[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 153 (Thursday, September 18, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6714-S6720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING THE EN BLOC CONSIDERATION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION OF CERTAIN
NOMINATIONS ON THE EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
(The remarks of Mr. LANKFORD pertaining to the introduction of S.
2859 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LANKFORD. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
National Security
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't normally come to the floor to give
somewhat lengthy remarks, but today I am doing so because of a deep
and, frankly, rising concern for the future of our intelligence
community and, in turn, the security of the United States.
For months now, we have watched President Trump's administration, led
in this arena by his handpicked Director of National Intelligence Ms.
Gabbard, systemically undermine the men and women whose mission is to
keep this country safe. These are professionals who serve under
Republican and Democratic administrations alike. They are career
officials who put duty before politics, who swear an oath not to any
President but to the Constitution of the United States.
Yet as this administration fires and denigrates these very men and
women, as expertise that takes literally decades to build is being
thrown away as it conflicts with political talking points, as
assessments grounded in fact are being shelved in favor of conspiracy
theories, our adversaries are conspiring, sharing intelligence and
military capabilities and strategizing over how to weaken the United
States while advancing a very different authoritarian vision for the
world.
At the same time, I fear the integrity of our intelligence is being
sacrificed on the altar of partisan convenience.
This is not some kind of inside-the-beltway turf battle, and it is
not another partisan disagreement. I believe at stake is something much
more fundamental: whether America will continue to have an intelligence
community free to speak truth to power or whether political pressure
will blind us to the very real threats our Nation faces.
(Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)
History shows us what happens when intelligence is ignored,
manipulated, or kept from those who need it most. In 1941, the U.S.
Navy intercepted communications showing that Japan was planning to
attack Pearl Harbor. That knowledge ended up being of little use
because it was not communicated to the people who could have taken
action to protect the fleet. The result was the devastating surprise
that cost thousands of American lives.
In the aftermath, Congress resolved that we could never again afford
to be blindsided. So in 1947, in a bipartisan way, Congress created the
Central Intelligence Agency, the modern Department of Defense, and
other institutions to ensure that unfiltered, unbiased intelligence is
provided to the President, to Congress, and to our military. These
institutions are meant to protect us from surprises and to give
policymakers the truth, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable.
Now, for the most part, this system has worked, and all of us who
work up here know it has never been perfect. The abuses revealed by the
Church Committee in the 1970s made clear why strong congressional
oversight is essential. That is why the Senate Intelligence Committee
was established in 1976 and our House counterpart the following year.
Today, while not flawless, these committees--of which I know the
Presiding Officer is a member--remain the best check we have to ensure
that intelligence Agencies uphold American values and laws and avoid
repeating past mistakes--and hopefully learning from them when they do
occur. Even with our modern system of congressional oversight, we have
seen tragic failures. Intelligence failed to predict the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We failed to connect the dots before 9/11. And
perhaps most foreboding, in the runup to the Iraq war, intelligence was
distorted to fit policy preferences. Intelligence about weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida were inflated and
cherry-picked. Analysts who even at that time raised doubts were
ignored.
The result was a devastating war in Iraq, fought under false
pretenses, that cost literally thousands of American servicemembers
their lives and limbs. But we learned from those failures.
After the September 11 attacks, Congress placed additional safeguards
and created a new position: the Director of National Intelligence. The
objective was to better coordinate our intelligence Agencies, to avoid
the so-called
[[Page S6715]]
groupthink, to remove silos amongst our now 18, 19 intelligence
Agencies, and to ensure that analysts could provide thorough, candid
assessments--again, even when the truth was uncomfortable or unwelcome.
That was the commitment I asked President Trump's nominee and the
current Director of National Intelligence, Ms. Gabbard, to make during
her confirmation hearing, and she assured our committee and the
American people that she would protect the independence of the
intelligence community to ensure that the IC is never politicized. She
even pointed to the runup to the war in Iraq as the clearest example of
what happens when intelligence is bent to fit policy and the President
is told only what he wants to hear. She pledged that she would never
allow those mistakes to be repeated on her watch.
Mr. President, but in only 6 months, we have seen the opposite from
this administration. We have seen career FBI agents, people who have
risked their lives for this country, forced out of their positions
simply for investigating crimes committed in the January 6
insurrection. These were professionals following the law, performing
their sworn duties, and yet their service was treated as disloyalty.
Careers were ended and decades of expertise were discarded just for
doing the job they were entrusted to do.
