waited until after the election--after they lost the election in
the House, the Senate, and the White House--to spring this whole thing
on the American people? They were losers going out the door, and they
said: We are coming after you, the American people, with our leftist
dreams.
Isn't that why they spent months coordinating this release with their
allies at the GAO--so they could avoid or at least try to avoid Senate
scrutiny under the Congressional Review Act? Isn't that what they were
really up to? Well, it is what they were up to.
So why are the Democrats so darn desperate to talk about anything and
everything except what these punishing rules will actually do to
America, American workers, and the American economy? Let me tell you
why.
California EV mandates ban--ban, ban--the sale of gas-powered cars
and trucks. No more in America--gas-powered trucks. Can you imagine
that in Oklahoma or in my home State of Wyoming? They threaten--the
Democrats want to threaten the freedom of every American to choose what
they drive. That is what this is about.
EVs currently make up 7 percent--7 percent--of the U.S. market. Even
in California, they account for only 20 percent of vehicle sales. And
do you know what else? The sales are stalling. They are stalling out.
People don't want these. Even with the big government subsidies, people
don't want to buy these things. Yet California's radical mandates
require that by next year--it is coming; we are already into May of
this year. By next year, by January, all vehicle sales in the State of
California--35 percent of them have to be electric. That is 6 months
from now, 7 months from now. By 2035, it would be 100 percent of
vehicle sales in California have to be electric, with big penalties if
it doesn't meet that.
For the people that are making the cars that people don't want to
buy, this is a whole new meaning in California of fantasyland. That is
what we are dealing with here.
America can't meet these impossible standards--not next year, not in
10 years--and the American people don't want to meet those standards.
For carmakers, the consequences are severe. If you don't sell enough
electric vehicles--California is saying to them and to the other States
that sign on to this--even when Americans don't want to buy them, too
bad. In California, these people will pay a fine of $20,000 per
vehicle--$20,000 per vehicle because people don't want to buy what the
government says they have to buy.
There are ways to avoid this fine, and one way is limiting the sales
of gas-powered vehicles. Well, that is rationing. That is what we are
seeing. The Democrats want to ration the sales of gas-powered vehicles
to live in their fantasyland of everybody driving an electric vehicle.
The harms of this mandate extend way beyond just carmakers. The
Democrat mandates would cost the economy about $100 billion a year--
$100 billion. The impact would be about 330,000 jobs lost.
The Democrat mandate would punish hard-working families. Prices would
be higher. They are trying to buy these regular, gas-powered vehicles,
but there would be fewer for sale. They would bury small businesses
under crushing compliance costs.
In my home State of Wyoming and in rural States like ours, farmers
and ranchers would suffer, both from EV's limited reliability and,
clearly, from the limited range. People drive long distances in Wyoming
to school, to the grocery store, to work.
Every American citizen would lose options, whether you live in
California or not.
So you have the California EV mandates. The Democrats don't want to
talk about that part of it. They are expensive, they are expansive, and
they are economically destructive. They would hurt our economy, hurt
our workers, and hurt the pocketbooks and purses of Mr. and Mrs.
America.
This isn't just a California problem. It is a nationwide assault on
gas-powered cars in America. The California mandates cover over 40
percent of all new cars in the country. They span 11 States, including
big-population States--New York, New Jersey, here in the District of
Columbia. All of them signed onto California's radical attempt to set a
new national standard. So it is not just a California standard.
Everyone is impacted.
The California Senators--the Members of this body--they actually brag
about this overreach of this mandate on EVs. The junior Senator from
California says he is ``very proud'' that his State's liberal agenda
can control the country.
How many Members of this Senate--certainly on this side of the
aisle--want to share the pride of California's liberal agenda
controlling the country? The American public on election day rejected
the liberal agenda of California--whether it comes to electric
vehicles, whether it comes to open borders, whether it comes to
sanctuary cities and sanctuary States, or their efforts to defund
police. People have rejected, all across the country, the liberal
agenda controlling our country.
So Democrats have this delusional dream. They want to eliminate gas-
powered vehicles. The rest of us, we live in the real world. And that
is what we are doing here today, because in the real world, gas-powered
vehicles keep our farms running, keep our ranches growing, keep our
businesses thriving, and keep our economy moving.
The Congressional Review Act provides the Senate a swift and
permanent solution. With a simple majority here in the Senate, Congress
can kill these rules and ban similar ones forever--not just the Senate,
the House as well.
And the fight goes beyond party lines because it is not just about
Republicans and Democrats. It is about common sense. It is about
control. The House of Representatives voted on this. They wanted to end
these punishing mandates.
How did the vote go? Well, every Republican voted to kill the
mandate. Thirty-five House Democrats voted to kill this mandate,
including Democrats from the State of California who realized just how
impractical and expensive and impossible it would be to comply with
what the Biden administration tried to force-feed the American people
after they lost the election, lost the Presidency, lost the House, and
lost the Senate.
A New York Democrat who voted with the Republicans and with these 35
other Democrats said: ``Out of touch with reality'' is what these
California mandates are--``out of touch with reality.''
Even the junior Senator from Michigan, a Democrat, campaigned and won
an election in 2024 against EV mandates. Well, we will see how she
votes today on the floor of the Senate, after she campaigned last year
in Michigan against the EV mandate.
Will she be against them today when we vote on this? Time will tell.
She actually told voters: ``Drive what you want.'' We will see today if
she really believes that, or if she says: Drive what you want, but you
can only buy what I am demanding that you buy--an electric vehicle.
We will see it in the vote today.
