[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 148 (Wednesday, September 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6512-S6532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2296, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2296) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2026 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Wicker/Reed amendment modified No. 3748, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Wicker (for Ernst) amendment No. 3427 (to amendment No. 
     3748), to require the Comptroller General of the United 
     States to conduct a study on casualty assistance and long-
     term care programs.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.


                      Welcoming the Guest Chaplain

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, it is my honor to welcome my good 
friend Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman to the Senate and thank him for offering 
the morning's opening prayer.
  Dr. Berman is president of Yeshiva University in New York and a 
longtime partner in the fight against anti-Semitism. We have worked 
together over the years to help upgrade Yeshiva's campus to remain a 
world-class institution. And as we approach the Jewish New Year, a time 
for renewal and recommitment for Jewish families around the world, I 
thank him for sharing his words of wisdom.


                             Foreign Policy

  Mr. President, now, on foreign policy, bad news for you, Donald 
Trump: The Nobel Prize is slipping away from your grasp. Crises over 
the last 24 hours have escalated to dangerous levels, and President 
Trump, you seem to be leading from behind.
  Donald Trump promised that he would end the war in Ukraine on day 
one. He said he would put an end to the conflict between Israel and 
Hamas on day one. It is so easy, he said. Well, it is now day 234, and 
war rages around the world. In the last 24 hours, we have seen 
dangerous escalation on multiple fronts. Yesterday, Israel launched a 
strike against Hamas in the capital city of a key American ally in the 
middle of cease-fire negotiations.
  Despite being handed a cease-fire by the previous administration, 234 
days later, a cease-fire deal is further off than ever. Meanwhile, 
hostages remain in captivity, and innocent Palestinian civilians in 
Gaza continue to suffer.
  In Europe, Vladimir Putin sent drones into Poland, a NATO ally, which 
required NATO military action to shoot down those drones. What was the 
point, President Trump, of your meeting in Alaska where you snuggled up 
to Putin?
  And Donald Trump is hesitating now to say any strong words against 
Putin, even after they did this. NATO safety has been at risk, and it 
is being put at risk even more so, and Donald Trump is leading from 
behind.
  The latest aggression by Putin should send a shiver down the spines 
of every American. I warned of this scenario as the Senate debated 
sending more military support to Ukraine, and I warned at that point 
that any division, any hesitation of our resolve against Putin would be 
taken by him as weakness. And I fear Donald Trump's anemic weakness 
against Putin and other strongmen has only pushed the world closer to 
the brink of chaos and even war.

[[Page S6513]]

  People don't take him seriously. People don't take Trump seriously on 
the world stage. That is a great danger to the United States and to 
peace because he bluffs and backs off. He sucks up to people, and then 
he doesn't do anything when they hurt him and hurt us.
  I warn all Senators: History will not look kindly upon us if we stand 
back as Donald Trump acquiesces to Putin and cements himself as the 
Neville Chamberlain of our time.


                        Tariffs and the Economy

  Mr. President, now, on tariffs and the bad Trump economy, yesterday, 
the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the legality of Donald 
Trump's tariffs as soon as next month. Legally, there is no doubt the 
Supreme Court should strike down Donald Trump's tariffs decisively. 
That is the role that the Court should play, and we hope our Supreme 
Court Justices realize that. They are not there just to serve Donald 
Trump; they are there to rein in the Executive when the Executive steps 
over the lines and tries to circumvent the Constitution.
  And tariffs are a responsibility of the Congress in the Constitution. 
Not only are these tariffs the definition of Executive overreach, but 
the tariffs are wreaking havoc on the American people and businesses. 
The average American may not care who is responsible; they just don't 
like these tariffs, and they know Donald Trump is doing them. The 
longer these tariffs are in place, the more damage they will cause to 
our economy. So the Court must act and apply the law, which clearly 
states the President cannot act alone.
  As a result of his economic policies, it has been several days of bad 
economic headlines for Donald Trump. And the deluge keeps coming.
  Here, look at these. Look at these, folks. Look at these charts. From 
your coffee in the morning to your soup at dinner, your prices are 
going up because of Trump's tariffs. When the American people complain 
about higher costs for everyday things they always need and use and 
consume, here it is.

       Campbell's Expects Dropoff in 2026 Earnings as Tariffs Hit 
     Soup Cans.

  The tariffs hit everything. You wouldn't think--well, soup, tomatoes; 
maybe they are made here in the United States. But the cans come from 
aluminum: Trump's tariffs.

       Tariffs Are Hitting Your Morning Brew. Folgers Maker Says 
     Prices to Rise Further.

  We don't grow coffee in the United States. There is not a competition 
or an unfair competition, but he raised tariffs on coffee. Everyone is 
paying more. My morning cup of coffee costs more. I have seen the 
prices rise when we shop for grounds in the supermarket.

       Hormel to Raise Prices, Citing Costlier Pork, Beef and 
     Nuts.

  So, again, every meal--from your coffee in the morning, to your soup 
at lunch, to your meat at dinner--your prices are going up because of 
Donald Trump and his tariffs. The headlines go on and on and on.
  And here is the sad thing I say to my colleagues and the American 
people: It didn't have to happen. This is self-inflicted. This didn't 
happen because of the world economy. This happened because Donald Trump 
imposed an idiotic bunch of tariffs--unthought-out, chaotic--on the 
American people. And he loves them. He doesn't care that your price of 
coffee or soup or meat goes up. Somehow, he got it stuck in his head 
that tariffs are a good thing, and he is hurting average Americans. It 
is a self-inflicted wound, as I said. It is economic sabotage, 
orchestrated from the command center of dunderheads over at the Oval 
Office. Hardly any economist of repute knows what the heck they are 
doing and why.
  Higher costs, rampant confusion, factories slowing--all because 
Trump's economic agenda boils down to chaos. He is like the drunk 
captain of a ship driving straight into an iceberg; and we, the 
American people, are beginning to take on water as our prices go up and 
up and up.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, on government funding, the clock is ticking to keep 
the government open, and Republicans are sleepwalking their way through 
another critical week. A government shutdown once again hangs over this 
Chamber and this country like an ugly shadow. So what are we going to 
do about it? Well, it is up to our Republican colleagues to decide. 
They are in charge.
  Democrats know where we stand. We want bipartisan negotiations, input 
from both sides of the aisle, and we want to undo much of the damage 
that Trump has inflicted on the American people, particularly when it 
comes to healthcare. Leader Jeffries and I have asked Leader Thune and 
Speaker Johnson, on multiple occasions, to sit down and talk so we can 
have a bipartisan agreement and avoid the Republican shutdown, but we 
have heard nothing for weeks. The Republican silence is concerning 
because if they think Democrats are going to show up at the last minute 
to bail them out with the clock approaching zero, that would be a big 
mistake on their part.
  Democrats don't want to see a Republican shutdown. What we want is a 
bipartisan negotiation, a bipartisan bill where Democrats have input to 
tangibly undo the carnage Donald Trump has done to America.
  And make no mistake, the carnage Donald Trump has unleashed upon this 
country over the last 9 or so months is devastating. He has savaged 
America's democratic institutions. He has defied the rule of law, 
defied the order of judges, and directed Russell Vought--an evil man 
who came up with Project 2025--to steal or cancel congressionally 
approved funding; hundreds of billions of dollars illegally blocked for 
things that Americans want--for cancer research, for programs that aid 
kids after school, for veterans. That and so much more gone, canceled, 
dead because of Russell Vought's whim and Donald Trump's desire to just 
do what he wants and what Vought wants.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, of course, let's talk about healthcare. It is people's 
livelihoods. And thanks to Donald Trump, the livelihood of tens of 
millions is being stolen from them in broad daylight, all so Donald 
Trump can pay for tax breaks for the megarich.
  Donald Trump's signature achievement, the one he claims is great--he 
calls it the Big Beautiful Bill--well, this so-called Big Beautiful 
Bill--which they won't even name anymore, they are so afraid of the 
American people knowing what is in it--is systematic starvation of our 
healthcare system. Let me repeat that. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill 
is systematic starvation of our healthcare system. That is what Russell 
Vought has always stood for; that is what he said he would do; and that 
is what Trump is aiding and abetting him to do.
  Republicans want to rebrand their bill. They say: Well, Trump said 
maybe it was a mistake to call it the Big Beautiful Bill. That is 
because they are seeing that the American people hate it. But they can 
change the name; it is not going to change anything. You are not going 
to get your healthcare back because they change the name of a bill that 
was so mislabeled to begin with. Because it sure ain't beautiful; it is 
ugly.
  Well, maybe Donald Trump can call it the ``Starve and Die Act.'' That 
would be more accurate than big and beautiful. That is what happens 
when health insurance is taken away from you. That is what happens when 
SNAP is taken away. People starve, and it is estimated that people will 
actually die because if you can't get healthcare, if you can't get 
prevention, life expectancies of people go down.
  And alarmingly soon, America, the Big Beautiful Bill is going to get 
even worse for you. In just a few weeks, unless Congress acts, millions 
of Americans will start getting letters in the mail telling them their 
health insurance costs are about to go through the roof; hundreds of 
dollars, thousands in some cases.
  That is because the ACA premium tax credits will expire by the end of 
this year. People who get covered through the ACA--and there are tens 
of millions--will see their premiums spike by an average of 18 percent. 
There are millions, depends on how you count it.
  Health insurance premiums are going up by 18 percent because of 
Republican inaction. We tried three times to get them to repeal it in 
the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, and three times they refused.
  This would be a nightmare scenario for the American people on October 
1 getting notice that your healthcare

[[Page S6514]]

costs will go up 18 percent for millions who are on ACA.
  At a time of rising costs, as we have seen, at a time of a weakening 
job market, to then compound the injury by making you pay a lot more 
for healthcare, it is outrageous, and Republicans, again, blocked it 
three times.
  We have heard plenty of lip service from Leader Thune and the other 
side about doing something to preserve these tax credits, but now 
Leader Thune says Republicans will walk away from the table and sit on 
their hands as Americans' health insurance shoots by 18 percent. Every 
Republican in this Senate Chamber will be responsible because all we 
need is a handful of them to join with us in making sure it is extended 
and that these costs don't go up.
  And this also points to a larger theme. The Republican agenda is a 
profoundly broken agenda. It is a stunning betrayal of the trust the 
American people put in Donald Trump to fight for their interests.
  So I want to be clear that Republicans--our Republican Senators--in 
the face of so much damage to our country, cannot just expect for 
Democrats to bail them out and sign on the dotted line.
  What we will do is stand ready to meet Republicans and the Republican 
leaders face to face and negotiate a way to undo so much of Donald 
Trump's carnage.
  That means we need to have real input into undoing a lot of the 
carnage that has been done by this administration. It is clear that 
Democrats don't want a shutdown, but Republicans who say they want to 
keep the government open have to show they are serious through their 
actions and not just craft a bill in the dark of night in a room and 
say, take it or leave it, because that will mean there will be a 
Republican shutdown.
  They need to show up and work with us. That is the only way to get it 
done and to avoid a shutdown.


         Amendment No. 3849 to Amendment No. 3748, As Modified

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The clerk will report the 
amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3849 to amendment No. 3748.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To direct the Attorney General to make publicly available 
                 documents related to Jeffrey Epstein)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _____. EPSTEIN FILES TRANSPARENCY.

       (a) Release of Documents Relating to Jeffrey Epstein.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), not later than 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney 
     General shall make publicly available in a searchable and 
     downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, 
     communications, and investigative materials in the possession 
     of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation and each United States Attorney's Office, that 
     relate to--
       (A) Jeffrey Epstein, including all investigations, 
     prosecutions, or custodial matters;
       (B) Ghislaine Maxwell;
       (C) any flight logs or travel records, including manifests, 
     itineraries, pilot records, and customs or immigration 
     documentation, for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, 
     operated, or used by Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity;
       (D) any individuals, including government officials, named 
     or referenced in connection with the criminal activities, 
     civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or 
     investigatory proceedings of Jeffrey Epstein;
       (E) any corporate, nonprofit, academic, or governmental 
     entities with known or alleged ties to the trafficking or 
     financial networks of Jeffrey Epstein;
       (F) any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea 
     bargains, or sealed settlements involving Jeffrey Epstein or 
     his associates;
       (G) any internal Department of Justice communications, 
     including emails, memoranda, and meeting notes, concerning 
     decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to 
     investigate Jeffrey Epstein or his associates;
       (H) any communications, memoranda, directives, logs, or 
     metadata concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, 
     misplacement, or concealment of documents, recordings, or 
     electronic data related to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, 
     his detention and death, or any investigative files; or
       (I) any documentation of the detention or death of Jeffrey 
     Epstein, including incident reports, witness interviews, 
     medical examiner files, autopsy reports, and written records 
     detailing the circumstances and cause of death.
       (2) Prohibited grounds for withholding.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (1), the Attorney General may not withhold from 
     publication, delay the publication of, or redact any record, 
     document, communication, or investigative material on the 
     basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political 
     sensitivity, including to any government official, public 
     figure, or foreign dignitary.
       (3) Permitted withholdings.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Attorney General may withhold from publication any record, 
     document, communication, or investigative material, or redact 
     any segregable portion of any record, document, 
     communication, or investigative material, that--
       (i) contains personally identifiable information from the 
     personal or medical file of a victim or child witness, 
     including information the publication of which would 
     constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
     privacy;
       (ii) depicts or contains child pornography, as defined in 
     section 2256 of title 18, United States Code;
       (iii) would jeopardize an active Federal investigation or 
     ongoing Federal prosecution, if the withholding or redaction 
     is narrowly tailored and temporary;
       (iv) depicts or contains any image of the death, physical 
     abuse, or injury of any person; or
       (v) contains information that is specifically authorized 
     under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept 
     secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy 
     and is properly classified pursuant to that Executive order.
       (B) Redactions.--The Attorney General shall publish in the 
     Federal Register and submit to Congress a written 
     justification for each redaction under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Declassification to the maximum extent possible.--
       (i) In general.--The Attorney General shall declassify, to 
     the maximum extent possible, any information that the 
     Attorney General would otherwise withhold or redact as 
     classified information under this subsection.
       (ii) Unclassified summary.--If the Attorney General 
     determines that information described in clause (i) may not 
     be declassified and made available in a manner that protects 
     the national security of the United States, including methods 
     or sources related to national security, the Attorney General 
     shall make publicly available an unclassified summary of the 
     information.
       (D) Classification of covered information.--The Attorney 
     General shall publish in the Federal Register and submit to 
     Congress each decision made after July 1, 2025, to classify 
     any information that would otherwise be required to be made 
     publicly available under paragraph (1), including the date of 
     classification, the identity of the classifying authority, 
     and an unclassified summary of the justification for 
     classification.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 15 days after 
     making publicly available all records, documents, 
     communications, and investigative materials under subsection 
     (a)(1), the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report 
     containing--
       (1) a list of each category of records, documents, 
     communications, and investigative materials made publicly 
     available or withheld;
       (2) a summary of the redactions made, including the legal 
     basis upon which the redactions were made; and
       (3) a list of each government official, public figure, or 
     foreign dignitary named or referenced in the records, 
     documents, communications, and investigative materials made 
     publicly available, without redaction in accordance with 
     subsection (a)(2).


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Schumer 
     amendment No. 3849 to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Jeff Merkley, Cory A. Booker, Brian 
           Schatz, Jack Reed, Angela D. Alsobrooks, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Adam B. Schiff, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Peter Welch, Alex Padilla, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie K. Hirono, Ben Ray Lujan, 
           Catherine Cortez Masto, Tim Kaine.


[[Page S6515]]


  

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority whip.