We have seen the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the National
Intelligence Council dismissed because their well-documented, evidence-
based assessment of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua criminal network did
not align with the administration's preferred narrative. These analysts
presented carefully sourced intelligence showing that the gang of bad
guys acted, actually, independent of the Venezuelan Government, not at
the behest of foreign officials. Yet their findings were rejected and
their leadership positions removed simply because the truth didn't fit
a politically convenient story.
And again, to be clear, there is no question that Maduro's regime in
Venezuela and the TDA are ruthless actors who pose real threats, but
punishing officials--punishing intelligence officials in particular--
for telling the truth only weakens our ability to confront them.
We have seen the three-star general leading the Defense Intelligence
Agency pushed out after analysts produced a straightforward, evidence-
based assessment showing that Iran's nuclear program had not been
obliterated, as President Trump so loudly claimed. Rather than face
those facts, the administration decided to punish the messenger, and he
was let go from DIA.
We have seen, more recently, analysts, literally with decades of
experience on Russia, stripped of their security clearances or
reassigned at the very moment that their years of expertise is needed
most.
More recently, DNI Gabbard has personally revoked the clearances of
at least 37 individuals in a transparently political act of vengeance
in a single stroke of a pen and, at least in one case, exposing an
official working undercover. That alone--putting someone who has
worked undercover and identifying that identity--in past
administrations would have been grounds for firing.
We have seen statutory requirements to keep Congress fully and
currently informed ignored, oversight stymied and obstructed, and
inspectors general who are supposed to keep their eyes on these
Agencies--inspectors general and their personnel silenced, forced out,
or removed.
And I remind my colleagues, in terms of oversight for the
intelligence community, that is not a right that all 100 Senators have.
There are literally 17 of us. As chair or vice chair over the last few
years, I am part of the so-called Gang of 8. If we don't do our jobs,
nobody is watching all of these intelligence Agencies.
Even more damaging, we have seen highly sensitive intelligence
declassified and released, clearly for political purposes, without
proper coordination with the Agencies responsible for protecting
sources and methods--that is how we do our work and who are the people
involved. The disclosures actually risked revealing the identities of
assets--and those are human beings--and the techniques we rely on--
those are the technology and skills we have--and the credibility of
ongoing operations, all for the sake of advancing a political
narrative. The very tools that protect lives and maintain America's
strategic advantage are being treated as leverage in a partisan game.
Let's remember, the so-called Russia hoax and that assessment, which
this administration continues to disparage, was a coordinated,
unanimous finding by the entire intelligence community. Our committee--
on a bipartisan, unanimous basis--reviewed it and validated it
extensively. Not a single one of my Republican colleagues objected to
its findings, including the current Secretary of State, then-committee
chairman Senator Rubio.
And what did that assessment actually conclude? I think every one of
us understood that Russia conducted a sweeping, systematic campaign to
interfere in our 2016 election; that Moscow's goal was to sow chaos, to
undermine faith in American democracy, and specifically to boost Mr.
Trump's candidacy. These findings were not partisan talking points;
they were sober judgments of career professionals, backed by evidence,
and affirmed by both parties in Congress.
And during the first Trump administration, they responded to that
report appropriately and put resources to make sure the 2020 election
was the safest election on record. Kudos to the first Trump
administration in doing that.
But with all of this happening, as troubling as all of this is, what
may be most astonishing is who seems to be calling the shots now: not
seasoned national security leaders, not career intelligence
professionals, but conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a figure who has
called the 9/11 terrorist attacks an inside job, who described herself
as a ``pro-White nationalist'' and a ``proud Islamophobe,'' and who has
made openly racist and anti-Muslim statements. This is not someone with
even a shred of credibility, let alone the experience or judgment we
should demand from those influencing U.S. national security decisions.
Yet, time and again, we have seen senior officials pushed out of
their posts because Ms. Loomer decided they were not sufficiently loyal
to the President. National Security Council staffers, people well-known
and respected on both sides of the aisle, including staffers who worked
for my Republican colleagues in the Senate, were shown the door at her
demand; the two top officials at the National Security Agency,
including a well-respected four-star general, Timothy Haugh, forced
out, along with the Agency's general counsel, again at Loomer's behest.
These are critical posts in one of our most important intelligence
organizations, vacated not because of misconduct or failure but because
of the whims of a political provocateur whose public record is filled
with hate and conspiracies. And don't take my word on these actions.
Ms. Loomer's own social media feed claims all of these firings and
dismissals almost as trophies.