Senate Democrats now want to force-feed electric vehicles to everyone
in America. So Democrats are claiming the Congressional Review Act
doesn't apply. They don't want to talk about the policy. They want to
say: Well, the Congressional Review Act shouldn't apply.
These last-minute objections by Democrats are very flawed. What they
are citing is a nonbinding observation--an observation--by the
Government Accountability Office--an observation that said, for the
first time in history, an Agency-submitted rule wasn't a rule. That is
what they are saying. The argument collapses under scrutiny.
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted these rules as rules to
Congress this year, after being released by the Biden administration in
his final days in office. That is a fact. No one disputes it. The
Democrats don't dispute it. They know what happened. They know they are
trying to sneak one through. They know it.
Under the Congressional Review Act, that makes these rules subject to
review--period, end of story. They are subject to review.
[[Page S3019]]
The GAO has no veto power over this body, the U.S. Senate--not a veto
from the Congressional Review Act, not a veto under the Senate rules,
not a veto under Senate precedent. They have no standing.
More troubling, the GAO's actions suggest bias because leftwing
bureaucrats in the GAO rushed a response in only 13 days to prop up the
mandates. How do we know that? Because we know they colluded with
Senate Democrats to do so.
When Republicans challenged the GAO's observations, Senate Democrats
turned to scare tactics now about the filibuster. It is ironic since
every single Senate Democrat has either voted for or campaigned for
eliminating the filibuster.
This Senate vote on the California EV mandates is not about Senate
rules. It is about the Democrats' delusional dream to eliminate gas-
powered vehicles forever. That is what they want. What their complaints
are is a smokescreen to save a pillar of their Green New Deal.
You know, years ago, Congress created a fast-track procedure. It was
actually in 1996. That is when the Congress passed the Congressional
Review Act.
This week, the Senate must decide: Do we uphold our rights under the
Congressional Review Act, or do we give the GAO a veto over
Congressional Review Act now and forever?
Our decision is going to shape the future of the Congressional Review
Act. Americans have spoken. They have rejected EV mandates in November
at the ballot box. The House has acted in a bipartisan way, with 35
Democrats joining all the Republicans. And it is now up to the Senate
to stop these EV mandates from taking hold on our Nation.
I want to thank my colleagues who led the effort: Chairman Shelley
Moore Capito of West Virginia, Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and
Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
Together, we are going to reject this far-left cheerleading for more
regulations, and we are going the protect consumers. We are going to
protect affordability, and we are going to protect the authority of
this institution.
It is time to end this California mandate madness.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Budget Reconciliation
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Republicans are continuing our work on a
reconciliation bill that delivers for the American people. And if I had
to summarize this bill in one phrase, I would say it is about building
a stronger America.
A stronger America is a safer America.
Last week, I discussed the importance of strengthening our border
security, something we are addressing in our reconciliation bill.
Today, I would like to discuss another aspect of that bill:
strengthening our military to meet today's and tomorrow's threats.
The world has grown increasingly unstable in recent years. America's
interests, our allies, and, worst of all, American servicemembers have
come under attack. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran and its
terrorist proxies have all grown more brazen.
Meanwhile, the previous administration regularly telegraphed weakness
on the world stage and put investing in our military on the back
burner.
There is never a time when we can afford to let our military
readiness slide. But above all, at this time of increased instability,
it is vital that we ensure that our military has the resources it needs
to deter our enemies and defend our country.
ADM Samuel Paparo, the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command,
last year called deterrence ``our highest duty.''
He said:
Deterrence is effective when it is credible: The adversary
believes the defending side will act on its threats when it
is capable. A robust military with the ability to project
power globally and inflict significant damage on the
aggressor is essential.
Let me just repeat that:
A robust military with the ability to project power
globally and inflict significant damage on the aggressor is
essential.
That is the kind of military we need to secure with this bill.
Our aim is to reverse the trend of underinvestment in our military,
to rebuild our military capabilities, and to ensure that our
adversaries will think long and hard before attacking us--in other
words, peace through strength.
One area where that is especially critical is in our strategic
competition with China. Leaders of the intelligence community testified
this year that China represents the most comprehensive, robust military
threat to U.S. national security. Its designs on Taiwan are obvious,
and its brazen actions, from cybertheft and espionage to its aggressive
territorial claims and its harassment of American pilots are alarming.
But we have allowed China to outpace us in building new military
capabilities. China produces two submarines per year for every 1.4
submarines built in the United States. China can build naval surface
warships three times faster than we can. And in the defining
technologies of tomorrow's wars--space, AI, hypersonics, and cyber--
China is gaining quickly or already has an edge.
Republicans' reconciliation bill is about reestablishing the U.S.
advantage in all those areas. We are going to invest in shipbuilding to
expand and enhance our fleet. We will restock our munitions stockpiles
and expand weapons production. We will modernize our nuclear deterrence
and build a Golden Dome for missile defense here at home.
Our bill will expedite the delivery of innovative weapons to
servicemembers on the frontlines. It will enhance the readiness of our
military units and modernize infrastructure at depots and shipyards.
And it will make improvements to servicemembers' quality of life.
To be clear, the investment we are making here in this bill, while
critically important, is no substitute for robust annual defense
funding levels. But it will help us catch up after years of the Biden
administration's deprioritizing defense investments.
We can't afford to let our military readiness slide any further. We
need to reverse the current trend and put our national security on a
better trajectory for the future, and that is what our reconciliation
bill will do.
A stronger America is a safer America, and that, Mr. President, is
what Republicans intend to deliver.