                              Rules Change

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, since President Trump took office, 
Democrats have weaponized the rules of the Senate. Regardless of 
qualifications, every Trump nominee has gotten the same treatment: 
total obstruction, total warfare. From Ambassadors to Deputy Assistant 
Secretaries, Democrats have filibustered each and every one of the 
Republican nominations.
  Senate Democrats would filibuster the White House janitor if they had 
the opportunity. Today, President Trump is the first President in 
history not to have a single nominee confirmed by voice vote or 
unanimous consent.
  The actions of the Democrats is not going to change, and yesterday 
the Democrats made that clear here on this floor. On this very floor, 
Senator Cornyn tried to bring up for consideration the Democrats' own 
proposal from 2023. It was offered from Senators Klobuchar and Senator 
King.
  Senator Klobuchar and Senator King wanted to confirm nominees in a 
group. They claimed, at the time, the nomination process was broken. 
What was the status of the situation when they made that decision?
  They said it was broken because Joe Biden's nominees weren't being 
confirmed quickly enough. So let's take a look at the data. On the day 
that Klobuchar-King was introduced in 2023, 62 percent of Joe Biden's 
nominees had been confirmed in the Senate either by voice vote or 
unanimous consent--62 percent.
  Democrats said: Not fast enough.
  So let's fast-forward to today. Zero percent--zero percent--of 
President Trump's nominees have been confirmed by voice vote, not a 
single one.
  So what did the Democrats do on this very floor yesterday? They 
objected when Republicans proposed the very similar change to what they 
proposed 2 years ago. They slammed the door on even debating that 
proposal. Senator Cornyn put forward the very reforms that the 
Democrats once demanded. Democrats refused to even debate them. Senator 
Klobuchar said in 2023 that grouping together nominees, she said, was 
vital for--in her words--``national security, economic success, and 
more.''
  Well, she was right.
  Yet, yesterday, Democrats opposed their own proposal. You remember 
the words of the former Democrat Senator and Presidential candidate 
John Kerry. He said he was for it before he was against it.
  Democrats' hypocrisy is breathtaking. Democrats' surrender to the 
far-left wing of their party is now complete. Democrats created today's 
nomination crisis.
  This week, Republicans began the process to return the Senate to its 
longstanding practices. The Senate has a history of allowing these sub-
Cabinet nominees to be confirmed in groups. The resolution we have 
today formalizes what both parties have always done until now.
  Senate Republicans are building on the Klobuchar-King proposal. 
Republicans are simply updating it to reflect Democrats' unprecedented 
obstruction.
  Unlike the Democrats' previous version, the Republican plan is more 
limited. Democrats wanted to group together and confirm lifetime 
judicial appointments. The Republican plan doesn't include judges.
  Our proposal deals only with sub-Cabinet nominees and sub-Cabinet 
nominees only, not judges, not Cabinet Secretaries. Those nominees will 
still be considered individually, many of them requiring up to 30 hours 
of debate.
  Now modern Presidents have over 1,000 positions that need to be 
filled, put on the job. This includes Deputy Secretaries, Under 
Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, 
Ambassadors, and others. Those positions keep the government running. 
Those nominees now will be confirmed in groups just like they were for 
every President before President Trump.
  Every committee hearing and every markup will still happen. Every FBI 
background check will still occur. Every ethics review will still 
happen. Every nominee will still appear in front of the committees. 
Every nominee will still be questioned by Senators. And every nominee 
will still be subject to a vote in the committee.
  In other words, scrutiny will continue. What will end is Senator 
Schumer's ongoing, endless obstruction. The floor here is for final 
action; it is not for endless obstruction.
  To my Senate colleagues who participated in this blockade, let me say 
this: You have had a chance to be reasonable. You have had a chance to 
work together, work with us. You have chosen obstruction instead. You 
demanded change at a time when 62 percent of Joe Biden's nominees were 
confirmed by voice vote. Yet you now reject the very changes you once 
championed now that a different President--President Trump--is getting 
zero nominees confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent.
  The hypocrisy is undeniable. Senate Republicans are putting back in 
place the very practice that Democrats had endorsed until today, the 
very customs that every Senate has followed until now.
  Senate Republicans are returning to the longstanding tradition. We 
are ending the Schumer confirmation shutdown, and we are getting the 
Senate back to work on behalf of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I was listening to the majority whip, and 
I have got to say, I have a little whiplash. I mean, I was here. I was 
negotiating. It was late July. We were passing paper back and forth 
between the Democratic and Republican caucus. The cloakrooms were 
working together, and we had a deal. That is the way you get 
nominations confirmed in batches.
  The majority party wants to get them all done, fair enough. It is 
their President. And the minority party has this really unique 
authority in this place, which is to slow things down. And the rhythm 
of this place is that the majority party goes to the minority party and 
says: What is it going to take for us to confirm a batch of these 
nominees? We have got a backlog. We have got to get some of these 
through.
  And so there are a couple of ways that that normally happens. First 
of all, you pair Democrats and Republicans together so that each party 
is getting a little bit of what they need.
  The problem with pairing in the Trump era, and it is different from 
Trump 1.0, is that President Trump hasn't even nominated Democrats to 
Commissions like the SEC, the FTC, the FEC, the CFPB. All of those 
Agencies usually have Democrats and Republicans nominated, and then 
they kind of languish on the floor until we cut a deal and we confirm 
them all.
  We had no deal space because there were no Democrats to deal out. And 
by the way, many Republicans with whom I talked said: Yeah, that is a 
fair point. Let me go and talk to the Chief of Staff of the President. 
Let me go talk to the White House team. We should get you some 
Democrats so that we can do some nominations in what they call the 
wrapup script, right?
  Second thing is on the ambassadorships, usually, we are able to 
confirm a bunch of the career State Department officials, people who 
work in the Foreign Service who are not political at all; and then it 
is the donors and the friends of the President. And I think the whole 
process of how we decide our ambassadorships is totally bananas, but 
both parties do this where donors and friends of the President are the 
political nominees for ambassadorships. OK.
  So those are the ones that we usually require a vote on. And the 
civil servants--the longtime, some charge d'affaires for Mozambique or 
whatever it is--like, we are not going to fight over that, and we just 
confirm that. The problem is there were, like, I think, fewer than five 
career State Department people nominated to these positions. And so, 
again, not a lot of deal space.
  But, still, we found 35 that we were willing to do in exchange for 
things--

[[Page S6516]]

and we did not ask for anything that was unreasonable in the sense of 
something that would be objected to by large numbers of Republicans. 
This was NIH funding and releasing funds for--even when we did that 
rescissions package, now about 6 weeks ago, on the foreign aid stuff. 
There were a couple categories on the foreign aid that everybody said 
they liked.
  And so we just said: Why don't you release the previously authorized 
and appropriated funding because people are literally dying around the 
world? And you guys say UNICEF, PEPFAR, the World Food Programme, you 
are still for that. You didn't like the stuff happening at USAID, but 
there are categories of foreign aid that you are still in favor of. So 
we found these relatively small discrete things that everybody in this 
place--maybe 95 of us--are in favor of in exchange for 35 nominees. 
Great, looks like we have got a deal. We are trending towards a deal.
  Donald Trump gets on the phone with the leadership of the U.S. Senate 
and says: Everybody go home. Everybody go home.
  And so the reason we don't have all of these nominees confirmed is 
the lack of the ability to conduct business in the U.S. Senate. And 
there are a lot of talented legislators, but what they have done is 
removed their frontal lobe and just substituted Donald Trump's judgment 
for their own. And so they don't want to cut deals with Democrats 
anymore.
  And that goes for the Big Beautiful Bill. That goes for their 
approach to appropriations. That goes for their approach for basically 
everything.
  And so it is true that we put some sand in the gears on purpose. That 
is what minority parties are supposed to do. That is how the U.S. 
Senate is supposed to work. And the way you untangle that is through 
the hard work of negotiating across the aisle, and they just didn't 
want to do it.
  Like, I have been in many bipartisan negotiations over the last 3 or 
4 months, and they have mostly all failed because, in the end, we can 
only find a handful of people who are open to a deal. And this time we 
had everybody saying: OK, this looks like a reasonable solution. And 
then Donald Trump himself blew it up. Why? Because he doesn't want 
expediting the Senate's consideration; he wants to adjourn. He wants 
this place to adjourn.
  Now, why is that a big deal? Adjournment sounds like something you 
just kind of do to, like, OK, we will see you tomorrow. No. Adjournment 
for the month of August would have meant that Donald Trump himself 
would have been in a position to appoint whomever he wanted to any 
Senate-confirmed position; by the way, remove any member of the Cabinet 
or sub-Cabinet; and then appoint that person, and then that person 
could serve till the end of the Congress without the Senate ever 
weighing in. That is what he wants.
  And, you know, it is kind of part of a piece, isn't it? He finds the 
Senate to be a nuisance. And I remember this, I wasn't in the Federal 
Government executive branch, but I was in the State government 
executive branch. And once you are in the executive branch, you find 
legislators to be annoying, to be an impediment to the kind of stuff 
you want to do. But the architecture of the Constitution provides that 
we are supposed to be annoying, we are supposed to put sand in the 
gears, and then we are supposed to deal with each other.
  And so what is going to happen this week or next with this rules 
change is the result of two things: It is an abject failure of the 
willingness to negotiate at all, of the willingness to interact with 
Democrats for fear of being seen as too soft and insufficiently 
compliant with Donald Trump.
  The other thing I would just like to say is, it is a little rich, it 
is a little rich that we fly out at 1:45 on a Thursday, and our first 
vote is at 5:30 on a Monday. And I know Senators work hard. I am not 
trying to say it is terrible that people go home. They should go home. 
They should interact with their constituents. But these are 2-hour 
nominations. We should probably exhaust the possibility of working 
Fridays and Mondays before we go through with changing the rules on a 
partisan basis.
  We should probably consider, Do we need a 5-week home work period in 
the summer, or could we do a 4-week home work period and plow through 
nominations?
  And so it is true that there is a big backlog, and it is actually 
true that Democrats helped to create it. What is different about this 
year is that there is just no effort to untangle the backlog.
  When we were in the majority, I would walk over to Chuck's 
nominations staffer, figure out what was stuck and walk over to the 
other side and try to make a deal every week to try to get some of 
these confirmations.
  And as I had a blanket hold on State Department nominees, not a 
single person approached me once. Once, Jim Risch talked to me, that is 
fair. But I don't know if it is a muscle memory thing or if it is a 
Donald Trump thing but they have simply forgotten how to work with 
Democrats.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.


        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, late last week, it was reported that the 
Pentagon was contemplating ending critical military assistance to 
European partners, including the Baltic States. The program known as 
the Baltic Security Initiative. That is a program which I helped to 
create years ago to strengthen military cooperation with the Baltic 
States: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
  NATO allies themselves with a long memory of Russian tyranny are 
still very much in Vladimir Putin's crosshairs. The Baltic States are 
some of the most vibrant, dedicated members of NATO, spending well 
above proposed funding targets for defense. The dangerous idea to cut 
this assistance came just as another deadline from President Trump for 
Russia to end its war in Ukraine came and went without any consequence.
  In fact, Vladimir Putin responded like he always does after President 
Trump sets a deadline and lavishes him with a red carpet treatment in 
Alaska. He brazenly increased deadly attacks on Ukraine. That is right. 
While we were trying to get Vladimir Putin and the Russians to finally 
agree to a cease-fire and end of hostilities in Ukraine, he did exactly 
the opposite. That is what happened over the weekend, during which 
Russia launched one of the biggest assaults on Ukraine in the entire 
war and then did it again this week. During these attacks on Ukraine, 
Russian drones entered into NATO airspace, specifically into Poland.
  Do we take that seriously in Chicago? You bet we do, because Chicago 
is second only to Warsaw in the percentage of Polish residents living 
there, people of Polish descent. Polish President Tusk said there were 
19 Russian drones in the most recent incursion. Imagine if these were 
manned airplanes rather than drones, 19 bombers, fighters crossing into 
NATO territory, several of which were shot down, including with the 
help of allied Dutch F-35 fighters.
  Now this isn't the first time Russian drones attacked a NATO 
territory. There was a drone crash reported in Poland a few weeks ago 
as well. And Russia has been behind a campaign of sabotage, 
assassination, and mayhem across NATO, targeting weapon supplies, 
infrastructure, and dissidents.
  So let me say clearly to President Trump: With Putin thumbing his 
nose at us, violating NATO airspace, and testing American resolve, this 
is not the time to back away from our frontline allies. It is certainly 
not the time to halt bipartisan congressional support to the Baltic 
States. We should not be fooled. Vladimir Putin is not our friend. The 
Baltic States and Poland have proven that they are.
  Vladimir Putin responds only to strength, and right now, he and other 
autocrats around the world are bonding together. They sense America is 
getting weak, and we here in Congress should not be fooled either. We 
should ensure the Baltic Security Initiative is included in the defense 
authorization bill and pass the Graham-Blumenthal legislation to 
tighten sanctions on Russia.


    Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children 
           Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2025

  Mr. President, on a totally different topic, protecting our children 
is one of the most important duties of public service. When families 
send their kids

[[Page S6517]]

to school or let them play outside or allow them to go online, they 
should be confident that the kids are safe. But today, too many parents 
have a sinking feeling every time their kid logs on to a phone, tablet, 
or video game console.
  They know that the internet has become a dangerous opportunity for 
predators looking to exploit the young and vulnerable. This is not a 
problem of the future; it is the crisis now. And Congress must act now.
  In 2014, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children known 
as NCMEC, received approximately 1.1 million CyberTips about child 
sexual abuse material known as CSAM. That was in 2014, 1.1 million 
received tips.
  By 2023, less than 10 years later, the number of CyberTips had 
exploded from 1.1 million to 36.2 million. Over 36 million reports in a 
single year. Each one of these reports represents a child being harmed, 
exploited, or degraded. It is sickening and shows the sheer magnitude 
of the crisis.
  As I have learned more about the horrors of online child sexual 
exploitation, I have made it my mission in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to do something about it. I will never forget the 
heartbreaking testimony of witnesses, parents who came and told the 
story of what happened to their sons and daughters as a result of 
exploitation on the internet.
  I want to thank Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, for 
being the Republican lead on this bill, and my colleagues in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who voted 
unanimously to advance the bill out of committee earlier this year.
  Let me pause for a moment and make sure you caught that word--
unanimously. Every Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat 
and Republican alike, voted for this legislation to move forward. 
Senator Hawley, who was in the minority at the time, voted for it; now 
he is in the majority, he is the lead sponsor of my bill, which is 
entirely appropriate, and it is a bipartisan effort.
  We heard the frustration of my colleague from Hawaii about the lack 
of bipartisanship in the Senate. This is a notable exception. I want to 
recognize the extraordinary survivors and advocates who fought to make 
this legislation possible. Your heartbreaking stories, your testimony 
have made the difference.
  The STOP CSAM Act takes a comprehensive approach to stemming the tide 
of online child exploitation. Most significantly, it establishes 
accountability by piercing the broad immunity granted to Big Tech by 
something known as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
  The average American would flunk this quiz if you asked them what 
section 230 is. The advocates that come to us to support the STOP CSAM 
Act know exactly what it is--it lets social media off the hook for 
their wrongdoing.
  For too long, courts have read section 230 so broadly that it has 
allowed companies hosting, promoting, even profiting from CSAM to be 
shielded from any responsibility or accountability.
  That is right. They can do the wrong thing and never pay a price 
because of section 230. The Stop CSAM Act changes it. It opens the 
courthouse doors to survivors and families. I can think of no other 
single thing that we can do which would be more effective.
  If these social media platforms can ignore parents and ignore the 
exploited young people and go about their business, they will have a 
second thought on the subject if they face the possibility of going to 
court. It would allow victims to sue tech platforms and app stores that 
promote or aid or abet online child sexual exploitation or that host, 
store, or make CSAM available. It puts teeth in the law.
  In addition to accountability, Stop CSAM forces transparency on Big 
Tech. For years, Big Tech has operated in secrecy, telling parents, 
policymakers, and even their own users: Just trust us. But, as 
whistleblowers and lawsuits have shown, that trust is misplaced.
  The Stop CSAM Act requires the largest technology companies to submit 
annual reports describing their efforts to combat child sexual 
exploitation on their platforms. Is that too much to ask? I don't think 
so.
  We have all seen the headlines. Meta's own internal research showed 
harm to children on Instagram and in virtual reality spaces. AI and 
platforms like ChatGPT, Character.AI, and OpenAI are facing lawsuits 
for failing to prevent harmful, even deadly, conversations with minors.
  This is a serious matter. The new school year is starting. In some 
States, in many school districts, they have drawn the line and told the 
kids: You don't bring your phones to school. You are going to be 
students here, and you are going to talk to one another instead of 
texting. You are going to look at the teacher and the board and what is 
before you as opposed to your phone night in and night out.
  The Stop CSAM act also includes critical protections for survivors of 
child sexual exploitation. The bill bolsters privacy protections for 
certain child victims and witnesses in Federal court and gives judges 
the tools to enforce those protections.
  Altogether, these reforms hold tech companies accountable, bring 
transparency to their practices, strengthen law enforcement tools, and 
put survivors and their families at the center of our bipartisan 
response.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has worked together on this matter 
unanimously, Democrats and Republicans, to advance meaningful child 
safety legislation. As I said earlier, the Stop CSAM Act passed 
unanimously out of committee. That unanimity is no accident; it 
reflects a shared understanding that when it comes to protecting our 
kids, partisanship has no place.
  We have shown that Democrats and Republicans can work together to 
write, strengthen, and advance legislation that takes on Big Tech and 
prioritizes children's safety.
  To my colleagues who have not yet signed on to the bill: Welcome 
aboard. We need you. Join us. Become a sponsor of the Stop CSAM Act.
  There are advocates from all over the United States who are on 
Capitol Hill today knocking on the doors of Senate offices and asking 
colleagues to take a moment to consider cosponsoring this bill. I 
salute them. That is what democracy is all about, and that is what 
protecting our kids is all about.
  The Judiciary Committee has done its job. The families in our States 
are watching. Survivors are waiting. Advocates are working day and 
night to protect kids at home and worldwide. It is time for the Senate 
to act.
  During the course of my career in the House and the Senate, I have 
taken on some issues that have dealt with the security and safety of 
children. Years and years ago, I took on tobacco usage by kids. When I 
took on that particular crusade, about 25 percent of the kids in grade 
school across America were using tobacco products--cigarettes and 
chewing tobacco and that sort of thing--25 percent. Today, that figure 
is below 5 percent.
  It is a lot of hard work and a lot of people stepping forward and 
saying: You can do what you want when it comes to adults, but for God's 
sake, protect our kids. Isn't that what this is all about, too--
protecting our kids from the most insidious, destructive, and 
threatening element when it comes to their future and safety?
  I encourage my colleagues, join us in this bipartisan effort. This is 
something we all should agree on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, the senior Senator from Texas Senator Cornyn be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              U.S. Economy