And just a few weeks ago we saw something that I believe should
trouble every Member of this body, regardless of which party you belong
to. My staff and I had arranged a visit to the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency located in my State of Virginia so that I could go
ahead and do my constitutional duty of oversight and, in that meeting,
meet with intelligence professionals who also happened to be my
constituents. Yet, at the last minute, that visit was blocked--again--
and apparently, as she claimed, by Laura Loomer.
What does it say about the state of our national security when a
self-proclaimed White nationalist and Islamophobe with a personal
vendetta against U.S. Government officials--and, by the way, no
security clearance, no sworn duty to defend the Constitution--can
dictate who serves in critical intelligence positions and even prevent
Members of this Chamber from conducting basic oversight?
I have to ask again: Why is this administration going to war against
the very professionals sworn to keep our country safe? Why are decades
of service and sacrifice being tossed aside?
Why? Because they think they are still obliged to provide the truth
and speak truth to power. But, instead, it appears that sometimes those
truths
[[Page S6716]]
are inconvenient because sometimes their assessments are not what the
DNI and the President want to hear.
These safeguards we put in place and the oversight this body
provides--again, only 17 of us have seen these classified programs--
these safeguards only work if intelligence officers know that they can
tell the truth without losing their jobs. If analysts who analyze the
facts and try to come up with conclusions believe their careers will be
destroyed for offering inconvenient assessments, then we will only get
intelligence the White House wants.
Imagine the consequences if our intelligence community is forced to
spend its time chasing down conspiracy theories instead of monitoring
terrorist networks, cyber threats, or foreign adversaries. Imagine if
analysts stop flagging real dangers because they fear political
retaliation. Imagine if experienced officers walk away from service
altogether because they know their expertise will be diminished or
punished. That kind of environment doesn't just weaken our intelligence
community, it puts every American family at risk.
Again, this is not some kind of partisan point. Democrats and
Republicans alike have relied on the intelligence community to keep the
country safe. Every President, whether they liked what they were
hearing or not, has depended on accurate, independent analysis to make
decisions that affect millions of lives.
That is what makes this current moment so alarming. We are
dismantling trust in institutions that literally took generations to
build. We are eroding morale among some of the most dedicated
professionals in public service. And I fear that we are sending a clear
message to young officers, whether they are at the CIA or any of the
other intelligence Agencies: Don't bother building a career in
intelligence if you plan on telling the truth.
Meanwhile, these aren't actions in a vacuum. Our adversaries aren't
slowing down. Cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, nuclear
proliferation, terrorist attacks, transnational criminal
organizations--these threats are real, and they are not going to wait
for us to get our house in order.
If we continue to allow politics to dictate what intelligence is
acceptable, we are effectively flying blind. That is why, again, I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please, for God's sake, take
this seriously. We can disagree about policy, but we cannot allow the
facts themselves to be corrupted.
The intelligence community must remain independent, professional, and
committed to the Constitution above all else.
I have had the opportunity in my tenure on this committee to work
with a lot of these men and women. I didn't know many of them before I
was on the Intelligence Committee. They are dedicated professionals. I
never asked a single one what their party affiliation was. They
oftentimes put their lives in harm's way and, candidly, never get the
attention that our military does. They work in secret.
The truth is, these professionals and the work they do deserve to be
respected, honored, and listened to because if you corrupt the
intelligence and bend it to political wills, we have seen constant
examples of what happens.
The truth is, the American people deserve nothing less.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Government Funding
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as many Americans know, the current
budget is going to expire at the end of September, and if an agreement
is not reached, the government will shut down, which is, frankly, not
anything that anyone wants. The question that we now have to address is
how we keep the government open and serve the needs of the American
people.
As Americans know, Republicans have a majority in the House and in
the Senate, and they also control the White House. They run the
government. Republicans have the responsibility, therefore, to keep the
government open.
My understanding is that there will be a vote tomorrow on a
continuing resolution to fund the government until November 20. In the
House, a simple majority wins, and I would imagine that, by a very slim
vote, Republicans will have the votes they need in order to pass their
resolution.
In the Senate, however, the rules are different--historically
different. In order to pass a continuing resolution, it will take a 60-
vote majority to pass. That means that at a time when there are 53
Members of the Republican caucus and 47 Members of the Democratic
caucus, it will require bipartisan support. That is what Senate rules
are about.
In other words, Republicans will need Democratic and/or Independent
votes--I am an Independent--in order to keep the government open.
Bottom line: Republicans will need to negotiate. That is how the
Senate works, and that is how democracy works.