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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
S.J. Res. 55
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, so 100 days into Donald Trump's
Presidency, America is plagued with deep problems. Donald Trump's trade
war is sending prices up and up. Republicans are on the brink of taking
away people's Medicaid. Trust in American leadership is in decline on
the world stage. But what are Senate Republicans focusing on today?
Today, Republicans are going nuclear to appease the fossil fuel
industry and, at the same time, erode away the institution they profess
to care about.
First, the facts: This week, Senate Republicans want to use a measure
known as the Congressional Review Act--CRA for short--to repeal three
vehicle emission waivers from California. These waivers have been used
for decades and are vital for helping keep our air cleaner, our kids
healthier, and to lessen our reliance on Big Oil.
Republicans have tried to get rid of California's emission waivers
for a very long time. The fossil fuel industry--which knows it is in
decline, which knows that clean energy is not only the cleaner wave of
the future but the less costly wave of the future--but the fossil fuel
industry hates them, hates
[[Page S3020]]
that industry. So Donald Trump's EPA tried to rescind the last
iteration of one of these waivers during his first administration, but
that effort fell short in the courts. The courts rejected it. Now
Republicans want to try again. This time by using the CRA to repeal
these emissions waiver at a simple majority threshold.
But what was made crystal clear today on the Senate floor through
parliamentary inquiries I made to the Parliamentarian that the Senate
Parliamentarian has advised both sides, Democrats and Republicans, that
legislation to overturn these waivers does not--does not--qualify for
expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act. That means
any legislation to repeal these waivers should be subject to a 60-vote
threshold in the Senate.
The Senate Parliamentarian, as we know, plays a vital role in keeping
this institution whole. It is thankless work. Parliamentarians' advice
and judgment on rules and procedures of this institution is
indispensable to both parties. So Republicans face a choice: Do they
adhere to Senate precedent, as they have long claimed to do, and find
another way to pass their repeal or are they going to plow ahead,
overrule the Parliamentarian, do the bidding of Big Oil, and further
eat away at the Senate in the process?
Well, today we have our answer: Senate Republicans are going nuclear.
Let's be very clear, to override the Parliamentarian and to use the CRA
in the ways the Republicans propose is going nuclear--no ifs, ands, or
buts.
And don't take my word for it. Let me read a quote from Leader Thune
from just a few months ago when he was asked if he would advise his
party against moving to override the Parliamentarian, Leader Thune said
this:
Yeah, and that's totally akin to killing the filibuster. We
can't go there. People need to understand that.
Again, Leader Thune himself said: Overruling the Parliamentarian is
akin to killing the filibuster, and that is just what the Republicans
are proposing to do today.
Just yesterday, Leader Thune admitted that this step could ``create
precedent for the future'' and what an awful precedent.
And in his first address as Republican leader, Leader Thune stood
right here in the Chamber--I sat and listened--and promised that ``one
of my priorities as leader will be to ensure that the Senate stays the
Senate.''
Well, what happened to all of that? What happened to all the
preaching we hear from the other side about norms and rules and
precedent? Apparently, when the rules suit them, Republicans will
preach about protecting precedent. But now that the rules are
inconvenient, when they stand in the way of their ideological goals,
Republicans say: Away with them.
Shameful. Shameful.
Republicans don't need to take the Senate down this road. They have
other alternatives at their disposal. If they want to repeal these
waivers, bring legislation to the floor. Have a debate. There is
nothing that prohibits that. That is what should be done in the kind of
regular order our Senate Republicans professed they were going to
restore when they got here, when they got the majority here in January.
Make no mistake, this is not a narrow assertion of congressional
authority, as Leader Thune claimed it was. Today, Republicans set a new
precedent that cannot likely be reversed. Moving forward, Congressional
Review Acts will be weaponized like never before. Today it is all about
California emission waivers; tomorrow, the CRA could now be used to
erase any policy from an Agency that the Trump administration doesn't
like at a simple majority threshold. They could go after permits for
oil and gas drilling; some on the other side wouldn't like that. They
could eliminate healthcare innovation waivers that States use to get
care to people through Medicaid and the ACA.
They could even use the CRAs to make it even harder to form a union.
They could go after Agency actions that protect access to reproductive
care, like making it harder to access the medication mifepristone. They
could go after rules that protect access to reproductive care.
All of this and more could now be done at a simple majority threshold
with an expanded CRA. And all that would need to happen is for Donald
Trump to choose an Agency action or policy he doesn't like, stamp it
with a label ``CRA,'' send it over to the Congress, and Republicans
will bow in obeisance and repeal it at a simple majority threshold.
This, in other words, is a backdoor strategy from Republicans to make
Project 2025 a reality. And mark my words, many of our Republican
colleagues are going to not like having to vote on CRAs that Trump
wants, and we will be able to get votes on them because of what the
Republicans are attempting to do today.
It is the legislative branch ceding authority over to the executive
if we go forward with this, and Republicans should tread carefully.
What goes around comes around.
If Republicans are willing to overrule the Parliamentarian and
highjack the CRA in a way that it has never been used before, they will
not like it the next time they are in the minority. That is for sure.
So this is a sad, shameful, disappointing day for the U.S. Senate.
Republicans will come to regret the ill-considered step they take
today, mark my words. And our country, the health of our children, the
health of our communities--the whole country--will be worse off because
of what Republicans have done.
Budget Reconciliation
Mr. President, now, on reconciliation, it is no secret how awful the
Republican tax bill is. For weeks, we have said their bill shows that
billionaires win; American families lose. Last night, the nonpartisan
CBO proved that to be quite accurate.
