[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 154 (Friday, September 19, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6786-S6788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1337

  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I am going to be very clear. The clock 
is ticking. On October 1, if Congress fails to reauthorize the 
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, we are set to lose an absolutely 
invaluable cornerstone of our national cyber security defense.
  For the past 10 years, this law has enabled private companies and 
Federal Agencies to share cyber threat information both quickly and 
securely before attacks spread. The protections in this law enable us 
to mitigate threats before cyber security systems become compromised 
and irreversible damage is inflicted across our country. If those 
protections are allowed to lapse, our Nation's information networks 
will be exposed, vulnerable, and defenseless more so than ever before.
  We face unrelenting cyber security threats from criminal hackers and 
foreign adversaries each and every day. Just this year, hackers backed 
by the Chinese Government exploited a vulnerability with Microsoft's 
SharePoint--a platform that runs on many of our computers right here in 
the Senate--allowing them to access critical infrastructure and 
compromise sensitive government systems. The Colonial Pipeline 
ransomware incident, which was linked to a ransomware group based in 
Russia, brought down a critical gas pipeline, disrupting the daily 
lives of millions of people on the east coast. The Cybersecurity 
Information Sharing Act ensures that the government can quickly work 
with companies experiencing these attacks to stop them from becoming 
even more widespread.
  Adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran are actively working to 
develop better tools and utilize artificial intelligence to supercharge 
their cyber attack capabilities. If we don't take immediate action to 
prevent these cyber security protections from expiring, we will lose 
one of our Nation's best defenses and empower our adversaries to launch 
attacks. A lapse in these protections will also embolden cyber 
criminals to use the same malicious tools to wreak havoc on our 
economy, exploit America's personal information, disrupt critical 
services, leaving our government unable to stop them.
  The bottom line is, if we don't extend these protections today, our 
Nation will be significantly less safe from cyber security attacks on 
October 1.
  This should be straightforward. Ten years ago, CISA 2015 was voted 
out of the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Most recently, 
our colleagues on the House Homeland Security Committee just moved an 
extension of these authorities for 10 years out of that committee by a 
vote of 26 to 0--unanimous. It has a proven track record, and that is 
why. Over the past 10 years, it has established a trusted public-
private partnership that safeguards our Nation against ever-evolving 
cyber security threats.
  This is a voluntary program that industry stakeholders and the Trump 
administration are asking us to renew. Organizations, including the 
Business

[[Page S6787]]

Roundtable, the Business Software Alliance, the Bank Policy Institute, 
the Chamber of Commerce, and the Information Technology Industry 
Council--and I can go on and on--all support extending these critical 
protections to ensure that businesses can effectively share information 
with the Federal Government and work collaboratively when a breach 
occurs. There is no question that, as cyber attackers get more 
sophisticated, we will need to do even more to shore up our defenses, 
but we absolutely--absolutely--must prevent any further harm that would 
result from a lapse of this proven law.
  That is why it was disappointing to see that, after making a public 
commitment to working on renewing this legislation earlier this year, 
the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee abruptly canceled a committee business meeting this 
week where we were expected to debate and vote on this very important 
bill and extension. Committee members on both sides of the aisle want 
to see action to prevent this law from expiring in the next few days, 
but we were blocked from even having a discussion about the policy or 
draft legislation.
  The chairman's actions are not only at odds with our committee and my 
colleagues who sit on the Homeland Security Committee but with our 
colleagues on the House Homeland Security Committee and Trump 
administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi 
Noem and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross--all who want to see 
this extension for 10 years.
  In April of this year, Senator Rounds and I introduced a bipartisan 
bill that would provide a clean extension for the law for 10 years, 
ensuring that the private sector can continue to rely on these 
protections for years to come.
  With just days before this law will expire and without action from 
the chairman of the committee, I urge my colleagues to quickly pass 
this bill. Keep one of our strongest cyber security defenses in place. 
If we don't move now, we will essentially open the door for cyber 
criminals and foreign adversaries to do irrevocable damage to our 
information networks, our major industries, and our economy as a whole.
  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1337 and that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.