Speaking for myself and I believe many millions of Americans, here is
some of what it will take to get my vote:
No. 1. Republican leadership, don't take away healthcare from 15
million Americans by making the largest cut to Medicaid and the
Affordable Care Act in history.
No. 2. Republican leadership, don't increase health insurance
premiums by 75 percent on average for over 20 million Americans who get
their healthcare through the Affordable Care Act.
No. 3. Republican leadership, do not undermine modern medicine and
the health and well-being of our children by rejecting the scientific
evidence regarding vaccines.
No. 4. Republican leadership, do not allow our great country to be
moved toward authoritarianism by putting Federal troops on city streets
without a request from a Governor or a mayor. Do not have ICE agents
snatch people off our streets without due process. Do not undermine the
Constitution of the United States and the rule of law by allowing an
administration to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Let me be more specific. As I think almost every American
understands, our current healthcare system is dysfunctional, it is
broken, and it is cruel. At a time when we spend almost twice as much
per capita on healthcare as any other major country--over $14,000 per
person--85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured--85 million
Americans.
The Republican continuing resolution in the House does nothing--
nothing--to prevent 15 million Americans from being thrown off the
healthcare they currently have, as a result of Trump's so-called Big
Beautiful Bill. In other words, instead of lowering the number of
uninsured and underinsured, if we do not act, 15 million more Americans
will be uninsured. We cannot allow that to happen.
This is a life-and-death issue. Studies have shown that up to
50,000--50,000--Americans every year will die unnecessarily if we do
not reverse these cuts.
So we are talking about here, if we do not act, going from 85 million
uninsured and underinsured to 100 million uninsured and underinsured.
Those cuts must be rescinded.
But it is not just preventing 15 million Americans from losing their
health insurance; everybody in this country--every businessperson,
every union worker--knows that the cost of healthcare in this country
today is astronomically high and unaffordable. I don't care what State
you are in--people cannot afford healthcare today. Yet, if we do not
act right now, in this continuing resolution, the Affordable Care Act
tax credits will expire and premiums will skyrocket by 75 percent on
average for more than 20 million Americans.
Let me repeat: Healthcare premiums for 20 million working-class and
middle-class Americans will go up by 75 percent on average if we do not
extend those tax credits in this coming legislation.
Let me say that I wish very good luck to my colleagues, whether they
are Democrats or Republicans, who want to go home to their constituents
and explain why healthcare premiums are going up by 75 percent in order
to pay for $1 trillion in tax breaks for the 1 percent. I do wish you
the best of luck in trying to explain that one. I do not intend to.
Further, let me be clear: Vaccines work--not exactly a controversial
statement. It is a statement supported
[[Page S6717]]
by every major medical organization in the United States and around the
world. Vaccines are safe, they are effective, and they have saved
millions of lives in our country and tens of millions of lives
worldwide. In fact, vaccines are one of the greatest public health
achievements in modern history.
At a time when the Secretary of Health and Human Services has
dismantled the vaccine review process, narrowed access to lifesaving
COVID vaccines, fired leading public health experts, and filled
scientific advisory boards with conspiracy theorists and ideologues, we
must stand with the scientific and medical communities and rescind
Secretary Kennedy's dangerous policies.
This is not about politics. It doesn't matter whether you are
Republican, Democrat, or Independent. We are talking about protecting
our children from polio, measles, whooping cough, and other preventable
diseases.
The American people, slowly but surely, are catching on. No matter
what their political view may be--Democrat, Republican, Independent--
they understand that our current economic system is rigged. They
understand that the very richest people in this country are becoming
much richer, while 60 percent of Americans are living paycheck to
paycheck and millions of people are trying to survive on starvation
wages.
The American people understand that while billionaires are getting
huge tax breaks, they are finding it harder and harder to afford
healthcare, to pay the rent or their mortgages, to afford childcare, to
be able to send their kids to college, to pay for the prescription
drugs their doctors prescribe, or to buy decent quality food for their
kids.
The American people understand--painfully and depressingly--that
unless we change the way the economy functions, their kids will likely
have a lower standard of living than they do. In the richest country in
the history of the world, it is likely that the younger generation will
have a lower standard of living than their parents, while almost all
new incoming wealth goes to the people on the top.
Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than we have ever
had in the history of the United States. Today, we have one man, Mr.
Musk, who owns more wealth--if you can believe it--than the bottom 52
percent of American households--one man, more wealth than the bottom 52
percent of American households. And, by the way, he is on his way, it
appears, to become a trillionaire--even richer and richer.