The CBO's nonpartisan analysis shows that this bill would decrease
household resources by 4 percent for the bottom 10 percent of Americans
while increasing household resources by 2 percent for the top 10
percent of the country. To be clear, this bill would hurt the most
vulnerable Americans, and the most benefits would only reach the top
wealthiest--trickle-down economics, if there ever was one.
This bill hurts American families. They are the losers of this bill.
American families will lose healthcare. They will lose food benefits.
They will lose jobs. They will lose money. Bottom line: American
families lose; billionaires win.
SALT
Mr. President, and finally on the SALT deal, yesterday Donald Trump
came to the Capitol to deliver a message to New York House Republicans:
Back down on SALT or else.
That is what he reportedly said, his words.
Less than 24 hours later, we are learning that New York Republicans
have all bowed to the king and caved in obeisance to Trump. New York
Republicans are showing, once again, that their loyalty does not lie
with the volunteer firefighter in Bay Shore or with the teacher in
Riverhead or even with the small business owner in Suffern. No. Their
blind loyalty lies with Donald Trump.
The so-called SALT deal is a humiliating failure for New York
Republicans. New York Republicans settled for barely half of what they
wanted on SALT and barely a fraction of what Trump ripped away from
them in the first term, and they are doing it because they are scared
of the President and no relief for the marriage penalty. So if there is
a firefighter and a teacher married to one another, nope. Being married
hurts them in the SALT deal the Republicans made.
New York Republicans settled for SALT caps forever and a double tax
on middle-class New Yorkers: our cops and firefighters, our teachers,
our small businesses, our construction workers in the Hudson Valley, on
Long Island, and across the State. I mean, even if New York Republicans
did nothing, New York would be better off at the end of this year when
the SALT cap would have expired.
This SALT deal leaves in place a penalty for married couples. A
couple who are paying both taxes face the same limit as a single
individual, even if they are paying double the taxes. This is one of
the biggest issues facing middle-class families, and New York
Republicans are leaving it in place. It is barely 20 percent of the New
York Republicans' own SALT bill that they wrote.
[[Page S3021]]
One Republican Congressman-- Mike Lawler--said last year:
Eliminating the marriage penalty within SALT isn't just
important--it's absolutely essential.
Well, clearly it must not have been that essential.
New York Republicans have said for months that they had one job they
were sent to Washington for: to get rid of the SALT cap. With this SALT
deal, so-called SALT deal, they have failed everyone back home.
New York Republicans' capitulation to Trump on SALT is a slap in the
face to Long Island, the Hudson Valley, New York City, and the hard-
working, middle-class families across New York and across the United
States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Ukraine
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be making a quick presentation here
and then Senator Ernst will follow, and I just want to compliment her
for all the effort she has made to stand by Ukraine and make sure that
this war ends in a way that is honorable and just. And we can stop the
killing but do it in a way that we don't have future wars because we
made a mistake here.
So there are so many things going on in the world right now that are
very dangerous. You have Iran close to a nuclear breakout. You have the
war in Russia and Ukraine. It is killing 5,000 people a day. Only God
knows how many people are actually being killed or wounded, hard to
track, but it is just massive. It is a major land war in Europe, and we
thought those days were behind us.
We have threats from China. We have got all kinds of things going on
in the world. So my advice is, when you have a hard decision to make,
make sure you look at it through a moral clarity lens. Make it simple.
Russia is the problem, not Ukraine. Ukraine didn't invade Russia;
Russia invaded Ukraine.
We need moral clarity on all these issues. Iran is not trying to have
civilian nuclear power; they are trying to build a bomb. We need to
take them at their word as to what they intended to do over time. They
intended to destroy the State of Israel, purify Islam, and come after
us. That is what they say. They write on their missiles ``Death to
Israel,'' and they call us the ``Great Satan.'' They have 600 pounds of
highly enriched uranium--60 percent. That is enough for six or seven or
maybe more bombs. They went from 60-percent to 90-percent enrichment in
less than a month.
They have one civilian nuclear reactor. How much uranium has been
used to run that reactor enriched by Iran itself? Not one gram. Think
of all the fuel needed to run the civilian reactor from Russia. So they
are trying to stockpile weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb; and they
lie, cheat, and steal, and we catch them all the time.
So some moral clarity here. Iran with a nuclear weapon is not only
unacceptable, it is the biggest threat to the planet, as I see it. The
Arab nations want a nuclear weapon of their own.
And Israel--one Holocaust is sufficient. This is the 80th anniversary
of the end of World War II. It happened a few days ago. During that
war, there was an effort to annihilate the Jews. Founding the State of
Israel in 1948 was a significant world event. And there is a saying in
Israel, ``Never again.'' They actually mean it.
(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)
How about moral clarity from the United States here? We are with
Israel. If Israel has to use military force to destroy or degrade the
nuclear capability of Iran, we should be with them. I am glad we are
trying to find a peaceful solution to the uranium problem. If you can
get Iran to dismantle their nuclear program, then that gets us to where
I want to go. But they have to dismantle.
Right now, there are discussions between Russia, Ukraine, and the
United States and Europe about how to end this war. Putin, in my view,
is playing us all. President Trump called for a 30-day cease-fire.
Ukraine said yes; Russia said no. President Trump urged Zelenskyy and
Putin to go to Istanbul--I was over there--and meet to have direct
talks. Zelenskyy went; Putin didn't.