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the numbers do not lie. The job market is 
practically frozen. Unemployment is at its highest level in 4 years. 
Inflation is rising. Homebuilding is stagnant. The manufacturing sector 
is shrinking.
  To top it all off, Trump is raising the price of everything. 
Vegetables are up 40 percent; coffee, 15 percent. Everything from 
toothpaste, to detergent, to shoes, to video game consoles costs more. 
More price hikes are on the way this fall and holiday season as 
businesses exhaust their inventories and give up on eating billions of 
dollars of added costs.
  This is America's golden age under Donald Trump.

[[Page S6518]]

  If it wasn't clear before, it is abundantly clear now that unless you 
are a billionaire getting enormous tax cuts and generous corporate 
giveaways, this economy sucks. Costs are piling up, saving money is 
nearly impossible, and just getting by, let alone buying a home or 
raising a family, is a lot harder.
  The worst part of it is that there was actually no reason for any of 
this. There is no pandemic. We are not in the middle of a war. There is 
no ongoing emergency. This is a crisis of the President's own making, 
and we are all paying the price.
  Donald Trump has made shortages the cornerstone of his economic 
agenda, and it is working. We now have shortages of nearly everything--
food, electricity, healthcare, workers. With less supply to go around, 
everything costs more. It does not take a genius to work that out. In 
fact, people have worked it out. Trump's approval rating on inflation 
and the cost of living is 24 points underwater. His approval rating on 
the economy overall is at negative 13. More than half of Americans 
think the economy is getting worse, and less than a quarter of 
Americans think it is improving.
  We are on a speedrun to become Venezuela, and people can see it.
  This is a deliberate economic program. There is this sense that he 
just wakes up in the morning and does whatever he feels like doing. And 
to some extent, he is improvisational, but make no mistake, he has a 
coherent economic theory, which is, we should shrink the supply of 
everything. He thinks it strengthens the dollar, he thinks it helps 
with manufacturing, and I think he thinks that the less there is of 
stuff, the more people have to go and petition the King for mercy.
  This is a deliberate economic program predicated on shortages across 
American society. In turn, the United States is set to shrink for the 
first time in our history. Think about that. The United States--the 
greatest Nation that the world has ever known, the indispensable 
Nation, the leader of the free world, the leader of the world--is 
shrinking. We are becoming smaller and weaker in more ways than one 
under Trump. But in this way, we are quite literally following Donald 
Trump's plan, and there is no escaping the consequences.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                                 Russia

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since he was sworn into office on January 
20 of this year, President Trump has done more for the cause of peace 
in Eastern Europe than the Biden administration did in the 3 previous 
years. This was evident last month when President Trump met with 
President Putin in Alaska to discuss peace in Ukraine.
  President Trump is performing an important service to the West by 
attempting to negotiate a brokered peace. His goal is as simple as it 
is profound: true and lasting peace.
  It is an understatement to say a lot is at stake--ending the 
continued suffering and loss of life, halting Putin's land grab, and 
restoring Ukraine's economy and territorial integrity.
  While Putin has suggested that peace would ultimately equate with 
victory for Russia, I suggest that this war has resulted in nothing 
less than a strategic loss for Russia and the Russian people.
  There seems to be a prevailing narrative that Putin is winning and 
Ukraine is losing and that the purpose of ending this war is simply to 
mitigate further damage to Ukraine while appeasing the aggressor, 
Russia. But if we consider all that has happened in the last 2\1/2\ 
years, a much different picture becomes apparent.
  Not only has Russia failed to achieve its operational objectives, it 
has also suffered significant strategic setbacks that will impact that 
country for years to come.
  In February of 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of marching 
to Kyiv and reestablishing Ukraine as part of Russia, restoring that 
part of the Soviet Union, so to speak. Putin, at first, very nearly 
succeeded. The Russian army came within miles of Kyiv. But then what 
happened? Well, to the surprise of many, including Putin, Ukraine 
mounted an intense resistance, and with support from its allies and 
partners, it turned the tide of war and reversed Russia's gains, 
retaking much of that territory and at times even pushing into Russian 
territory.
  Now, current estimates are that Russia holds approximately 20 percent 
of prewar Ukraine territory, but this is a far cry from Putin's prewar 
aspirations. Not only did the Ukrainians succeed in preventing a 
complete Russian victory, with support from the West, they have also 
dealt strategic blows to Russia, the effects of which will reverberate 
for decades.
  Let's consider Russia's standing as a significant military force and 
their ability to project power before the war as compared to today. 
Part of Putin's plan to invade Ukraine was to demonstrate their 
military might. However, more than 2 years in, we see how Ukraine has 
significantly degraded Russia's ability to project both power at sea 
and in the air.
  Before the war, Russia would have a significant military presence on 
the Black Sea and freedom of movement into the Mediterranean. But 
through daring and ingenuity and despite having no standing navy, 
Ukraine severely degraded the Russian Navy, sinking more than 26 ships, 
or about a third of its Black Sea Fleet, and forcing retreat to harbors 
closer to home and limiting their ability to influence the war.
  All of this happened while the Russian fleet was already suffering 
from aging ships in need of repair, while Russian shipbuilding has not 
been able to keep up with repairing and replacing these old and damaged 
vessels.
  More significantly, Ukraine's successful attacks on the Russian 
strategic bomber fleet this past June, which they carried out via 
Operation Spider's Web, neutralized approximately 40 Russian bombers 
across 5 military bases--in all, about a third of Russia's strategic 
bomber force.
  More recently, Ukraine has successfully targeted Russian energy 
assets, which is the main source of revenue that it uses to fuel the 
war.
  Now let's consider Russia's security posture in relation to Europe. 
In invading Ukraine, Putin sought to counter what he characterized as 
NATO expansionism. Yet his actions ultimately triggered the accession 
of Finland and Sweden into NATO--two countries which had opted to 
remain outside the security alliance for decades. Consequently, not 
only will NATO enjoy the unique arctic military capabilities that those 
countries possess, it will also benefit from extending the NATO border 
more than 800 miles with Russia, further stretching an already depleted 
Russian military.
  Beyond pushing NATO to expand, Putin's war in Ukraine laid bare the 
realities of our security relationship with NATO and highlighted what 
President Trump has been saying for years--that the European allies 
need to contribute more to their collective security. This effort seems 
to be paying dividends, as we most recently saw NATO member states in 
the 2025 Hague Summit committing to increase their security-related 
spending to 5 percent of their GDP within the next decade.

  We can also see how the war in Ukraine has undermined Russian global 
influence and stature. We see this in places like Armenia, where 
Russian influence has been waning since 2022, most recently culminating 
in the withdrawal of a large portion of their security forces and 
Armenia's potential full withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty 
Organization.
  Additionally, whereas Russia used to be the mediator of a 
longstanding dispute between Armenia and its neighbor Azerbaijan, 
America has been able to exploit their absence most recently by 
President Trump's skillfully negotiated peace agreements between those 
long-warring nations. This agreement will cultivate political and 
economic relationships, increase opportunity for American investment in 
the energy-rich Caucasus, and facilitate regional economic integration 
through the establishment of the Trump Route for International Peace 
and Prosperity, all at the expense of Vladimir Putin.
  We also see what has happened to Russia's influence in the Middle 
East and especially Syria. In April, Germany reported that it had 
expelled 40 Russian intelligence officers. Similarly, France has 
expelled 41 likely Russian spies. Nearly half of Russia's intelligence 
officers, about 400 by some

[[Page S6519]]

estimates, have been expelled from Europe since 2022. According to some 
officials, this may have reduced Russia's ability to collect 
intelligence against our allies in Europe by about half. This would 
seem to indicate, of course, a significant setback in their operations 
in Europe and one which would require time and resources and European 
good will to reestablish.
  I doubt that Russia will have any of those things in the near term. 
But perhaps the most significant cost of this war has been the human 
cost. Russia has suffered immense casualties, surpassing 1 million so 
far. But it has become apparent that Putin doesn't care how many 
Russians he needs to sacrifice to his aspirations to reconstitute the 
Russian Empire or influence in Europe.
  Ukrainian casualties have been significant, too--at least 400,000 
since 2022, while upward of 20,000 Ukrainian children have simply been 
abducted by Russia and remain missing.
  But the human cost of this war is far beyond the mere casualty count. 
Russia suffered from a brain drain as high-achieving Russians have fled 
the country in order to avoid serving in the military. The year 
following the invasion, Russia had nearly 1 million young workers leave 
the country. Those fleeing the country are highly concentrated among 
the young and educated. Eighty percent have a college education and 86 
percent are under the age of 45. According to one account, Russia's 
loss of highly skilled workers may be its most significant economic 
damage.
  Lastly, Russia has suffered severe damage to its economy as Western 
countries have imposed sanctions and limited their access to global 
markets. We have seen many European nations make efforts to wean 
themselves off of Russian oil and gas in order to diversify their own 
supplies and avoid subsidizing the Russian war effort. I am proud of 
the fact that the State of Texas has helped fill much of that gap. And 
I am hopeful that ongoing trade negotiations with India and the EU will 
further curtail Russia's ability to fund its war machine with the sale 
of fossil fuels.
  Russia's shift through a wartime economy will have lasting negative 
consequences for a long time into the future. It has been spending as 
much as 40 percent of its annual expenditures on defense or offense, as 
is obvious here; something we know from experience is unsustainable in 
the long term and obviously of little benefit to the Russian people.
  So all things considered, Russia has suffered a significant strategic 
loss by their invasion of Ukraine. Apart from failing to conquer 
Ukraine, they incurred enormous losses to their ability to project 
power and to collect human intelligence abroad. They spurred their NATO 
neighbors to take their security more seriously and strengthen the 
alliance of which Putin has been so fearful. They have been unable to 
support their traditional allies in the Caucasus and the Middle East, 
opening up opportunities for American alliances and investment. And 
they suffered tremendous human and financial cost that will endure for 
years beyond any forthcoming peace.
  As we continue to support President Trump's peace efforts in this 
conflict, let's keep in mind that Russia has not and is not winning 
this war when viewed from the larger context. Putin and his country 
have suffered enormous losses in many different areas. But it is clear 
that Putin's motivation is not driven by a sober cost-benefit analysis 
but rather by delusions of grandeur and reestablishment of the Russian 
Empire.
  This past April, in his annual state of the nation address, Putin 
said the demise of the Soviet Union ``was the greatest geopolitical 
catastrophe of the century.''
  Putin is not a pragmatist. He is not moved by cost-benefit. He is not 
moved by the loss of a million Russian casualties. The best way to 
bring Putin to the negotiating table with a sincere desire to end this 
war is by making clear that he has not and cannot win this war.
  We and our allies need to continue to impose greater costs in the 
form of additional punishing sanctions, especially on their oil 
production, which largely finances, as I said, the Russian war machine. 
Putin is not going to change his stripes and his ambitions remain 
unchecked. The surest way of ending the war and securing the lasting 
peace will be a united West showing Putin that he cannot win.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                Amendment No. 3854 to Amendment No. 3849

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I send an amendment numbered 3854 to 
amendment No. 3849 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Schatz] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3854 to amendment No. 3849.

  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 day after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Russia Investigations

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we all have a responsibility to 
understand the history of our country. We have a responsibility to 
learn from that history, and we learn from that history so we don't 
repeat the failures of the past.
  I am here to remind my colleagues of some of that history but also am 
able to fill in some details that were just recently made public as a 
result of some of our investigative work and the cooperation we have 
had from the intelligence community and from the FBI.
  Today, I visit with my colleagues to discuss two dates of significant 
importance: January 6, 2021, and January 6, 2017. Most of my remarks 
are about that date in 2017.
  Regarding the 2021 date, it was a dark day in American history. The 
violence against our Capitol and law enforcement was, as we all know, a 
great national disgrace. First Amendment activity turned into something 
else.
  The latter date, January 6, 2017, is a date many in this country may 
not remember or care to remember, but I think it is important that we 
remember. It is a day that signifies a much larger systemic attack on 
our Republic.
  On that date, as the Obama administration planned its exit from its 
Presidency of 8 years, it put into motion its final traps against the 
incoming first Trump administration. To fully understand January 2017, 
we must revisit March and July of 2016.
  But one could argue that it all started June 16, 2015, when Trump 
declared his candidacy. Around March and July of 2016, the FBI received 
particular intelligence information. Notably, July 2016 is the very 
same month that FBI Director Comey opened the discredited Crossfire 
Hurricane investigation. That intelligence information consisted of 
reports that the Clinton campaign, with Hillary Clinton's approval, 
created a plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia. That information was 
made public this year when I released the Durham annex and the Clinton 
annex.
  The Clinton annex showed the FBI had evidence necessary to do a 
complete investigation into Hillary Clinton and the FBI failed to look 
at that very evidence and perhaps they intentionally decided not to 
follow up. So the FBI swept the evidence against Clinton under the rug 
as they planned to advance the Crossfire Hurricane against Trump. 
Regarding the intelligence about the Clinton campaign's plan to falsely 
tie Trump to Russia, the Durham annex notes that ``FBI was fully 
alerted to the possibility that at least some of the information it 
received about the Trump campaign might have its origin either with the 
Clinton campaign or its supporters, or alternately, was the product of 
Russian disinformation.''
  The Durham annex concludes, in part, that ``despite this awareness, 
the FBI appears to have dismissed the [intelligence information] as not 
credible without any investigative steps actually having been taken to 
either corroborate or disprove the allegations.'' 