Today, the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 93
percent--top 1 percent, more wealth than the bottom 93 percent. And the
CEOs of major corporations now earn over 350 times what their average
employees make.
While the billionaire class becomes richer and richer, real inflation
accounted for weekly wages that are lower today than they were 52 years
ago--huge expansion of worker productivity, and yet the average worker,
in many cases, is worse off than he or she was 52 years ago.
Enough is enough. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality,
it is insane to be giving a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1
percent. If President Trump and the Republican leadership want my vote,
they will have to rescind that tax break for their oligarchic friends.
Our country today faces not only major economic crises, we are
looking at extraordinarily threatening--a threatening moment to our
democratic form of government. Frankly, we now have a President of the
United States who does not believe in our Constitution and the
separation of powers; who does not believe in freedom of speech and the
right to dissent; who is moving us, every day, toward an authoritarian
form of government with more and more power into his own hands.
Too many Americans from my State of Vermont and every other State in
this country have put their lives on the line and sometimes died in
order to defend democracy and our way of life: the right of people to
live without fear, the right of people to express their point of view--
no matter what it may be. You disagree with me, that is great. That is
called American democracy--the right of people to vote without
intimidation.
Today, in an unprecedented way, we have Federal troops in cities in
America who have not been requested by a governor or a mayor. Today in
America, we have people who are being snatched off the streets--taken
right off the streets or out of their workplaces--by masked Federal
agents, thrown into vans, and dispatched to detention centers without
due process. Does anybody think that that is what America is supposed
to be about--somebody walking down the street, getting picked up by
masked men, thrown into a van, and taken God knows where? Today, we
have a President sending some of these people to South Sudan, Uganda,
El Salvador--we don't know where. People have no relationship to the
country they are being sent. Imagine being plucked off the street, sent
to South Sudan, country in the middle of a civil war, virtually no
government. That is not acceptable. That is not what our great country
is supposed to be about.
These undemocratic, unconstitutional policies must be rescinded. The
movement toward authoritarianism in this country must be ended.
In this very difficult moment in American history, let us stand with
the American people and listen to their needs. Let us not throw 15
million working-class people off of the healthcare that they have so
that 50,000 people a year die unnecessarily. We cannot allow that to
happen.
Let us not raise healthcare premiums by 75 percent for 20 million
Americans. People can't afford healthcare today. What happens when your
premiums go up by 75 percent? Let us not endanger the children of this
country by undermining modern medicine and making it more difficult for
people to get the vaccines they require.
And at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, let us not
give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent.
And, lastly, as we observe growing authoritarianism every single day,
as we see more and more disrespect for the great Constitution of our
country--which has made us an example to the entire world--let us--
Republican, Democrat, Independent--let us stand together and save
American democracy.
If the Republican leadership does those things, you have got my vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 404
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in the Republican ``Beautiful For
Billionaires'' bill that Senator Sanders was just referring to, there
were a great many dirty tricks tucked in there to hurt people and make
billionaires wealthier and happier and more free to pollute.
Of all the dirty tricks in that bill, perhaps the trickiest was the
one that was so hidden that it wasn't even mentioned in the bill, and
that is, about a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare.
We have heard a lot about the trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid.
But without ever mentioning it, the Republican ``Beautiful For
Billionaires'' bill will cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars, give
or take.
How does it do that? It does that by adding $4.1 trillion to the
deficit--one bill, one act of Congress, $4.1 trillion piled on our
national debt.
There is another law that exists on the statute books of the United
States of America, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act. What does that do?
It requires a look at bills that create enormous additions to our
national debt. And to protect our fisc, it requires mandatory cuts to
other accounts.
That is supposed to discourage running up the debt by trillions in
the first place, and it is supposed to remedy that defect with
automatic cuts.
Guess what is lined up for automatic cuts under the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act? Yep, Medicare. The same Medicare that we saw that huge
demonstration from Republicans about during President Biden's State of
the Union speech when he said Republicans want to cut Medicare, and
they rose in ire and anger to say: No, that is not possibly true. And
he said: Oh, I think we have unanimity here. I think we have agreement:
no cuts to Medicare.
Well, that didn't last long. The cuts to Medicare just had to be well
hidden, and that is what this bill does.
We have asked the Congressional Budget Office what it means. How big
will the cuts be? When will they take place?
[[Page S6718]]
Well, here is the outcome: Given the magnitude of this massive
increase, it will create a $45 billion cut to Medicare in 2026--next
year. Next year, $45 billion cut to Medicare.
Unfortunately, it is not a one-time thing. It is going to keep going.