So there was a call a couple of days ago between President Trump and
Putin. The Russians now are supposed to submit a terms sheet about what
it takes to get a cease-fire. That is supposed to happen in a few days.
They are talking about going to the Vatican and having direct
negotiations. I am for all of that, but I don't know about how. I think
most people feel like I do. We have given Russia plenty of opportunity
to find an honorable and just end to this war. They are not interested,
and they are not going to change until we up the ante.
So we need moral clarity here. Putin is dragging this out. He
believes he is winning on the battlefield. I don't believe he is. He is
defying every effort that has been earnest by President Trump to find a
solution to this war. President Trump says he wants to stop the
slaughtering and the killing. He is right to do so. But this is a time
of decision-making. This has gone on too long with too many games being
played.
I will tell you in just a minute what the Senate can do. But what we
need when it comes to Russia-Ukraine is moral clarity. When President
Trump focuses on an issue and takes a firm stand, it always works. He
is standing up to China and the world who has been ripping us off on
trade. He has a policy now that whatever you charge us on tariffs, we
are going to charge you. It is called reciprocal trade. He has imposed
tariffs on China.
Everybody in this body goes home and talks about how China rips us
off. Trump is actually doing something about it. China steals our
intellectual property, they manipulate the currency to get them a trade
advantage, and that needs to come to an end.
When President Trump focuses on fixing a problem--righting a wrong--
he gets good results because the world now is calling Washington
wanting deals. I think you are going to see a lot of good trade deals
to right the wrong of trade abuse because President Trump stood up and
insisted we get a better outcome.
The border. When he got in office, one of his top priorities was to
fix a broken border. Look at what has happened. The lowest daily number
of border encounters fell to less than 200, the lowest in history. He
turned it all off because he was firm and resolved with Mexico and
others. His border policies have worked. He has shut down a broken
border, literally, in months because he had the desire and the will to
do it, and people responded. And we are getting a great result at the
border because of his determination and his will to do so. We went from
7,200 in March down to 200--that drop is amazing--because of his
policies.
China, I just talked about. He is taking China on, and I am hoping we
can reach a deal with China that will level out the trade playing
field. China is talking to us; we are talking to China. The world is
responding to President Trump's tariffs. We are going to get a bunch of
good trade deals. And I very much appreciate that.
What did he say about Iran?
You know, it's not complicated formula. Iran cannot have a
nuclear weapon. That's all there is.
That is moral clarity. You can understand that, no matter where you
are at on the planet:
You know, it's not complicated formula. Iran cannot have a
nuclear weapon. That's all there is.
We are in talks with Iran. Whether or not they achieve a result, I
don't know. I don't mind trying. I do know this: Time is not on our
side. President Trump said we are going to end the nuclear program one
way or the other. When he said it, I think the Iranians believed it;
and when he says it, I believe it. And the best chance to stop the Iran
nuclear program is with President Trump's leadership.
Moral clarity, again, regarding Russia and Ukraine. Russia is the
aggressor. Russia must end this bloodbath now. He has talked about
ending the bloodbath. I am saying, from my point of view, Russia is the
aggressor. Ukraine, like every other Nation, is not perfect. But they
have fought like tigers.
In 1994, 1998--I can't remember--they gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons,
the Budapest Memorandum. In return, Russia, the United States, Great
Britain promised territorial integrity. They gave up 1,700 nuclear
weapons with a promise from these countries they would be safe
territorially.
Russia has violated that promise numerous times. They are constantly
[[Page S3022]]
harassing their neighbors. This is the second invasion of Ukraine by
Russia. They have a view Ukraine belongs to them. No, it doesn't. It
belongs to the people of Ukraine, a sovereign nation. If you have a
dispute with a country, there are ways to arbitrate land disputes.
Putin is trying to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms. If he
gets away with it, if he is seen to having been rewarded for, you will
get more of this. There goes Taiwan. Russia is the aggressor. Russia
must end this bloodbath. That is my view of this situation.
Let's look at history and see what happens when you have moral
clarity and see what happens when you lose it. September 27, 1938. Here
is what Chamberlain said:
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be
digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a
quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know
nothing.
That was his view of what Hitler was doing. Why do we care? We don't
know these people. We don't speak their language. That is not exactly
moral clarity in the face of Nazi oppression:
However much we may sympathize with a small nation
confronted by a big and powerful neighbour, we cannot, in all
circumstances, undertake to involve the whole British Empire
in war simply on her account.
We know what that small country was. It led to the slaughter of 50
million people. It enticed Hitler to keep going, and Hitler told you
what he was going to do. He wrote a book. Chamberlain, obviously,
didn't read the book, and he didn't have the moral clarity to confront
the Nazi regime. And a lot of people died.
September 30, 1938:
I believe it is peace for our time.
A paper signed by Adolf Hitler that he waved to the world. Less than
a year later, the world is on fire. This is what happens when you don't
realize what is going on. You misread evil. You think Hitler is
something he is not. This is an example of not having moral clarity. It
leads to a worldwide war.
Russia, the Soviet Union--this is an example of moral literacy,
President John F. Kennedy:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the
survival and the success of liberty . . . When all are free,
then we can look forward to that day when this city will be
joined as one and this country and this great continent of
Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe.
He was talking about Berlin--moral clarity to the Soviet Union. He
stood up for freedom, stood against the Soviet Empire.
And along comes my favorite, Ronald Reagan:
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
How clear could you be? On the other side of this wall is an evil
empire that moral clarity, over time, brought the Soviet Union down to
its knees.