[[Page S6520]]

In other words, the FBI didn't do what the FBI should do, and that is, 
follow up on the facts.

  So just as with the Clinton annex, where Comey's FBI didn't 
investigate evidence that might have been bad for Clinton, the Durham 
annex shows the Comey FBI didn't investigate the intelligence that the 
Clinton team wanted to falsely tie Trump to Russia to destroy his 
candidacy in favor of her candidacy. I refer to the Durham and the 
Clinton annexes because they were just recently declassified, so this 
information is available. Folks, that is what I have just described as 
a coverup.
  So the question is, What was the main purpose of the coverup?
  The answer: to weaponize the Federal Government to destroy Trump's 
candidacy and Presidency to favor Clinton. You see, Clinton, to the 
people in this town, was not a threat to the status quo, and they saw 
Trump as that threat.
  In August 2016, President Obama and Vice President Biden met with 
three high-level people--or probably more than three. But the three 
that I name are CIA Director Brennan, Director of National Intelligence 
Clapper, and FBI Director Comey. They discussed the intelligence 
relating to the Clinton plan. They were aware of the possibility that 
the Clinton campaign had dirty tricks up its sleeve designed to impact 
the election.
  So let me ask: Did that stop the Obama administration's effort 
against Trump?
  Well, we know that it did not.
  Then, on December 9, 2016--so this is after Trump had been elected--
President Obama's national security team gathered. That meeting 
included Director of National Intelligence Clapper, CIA Director 
Brennan, FBI Deputy Director McCabe, National Security Advisor Susan 
Rice, Secretary of State Kerry, Attorney General Lynch, and others.
  After that meeting, Clapper's office transmitted an email to the 
intelligence community leaders titled ``President of the United States 
Tasking on Russia Election Meddling.'' Clapper asked his personnel to 
create an ``assessment per the President's request.'' The new 
assessment was an intelligence community assessment.
  Per the good investigative work of the House Intelligence Committee's 
report

       Unlike routine intelligence community analysis, the 
     intelligence community assessment was a high-profile product 
     ordered by the President, directed by senior intelligence 
     community heads, and created by just five analysts, using one 
     principal drafter. Production of the intelligence community 
     assessment was subject to unusual directives from the 
     President and senior political appointees and, particularly, 
     the Director of the CIA.

  This is from the House Intelligence Committee's report.
  Again a question, Why go through all this effort to create a new 
product?
  Well, according to the good work of Tulsi Gabbard on the House 
Intelligence Committee, CIA officials didn't have credible and 
verifiable information showing Putin wanted to get Trump elected, and 
the intelligence at the time showed that Putin withheld information 
that would have been damaging to Clinton and, therefore, would have 
helped Trump.
  Obviously, these fixers would not do anything to hurt Clinton. So the 
Obama administration needed their fixers.
  On December 22, 2016, the National Security Agency Director emailed 
Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. That email noted that the National 
Security Agency didn't have enough time to review the intelligence for 
purposes of the new intelligence community assessment Obama ordered, 
and they wanted to get it done very, very quickly.
  So this is how Clapper responded to the National Security Agency:

       We may have to compromise on our normal modalities; [that] 
     more time is not negotiable; [and] this is one project that 
     has to be team sport.

  In other words, we need this very quickly. Don't go through the 
normal process.
  You will see here that the deep state wanted a new intelligence 
product created from the top down, not from the bottom up as is usually 
done, and they wanted it done so badly that they were willing to cut 
corners even if it put the country into chaos.
  What was this new product? It was the December 30, 2016, intelligence 
community assessment tying Trump to Putin.
  It stated, in part:

       We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help 
     President-elect Trump's election chances, when possible, by 
     discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her 
     unfavorably to him.

  Him, meaning Trump.
  In their partisan rush--and it was a rush--that intelligence product 
was published on the date that I previously referred to. It is a date 
that ought to be remembered: January 6, 2017.
  That same day, then-Director of the FBI Comey briefed President-elect 
Trump on the discredited Clinton campaign-funded--that we call--famous 
Steele dossier. The new intelligence assessment said Putin favored 
Trump over Hillary Clinton even though earlier intelligence had shown 
Russia simply wanted to cause political chaos in the United States, and 
it didn't matter whether the President were a Clinton or a Trump.

  The new intelligence assessment is exactly what the Durham annex said 
the Clinton campaign wanted to accomplish. The Durham annex also noted 
existing intelligence product said the Clinton campaign believed 
elements of the Obama administration would help them achieve their 
political ends against Trump. Based on the available evidence, there is 
no doubt the new intelligence assessment was a political hit job that 
had been ordered by President Obama.
  Let me remind folks that Senator Johnson and I got Annex A to the new 
intelligence assessment declassified way back in 2020. Annex A was a 
summary of the discredited Steele dossier. Comey and Brennan worked 
hard to make sure it was included, even though it was unverified and 
didn't meet the standard for inclusion. Now, how convenient do you see 
that is for them?
  This next part is very important.
  In 2020, Senator Johnson and I publicly released additional 
information that we had been able to get declassified. That 
declassified information showed that the Russians knew of the Steele 
dossier at least as early as July 2016 and before the FBI began 
Crossfire Hurricane.
  The declassified information also stated that the FBI received 
information that an individual ``central in connecting Trump to 
Russia'' was very likely a Russian intelligence officer.
  The declassified information also showed that the FBI received an 
intelligence report on January 12, 2017, warning of false information 
in the dossier and that the material was ``part of a Russian 
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.''
  On the very same day, January 12, 2017, the FISA warrant on Carter 
Page, which used the discredited dossier, was renewed for the first 
time.
  The Steele dossier served as a gift to the Russians--a vehicle to 
pack false information in the hopes the Obama administration and Comey 
would fall for it hook, line, and sinker or that Obama and his minions 
saw the obvious and proceeded anyway, believing nobody would ever get 
all this information declassified for the public to see.
  In any event, with all of these red lights flashing ``stop,'' the 
Obama administration went full speed ahead, and even with Trump as 
President, Comey gleefully ran every stop sign. The Comey FBI still 
used the discredited Steele dossier to get a FISA warrant and multiple 
renewals on Carter Page, and the political hit job continued with the 
Mueller special counsel investigation.
  Now, with the public having seen all of this declassified information 
kept in the dark for all of 10 years, there is no doubt that the 
Mueller investigation or review was totally unnecessary. As this 
continued to evolve, the Mueller fiasco was just the deep state trying 
to get another hit job on Trump. Then the Biden administration entered 
the office to continue the partisan political dirty work.
  For example, Senator Johnson and I released records relating to 
Arctic Frost. That is the FBI case that anti-Trump Special Agent 
Thibault created with the help of partisan FBI agents and Department of 
Justice prosecutors.
  Based on emails that I have obtained from whistleblowers, we know 
Thibault opened and even approved the case, in violation of FBI rules.
  According to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, as defense counsel for

[[Page S6521]]

Trump, Jack Smith and his team withheld these emails from the Trump 
defense team. Arctic Frost conveniently became one of Jack Smith's 
cases against Trump and was politically infected from the very start.
  Based on more emails whistleblowers have given me, we also know that 
Thibault, Supervisory Special Agent Blaire Toleman, Special Agent 
Walter Giardina, and partisan DOJ prosecutors focused their efforts and 
resources on Peter Navarro.
  When Department of Justice prosecutors under Merrick Garland's 
authority decided to prosecute Navarro, Thibault said:

       Wow. Great.

  You see how determined these people were to do anything underhanded 
to get Trump.
  From the time then-Candidate Trump came down the escalator in 2015 to 
this very day, it has been a decade of political weaponization of law 
enforcement and intelligence community activities. The examples I have 
given today are that--examples. I could speak for days on end about my 
investigative work, what it has uncovered over the years, and the fact 
that political bias has so deeply infected this country's law 
enforcement and intelligence community agencies. What all that has 
added up to ought to shake everyone in this country to their very core.
  If the government, including the Department of Justice's so-called 
public integrity unit and an elite FBI public corruption squad, can do 
that to the President of the United States, just imagine what the 
government can do to you, the very citizens of this country, if it 
decides to give you its full and undivided attention.
  January 6, 2021, was a single day--a day that we shouldn't forget. 
January 6, 2017, was a day that was meant to topple a Presidency, and 
it should certainly outweigh January 6, where a ragtag mob stormed the 
Capitol with zero chances of succeeding.
  To be intellectually honest and fair, we can't ignore the decade of 
weaponization by taxpayer-funded law enforcement and intelligence 
community agencies against Republicans, not just the President.
  What is so disgusting about the Obama and Biden administrations' 
partisan conduct that I have just told you about is that their 
personnel didn't care about the longlasting damage to this great 
Nation, including eroded trust in American institutions. And the 
partisan media went right along, no questions asked. Those journalists 
in this town and around the country are supposed to be policing the 
political system to make sure that everything is aboveboard. They 
didn't do it in this case, and they aren't doing it today either. In 
this case, no questions were asked.
  This behavior is an existential threat to our Republic because it 
creates a systemic, insidious infection that grows in the dark, behind 
classified walls and bureaucratic redtape, far away from the eyes of 
the American public and the Congress. And all this behavior was paid 
for by the taxpayers of this country.
  I am thankful to Attorney General Bondi, Director Patel, Director 
Gabbard, and Director Ratcliffe for their aggressive transparency 
efforts. Making all these classified documents public may prevent 
further dangerous conspiracies from recurring again.
  For my part and for ``we the people,'' my investigative work will 
continue to shine light on those very dark corners of government 
because, as I said when I opened my remarks, you have to know about the 
history of the country to appreciate what we enjoy today. If you don't 
learn from the mistakes of the past, they are going to be repeated.
  So I have come to the Senate floor to tell my people what has been 
discussed today that was previously classified and go through the 
entire story so this country doesn't make the mistake again of letting 
all the powerful forces of the American Government--the FBI, the 
intelligence community, people who operate behind closed doors--that 
that political strength and weaponization never continue again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from Vermont.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, we are 9 months into the second Trump 
administration, and there are two dynamics that have become very 
painfully clear. One is the arbitrary use and abuse of power by the 
Executive and two, the regrettable passivity of the U.S. Senate. It is 
a dangerous combination--an Executive who is doing much more than he 
has the legal power to do and a U.S. Senate not doing what it is 
constitutionally required to do.
  The two very explicit examples of Executive overreach are tariffs and 
budgets. The U.S. Constitution, as you know, Mr. President, granted the 
Congress exclusive authority over setting tariffs under article I, 
section 8. That is because that is the taxing power that belongs to the 
Congress.
  The point of Congress having that obligation is that we are 
answerable--in the House, every 2 years; in the Senate, every 6 years--
to the constituents who elect us.
  The power to tax is the power to kill, and we have to exercise our 
responsibility on the taxing authority vested in this body by the 
Constitution. Yet the Executive is imposing tariffs, using as a pretext 
emergency authorities that, under special legislation, assumed 
restraint in the Executive.
  We have seen this in case after case after case--tariffs that are 
imposed on the personal decision of one person, an individual, the 
Executive. They can be for economic reasons. They can be for personal 
reasons. They can be for political reasons. It is not a policy; it is 
an erratic imposition of tariffs on our trading partners--in some 
cases, Canada, under the theory or argument that it is a ``national 
emergency'' when there is no threat to our national security by 
Canada--they are our near and dear friends; or it is for a personal 
reason--because the President does not like what the Brazilian Congress 
is doing with respect to its former President, and suddenly there is a 
50-percent tariff that is imposed.
  This is a tax, and as a tax, it is our obligation to be the ones to 
decide if, when, whether, and how a tariff will be imposed. This should 
not be something that we look the other way when the Executive takes 
that constitutional responsibility that only we have.
  The second area of Executive overreach is in the budget. The power of 
the purse--that belongs to the Congress of the United States. Again, 
our Framers saw that the Congress would be the closest to the people we 
represent, that we would be the ones who would be making decisions 
about meeting their needs through the taxing and spending power vested 
in us. But what we now have is a situation where budgets that have been 
passed on a bipartisan basis by this Congress are being changed or 
ignored by the Executive.
  We have seen this year a rolling rescission and a rolling shutdown 
where funds that were appropriated by Congress are not being spent by 
the Executive, with no explanation other than he has the power to not 
write the check. That is not how the Congress and the Executive are 
supposed to work. Congress sets the budget--we are the appropriators--
and then the President implements that.
  Right now, there is $410 billion in funds that have been frozen by 
the Trump administration, and it is funds that are really important to 
our communities, that bipartisan votes authorized--$3.8 billion, for 
instance, to support local police, victims of crime, and other criminal 
justice programs; $1.5 billion to help U.S. farmers to help feed hungry 
people around the world through the Food for Peace Program; $220 
million in funding to create regional tech hubs to strengthen the U.S. 
economic and national security. These are future-looking investments to 
bolster our higher education system and critical manufacturing supply. 
There is $109 million to support new and beginning farmers, veterans, 
and farmers historically left behind; $91 million to help improve 
weather forecasting. The list goes on.
  But the point here is that we as a Congress have the authority and 
the responsibility to set the budget. We did it, it was signed by the 
President, and now he is disregarding what the law requires him to do. 
So you have an Executive that is seizing the taxing power of Congress, 
and you have an Executive who is assuming unconstitutionally the 
spending power of Congress.
  Now, why is it important that Congress resist this? It is important 
because our founding document rested on

[[Page S6522]]

the wisdom that there should not be a concentration of power in one 
branch of government--not the judiciary, not the Congress, and not the 
executive. The separation of powers, with three coequal branches of 
government, all hinged on the expectation that each branch would use 
the powers jealously that it was authorized to have under the 
Constitution and not cede those to another branch. That is an 
obligation that we have to the Constitution, that we have as a 
Republican or as a Democrat to the Constitution, and there is wisdom in 
that because, as we are seeing the power of Congress being seized by 
the Executive, with our assent, with us turning away as though it is 
not happening, we are failing to maintain that system of checks and 
balances that has served our country so well for so long.
  I have a lot of objections to many of the Trump policies, but there 
are many here who support the Trump policies. And that is the point. It 
is our job to debate, and then whoever gets the votes, that policy will 
prevail. But whatever differences we have about policy, we have a 
common, shared responsibility to meet our constitutional obligations, 
to be the branch of government that takes responsibility for whatever 
taxes are imposed on our citizens. That is our job, and we don't do it 
when we cede that authority to the Executive.
  It is also our job under the Constitution to provide for the 
appropriations that taxes pay for. Those are our decisions. And every 
single year we have debates about what are the best priorities, how to 
allocate the spending, what level of spending we should have. But once 
we make that decision, it is the limited authority of the Executive to 
then implement the decisions we have made.
  Instead, what this Congress is now doing is passing a budget only to 
see the Office of Management and Budget, on behalf of the Executive, 
saying: You know what, I don't care what you appropriated; I don't care 
if it was bipartisan. We will do what we want. We will spend what we 
want or we won't.
  That is a complete abdication of responsibility by this Congress, and 
it is very dangerous. It is dangerous because, with the taxing 
authority being made on the personal decisions of the Executive, you 
don't have a policy that anyone can count on. It is going to be 
damaging--it already is--to our economy. If we have passed budgets and 
then looked the other way when the Executive decides he is not going to 
spend it or spend it in the ways that we directed, it means that we 
have no capacity to meet the needs, as we see them, of our farmers, of 
our children, of our educational challenges.
  This dynamic of Executive overreach and U.S. Senate passivity has got 
to end to protect the well-being of our democracy and the well-being of 
the people of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