In the following year, it goes up and up. By 2034, the end of the 10-
year budget window that we work in, the annual cut to Medicare will be
$76 billion.
If you stack up all those cuts year after year to Medicare, starting
in 2026 and going through 2034, the total cut to Medicare from the
``Beautiful For Billionaires'' bill is $491 billion. That is where I
get half a trillion from. I am rounding the $491 billion number CBO
gave us for the total hit to Medicare done by Republicans in their
``Beautiful For Billionaires'' bill.
To head this off, we are going to have to pass legislation that
exempts Medicare from those coming PAYGO cuts that are going to happen
automatically by operation of law unless we take that step.
Now, Republicans could have, at the time, put a simple provision in
their ``Beautiful For Billionaires'' bill saying: For purposes of this
bill, Medicare is exempted from the PAYGO Program.
It could have protected, with very simple language, against a looming
half-trillion-dollar cut to Medicare. They chose not to. They chose not
to.
The question is, Was that an oversight or is this a trick to try to
tee up cuts to Medicare that they don't have to own? Well, here is a
clue as to whether that was a trick or an oversight: On the other side
of this building, over at the House of Representatives, the Republican-
controlled House is sending over a continuing resolution to fund the
government. They could have put this correction in that bill. They
could have added a simple line saying that when it comes to Medicare
and the huge addition to the debt from our ``Beautiful for
Billionaire's'' bill, pay-go sequestration will be lifted. Again, they
chose not to do that.
The American public might not be familiar with sequestration and
automatic cuts and how all that works, but I will tell you what--people
around here are. Lots of people around here know very well that when
you dump $4 trillion-plus onto the national debt, it is going to
cascade into cuts to these other accounts, and those other accounts
include Medicare.
So to plead innocence about this not being the intention all along is
completely unsupportable. To say that it was just an innocent oversight
in the ``Beautiful for Billionaire's'' bill is unsupportable. And now,
with the continuing resolution coming over from the House, we have more
proof that this is a deliberate cut targeted at Medicare done
exclusively by House and Senate Republicans.
I want to focus on protecting Medicare. I have a Medicare and Social
Security Fair Share Act that would require people with incomes over
$400,000 to pony up equivalent to what regular workers pay on the
higher part of their salary. That would protect benefits and Medicare
as far as the eye can see--as far as the actuarial eye can see--for
Medicare and Social Security.
I want to put everybody here on record that we need to undo the
looming half-trillion-dollar cut to Social Security before it starts to
hit families in Rhode Island and elsewhere around the country.
To that end, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of my resolution, S. Res. 404, submitted earlier today;
that the resolution be agreed to; that its preamble be agreed to; and
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. On behalf of the chairman of the Budget Committee, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there we are.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. MOODY). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 407
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, the First Amendment is the beating heart
of our democracy. It protects the right of Americans to speak freely,
to criticize their leaders, and to entertain and inform without fear of
government reprisal. The Framers did not write an exception for late-
night comedians or for political satire. They did not carve out an
exemption for monologues that offend those in power. The principle is
clear: In America, the government does not get to decide which jokes
are permissible and which criticisms are punished.
Yet, yesterday, we saw a shocking breach of this constitutional
order. Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, went on a partisan podcast and threatened ABC, the American
Broadcasting Company, and its parent company, Disney, over a joke told
by comedian Jimmy Kimmel. Carr called Kimmel's comments the ``sickest
conduct possible'' and suggested revoking the broadcast licenses of ABC
affiliates.
He then delivered a line toward ABC and Disney. It sounded like
something out of ``The Godfather.'' He said:
We can do this the easy way or [we can do it] the hard way.
Let me say that line again:
We can do this the easy way or [we can do it] the hard way.
That is not oversight; that is intimidation. That is not regulation;
that is retaliation. That is ``The Godfather'' giving Disney an offer
they can't refuse from the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission. That is the language that mobsters use to shake people
down, and it came from the mouth of the FCC Chairman of the Federal
Government, with vast legal authority to punish Disney and ABC and
their affiliates.
The chilling effect was immediate. Within hours, Disney and ABC
indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel from the air. A comedian was
silenced because a government regulator, the Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission, flexed his authority.
This is not an isolated slip of the tongue; it is part of a broader
pattern by the Federal Communications Commission under Brendan Carr's
leadership. Over and over again, he has used his office to attack and
undermine journalists and broadcasters and news organizations that dare
to speak in ways which he personally dislikes. He has threatened media
companies with investigations for their editorial choices. He has
amplified partisan attacks on reporters who cover him critically. He
has turned the FCC into the ``Federal Censorship Commission,'' with his
being the censor in chief.