Russia today, Putin's Russia, is an evil country oppressing his own
people, harassing his neighbor, wanting to take things that are not
theirs, wanting to recreate the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire. And
they are using every terrible tactic in the military book--bombing
civilians, killing people by tens of thousands.
So when it comes to Putin, we need to have moral clarity, as Reagan
and Kennedy had with the Soviet Union. It is not enough to give
speeches. These were great speeches. But what we did against the Soviet
Union is we built up our military. Ronald Reagan went to ``Star Wars''
and they couldn't keep up. We not only opposed the Soviet Union
rhetoric, we opposed it in capability.
What do we do now with Putin? How do we end this war? I am not out to
humiliate Russia or Putin, but I am out to end this war soon--not later
but soon--in a way not to start another war.
When we left Afghanistan dishonorably and disgracefully, it set in
motion a belief that the United States will not stand by its allies and
we are apparently weak. I believe that. And the Presiding Officer of
the Senate understands what happens when politicians get it wrong.
People like him, in his old job, pay a heavy price. They go all over
the world fighting these guys because when we pulled out of
Afghanistan, every jihadist was on steroids. Putin licked his chops and
went into Ukraine and Iran, kept enriching, and sort of the rest is
history. That was a horrible decision, and we are paying the price for
it today.
To my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, if we don't get Ukraine-
Russia right, it will be worse than Afghanistan. If it is seen, when
this is all over, that Putin was rewarded for his aggression--I am not
trying to humiliate Russia, but I am trying to make sure they are not
rewarded in a way that China will be enticed to take Taiwan or Iran
will believe we are all talk in the West when it comes to their nuclear
capability, isolating Israel even further.
Speeches are important. Moral clarity is the right lens from which to
look through regarding aggression and evil. But we have to do more than
talk.
I appreciate President Trump's earnest effort to bring the parties
together, to find a solution we can all live with, to keep an
independent, sovereign Ukraine and end this war sooner rather than
later. It is clear to me after all these months, the earnest efforts by
President Trump are not being equally met. I think Zelenskyy is ready
to make concessions to end this war. Putin seems to be more talking and
less acting.
What can we do to up the ante? What can we do in the U.S. Senate to
change the equation? What can we do to persuade Russia to get to the
peace table?
We can impose bone-crushing sanctions on Putin's Russia. And he has
earned that. I hate it for the Russian people, but it is now time to
increase the cost of this war on Putin.
The sanctions packet that we have put together has 80 cosponsors. Do
you know how hard it is to get 80 Senators to agree on anything? Eighty
of us--and the number is climbing--are ready to impose sanctions on
Russia if he does not come to the table and earnestly seek peace--
Putin.
And these sanctions are geared toward China. There are tariffs in
these sanctions on any nation that buys Russian oil and gas from the
shadow fleet. Putin's war machine is propped up by China and India
buying Russian oil at a massive discount to keep the war machine and
Putin running.
So what have we decided to do here? Focus on those causing the
problem, not just Putin; focus on his customers.
Most of Europe has weaned themselves off of Russian oil and gas. That
is a major advancement. But it is now time to let the Chinese know: If
you want to be a normal country, act normal. If you want to have a
better relationship with the United States and Europe, help us. Don't
fuel the flames of a bloodbath. Don't buy cheap oil from a despot
because you can with impunity. Those days of buying cheap oil from
Putin with impunity are coming to a close.
We are going to act. And how we act and when we act will be a
political exercise among the body, talking to the White House, and
talking to our allies.
To China: I would like a better relationship. We have a lot of
opportunity to grow our economies together. But if you keep supporting
Putin and fueling his war machine, you will never have a normal
relationship with the U.S. Senate.
To our friends in India: Watch what you are doing.
To my colleagues: Seldom do we have a chance to speak with one voice
at such an important time. The entire world is watching the U.S.
Senate.
I just got back from T rkiye with Secretary Rubio, who invited me to
go. He allowed me to speak to every Foreign Minister of our NATO
allies, talking about the Senate bill, telling them that the Senate is
an independent body and that we are moving down the road to holding
Putin accountable.
The world is watching the Senate in a way I haven't seen since I have
been here. We have a chance, my colleagues, to help end this war. We
have a chance to push Putin to the table. And if we fail as a world,
not only does this war continue, but we are going to start new wars.
I have never been more proud of this body than I am right now. We
have come together in a bipartisan fashion. There are a group of House
Members who will take the Senate bill and sign a discharge petition.
What does that mean? It is coming to the floor of the House no matter
what.
So we stand ready. I am going to talk to the majority leader, talk to
all of
[[Page S3023]]
my colleagues who have a say in how this bill moves forward, and I am
going to urge them to get ready to act.
We have sat on the sidelines too long. We have watched too many
people get slaughtered by Putin. We have put sanctions on, but they
haven't worked the way they should.
What we are doing in the Senate is a game-changer. It will affect
China, which provides the most fuel to Putin's war machine in a
dramatic fashion.
To China: I don't want to do that. I will, if I have to. I want you
to help us in this war. I am not looking to punish or destroy your
economy or hurt our economy. I am looking to get a result here.
But I will end where I started: If we have to, we will.
President Kennedy said: ``We shall pay any price and bear any
burden.'' He was right.
President Reagan said: ``Tear down this wall''; end this evil empire.
Sometimes, freedom comes at a heavy price. The Ukrainians are paying
that price, and I am so proud of them. They are fighting like tigers,
and they are dying by the thousands. And they are not going to quit no
matter what we do--nor should they.