        Honoring Sergeant Lee Sorensen and Officer Eric Estrada

  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, Tremonton UT, is a quiet town in the Bear 
River Valley, known for, among other things, the Box Elder County Fair, 
now celebrating its 100th year. It is the kind of place where folks 
wave as they walk past, where neighbors look out for each other, and 
where life feels far from the noise and the chaos of other parts of the 
country.
  But on Sunday, August 17, that peace was shattered. Sergeant Lee 
Sorensen and Officer Eric Estrada, two devoted public servants, 
responded to a domestic disturbance call. In the line of duty, both 
were shot and killed while protecting their community. Their loss has 
left a hole not just in the families but in Tremonton and across Utah.
  Earlier today, we laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in 
their honor. It was a humble reminder that sacrifice, whether on 
foreign battlefields or the quiet streets of our towns, is what 
preserves our freedom.
  We all know policing is never easy. Officers step into the unknown 
often with seconds or less to decide between life and death. Domestic 
calls are among the most dangerous. That night in Tremonton, Lee and 
Eric faced lethal fire. Yet their courage saved lives. A deputy and his 
K-9 were injured but survived. Others made it home because Lee and Eric 
did not.
  Sergeant Sorensen, a 16-year veteran, was known as steady and kind. 
He checked on grieving neighbors, looked out for late-night grocery 
store employees, and every year rode his bike in the county fair 
parade, tossing candy with a smile.
  Officer Estrada, just 31, was a husband and a father, known for his 
humor and compassion and for putting people at ease.
  Together, these men embodied the best of Utah law enforcement: 
service rooted in responsibility.
  To give you perspective, the Tremonton-Garland Police Department has 
just 17 people, officers and staff together. They didn't get to stop 
and grieve. They had to carry on, leaning on each other and on a 
community that has shown incredible kindness.
  At their funeral, thousands lined the streets in the rain. Blue 
ribbons appeared on homes and storefronts, and money was raised for 
their families. That is Utah at its best: neighbors locking arms and 
lifting one another.
  Utah has always honored sacrifice. My pioneer ancestors climbed 
Ensign Peak in 1847. They looked out over a barren desert and imagined 
what could be: a thriving home built on faith, family, and community. 
They didn't have much, but they had courage. They knew the future would 
demand hardship and unity.
  Sergeant Sorensen and Officer Estrada carried that same pioneer 
spirit. They stood watch so others could rest. They chose duty over 
comfort. They walked into danger so others could walk in peace.
  President Kennedy famously said:

       Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can 
     do for your country.

  Lee and Eric lived that creed. And as President Ronald Reagan 
reminded us, freedom is never more than one generation away from 
extinction. On that quiet street in Tremonton, they stood against that 
extinction.
  Deputy Allred, who was shot and survived, said while recovering:

       If I could ask one thing to come from this senseless 
     tragedy, don't forget how much love and support is being 
     handed out right now. Communities are coming together. 
     Kindness and love are being shared. Keep this moving forward, 
     and don't stop ever.

  That is the charge before us. Our mission is to ensure Lee and Eric 
are remembered not as headlines but as symbols of Utah values and 
American courage. And our commitment should be to work for solutions to 
better support our law enforcement, strengthen protections for families 
and individuals, and bring peace of mind to our hard-working citizens. 
So let us pledge today: Sergeant Sorensen and Officer Estrada will not 
be forgotten. Their service, their laughter, their sacrifice live on in 
us. May we honor them not only with our words but with action worthy of 
their examples.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. 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.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to use a prop.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 853

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to raise an alarming issue. 
The Chinese Communist Party is stealing sensitive intellectual property 
developed using your tax dollars.
  We are all too familiar with the threat of Chinese espionage. It 
wasn't too long ago Iowans raised the alarm on Chinese nationals 
digging up our seeds and stealing our agriculture technology. Just last 
month, a Navy sailor was convicted after China paid him in exchange for 
highly classified data about Navy ships.
  Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Loopholes in the 
Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology 
Transfer Programs, which helped develop critical technology supporting 
America's national security, are being exploited by China and other 
foreign adversaries to steal sensitive technology.

[[Page S6523]]

  Over 40 years ago, the SBIR Program was established as America's seed 
fund to serve as an innovation pipeline to support our warfighters and 
maintain a technological edge. While the program has seen its fair 
share of successes, we must be honest that how it currently operates is 
benefiting China at the expense of our warfighters.
  This summer, I released a report exposing that hundreds of millions 
of dollars of technology funded by your taxes through the Pentagon's 
SBIR Program are vulnerable to Chinese espionage. My report found that 
in 2023 and 2024, 835 applications for SBIR-STTR funding were flagged 
for having foreign risks, yet only 303 were denied for their ties to 
adversaries. Even worse, a lack of foreign due diligence standards 
across government has opened the door for exploitation. Some Agencies 
denied 100 percent of flagged applications, while other Agencies only 
denied 1 percent. Even one case is too many.
  I shared my report with the Pentagon and asked them to investigate 
further. The Pentagon agreed with me that there are significant threats 
to our national security that must be addressed. My INNOVATE Act does 
just that by implementing foreign due diligence standards across 
government to ensure we unleash the golden age in America instead of 
serving as a subsidy for Beijing.
  Another defect limiting the effectiveness of the SBIR Program is the 
exploitation of the program by a small number of companies often called 
SBIR mills. The program too often serves as a private taxpayer-funded 
ATM for the select few businesses. In the past decade, 25 companies in 
the Pentagon's SBIR Program, which is just 0.5 percent of overall award 
recipients, received 18 percent of the funding. That is over $2.3 
billion, folks. That is a $92 million windfall for each. No wonder 
hard-working folks in Iowa have a hard time viewing these as truly 
small businesses.
  Even worse, these so-called SBIR mills too often produce nothing more 
than policy white papers, despite many of their business models being 
largely dependent on your tax dollars.
  Folks, as a combat veteran, let me tell you, a white paper is not 
supporting our warfighters. Our men and women in uniform deserve the 
best, most innovative technology to protect themselves, defend our 
Nation, and deter our adversaries.
  But when it comes to protecting and defending us, what do these white 
papers provide? I suppose we could fold them into paper airplanes. I 
can't throw it on the floor of the Senate, but you get the drift. OK? 
We need to strengthen the program to ensure that SBIR serves a greater 
role than producing a paper army. The INNOVATE Act fixes these 
egregious uses of taxpayer funds and assures the war dollars go to the 
best and the brightest entrepreneurs, not grant writers who have 
learned how to game the system on the taxpayer's dime. My bill will 
reorient SBIR to its original purpose, providing merit-based support 
for American innovators. It course-corrects the program back to helping 
true American startups get off the ground. It streamlines the proposal 
process and establishes a new Phase IA award to attract new entrants 
with strong commercialization potential.
  Lastly, the INNOVATE Act allows new strategic breakthrough awards of 
up to $30 million at the Pentagon, DOE, NASA, HHS, and NSF. These 
awards, with required matching funds, will move our most promising 
technologies out of the lab and into production for our warfighters, 
scientists, and other medical professionals.
  Time is of the essence. The United States cannot and should not delay 
these reforms any longer. No more waste, no more giveaways to Beijing. 
Every dollar must advance innovation that keeps America strong and 
secure. We must act now to ensure maximum impact of every dollar 
invested to secure our edge against our adversaries and unleash a new 
golden age for America's small, resourceful innovators. Small 
businesses everywhere are excited about the INNOVATE Act and stand 
ready to deliver the technologies of tomorrow. Let's make that happen. 
I seek unanimous consent to pass the INNOVATE Act.

  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the 
desk. Further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support the Senator from Iowa's proposed 
legislation.
  I agree that we must reauthorize the Small Business Innovation 
Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs before their 
authorizations expire at the end of this month. However, the 
legislation proposed by the Senator from Iowa would decimate American 
innovation conducted by small business and make wholesale changes to 
the law without proper data, full information, or appropriate vetting.
  I am opposed to this bill because, one, the best research proposals 
will not be funded; two, technologies like the world's smallest heart 
pump, oxygen delivery systems for military and submarines, and 
technology to improve radiation threat detection in public spaces would 
not exist if the Senator's legislation were the law; three, successful 
innovative small businesses will be punished solely because they are 
successful in the program; four, businesses will avoid pursuing the 
riskier, more cutting-edge ideas that keep American innovation at the 
forefront, ahead of our rivals in the world; five, agencies will no 
longer be able to fund technology that aids their mission if that 
technology comes from a successful small business. And this is only a 
fraction of the concerns that not only I have but that the SBIR and 
STTR communities have raised with me.
  These programs have gone above and beyond the expectations of those 
who enacted it. Since the program was established, more than 30,000 
small businesses have provided $70 billion in research and development 
to the U.S. Government. For every SBIR dollar spent, the dollar returns 
anywhere from $22 to $33 in economic benefits. These programs work 
because of the merit-based competition nature of the programs.
  Darwinian paranoia-inducing competition--that is what wins. 
Competition drives innovation, and meaningful innovation always comes 
from our most nimble allies--small businesses, not big corporations. It 
is the small businesses that innovate, and then big companies might 
want to purchase that breakthrough, but it never comes from those big 
companies.
  That is why, in May, I introduced legislation to not only make these 
successful programs permanent but further increase their research and 
their efficacy.
  My SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2025 would, one, make permanent 
the SBIR and STTR programs; two, maintain their merit-based competitive 
nature; three, increase research funding for small businesses and 
partnering research institutions; four, strengthen commercialization 
efforts; five, maintain the tough, bipartisan foreign due diligence 
program established by our predecessors Senators Cardin and Paul just 3 
years ago, which is working; and six, dismantle barriers to increase 
participation from underserved populations and new entrants.
  I am greatly disappointed that we have not been able to come to a 
bipartisan agreement on how to reauthorize these programs, though my 
Democratic colleagues and I have continued to show up to negotiate in 
good faith. However, I am glad that the House Small Business and House 
Science Committees sensibly came together on a bipartisan, clean 1-year 
extension for the programs. This extension was unanimously reported out 
of the House Small Business Committee just yesterday.
  Should that legislation come to the Senate and the Senator from Iowa 
block my reauthorization legislation, I will support the House's 1-year 
extension. It is important that these programs do not face arbitrary, 
wholesale changes that would weaken American innovation and small 
businesses' role in it. It is also critical that these programs do not 
face a lapse in reauthorization as it would set the program and our 
innovation ecosystem back by years.

[[Page S6524]]

  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1573

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1573 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. Further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third 
time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Ranking Member Markey, I continue to want to work with you to find 
common ground and pass the SBIR reauthorization with bipartisan 
reforms, but the status quo will not work. I will not continue to allow 
China to win and let our warfighters lose. My INNOVATE Act will stand 
up to Beijing, invest in the best and the brightest, and ensure that 
America maintains our technological advantage. It is irresponsible to 
put this program on autopilot through a permanent reauthorization, 
especially without sufficient safeguards to protect taxpayer funds from 
abuse.
  Make no mistake, Beijing is clinking their glasses at the thought of 
the status quo continuing. After all, we are talking about America's 
national security. I am willing to work with the Senator on any of the 
reforms on the table in both my bill and in the Senator's to find a 
commonsense solution and one that will work for both sides. However, as 
the proposal stands, on behalf of our warfighters and our Nation's 
security, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator. I am happy to 
continue to negotiate with her. Again, in my opinion, a 1-year 
extension gives us the time to do that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 382

  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, Ashli Babbitt was a traitor. She was a 
traitor to this country. She was part of the violent mob that tried to 
overthrow our democracy. I was there on January 6, as so many of my 
colleagues in the House and Senate were. I remember hearing the 
pounding on the doors of the House Chamber and seeing my colleagues 
barricading the doors, with furniture, to stop the insurrectionists 
from breaking in and disturbing and stopping democracy's day. I 
remember looking around, thinking about my family, and seeing the mob 
and what they were willing to do.
  Ashli was leading the pack. She carried a ParaForce knife, a weapon. 
She pushed to the front of the crowd, ignored repeated orders from 
Capitol Police to stop, and she pushed through a locked door and 
barricaded door. She was part of the mob that smashed through the 
windows into the Speaker's lobby, and then she tried to even force her 
way in.
  She didn't die protecting our country; she died trying to tear it 
down.
  Military honors are sacred. They are reserved for the men and women 
who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the rule 
of law and actually lived up to it. To give them to Babbitt would be a 
spit in the face to all of them and to every veteran who died defending 
this country.
  I took that very same oath 25 years ago when I joined the U.S. Marine 
Corps. I saw what real service and dedication and sacrifice looked like 
in Iraq. I saw marines dying holding the line so others may have a 
chance to live. And I buried brothers--brothers--who gave everything to 
protect others, to protect this Nation.
  To pretend that Ashli Babbitt deserves the same honors is not only a 
betrayal of their service, of the oath that they made, but it is also a 
betrayal of all the oaths that we have all sworn. And it is a 
desecration of the sacrifices our fallen servicemembers have made.
  Those who served are expected to uphold our oath and military 
standards, even after we are done with our service. If you violate the 
law and betray the oath, you forfeit honors.
  Ashli Babbitt knew what she was doing when she stormed the Capitol, 
and she knew it was illegal. She wasn't a martyr; she was and is a 
traitor. She voluntarily broke into the Capitol, armed with a weapon. 
That is a clear violation of the law and the oath she swore to uphold 
during and after service.
  If we equate the January 6 insurrection with genuine sacrifice, then 
we cheapen everything our servicemembers have fought and died for. We 
tell people that trying to kill fellow Americans inside the Capitol is 
no different than dying on the battlefield protecting them. We erode 
the trust Americans have in our military, and we feed the lie that 
January 6 was anything more than an act of treason.
  That is why I am outraged that the Air Force plans to grant military 
funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, the traitor. She did not die 
protecting Americans; she died betraying the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Her actions disqualify her from receiving military honors, and this 
Senate should go on record making that clear. So let any Republican 
come down here and explain why someone who stormed the Capitol and 
tried to overturn our democracy deserves the same honors as those who 
have fought and died to defend it because I will tell you the truth, 
she doesn't. She is a traitor, and we all know it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. Res. 382, submitted earlier today; further, I ask 
unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be 
agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this 
resolution is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to strip away the 
earned honors of a veteran who deployed seven times during her many 
years in the U.S. Air Force. Ashli Babbitt earned these funeral honors 
through her service to this Nation.
  My colleague referenced section 985 of title X, which gives the 
executive branch the right to strip funeral honors away from someone 
who has been convicted of a capital crime. That section has nothing to 
do with Ashli Babbitt.
  Ashli Babbitt was never charged with or convicted of a crime. She has 
never been found guilty of anything by a jury of her peers. In fact, 
the Federal Government recently settled a wrongful death lawsuit and 
paid $5 million to her family as part of that settlement--$5 million--
which brings me to another point: Has Ashli's family not already been 
through enough? Are Democrats just hell-bent on piling on?
  Unfortunately, Ashli is not with us any longer, so this petty 
resolution would serve no other purpose than to punish the Babbitt 
family. It is disgraceful, and it is un-American.
  In case my colleague is unaware of this, the Constitution still 
applies, even to those you disagree with politically. This is nothing 
more than political grandstanding.
  I ask my colleague, where are the resolutions calling to revoke the 
honors from veterans involved in the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots 
after George Floyd? How about the ones who participated in a 6-month 
siege of a Federal courthouse in Portland, OR, or the ones who attacked 
the White House in May of 2020, injuring more than 60 Secret Service 
agents? They don't exist because it doesn't fit the narrative from the 
Senator from Arizona.
  So for those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, today, we had a chance to stand with the 
brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country in 
uniform. Ashli Babbitt is not that. She is a traitor; she will be a 
traitor; and