These are not the actions of an independent regulator; they are the
actions of a partisan censor. And make no mistake, if left unchecked,
this campaign will not stop with ABC or with Disney. Every newsroom,
every broadcaster, every local affiliate will hear the message loud and
clear: Criticize the people in power, and you risk your license, your
livelihood, your very ability to operate.
That conversation is taking place in newsrooms all across our country
today. Look what happened to Disney. Look what happened to ABC. Be
afraid. Don't think that the First Amendment protects you anymore.
Don't think that you have a right to speak what your opinion is.
The FCC was created to ensure that the public airwaves--our shared
national resource--are used in the public interest. It was not created
to dictate what late-night hosts may joke about. It was not created to
punish networks for broadcasting opinions that government officials
dislike. It was not created to be the speech police for the United
States of America.
The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, sitting in his
office, watching TV, saying ``I don't like that. I am taking away their
license,'' is not what the Federal Communications Commission was
established to do in our country. Yet Chairman Brendan Carr has
pretended otherwise. He has distorted the FCC's mandate to serve his
own partisan ends. Instead of acting in the public interest,
[[Page S6719]]
he is trying to force broadcasters to act in Donald Trump's interest.
If you say something that Donald Trump doesn't like, we will take away
your license. We won't allow you to be a broadcaster anymore. We will
fine you.
He should know better. It was not too long ago, before he was
Chairman, when Brendan Carr was singing a completely different tune. He
actually condemned perceived attempts by ``government officials to
silence political speech that they don't like.'' That is the old
Brendan Carr. He defended talk show hosts, saying:
From internet memes to late-night comedians, from cartoons
to the plays and poems as old as organized government itself,
Political Satire circumvents traditional gatekeepers and
helps hold those in power accountable. Not surprising that
it's long been targeted for censorship.
Did I say that? No. Brendan Carr said that--Brendan Carr. But this is
a different guy now. He just got a job in the Trump administration, so
he is bending the knee to Donald Trump on all of these issues, because,
then, he rightfully defended the First Amendment. He said:
Free speech is not a threat to democracy--censorship is [a
threat to democracy].
Chairman Carr has betrayed those principles, and he should resign. He
is not fit to be the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission. He
is using it now to intimidate people whom he considers to be political
enemies of Donald Trump. That is not his job.
But that is not enough. The Senate must speak with one voice in
rejecting his unconstitutional actions.
The resolution I bring before this Chamber today condemns Brendan
Carr for weaponizing government power against Disney and ABC. It
affirms that the Federal Communications Commission does not and must
not have the authority to punish broadcasters for the content of their
programming. It declares that no American--whether a comedian, a
journalist, an ordinary citizen--should ever have to fear government
retaliation for speaking their mind. And it doesn't make any difference
whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether a Democrat doesn't
like what a Republican said, whether a Republican doesn't like what a
Democrat said.
We have to stand for the Constitution, not for censorship, to stand
for freedom and not intimidation, to stand for a free press, not a
government-controlled press.
Chairman Carr has shown himself unwilling and unable to uphold the
responsibilities of his office, but the Senate can still uphold our
responsibilities to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution--the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the one they put up first
because they knew that free speech and freedom of the press was what
ultimately would protect the democracy against dictators and Kings and
those who would subvert our Constitution to their own individual whims.
By passing this resolution, we can make clear that the First
Amendment is not negotiable; it is not partisan; it is not subject to
the whims of a single regulator.
From my perspective, again, the First Amendment is the beating heart
of our democracy. It protects the right of Americans to speak freely,
to criticize their leaders of both parties, and to entertain and inform
without fear of government reprisal.
So, Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding
rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of S. Res. 407, submitted earlier today; and, further,
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 objection?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MULLIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on S. Res. 377
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I know of no further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the en
bloc nominations provided under the provisions of S. Res. 377?