  Continuing Appropriations and Extensions and Other Matters Act, 2026

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Democratic 
continuing resolution proposal that was on the floor earlier.
  Neither proposal gained sufficient votes, and that means we have work 
to do to find a compromise that will enable the government to stay 
open, and I want to make clear why I believe the Democratic proposal 
has some real strong merit for Virginians and for Members of this body, 
both Democratic and Republican, and why I think this is such a strong 
proposal.
  My advocacy for the Democratic position is basically focused on two 
issues: healthcare and the underlying basic notion that we all get--
that a deal should be a deal.
  During August, I think, as most of us did, I traveled around my home 
State of Virginia a lot and talked to many people. The Senate had 
passed the reconciliation bill--that partisan bill--in July, and during 
the August recess, I heard a boatload from Virginians about their 
concerns.
  Because of that reconciliation bill, six hospitals in Virginia are at 
risk of closure. These hospitals are all in the rural parts of the 
Commonwealth.
  There are 302,000-plus Virginians who will likely completely lose 
their health insurance, 136,000 will lose the health insurance that 
they are currently able to access through the Affordable Care Act, and 
another 166,000 will likely lose health insurance because of cuts to 
the Medicaid Program. Virginia has a population of about 8\1/2\ 
million; 302,000 people losing their health insurance is pretty 
significant.
  Those who continue to have health insurance will see significant 
premium increases. According to the State Corporation Commission, which 
is the body in Virginia that regulates industries like insurance 
companies, the 10 insurers that participate in the Virginia individual 
market in 2026 have requested rate increases from their 2025 rates, 
with most insurers proposing average increases of 20 percent or higher.
  What would that mean? The Kaiser Family Foundation says a family of 
four, with two adults aged 50 and two kids under 21, are likely to pay 
an additional $311 per month, or $3,729 per year, because of the 
reconciliation reduction of ACA tax credits.
  Virginia hospitals stand to lose up to $26 billion in Medicaid cuts 
over the course of the next 14 years because of the reconciliation 
bill. That is the reason why a number of rural hospitals that are sort 
of on the edge in terms of their financial situation are on the list of 
concerns about closure.
  Just within the last 2 weeks, we actually had the first closures in 
Virginia. A well-respected healthcare network in the Shenandoah Valley 
that has a hospital in Augusta County but then has primary care clinics 
sort of throughout the region that serves patients who can be served 
there instead of a hospital announced that three of the primary care 
clinics are closing, and the CEO of the Healthcare Network said they 
are closing because of the Medicaid cuts made in the reconciliation 
bill that this body passed in July.
  I also heard a lot of stories just from individuals. These are the 
statistics about what is going to happen in Virginia because of the 
reconciliation bill, but we talk to constituents all the time.
  Mary from Springfield, VA--Northern Virginia--and Kim from 
Mecklenburg County on the North Carolina border both have children with 
disabilities who rely on Medicaid for access to care to allow their 
children to remain in their homes instead of in institutional settings. 
These moms are very worried that Medicaid cuts won't be available for 
their children's long-term care.
  Brenda is a mother in Salem, VA, near Roanoke. She relies on Medicaid 
to help her remain in her home and not have to be institutionalized, 
and she worries that the Medicaid cuts will cost her access to the 
supports that she needs.
  William in Virginia Beach, VA, on our eastern coast, says that his 
son has Marketplace coverage but is worried that the cuts to the ACA 
premiums mean that the son will no longer have access to that insurance 
now that the reconciliation bill has put those premium subsidies on a 
path to expiration.
  Maria works as an employee of an affordable housing community for 
seniors in Fairfax, right here in the DC area. She said that since the 
passage of the reconciliation bill, she has seen a growing number of 
low-income seniors come into her office frightened that their Medicaid 
coverage will be reduced or terminated.
  Sharon lives in Lancaster County, which is in a part of Virginia 
called the Northern Neck, near the Chesapeake Bay. She has called to 
ask my office if Rappahannock General Hospital was in jeopardy of 
closing due to the reconciliation bill. Rappahannock hospital is a 
facility I know well because my in-laws lived right there in Lancaster 
before they passed away in the last couple of years. It is one of the 
six hospitals that is listed on the national list as a hospital in 
jeopardy as Medicaid cuts phase in.
  Then, finally, Caroline from Lynchburg, VA, in Central Virginia, has 
had coverage through the Virginia Marketplace and is concerned that she 
will no longer have access to the tax credits and subsidies that have 
helped her afford health insurance.
  These are just seven examples of citizens from all over the 
Commonwealth whom the reconciliation bill--I read the big statistics 
about it, but these are individual families who have significant 
challenges.
  What the Democratic CR proposal does is something that many 
Republicans in this body have said needs to