[[Page S6525]]

she died a traitor. And let the Halls remember that here.
  My colleague from across the aisle refused to do that. Instead, he 
stands with the traitors of January 6. He is trying to say that an 
insurrectionist who broke into the Capitol with a knife deserves the 
same honor with the men and women who gave their lives for this country 
on the battlefield.
  It doesn't matter how many times she went. It doesn't matter how many 
times she was deployed. Benedict Arnold was one of the best generals we 
had until he betrayed us during the American Revolutionary War. He was 
still a traitor. Ashli Babbitt is a traitor.
  Ashli Babbitt's actions on January 6 are about as dishonorable as it 
gets. Giving her honors undermines the Constitution, and it undermines 
the real sacrifices of millions of veterans who defended our country.
  My colleague just set a dangerous precedent today. He is standing 
with the traitors of January 6. You do not deserve that, America. The 
veterans of this country do not deserve that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, 20 years ago this month, Hurricane Rita 
hit Louisiana, and 1 year ago tomorrow, Hurricane Francine hit 
Louisiana.
  This is damage from Hurricane Francine in Morgan City and Metairie. 
And our State gets ready. We are prepared. We stockpile gasoline for 
generators. We get water, food, medication, and, if necessary, board up 
windows. We secure our pets and our livestock. A friend of mine sent a 
video showing how she was preparing her pigs' pen for the storm. So she 
had to take care of her pig. I won't say that we are casual, no. We are 
very alert, but we also learn to be calm.
  But let me point out, when Hurricane Francine made landfall on the 
11th, people in Ascension, Assumption, Lafourche, St. Charles, St. 
James, St. John the Baptist, St. Mary, and Terrebonne Parishes--and 
others--had significant flooding. Thankfully, no lives were lost, but a 
lot of damage occurred. Homes flooded, some ruined entirely. Many lost 
power. In total, Hurricane Francine caused more than $1.5 billion in 
damage across Louisiana.
  Now, because of it, I have spent the last year making sure that my 
State receives every Federal resource possible; first, for recovery 
and, next, for mitigation.
  One example of recovery aid I was pleased to announce was a $118 
million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
specifically for Hurricane Francine relief. But do you know what is 
even better than recovery? Not flooding in the first place. As they 
say, a stitch in time saves nine or a levy can prevent--a levy can 
prevent--millions of dollars' worth of damage.
  There was a report from the National Institute of Building Sciences 
that $1 invested in preventing flooding can save up to $6 in flood 
damage.
  In President Trump's first administration, he created a program 
called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities--or BRIC for 
short--and it provided many lifesaving grants that Louisiana benefited 
from.
  Now, this administration--President Trump's second term--has held up 
some of the money, but I am told, I have been assured by OMB Director 
Russ Vought that they are going to release those funds.
  Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, I have secured 
over $10 billion for Louisiana, and a lot of that has been for flood 
mitigation; and just weeks after Hurricane Francine, announced a 
separate grant of $206 million for elevating flood-prone homes in 
Orleans, Calcasieu, East Baton Rouge, and Lafayette Parishes, and a lot 
in between; and also $1.5 million for the Louisiana Department of 
Public Safety for emergency protective measures taking care of 
Hurricane Francine; and then another $1.5 million in May.
  In the past, I have discussed some of the worst floods in our State's 
history: Milton, Helene, Laura, Ida, and Katrina. I have spoken about 
flooding in Texas, New Mexico, and New York. This is not just a 
Louisiana problem; it is a Florida problem; it is a--from this, you can 
see it is a national problem, with the dark yellow being States that 
have had significant flooding, over $1 billion in National Flood 
Insurance Program claims, and the lighter tan States being those that 
had over $50 million in claims.
  So every flood is a little bit different, but the message I always 
emphasize is the same: Americans need stability, and right now that 
stability is being threatened.
  The National Flood Insurance Program--also called NFIP--has provided 
Americans with access to affordable flood insurance for the last 50 
years. As we go now toward a government shutdown if the Congress 
doesn't act, if the government is not funded, the National Flood 
Insurance Program lapses, leaving the nearly 500,000 Louisianans and 
over 5 million Americans without coverage.
  Now, hurricane season won't be over for 2 more months. Where does 
that leave the elderly folks in Calcasieu Parish or the young couple 
buying their first home in St. Charles Parish or the single mom in St. 
Bernard Parish providing for her child, living paycheck to paycheck? We 
cannot let a congressional funding fight keep them from receiving the 
coverage they need.
  And, by the way, even if Congress averts a shutdown, we are not yet 
in the clear. We need a long-term solution. Congress has already passed 
33 short-term extensions in the last 10 years--33. It sounds kind of 
like a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit. So I think we can all agree that a 
program which has been extended 33 times is worth reauthorizing long 
term. And don't you think that Congress should protect a program 
helping millions of Americans from California through New Mexico, all 
the way up to New York, and, of course, including my home State of 
Louisiana?
  I haven't spoken to every single homeowner in America or in Louisiana 
enrolled in the NFIP, but I can imagine they are all wondering why 
can't the government get its act together.
  It is irresponsible for Congress to continue to make families hold 
their breath and hope the rug will not be pulled out from underneath 
them. That is a pattern that should end. To do so, we must be sure that 
the government is funded so that NFIP survives September. We then need 
to pass a long-term extension so that NFIP policyholders can rely on 
the program to do what it is supposed to do: provide stability.
  Let's keep the National Flood Insurance Program alive, and then let's 
keep it strong, reliable, and worthy of the trust that millions of 
American families place it in every day.
  In this, we have talked about recovery from hurricanes; we have 
talked about how to prevent flooding, which is to say make it so that 
you don't have to recover because you have already built resiliency; 
and we have talked about the work that must be done for those on the 
National Flood Insurance Program.
  Right now, without a promise of protection hanging in the balance, I 
am calling once for more stability, for certainty in a program that 
millions rely on. Mr. President, 500,000 in Louisiana alone should not 
be held hostage by short-term funding battles. We have seen what 
happens when the water rises. We have seen the damage. We have seen the 
need. Let's act now so that when the next storm comes, families don't 
have to wonder whether their coverage will be there.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHATZ. 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. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Rules Change

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, last year, Senate Democrats presented to 
Senate Republicans a proposal meant to fix some of the partisan 
gridlock that slowed down the confirmation process for both parties 
over the years. I rise to speak to it because of the pending action 
that Senate Republicans have teed up to change the rules or utilize the 
nuclear option to set a new precedent for how nominees are considered 
and/or confirmed in this body. So it is not a new conversation,

[[Page S6526]]

not a new effort that has come up just overnight. There have been 
efforts over the years to revisit this, including last year by Senate 
Democrats.
  I reference that proposal from last year because it was intentional. 
It was presented at a time when nobody knew who would be elected 
President of the United States. It was done at a time when no one knew 
who would be occupying--which party would be occupying the White House 
and be charged with filling key positions in the Federal Government. It 
was done at a time when we were not sure who would be in the majority 
of this body. So it was an ideal time to discuss and implement reforms 
on a nonpartisan basis. It was a chance for the two sides to come 
together in a bipartisan fashion and negotiate a change to the Senate 
rules at a 67-vote threshold for the purpose of improving the process, 
improving the Senate as an institution.
  Now, Democrats proposed ideas out of the interest of fairness, of 
reform, and of making this institution work better. Unfortunately, at 
the time, my understanding is the Republican response was basically: 
No, no, no, we are not really interested. They wouldn't play ball. They 
didn't want to be part of the solution because they were busy at the 
time obstructing Democratic nominees.
  Fast-forward to today. We know that Donald Trump is in the White 
House. Not only is he in the White House, he is nominating historically 
under-qualified nominees, political hit men, loyalists, and extremists.
  Surprise, surprise--guess who all of a sudden has changed their tune. 
Not only do Senate Republicans now want to revisit the nominations 
process and the confirmation process, they are doing it in a way that 
can have them very, very quickly confirm unlimited numbers of these 
nominees. They are doing so in a way without trying--not even trying to 
build bipartisan support for these changes. They are threatening to go 
nuclear once again and only require a 50-vote threshold.
  So you have to wonder why. Maybe because they want to hide some of 
Donald Trump's most controversial nominees. Just look at who they have 
worked so quickly to confirm over the last several months. Let me give 
a couple of examples of the kinds of Republican nominees who could have 
qualified for mass consideration, with hardly any oversight, under this 
new proposed process--nominees like Kash Patel, a conspiracy theorist 
who made a target list of Trump's perceived enemies, who has now been 
elevated to serve as Director of the FBI; Dan Bongino, a far-right 
podcaster turned Epstein apologist confirmed as Deputy Director of the 
FBI; Todd Blanche, Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer who 
represented him when he was convicted of concealing hush-money payments 
to Stormy Daniels. He is now the Deputy Attorney General--and, by the 
way, recently paid a very high-profile visit to a certain Ghislaine 
Maxwell, in Federal prison for her role in the whole Epstein saga. 
Russell Vought, the architect of the scheme to steal hundreds of 
billions of dollars from the American people and illegally stop funding 
critical housing and food assistance programs, has now returned as OMB 
Director--the same Russell Vought who has publicly said and advocated 
for less bipartisan actions when it comes to appropriations and more 
partisan determinations on our Federal Government's spending plan. E.J. 
Antoni is slated to replace the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
whom Trump fired after he didn't like the July jobs numbers--someone 
who has a history of making sexually degrading attacks, homophobic 
remarks, promoting conspiracy theories, and lobbing crude insults at 
anyone critical of the President.
  Look, there are dozens more nominees coming before the Senate who 
repeatedly denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election in order to 
please Trump. And it doesn't stop there. Now many of these nominees 
have also committed to dismantling the very Departments, Agencies, and 
programs they are tapped to lead.
  While we are not there yet, I might add that the next Chair of the 
Federal Reserve will not be subject to the Cabinet-level confirmation 
process either.
  Colleagues, this is not normal, and so that is the context for what 
we are debating--not truly bipartisan reform but a Republican-
engineered plan to ram through Trump's unfit nominees to implement an 
extreme agenda.

  Sadly, the truth is, it is not surprising because time and again, 
under this President--especially this term--we have seen Republicans in 
Congress give up responsibility to serve as a check and a balance on 
the executive branch in order to please Donald Trump. In just about 
every way imaginable, Republicans are inventing new ways to cede power 
to Trump on appropriations, on tariffs, on oversight, on foreign 
policy.
  Today, it is not just that they are ceding power to Trump; they are 
going nuclear for the third time since May, changing the rules of this 
body unilaterally to do it, just as they did earlier this year when 
they revoked three of California's Clean Air Act waivers and just like 
they did when they abused the Budget Act with magic math to take away 
healthcare for millions of people and give trillions in tax cuts to 
billionaires.
  In every instance, the arguments they made for going nuclear just 
don't pass muster. President Trump has actually seen more--more--of his 
civilian, nonjudicial nominees confirmed before the August recess in 
this term than he did in his first term. This year, it was 128 compared 
to 126 in the year 2017. He has also had 14 more of those nominees 
confirmed before the August recess than President Biden did by the same 
date--128 to 114.
  So I have to say it seems like our colleagues are forgetting what it 
was like over the prior 4 years when many Republican Senators had 
blanket holds on dozens of nominees at a time: Republican Senators 
blocking all Department of Justice nominees for a significant time 
period; Republican Senators blocking all State Department nominees for 
a significant time period; one Republican Senator even holding up 
routine promotions for all Department of Defense nominees--yes, 
Department of Defense. Department of Defense. For nearly a year, he did 
so, and it was a national scandal, a national embarrassment. Dozens of 
military families were stuck in limbo for partisan Republican reasons 
that had nothing to do with their qualifications or ability to serve. 
Now there is this Republican outrage for nominees having to wait a 
couple of months to go through the process?
  Did our colleagues already forget what happened just before this 
August recess? Senate Democrats again, despite the political climate we 
are in, tried to negotiate in good faith. There was a bipartisan 
proposal on the table to expedite some nominees. What happened to that? 
I will tell you what happened to that. Donald Trump said no, and he 
made a mockery of good-faith negotiations less than 2 months ago. He 
told Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats--and I am going to quote--he 
said:

       Go to hell.

  But that is par for the course for Donald Trump. He has contempt for 
bipartisan negotiations and for checks and balances--the very checks 
and balances in our Constitution.
  That is the reason we are here today. No one is fooled about what is 
happening here. It is clearly yet another power grab. Republicans are 
prepared to go nuclear and change Senate rules once again with a simple 
majority vote.
  I will end simply by saying once again that what goes around comes 
around, because at some point in time in the future, not only will 
there be a Democratic President back in the White House, there will be 
a Democratic majority in the Senate Chamber as well. And I guess we 
will have to abide by the new rules and new precedents that Republicans 
are so happy to set today. So be prepared because I know I will be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I first note that we are horrified 
watching images and following the news out of Utah and we are sending 
all of our thoughts to Mr. Kirk, to his family, to survivors there.
  Mr. President and colleagues, there are a host of ways that 
democracies die. Institutions like universities and the legal 
profession capitulate to the leaders and the regime. They stop

[[Page S6527]]

being forums for free speech and dissent. The legal system becomes 
perverted into a vehicle to punish opponents of the regime and to 
immunize loyalists. The press is threatened with sanction or 
retribution for telling the truth. They fold and they just silence 
criticism. Business leaders are offered lucrative deals for making 
loyalty agreements with the government using their economic power to 
back the regime.
  I wish this weren't true, but all of those things are happening in 
America today. It is why many of us come down to this floor fairly 
often to talk about our belief that we are sleepwalking into some 
version of, at best, deeply illiberal democracy where rights and 
dissent are functionally irrelevant or, at worst, authoritarianism 
where political opposition just vanishes.
  But today, I want to talk about another common part of this story 
about how democracies evaporate. And that is the subjugation of the 
legislative branch to a corrupt executive branch. Put another way, in 
healthy democracies, the legislature or the parliament sees itself as a 
check on runaway Executive power. It stands up regularly for its 
powers, its prerogatives, no matter who the President or the Prime 
Minister is.
  In a disappearing democracy, the legislature effectively operates as 
an arm of the Executive, simply taking orders, including orders to wind 
down the independent power of the legislature. This is what is 
happening here, right now, in the U.S. Senate.
  One of the most important checks on Executive power given to the 
Senate by the Constitution is the power of consent for nominees to high 
Executive Office. It prevents a President from installing in power 
unqualified or corrupt people. It allows the legislature--and through 
the legislature, the people--to make sure that the executive branch 
stays in its lane, executing the law--not making the law.
  Yesterday, we effectively gave that power up in an extraordinary way. 
Senate Republicans went nuclear. That means they used their majority 
power to change the rules of the Senate--unilaterally, without any 
Democratic support--so that now, in one single vote, the Senate can 
confirm 50 or 100 or 1,000 Trump nominees all at once.
  From the founding of our Republic until yesterday, without unanimous 
consent, the Senate voted on one nominee at a time. Now, the Senate can 
batch together dozens of hundreds of nominees in one vote, essentially 
obliterating our power of advice and consent.
  Republicans say: Well, this was originally a Democratic proposal. But 
that is not true. Yes, a few Democrats, years ago, floated a proposal 
to Republicans to work together in a bipartisan way to batch together 
10 nominees at a time, and only lower level nominees. But this 
Republican rule, A, involves no consultation with Democrats; B, has no 
limits, either with respect to how many nominees are considered and, 
seemingly, what level of nominee. It would effectively allow, under the 
actual letter of the rule, for there to be one single vote on an entire 
slate of Cabinet nominees.
  I understand that the Republican leader will say that is not the 
intent of the rule; but read the rule. And there will be pressure--
increasing pressure now that the rules are changed--from the President 
of the United States to continue to open the aperture of what this rule 
allows.
  I will concede that our nomination process is broken. I am totally 
open for reasonable proposals for reform. But this is not reasonable.
  What do I do as a Senator if a batch of nominees arrives for a vote 
and I support 58 of them but I don't support two of them? If I vote no, 
then I have voted against 58 qualified people. If I vote yes, then I 
have given my consent, possibly, for deeply dangerous people to staff 
key Federal Agencies. It makes no logical sense to do this, at the very 
least, in this open-ended way.
  But it does make sense if you put yesterday's decision in context, 
because Senate Republicans increasingly view themselves as mere 
employees of their party's leader Donald Trump. They will look the 
other way when he violates the law. And when he asks to consolidate 
power, his employees grant his request without thinking twice, because 
this wasn't the first time congressional Republicans gladly gave up 
their power to make Trump's lawlessness easier.
  Trump has, effectively, seized the spending power from Congress. This 
is unforgivable because our Founding Fathers vested the spending power 
in Congress because they knew that a President with the unrestrained 
power of the purse could easily use that authority to seize full power 
of the government and wrest away from the people control of their 
government. Trump has frozen or canceled more than $400 billion in 
congressionally appropriated funding. Senate Republicans have done 
virtually nothing to counteract that extraordinary, unprecedented 
seizure of spending power. In fact, they have helped him take control 
of spending by supporting, for the first time in our Nation's history, 
a partisan rescissions bill that canceled billions of dollars of 
spending that had been appropriated through a bipartisan vote.
  Congressional Republicans have also, frankly, closed down any 
meaningful oversight of the corruption that is happening in the 
executive branch. Republicans enthusiastically rooted through every 
corner of the Biden administration to find every morsel of alleged 
corruption that they could find, including harassing virtually every 
member of the Biden family to find facts to corroborate this bogus FOX 
News-driven Biden crime family narrative. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and 
his family have made $3.4 billion off of his Presidency. The President 
is using White House resources, taxpayer-funded White House resources, 
to market a Trump cryptocoin. He bullied a foreign government into 
giving him a private jet. His family is setting up companies, as we 
speak, to profit off government contracts. It is a massive growing 
corruption racket. But now, all of a sudden, Republicans have no 
interest in oversight.