This is a moment of reckoning. This is a moment that matters. All of
us got to the Senate, and it is not an easy path to take to get elected
to this body. But now you are here, and you have a chance, my
colleagues, to make a real difference, to make this world safer and
more peaceful.
Let's not shirk the responsibility history has put upon us. This is a
historical moment. Let's rise to the occasion like those before us.
Let's have moral clarity when it comes to Putin. Let's do more than
talk. Let's act.
I will yield to Senator Ernst, who has been a champion for getting a
good outcome for Ukraine and the world.
I very much appreciate all you have done in this cause.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and great
friend, as we work on this together.
I really appreciate your leadership. Thank you for allowing me to
join you on the floor today as we show our support for your bill,
Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Folks, last week, President Trump showed the world that American
leadership is back. He brought home the last living American hostage,
delivering Edan Alexander from Iran-backed Hamas and reuniting him to
his family after nearly 600 days. He stood with our partners in the
Middle East to strength the historic Abraham Accords. And he delivered
a strong message to Vladimir Putin: End the war.
Today, I stand in support of a sovereign Ukraine and echo the
President's call to Putin to stop this bloodbath that never should have
happened.
This is an issue that not only affects a close partner under siege
but also the strength of the United States of America and the security
of the free world.
Let's be clear here, folks: China is watching; so are Iran and North
Korea. And, of course, Vladimir Putin is watching too. They call it the
``new axis of evil'' for a reason.
I personally witnessed and experienced the growth of the U.S.-
Ukrainian relationship when I visited Ukraine, in its waning days of
Soviet control, as part of an agricultural student exchange program.
This was in 1989.
I had the privilege of living with a Ukrainian family on a very small
collective farm. As we got together, there were a number of us Iowa
students on that exchange. Again, it was an agricultural exchange. We
came together, each of us with our families, in a group setting, one of
the very first nights that we were on that collective. Again, with the
premise of an agricultural exchange--we were farming tomatoes, working
with the cattle and the hogs--a very small, small collective. We came
together, and the Ukrainians wanted to ask us questions. So all of us
American students, all of us from Iowa, we sat down with our Ukrainian
families. We expected to talk about agriculture--Iowan agriculture
versus Ukrainian agriculture. Much to my surprise, the first question
that came from our Ukrainian counterparts was not about how we raise
corn or soybeans in Iowa. It was not about the types of machinery that
we use on our farm. But the first question the Ukrainians asked us was,
What is it like to be free? What is it like to be an American? Because
in 1989, those Ukrainians were living under Soviet socialist rule. They
could not travel without having the permission of their government.
My family did not have a telephone, and if they wanted to use the
collective manager's telephone, they would have somebody listening in
on the conversation. They would have to know the purpose of the
telephone call, whom they were calling, why they needed to make a
telephone call.
This was 1989, and I learned a lot from that exchange. I saw a
Ukrainian people who were desperate to break free of socialist economic
structures and authoritarian restrictions on freedom of movement, the
ability to have your own employment, and on freedom of speech.
Two years later, Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet
Union and broke free.
Later--many years later--in 2003, the United States is involved in
the war in Iraq. I was a soldier in 2003 during Iraqi Freedom. I was a
transportation company commander, permanently stationed in Kuwait.
My transporters ran convoys from the ports in Kuwait up to Iraq,
delivering goods for our warfighters. So I got a little subcamp in
Kuwait, outside of Camp Arifjan. Half of that subcamp, called Camden
Yards, was occupied by American forces. My soldiers and I lived on that
subcamp. The other half of the camp was occupied by other forces. Those
other forces were Ukrainian soldiers.
Ukraine is not part of NATO. They were not required to support the
United States of America in Iraq. But Ukraine, of its own volition,
sent their soldiers--and not just as support elements. They were there
as combat forces.
Again, I was a transporter. We ran convoys in Iraq. The other half of
that camp that I lived on, they were Ukrainian engineer forces. They
did road clearing.
I think back: How many American lives did those engineers save from
their road-clearing efforts, clearing bombs so they wouldn't be
detonated by my drivers--Ukrainian forces, combat forces?
Today, Ukraine is fighting its own war. And I will remind everyone,
the United States does not have forces involved in the Russia-Ukraine
war--none, zero, none.
Today, Ukraine fights not only for its own survival but for the very
principles the United States was founded on. When America leads, the
world is safer. When we disengage and when we retreat, like we saw for
the last 4 years under the Biden administration, chaos fills the void.
Russia's aggression has already cost too many innocent lives, about
5,000 lives every single week. Those are too many innocent lives,
folks, which is why I support President Trump's efforts to get a peace
deal done now. Vladimir Putin cannot keep tapping the United States of
America along.
I vow to keep working with my colleagues to equip the President with
all the tools necessary to hold Russia accountable, including
sanctioning Russia and its supporters if they continue to drag out
these peace talks and carry on with the needless bloodshed so this war
that never should have started can come to an end.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my
remarks before the vote starts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Budget Reconciliation
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the
action that we are seeing in the House of Representatives today that
will lead to action here in the Senate and asking our colleagues to
reverse course on this reconciliation bill that I think is going to
have unbelievable economic consequences to our economy.
Trillions in red ink that are alarming credit agencies and bond
markets, spiking billions in energy project costs, and driving up
prices and burdening States with billions of dollars of new healthcare
that they can't afford.
Instead, they should be focusing on protecting healthcare coverage,
lowering costs for American families, and
[[Page S3024]]
giving working families the breathing room they need to prosper.