Mr. HEINRICH. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 526 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Banks
Lee
The en bloc nominations provided under the provisions of S. Res. 377
were confirmed, as follows:
Executive Calendar No. 89, Jessica Kramer, of Wisconsin, to
be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency
Executive Calendar No. 105, Dario Gil, of New York, to be
Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy
Executive Calendar No. 107, Brandon Williams, of New York,
to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
Executive Calendar No. 121, Tristan Abbey, of Florida, to
be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration
Executive Calendar No. 122, Leslie Beyer, of Texas, to be
an Assistant Secretary of the Interior
Executive Calendar No. 123, Theodore J. Garrish, of
Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear
Energy)
Executive Calendar No. 124, Andrea Travnicek, of North
Dakota, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior
Executive Calendar No. 132, Justin Overbaugh, of Florida,
to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Executive Calendar No. 133, Scott Pappano, of Pennsylvania,
to be Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear
Security Administration
Executive Calendar No. 135, Michael Cadenazzi, of Rhode
Island, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
Executive Calendar No. 136, Sean O'Keefe, of Virginia, to
be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Executive Calendar No. 137, Michael Obadal, of Virginia, to
be Under Secretary of the Army
Executive Calendar No. 139, Katherine Sutton, of Illinois,
to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense
Executive Calendar No. 141, William L. Doffermyre, of
Texas, to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior
Executive Calendar No. 142, Kyle Haustveit, of Oklahoma, to
be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy)
Executive Calendar No. 152, Matthew Napoli, of Virginia, to
be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
National Nuclear Security Administration
Executive Calendar No. 153, Richard Anderson, of Virginia,
to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
Executive Calendar No. 154, Conner Prochaska, of Texas, to
be Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy,
Department of Energy
Executive Calendar No. 156, Tina Pierce, of Idaho, to be
Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy
[[Page S6720]]
Executive Calendar No. 157, Jonathan Brightbill, of
Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy
Executive Calendar No. 161, Robert Gleason, of
Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors
for a term of 5 years
Executive Calendar No. 177, Sean McMaster, of Virginia, to
be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration
Executive Calendar No. 180, Donald Bergin III, of Virginia,
to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs
(Congressional and Legislative Affairs)
Executive Calendar No. 185, John Squires, of Florida, to be
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Executive Calendar No. 251, Daniel Aronowitz, of Virginia,
to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor
Executive Calendar No. 276, Michael Dodd, of Indiana, to be
an Assistant Secretary of Defense (New Position)
Executive Calendar No. 277, William Gillis, of Virginia, to
be an Assistant Secretary of the Army
Executive Calendar No. 278, Jules Hurst III, of Virginia,
to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army
Executive Calendar No. 279, Brent Ingraham, of Virginia, to
be an Assistant Secretary of the Army
Executive Calendar No. 283, George Wesley Street, of
Virginia, to be Director of the National Counterintelligence
and Security Center
Executive Calendar No. 285, Peter Thomson, of Louisiana, to
be Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency
Executive Calendar No. 289, Jeffrey Bartos, of
Pennsylvania, to be Representative of the United States of
America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform,
with the Rank of Ambassador, and to serve concurrently and
without additional compensation as an Alternate
Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations
Executive Calendar No. 290, Jennifer Locetta, of Florida,
to be Alternate Representative of the United States of
America for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations,
with the rank of Ambassador, and to serve concurrently and
without additional compensation as an Alternate
Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations
Executive Calendar No. 297, Dudley Hoskins, of the District
of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Executive Calendar No. 298, Scott Hutchins, of Indiana, to
be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education,
and Economics
Executive Calendar No. 303, Benjamin DeMarzo, of Virginia,
to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Executive Calendar No. 305, Jovan Jovanovic, of
Pennsylvania, to be President of the Export-Import Bank of
the United States for a term expiring January 20, 2029
Executive Calendar No. 324, Richard Fordyce, of Missouri,
to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and
Conservation
Executive Calendar No. 344, Paul Roberti, of Rhode Island,
to be Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, Department of Transportation
Executive Calendar No. 346, Jonathan Morrison, of
California, to be Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration
Executive Calendar No. 352, Jason Evans, of Texas, to be an
Under Secretary of State (Management)
Executive Calendar No. 356, Edward Aloysius O'Connell, of
the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of 15
years
Executive Calendar No. 362, Katherine Scarlett, of Ohio, to
be a Member of the Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Calendar No. 365, Bryan Switzer, of Virginia, to
be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Asia,
Textiles, Investment, Services, and Intellectual Property),
with the rank of Ambassador
Executive Calendar No. 149, Callista Gingrich, of Florida,
to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Swiss Confederation, and to
serve concurrently and without additional compensation as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Principality of Liechtenstein
Executive Calendar No. 286, Kimberly Guilfoyle, of Florida,
to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to Greece
Executive Calendar No. 302, Christine Toretti, of
Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Kingdom of Sweden
Executive Calendar No. 350, Peter Lamelas, of Florida, to
be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Argentine Republic
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Texas.
____________________