  One more example: Another power of the Constitution explicitly 
reserved for Congress is the power to declare war. The President cannot 
take military action overseas without Congress. And that is a really 
good thing. But Republicans have now totally outsourced to Donald Trump 
the decision as to whether we take military action overseas.
  I am not saying the Democrats were perfect in constraining the 
Executive's war powers, but at least we tried. Trump just carried out 
an air strike on a boat off the coast of Venezuela, a blatantly illegal 
act. And there was one single Republican Senator who raised a concern.
  History is full of examples of legislatures where, under pressure 
from an elected Executive who wants to convert a country from democracy 
to something like autocracy, they effectively close up shop. They 
decide to just take orders from the leader. And thus, they consent to 
this transition. Turkiye is no longer a healthy democracy today because 
the parliament supported consolidating massive new powers to the 
Presidency. In Sri Lanka, their democracy is in peril, in part because 
their legislature gave up key appointment powers to the executive. Part 
of the collapse, long ago, of Russia's short-lived democracy was the 
Duma's decision to view itself as a political arm of the Presidency.
  I know that some people are going to suggest that this is hyperbole. 
I don't think it is. We are watching a slow-motion daily assault on 
democracy take place. Institutions are shuttering venues of dissent. 
The Judiciary is being turned into just a mechanism to harass and 
imprison the President's political opponents. Our media are cutting 
deals with the President to silence loud critics of the administration.
  And now, this body will no longer get to vote on individual nominees 
to the administration who are likely going to carry out this campaign 
to undermine and, eventually, potentially destroy the rule of law.
  None of this is normal. None of this, including what is happening 
this week in the U.S. Senate, has any historical precedent before in 
this country. All of it is wildly dangerous and, perhaps, fatal if we 
continue to refuse to join together as Republicans and Democrats to 
rise to the challenge and protect our democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.

[[Page S6528]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank the member of the Rules Committee for 
organizing this floor block of speeches. He has been a valued partner 
of mine on the Senate Judiciary Committee for several years and has 
taken on his ranking member position in the Rules Committee seriously.
  Leader Thune has set in motion a rules change that will fundamentally 
undermine the ability of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty 
of advice and consent.
  I hope my Republican friends--I use that term specifically--I hope my 
friends will pause for a moment and think of a way we might solve this 
problem and do it in bipartisan fashion.
  Before the recess, Senate Democrats worked in good faith with Senate 
Republicans to negotiate a package of nominations to break the deadlock 
and move these nominations through the Chamber in an expedited, 
professional, bipartisan fashion. At the very last minute, however, 
President Trump blew up the negotiations. Rather than stand up to him, 
Senate Republicans are now willing to give away the Senate's authority 
when it comes to advice and consent.
  Senate Republicans claim they are violating Senate rules just for 
this set of nominees. But I am afraid this is going to open the door to 
rushing through more extreme nominations whose only qualifications seem 
to be loyalty to the Chief.
  Look no further than President Trump's nominees who have been 
considered by the Judiciary Committee. After President Trump fired his 
first FBI Director, he nominated Kash Patel. As a private citizen, Mr. 
Patel directed the purge of honorable career public servants at the FBI 
and then lied about it under oath at his confirmation hearing.
  Mr. Patel auditioned for the FBI job by trying to whitewash January 
6, calling the rioters who stormed the Capitol harassing and beating on 
the local police ``political prisoners.'' The head of the FBI, Mr. 
Patel, produced a choir of singers, including those who were prosecuted 
for wrongdoing on that day and some who violently assaulted police 
officers. This was considered to be cute, I guess, by some of Mr. 
Patel's followers. But the very same men and women who would beat on 
the police, Capitol Police and DC police who were protecting this 
building, were somehow supposed to be entertaining as a choir--only in 
the eyes of someone like Mr. Patel.
  I warned my colleagues that confirming Mr. Patel would risk our 
national security and public safety. The head of the FBI used to be as 
apolitical a position as possible for a long tenure to take it out of 
politics. Mr. Patel has dived headfirst into politics where we stand 
today. Instead, my colleagues gave a green light to use the FBI's vast 
surveillance and investigative party to go after President Trump's 
critics. That is exactly what happened.
  Is this the kind of nomination that should be debated on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate? I don't doubt for a moment that it should. It is a 
powerful position and will be misused.
  What about Aaron Reitz, nominated to be Assistant Attorney General 
for the Office of Legal Policy? In his confirmation hearing, I asked 
Mr. Reitz a very simple question: Can an elected official defy a 
Federal court order? Mr. Reitz refused to commit that an elected 
official must follow a court order.
  He also holds extreme views, including that the Supreme Court opinion 
upholding marriage equality was a ``low point'' in the history of the 
Supreme Court and that ``'birthright citizenship' is not a thing'' 
despite what the Constitution says explicitly.
  Senate Republicans dutifully confirmed Mr. Reitz with no questions 
asked, but he resigned after 3 months on the job to run for attorney 
general of Texas.
  Senate Republicans also confirmed Jeanine Pirro as U.S. attorney for 
the District of Columbia. Ms. Pirro is a talented person. She has been 
an elected official, and she has done many interesting things, but she 
is another nominee who auditioned for the role in the administration by 
declaring her blind loyalty to the President on TV for over a decade.
  Ms. Pirro's repeated lies to millions of viewers on FOX about the 
2020 election forced FOX News to pay nearly $800 million to settle 
defamation claims brought by Dominion Voting Systems.
  Like Mr. Patel, Ms. Pirro has claimed that January 6 rioters were 
``hostages''--people who assaulted the Capitol, broke down the doors, 
defecated in the hallways, beat up the Capitol Police and the DC 
police, and ransacked our desks here on the floor of the Senate. In the 
eyes of Ms. Pirro, these people were hostages, and she argued that the 
prosecutors handling these cases themselves should be criminally 
prosecuted.
  Like Mr. Reitz, Ms. Pirro reads the Constitution through a MAGA lens, 
wrongfully arguing that the administration can deport immigrants 
without due process.
  I have been in this Chamber for a number of years. It has been my 
honor and responsibility to vote on many nominees as part of the advice 
and consent section of the Constitution.
  Let me give you some facts about filling vacancies. As chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, we filled the vacancies--before I was 
chairman of the committee, we filled the vacancies for U.S. attorneys. 
In President Donald Trump's first term, all 93 spots were filled 
without a single record vote. All were done by unanimous consent--all 
of them.
  Then what happened under the Biden administration? Unfortunately, it 
is something that we are still living with today, and we are seeing it 
manifest in this procedural action.
  There was a decision made by one Senator, Senator Vance of Ohio, now 
our Vice President, to stop the nominations on the floor for Biden's 
U.S. attorneys by voice vote. He stood up and objected. He said--and 
quite plainly said--I want to do this to grind the Department of 
Justice to a halt--to grind the Department of Justice to a halt. He 
didn't deny that.
  I came to the floor on many occasions, pleading with him to stop his 
effort to stop these nominations. In fact, I came to the floor on eight 
different occasions, asking Senator Vance and then Republican Senators: 
Could you give us the same courtesy under President Biden we gave you 
under President Trump? And the answer was: No. We are stopping any 
appointments of U.S. attorneys by the Biden administration at 63.
  So another 30 U.S. attorneys were not determined on the floor. It was 
stopped. The process was stopped.
  I said at the time that this was going to come back to affect this 
Chamber under the next President, whoever it might be, pleading with 
Senator Vance. He wouldn't change his position on this.
  So we find ourselves where we are today--at a standoff when it comes 
to U.S. attorneys and other nominees because of this history.
  There is a way out of this mess. There is a bipartisan solution to 
this. I plead with Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, who is involved in 
this, and with the other Republican Senators to take advantage of that 
opportunity to solve this problem when it comes to nominations in a 
bipartisan way. It is the best thing you can do not just for the 
Republican Party but for the Democratic Party and for both parties that 
serve in the U.S. Senate.
  We have the right and a responsibility to ask hard questions of 
people who are accepting major responsibility in the Federal 
Government. There should never be an automatic approval. Questions 
should be asked, and they will be. If the questioning process is 
professionally done and honorably handled, we can use that to determine 
those rare cases where we need to have more time and an actual specific 
vote on a nominee. But to lump these nominees together into groups of 
30, 40, and 50 and say to the Members of the Senate ``Take it or leave 
it'' is a dereliction of duty and an abdication of our constitutional 
responsibility.
  There is a way to do this that is going to help this Chamber, and 
there is a way to do it which will be destructive. What has been 
proposed by the Republicans is destructive, but it can be improved, and 
I want to work with them in a good-faith effort to do just that.
  So I thank my friend from California, the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, for bringing this together and addressing an issue which 
goes to the heart of our responsibility in the Senate.

[[Page S6529]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
Senate process and specifically the challenge we have in exercising our 
constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on 
nominations.
  But I just heard moments ago about a shooting of a podcaster. Each 
and every assault on any individual is outrageous, and assaults that 
are motivated by suppressing viewpoints is so horrifically against the 
vision of our country, where we believe in the power of free speech, we 
believe in the power of protest, and we believe in the power of 
assembly. Let the best arguments win the day, not in violence to 
suppress any viewpoint.
  So I hope the individual who--I have not heard the details yet--is 
going to be OK. I hope he is going to recover.
  But let's all remind ourselves, as we carry on a debate and often 
carry on that debate passionately, that the place to decide issues is 
through speech, debate, and our democratic Republic, electing people to 
represent your viewpoints, having them cast votes in the House of 
Representatives down the hall and having them cast votes here in the 
Senate.
  So let's talk a little bit about what has unfolded, basically, since 
1975.
  I put up this chart about something called the cloture motion. 
``Cloture'' means a motion to close debate.
  Early in the Senate, there was no such thing as a cloture motion, but 
there was the guidebook that Jefferson put forward for how the Senate 
should be conducted. That guidebook said do not speak superfluously. 
Get right to the topic. Make your point. Listen to others and get to a 
simple majority vote. Everyone should be heard, and then you should 
make a decision. And, always, it should be the majority making the 
decision, not the minority, because to do otherwise is to turn 
democracy on its head.
  But along came the 1830s and tension increasing between the northern 
manufacturing economy and the southern slave economy, agricultural 
economy--particularly, the production of cotton and tobacco.
  Those tensions, really, were manifested around the tariffs. The North 
wanted protective tariffs in order to enhance the success of their 
manufacturing, and the southern part of the United States was concerned 
about retaliatory tariffs against cotton and tobacco that would hurt 
the economy of the South.
  This came to the point in which Calhoun called these the ``Tariff of 
the Abominations,'' was the phrase, like that is scary and damaging to 
the South that these tariffs were an abomination.
  There was a concept exercised that possibly States could decide that 
a particular Federal bill would not apply in their State. Now, this was 
not some crazy theory. This, in fact, went to the tension between the 
United States and whether it was an association of States or it was a 
single Nation. Jefferson and others had argued that, in fact, States 
should be able to nullify Federal laws that didn't work well in their 
State--nullification.
  So as this debate unfolded on the tariff of the abominations, South 
Carolina decided to actually pass a nullification law. Calhoun, who had 
been Vice President with Jackson, had gone back to the Senate and 
advocated for South Carolina to do this. But it didn't unfold as 
Calhoun expected because President Jackson, who was a slaveholder, who 
was from a slave-owning State, proceeded to say: No, nullification is 
not in concert with the U.S. Constitution, and, therefore, if South 
Carolina persists, the United States will declare war on South 
Carolina.
  And that happened right here. The United States declared war on South 
Carolina; South Carolina relented; and that was the end of 
nullification.
  But then the question became for Calhoun and others: How do we stop 
bills that we don't like? In the beginning, the conversation was about 
tariff bills, but as it unfolded over time, it became about civil 
rights bills because the South did not want Black Americans to be 
voting; thus, came the idea that really gained traction in the 1850s of 
talking a civil rights bill to death, continuing floor speeches until 
everyone was exhausted and you couldn't get to conclude debate and have 
a vote.
  That is the beginning of the idea of a filibuster. ``Filibuster'' is 
a word coming from the Dutch word for ``freebooter'' or ``pirate.'' So 
piracy overcame the Senate; that is, you had Jefferson laying out that 
everyone should speak succinctly and to the issue, get to a simple 
majority vote; and then you had southern Senators saying: Wait. Wait. 
We want the opposite. We want to celebrate lengthy speeches as a 
victory for free speech, the First Amendment, glorification of long 
speeches here as a way to stop bills from getting passed.
  That is where the filibuster comes from.
  Why do I tell you all of this? Because that is how we came to have a 
motion called cloture here in the U.S. Senate because in 1917, there 
was a debate over putting armaments over commercial ships. And a group 
of Senators said we are going to talk that bill to death because that 
is the equivalent of declaring war, and declaring war is our 
responsibility under the Constitution. We haven't done it. Therefore, 
since we haven't done it, we shouldn't arm the ships, and honoring our 
constitutional responsibility, we are going to talk this bill to death.
  That was a national outrage, and President Woodrow Wilson rallied the 
Nation to condemn that small group of Senators who were standing in the 
way of arming our civilian ships back in 1917.
  In fact, the day after the transition from one Congress to the next--
the next day, essentially--the Senate acted, and they acted and created 
a cloture motion to close debate.
  Here, I have for you a chart for cloture motions. You can see that in 
the entire history from 1917, when that motion was created, on through 
1974, it was only done 125 times; so less than twice a year.
  The motion was thought to be an occasional way to interrupt lengthy 
process by a few Senators to get to a vote, and, therefore, it was 
created with a lot of time associated with it. Initially, you filed a 
motion. You have to wait 2 days to vote on it. Even if it succeeds to 
close debate, you debate for another 100 hours on a bill. Well, that is 
a very, very lengthy process. It means a single cloture motion takes up 
several weeks. But when it only happened once or twice a year, that was 
acceptable to the Senate.