Even now, 5 years later out of COVID, we can still see the effects of
the pandemic. That time changed the way we live and took a toll on our
economy. The U.S. economy lost 23 million jobs at the start of the
pandemic, leading to a recession in early 2020, and thanks in no small
part to well-designed, bipartisan fiscal policies by both Congress and
the Biden administration, the recession that started was the shortest
in history, lasting only 2 months.
Coming out of it though, the combined effects and impacts on our
supply chains and durable goods caused inflation to spike to 9 percent
by June of 2022. Again, well-designed fiscal policies by the Fed helped
get that inflation back down in just 1 year to 3 percent by June of `23
and continue to lower and hover just above 2 percent.
We need, though, to continue to make progress on inflation and
costs--costs that impact everything from clothes, cars, food,
computers, you name it, and costs may be getting even more expensive
because of the impacts of the tariffs, and they are making their way
onto our shelves.
The last thing American families need is to be saddled with even more
financial restraint, particularly as it relates to Medicaid and the
policies in the reconciliation bill. More than 72 million Americans are
enrolled in Medicaid, making it the single largest insurer in the
United States.
It is critical that it remain a critical part of our healthcare
system. Depending on the State, the Federal Government covers somewhere
between 50 and 70 percent of the cost of insuring people with Medicaid.
While Medicaid is administered jointly by the Federal Government and,
in most States, about two-thirds of the funding for the State Medicaid
program is Federal support. So make no mistake about it, cutting
Medicaid at the Federal level is going to have a dramatic economic
impact on States. It is the largest source of Federal funding for
States.
It is the largest component expenditure across all States--more than
K-12, more than higher education, more than transportation--and
somehow, in an economy with great inflation, you think the idea is to
make it more expensive for Americans to get health insurance and cover
their costs and impact the economy?
The bill that is now being cobbled together is a serious attack on
Medicaid. As an assault, they will continue to have ripple impacts on
the economy. It undermines the Medicaid program, shifting the burdens
to the State, and it makes the entire healthcare system more expensive
for everyone.
Medicaid provides financial support to the healthcare sector,
stimulates local economies--spending that does have a multiplier
effect. Every dollar spent generates more than $1 worth of economic
activity. Medicaid drives employment in the healthcare sector, it
generates State and local revenue, and it saves money for the enrollees
to spend on more items--not healthcare.
But reductions in the Medicaid funding, especially as large as $715
billion, will take a toll on States, on jobs, on revenue, and it will
increase the financial burden on individuals and families.
So it is important to remember that direct recipients of Medicaid are
not just individuals with coverage. They are a payment system. They are
the benefits of a healthcare system, hospitals, doctors' offices,
pharmacies, nursing homes. And so when you cut that funding, you are
cutting those businesses and those opportunities. The impact on the
State economy would be greater than the loss of Federal Medicaid
funding because of the ripple effects of the costs across the State.
The Commonwealth Fund estimated that, collectively, States' gross
domestic product could be cut $95 billion smaller than the total
economic output lost, and that could be even deeper.
So imagine every State now having $2 billion more costs because of
Medicaid. The additional loss in individual income would mean that
State and local revenues would decline by $7 billion. This would make
it harder for States and localities to balance the burden of Medicaid.
And our constituents would also see more far reaching impacts as they
struggle to provide healthcare. Today, 49 States, plus the District of
Columbia, are all part of the system and counting on these providers
and the funds. But this bill even eliminates the ability for States to
adjust the revenue in any way that would be helpful for them to deal
with this crisis. So this is an extreme approach to cutting American
citizens off of the healthcare.
But think a bit about it for a second on the work requirement--also
almost like a surveillance of U.S. citizens, trying to make them prove
that they are eligible. Let's be honest; the provisions are not
designed to cut down on waste. Rather, their primary objective is to
prevent people from signing up for Medicaid coverage. In Arkansas, the
casework requirement led to disenrollment of 18,000 people in just 4
months. And in New Hampshire, the complexity and administrative burden
of the work requirement caused 17,000 beneficiaries to receive coverage
termination in just 1 month.
Today, Georgia is the only State that has a work requirement for
Medicaid. And instead of expanding Medicaid through the Affordable Care
Act, it allows individuals and households that have income up to 100
percent of the Federal work poverty to get coverage if they work for 80
hours a month. The results are not good. A report found that Georgia's
model cost taxpayers--taxpayers, not these individuals--cost the
taxpayers $87 million and enrolled only 6,000 people, about 75 percent
fewer than had been projected. So I ask again, what policy is this that
saves money?
It makes healthcare more expensive for the rest of us. Nobody defers
their healthcare costs. They are just going to show up at the emergency
room. Just because we are cutting spending, it doesn't mean that the
need magically disappears. States will have to find their way to make
up for these shortfalls. A Kaiser analysis found that the House
reconciliation bill--if it is enacted, the State of Washington would
need to spend 30 percent more per Medicaid enrollee to make up the
difference.
We don't have those resources. The same will be true of every State.
For example, Louisiana would have to spend 50 percent more per Medicaid
enrollee to make up the difference, translating into an 11 percent
increase in the State taxes if they had to do that. Now is not the time
to force our States to jump off of a cliff just because we won't live
up to our Medicaid obligation.
I know the President used the f word, but what is real here on the
Senate floor--I am not going to say it--but you are making a mess out
of Medicaid, and we should stop them.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time is expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Alsobrooks
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Ossoff
Padilla
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Schiff
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Slotkin
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warner
Warnock
Wicker
Young
NAYS--31
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Cantwell
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
[[Page S3025]]
Smith
Van Hollen
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
____________________