[[Page S6788]]

be done. In the aftermath of the reconciliation bill, we are hearing 
similar stories from our constituents and that we need to fix 
especially the ACA premium support so that people do not lose health 
insurance, and we also need to fix some of the Medicaid cuts that 
caused the concerns that I expressed from these seven individuals.
  My visit around Virginia in August sort of made me see this 
healthcare concern as sort of a spectrum. When you make cuts to 
Medicaid or to these premiums, five different things happen:
  People lose health insurance.
  Those who retain health insurance see their premiums go up often 
because the folks without insurance go to the emergency rooms. That is 
more expensive care. It has to be paid for, and that tends to assist in 
driving up the premium cost of those who retain insurance.
  Third, as I have indicated has already happened in Virginia, 
providers close. And when providers close, there is a fourth effect, 
which is people lose their jobs.
  Then the fifth effect is one that I think we should talk about as 
well. It is not just people losing health insurance and having their 
premiums go up and seeing their providers close and seeing healthcare 
professionals lose their jobs; there is a fifth effect.
  I was a mayor, and I was a Governor. I did a lot of economic 
development work in Virginia. I know that one of the things that 
businesses really care about, if they are looking for places to locate 
or expand, is what is the local availability of healthcare? It is 
really difficult to be in a community and try to pitch an economic 
development project but have the question asked: ``Tell us about your 
hospital. Tell us about your healthcare network'' and to explain that 
``we had a hospital, but it closed. We have had healthcare clinics that 
closed.'' That makes it very, very difficult.
  This fifth effect is an economic effect. The decline in healthcare 
clinics and hospitals, actually, is sort of like a theft of a 
community's future because it makes it very difficult to get people to 
come.
  That is why I think the Democratic proposal is a solid one. And I do 
recognize that in the aftermath of the passage of the reconciliation 
bill, many Republican colleagues--both in this Chamber and the House--
have said that it is important to come back and fix particularly the 
expiration of the ACA premium tax subsidies. I think that would be a 
very smart thing for us all to do.
  Finally, there is a second reason I really like the Democratic 
proposal, and it is this: A deal should be a deal. The Democratic 
proposal has some components in it that would ensure that when 
Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate reach a deal that 
goes to the President's desk and he signs it, that the President then 
can't immediately take the money away unilaterally.
  I think everybody around my Commonwealth--Democrat, Republican, 
Independent, or the vast majority who don't really care that much about 
politics--they get that a deal should be a deal. When you negotiate and 
you shake hands, a deal should be a deal.
  This actually is related to healthcare as well. In last year's 
budget, we had a deal about spending on healthcare priorities. Early in 
this administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert 
F. Kennedy, Jr., announced that he was clawing back billions of dollars 
of healthcare funding. To Virginia, it was $400 million--$400 million 
of healthcare funding that we had planned on using during the worst 
increase in measles, for example, in recent years. It got clawed back 
from Virginia, and 500 workers and contractors lost their jobs as we 
were trying to deal with measles and other health epidemics.
  I have communities in Virginia that had had economic development 
projects announced, and they were counting on them for their future. 
Often, the announcements were attended with great fanfare by our 
Governor--Governor Youngkin, who is a Republican, who believed these 
economic deals were a good thing. They were reliant on funding from the 
Inflation Reduction Act or from the CHIPS manufacturing bill, but those 
funds, in many instances, have been clawed back.
  A deal should be a deal. When we reach a deal, it should be honored 
so that communities do not plan for healthcare workers, do not plan for 
economic development projects and feel the rug pulled out from under 
them.
  So those two features of the Democratic proposal: fixing some of the 
healthcare cuts in the reconciliation bill that, even by many 
Republicans' accounts, have gone too far; that have already led to 
closures of clinics in Virginia and great anxiety among individuals.
  We can fix those, and we can establish a principle that should be one 
that we would all agree on that a deal should be a deal.
  I hope as we grapple with the two proposals on the table, neither of 
which we were able to get 60 votes and be passed, we can take some of 
the wisdom in these Democratic proposals that would serve Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents all over this country and make sure that 
we include them going forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________