  But let's fast forward and realize that that started to change, and 
this change really began in 1965. In 1965, 1964, we passed the civil 
rights bill, and we passed the Voting Rights Act. And as a consequence, 
the cloture motion--or the filibuster, which had been used primarily to 
block civil rights bills, lost some of its racist tint because we 
finally passed a civil rights bill, and we finally passed a voting 
rights bill.
  People started saying: Well, maybe we will talk other issues to 
death, not just civil rights issues. And maybe rather than just using 
it on final passage of bills, we will also use it on amendments and we 
will also use it on motions to proceed to bills and we will also use it 
on nominations, which brings me to this next chart.
  This chart displays how the use of cloture motions on nominations has 
accelerated in recent years: rarely used in the past on nominations. 
Even when it was filed, it rarely had to be voted on. And now in the 
decade from 2010 to 2020, 545 times. And only halfway through the next 
decade, if you include the additional uses of cloture on nominations 
that have happened just this year, which are not on this chart, we are 
already exceeding the previous decade, and we are on pace to double it.
  This reflects the kind of growing tension between the parties and the 
growing use of this tool to slow down the process in which people fill 
the executive branch.
  This is not good for our country to make it so difficult to debate 
and vote on a nomination, make it so difficult that there are more than 
100 sub-Cabinet nominations awaiting action in this Chamber. It was not 
good when the Republican majority really initiated this strategy during 
the second term of President Obama, which led to a 2013 change, where 
we went to a simple majority to close debate on most nominations except 
for the Supreme Court. Fine, but that still required the cloture motion 
to be gone through, even with the simple majority. And it still meant 
significant delays.

[[Page S6530]]

  That process kind of just has continued to increase in the tension 
between the parties. Now we have about 150 sub-Cabinet nominations 
awaiting action on the floor and dozens more that are likely to come 
out of committee in the next few weeks. And my Republican colleagues 
are saying this is unacceptable.
  Indeed, if we turn the tables--if it were the Democrats in charge and 
the Republicans doing the same thing--it would be unacceptable. We are 
spending way too much time in this Chamber on nominations; way too much 
time that takes away from considering bipartisan bills; way too much 
time from addressing the fundamentals of healthcare and housing and 
education, investment in infrastructure, the creation of good-paying 
jobs, strategies to reduce pollution in our Nation. Therefore, we need 
to work together across the aisle to improve the process.
  I and others have been in conversation with our colleagues across the 
aisle--my Republican colleagues--to say we understand there is a 
problem afflicting this body, and we are ready to work with you to 
accelerate the processing of sub-Cabinet nominations.
  In fact, there is also a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over this 
body at the moment, where there has been a proposal put forward for a 
nuclear option that is not done in a bipartisan fashion that would 
severely damage the ability of this Chamber to well represent our 
States when it comes to nominations. And this idea--which I fiercely 
oppose--is to vote on big blocks of nominations.
  Here is the problem with that: The bad apple gets thrown in with a 
pile of good apples, and there is no accountability to our constituents 
or to our Nation, and, therefore, we fail the test that we are placed 
with by being Senators of advice and consent on nominations because we 
don't consider the pros and cons of a particular nomination.
  Second of all, if you do block nominations, that would just expand 
and expand. And the first thing you know, it is like 1 vote; it is 100 
nominations. There is no scrutiny. And, again, we fail our 
constitutional test.
  The third problem, if this Chamber is led by a majority as the 
opposite Chamber from the President, it will be tempting to use that 
same block process in order to extract kind of big action by the 
President. That use of the advice and consent as to blackmail the 
President, that is not healthy. That was certainly not the intent of 
our constitutional responsibility.
  So if we look at all of those pieces, there is a better way. There is 
a better way. We can accelerate massively the consideration of sub-
Cabinet nominations. We can consider a set of tools.
  One is you don't have to go in and out of executive session to 
consider them. The second is, you can have a set time for consideration 
of a nomination or a debate period for a combination of a group of 
nominees. And because it is a set time, you don't need a cloture 
motion. If you don't need a cloture motion, you don't need an 
intervening day. If you don't need a cloture motion, you don't have to 
carry out that extra 20-minute vote.
  And, in addition, we could greatly accelerate the votes that occur at 
the end of a debate time for a group of nominees so that those votes 
happen rapidly, one after the other after the other.
  These are all things we could consider in dialogue. But let's have 
that bipartisan dialogue. Let's not have a nuclear option that blows up 
the responsibility of all of us as Senators under the Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Democratic leader.


                             Epstein Files

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this morning, I introduced a very simple 
amendment that directs the Attorney General to release the Epstein 
files. It is the same amendment as the one working its way in the House 
and the same one that my good friend from Oregon, who just spoke on 
another issue, has been so active in championing.
  As soon as today--as soon as today--Republicans have a chance to take 
a step further in releasing the files, the same files that for years 
they have said they wanted released. If Republicans vote no, they will 
be saying to the American people: You should not see the Epstein files.
  I ask my Republican colleagues: After all those years you spent 
calling for accountability, for transparency, for getting to the bottom 
of these awful crimes, why won't you vote yes?
  Let me remind my colleagues of the things they have said for 
themselves on the Epstein issue.
  Leader McConnell said:

       There's no question that the accusations against Epstein 
     are horrendous, and I think it's good news that they are 
     being pursued further.

  That is what McConnell said. Whatever happened to that?
  The current majority leader, Senator Thune, said less than 2 months 
ago:

       Yes. We're all interested in making sure that justice is 
     served and that there is full disclosure and there's 
     transparency.

  And what about Senator Blackburn, who said:

       It is imperative we figure out who was involved with 
     Jeffrey Epstein. That is the only way we are going to break 
     apart this $150-billion-a-year human trafficking, sex 
     trafficking ring.

  Or Senator Kennedy, who said:

       The alleged victims are entitled to know what happened. The 
     American people are entitled to know what happened.

  Well, I could not agree more with all of them. To my Republican 
colleagues, I say, and to every Senator I say: This is your chance now. 
You can vote right now to give transparency to the American people and 
reveal the files or you can vote to hide the very files you have 
claimed to desperately want released for years.
  The choice lies with our Republican colleagues today. If Republicans 
vote no, they will be saying the American people should not see the 
Epstein files. I say to my Republican colleagues again, I say to every 
Senator: If you vote no, you will be saying the American people should 
not see the Epstein files, plain and simple.
  The American people deserve transparency. The American people are 
sick of Donald Trump's endless string of pathological lies and coverups 
when it comes to the Epstein files. Trump lied when he promised he 
would release the Epstein files. Trump lied when he said the FBI never 
told him if his name was mentioned in the files. Trump lied when he 
said he never wrote that gross, salacious letter to Epstein on his 
fiftieth birthday. And he lied last week when he called the whole thing 
nothing but a Democratic hoax.
  It is not a hoax; it is real, and Americans want to get to the bottom 
of it. Americans want transparency.
  From Trump, we are hearing one brazen lie after the other. From 
Trump, we are hearing a massive coverup.
  Americans are wondering: What the heck is Donald Trump hiding?
  Well, we can take back that veil. We can take a big step to releasing 
those files by voting yes on my amendment.
  It is clear: Donald Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth to the 
American people, so it should be up to the Senate to do so. The Senate 
must force the issue.
  And I say to my Republican friends: As long as you keep voting no, 
America is going to lose trust in government and lose trust in you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                                  Meta

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, we have known for years that Big Tech 
puts profit over our children's safety. Every parent will tell you this 
is an issue of concern for them.
  Now, in the case of Meta, it has become clear that the tech giant is 
more interested in making a buck off of our kids than protecting them 
from predators, pedophiles, traffickers, and abusers.
  On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, 
and the Law, which I chair, heard from two courageous, former Meta 
employees who spoke about a deeply disturbing culture of deception at 
the company. They were among six whistleblowers, including two 
whistleblowers who currently work for Meta. These whistleblowers are 
sounding the alarm, and thank goodness they are

[[Page S6531]]

courageous and they are stepping forward to help protect our children.
  Their testimony included hundreds of pages of internal Meta 
documents, and this shows just how far Mark Zuckerberg has been willing 
to go to bury evidence showing that his platforms actually harm 
children. As I said, hundreds of pages of documents show us and bear 
out how far Mark Zuckerberg will go to bury the evidence that his 
platforms harm children.
  Two of the whistleblowers are former safety researchers for Meta. As 
part of their job, they would meet with families who used Meta 
products, which include Facebook and Instagram. Through their research, 
they hoped to learn how safe these products truly are. But as soon as 
they conducted the interviews and went through the process of 
reporting, what they figured out was that Meta only hired them to check 
a box and appear as if the company was doing something about children's 
safety.
  While researching children's experiences on Meta's virtual reality 
headsets, they spoke with a family who revealed that one of their 
preteen sons had been sexually propositioned numerous times by sexual 
predators in the company's metaverse.
  Now, think about this: These predators, who were virtual strangers, 
were going up to this child in virtual reality, and they were trying to 
groom him. Can you imagine if this was allowed to occur in the physical 
space?
  When it launched in 2021, Zuckerberg said that--I am going to quote 
him:

       [I]n the Metaverse, you'll be able to do almost anything 
     you can imagine.

  Apparently, that included preying on children.
  For the child who is using the headset and in virtual reality, it is 
as if they are talking directly to the predator. We know that the 
physiological impact and the psychological impact on children is no 
different than if it occurred in person. There is plenty of research 
that bears this out.
  This shocking information would cause any responsible company to 
reevaluate their product and try to figure out how to stop this from 
happening. But after the interview with the family, the whistleblowers' 
supervisor--get this--the supervisor ordered them to delete the audio 
recording and the written records about what the child had experienced.
  The child admitted they were propositioned numerous times. Meta 
didn't want to know that, and they were so offended by this because it 
might hurt their profit that they told the researchers to delete the 
audio recording of the child admitting this and then to expunge the 
written records about what the child experienced.
  Unfortunately, from what we have learned, this is not a one-off. 
According to the whistleblowers' testimony, this suppression of 
damaging information is the norm at Meta.
  Starting in 2021, the whistleblowers allege that Meta directed its 
legal team--think about this--the C suite is ordering the legal team to 
review any internal research about youth safety in virtual reality. In 
some cases, they killed research that documented how Meta is exposing 
children to harm. So they know it; they don't want you to know it. How 
dare a parent have what they want to protect their child? So they want 
to just sweep it away.
  The reason they did this was simple: Meta's executives wanted to 
eliminate any evidence that would require them to take action to 
protect children. In the words of Meta's lawyers, they needed to 
``establish plausible deniability.''
  In one case, Meta's lawyers advised that ``due to regulatory 
concerns,'' the researchers should avoid collecting any information 
about how many children were using Meta's virtual reality devices.
  On paper, Meta said that children under the age of 13 were not 
allowed to use the devices, but in practice, employees estimated that 
some virtual rooms were up to 90 percent underage.
  One employee documented a time where they observed three children 
between the ages of 6 and 7 who were ``chatting with a much older man 
who was asking them where they lived.'' These are babies. They have on 
the Oculus headset. They are in virtual reality. They have their 
avatar. They think they are playing, but they are chatting with an 
avatar that is not a child. It is not a child their age; it is an 
avatar that is an older man, and he is trying to figure out where they 
live.
  Now, the employee told Meta that they knew these were young children 
based on the sound of their voice. Yet what did the company officials 
try to do? They tried to suppress this, to sweep it under the rug, to 
keep people from knowing this was happening. Meta executives told the 
researchers that they shouldn't refer to ``kids'' on the platform. 
Instead, they were told to refer to them as--get this--``alleged minors 
with young sounding voices who may be underage.'' Again, that is a 
direct quote.
  So let me ask you this: Does this sound like a company concerned 
about how its platforms expose children to predators and pedophiles or 
does it sound like a company that is doing everything possible to cover 
up this horrific abuse?
  With Meta and other tech platforms, we have seen this negligence over 
and over and over. Indeed, I have talked on this floor many times about 
this issue. Senator Blumenthal and I have talked tirelessly about this 
issue, as we have held hearing after hearing.
  With their algorithms that the tech firms use, that Meta is using, 
what they are doing is creating what one of the researchers refer to as 
a playground for pedophiles. That is really sad. In the physical space, 
you would be locked up for doing that.
  With their algorithms, they connect children with pedophiles, with 
drug dealers, with sex traffickers, with human traffickers, with 
pornography, and they flood their feeds with pro-suicide content. One 
of the platforms even has music to commit suicide by. With their AI 
chatbots, they sexualize children in role-playing fantasies. With their 
design features, they allow children to share their precise location on 
a map with any predator, who can then go track them down.
  This abuse of our Nation's children has absolutely got to come to an 
end. This has to stop. These tech companies have to be held to account. 
This is why Senator Blumenthal and I have reintroduced the Kids Online 
Safety Act, which would hold Big Tech accountable and provide parents 
with tools, with safeguards, and with transparency to protect their 
children.
  The legislation would create a duty of care for online platforms to 
prevent specific threats to minors, including sexual abuse, illicit 
drugs, and the promotion of suicide and eating disorders.
  There is a reason this legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan and 
received overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed out of the Senate 
last year on a 91-to-3 vote.
  It is time to pass this bill. When you think about it, in the 
physical world, we have laws on the books. You cannot endanger 
children. You cannot cause harm. You cannot sell them alcohol and 
tobacco or expose them to pornography.
  We as a society have decided that you protect children, and the laws 
that are on the books protect them and hold abusers, traffickers, and 
people that try to sell them products that will harm them--it holds 
them accountable. But in the virtual space, these tech companies have 
pushed forward with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists and deep 
pockets, and they have fought any regulation in the virtual space.
  Why is that? Because when our children are online, our children are 
the product. Tech companies see our children as a profit center. It is 
a way to make a buck, to keep children online and on their phones. 
Indeed, when some of the mental health studies of our children have 
looked at how long a teenager spends on their phone every day--8 hours. 
Eight hours a day doomscrolling, going deeper into holes where they may 
be getting eating disorder content, pro-suicide content, or possibly 
even being introduced to a drug dealer, a trafficker, a pedophile.
  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 (Mr. Marshall). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Charlie Kirk Shooting

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I was horrified to hear moments ago that

[[Page S6532]]

conservative activist Charlie Kirk had died after being shot today 
while speaking at an event on the campus of Utah Valley University.
  Political violence, which this attack seems to be, has no place in 
this country--none. I am deeply disturbed by the threat of violence 
that has entered our political life, and I pray that we will remember 
that every person, no matter how vehement our disagreement with them, 
is a human being and fellow American deserving of respect and 
protection.
  My prayers are with Charlie Kirk's wife and children and his whole 
family, with the doctors and nurses who cared for him, and with all 
those who were present at the shooting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Vote on Motion

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to table the Senate amendment No. 
3849.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, 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 senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 512 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  (Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The majority leader.


                Amendment No. 3863 to Amendment No. 3427

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3863 to amendment No. 3427.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the end add the following:
       ``This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of 
     enactment.''
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3864

  Mr. THUNE. I have an amendment to the text of the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3864 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3748.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the end add the following:
       ``This Act shall take effect 2 days after the date of 
     enactment.''
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 3865 to Amendment No. 3864

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3865 to amendment No. 3864.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       Strike ``2 days'' and insert ``3 days''


               Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 3866

  Mr. THUNE. I move to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed 
Services with instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] moves to recommit 
     the bill to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions 
     with an amendment numbered 3866.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the end add the following:
       ``This Act shall take effect 4 days after the date of 
     enactment.''
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for yeas and nays on the motion to commit 
instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3867

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3867 to the instructions of the motion to 
     recommit.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       Strike ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days''
  Mr. THUNE. I ask consent that the reading be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for yeas and nays on my amendment.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 3868 to Amendment No. 3867

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3868 to amendment No. 3867.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       Strike ``5 days'' and insert ``6 days''
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask consent that the reading be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________