[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 170 (Wednesday, October 15, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7129-S7137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AND EXTENSIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to Proceed--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Vote on Motion
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5371.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Reconsider
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the cloture vote
on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5371.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Cloture Motion
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 the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 168, H.R. 5371, a bill making
continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year
2026, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Eric Schmitt, Jim Justice, James E. Risch,
Tom Cotton, Steve Daines, Ted Budd, John R. Curtis,
John Boozman, Mike Rounds, Kevin Cramer, Bernie Moreno,
Ron Johnson, John Barrasso, Markwayne Mullin, James
Lankford, Tim Sheehy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5371, a bill making
continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2026, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon reconsideration?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
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 Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Hagerty) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)
is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 572 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Banks
Barrasso
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--44
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
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
NOT VOTING--5
Blackburn
Duckworth
Hagerty
Marshall
Tillis
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
44.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Cryptocurrency
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues
from my office, Mr. Will Pietri, who has helped me immensely on this
issue.
I want to talk, just for a few minutes, about digital assets. Some
people refer to them as crypto or cryptocurrency.
The Senate Banking Committee is in the process, as we should be, of
considering market structure legislation for digital assets, for
Bitcoin, for crypto. And it is important because there is an enormous
amount of confusion out there.
[[Page S7130]]
I remember when blockchain technology started--many of us do. Today,
one in five Americans is on cryptocurrency. Its growth has been nothing
short of breathtaking.
But as oftentimes happens when you have an innovation, it creates
enormous confusion on the way that the subject of that innovation
integrates with the Federal Government, and that is the case here.
Those who are in the cryptocurrency business and in the blockchain
technology business don't know whom to talk to in the Federal
Government.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has announced, under President
Biden, that it has jurisdiction over digital assets, and so did the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC. There has been a lot of
litigation, and there have been a lot of court cases, and it has been
enormously confusing.
And those in the crypto business, understandably, have the reaction:
Look, we don't mind being regulated. We have nothing to hide. But we
would like to know whom to talk to. Is it the CFTC? Is it the SEC? What
do we do?
And that is why we need legislation. That is why we need market
structure legislation, not because the government needs to stick its
nose in everything, but because there has to be some certainty here.
Clearly, there is a turf war between the CFTC and the SEC, and it is
Congress's role to delineate who has jurisdiction over what.
Now, we did pass one piece of what you might call crypto legislation.
We passed the GENIUS Act, as the Presiding Officer knows. That was an
important piece of legislation, but it was really just a baby step. It
regulates stablecoins, which is only one part of the digital assets
business.
I am certainly not denigrating the act. I voted for the bill. I sat
on the Banking Committee. The Congress passed the bill. It was a good
bill. It was necessary. I congratulate everybody who worked so hard on
it. But it is only a small portion of the digital assets market.
Now, we need to turn to the rest. The House has already acted. The
House has passed a bill called the CLARITY Act, which does just what I
have been talking about, providing some market structural legislation
for the crypto industry, the digital assets industry.
But the Senate--this is above my pay grade. But the Senate has
decided not to take up the CLARITY Act. I don't know that it has been
decided definitively, because obviously if enough Senators want to, we
can take up anything we want to take up. But the thinking seems to be
that the Senate needs to start over and draft our own digital assets
market structure bill that complements the CLARITY Act, which is
already passed by the House.
The Banking Committee, chaired by a very able chairman, Tim Scott, is
going to be taking up this legislation soon. It has got to be written
first. It is still being written. We need to hold hearings.
This is a complicated piece of legislation. I have spent a lot of
time on it, and it is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation
I have ever seen.
This is just one person's opinion. As a member of Banking, I think it
is going to take at least two hearings for us to be able to understand
the pros and the cons of this legislation and understand the
legislation itself.
We have to be sure, in this legislation, given that one in five
Americans owns cryptocurrency--we have to make sure, in this
legislation, that we are striking the right balance in jurisdiction
between the CFTC and the SEC.
We have to make sure, in this legislation, that we are coordinating
closely with another Senate committee, the Senate Agriculture
Committee, because it has jurisdiction of the CFTC and will play just
as important, if not a more important, role in this legislation as the
Banking Committee.
We are going to have to address in this legislation some concerns of
the banking community. The banking community, after we passed the
GENIUS Act--remember the GENIUS Act was just about stablecoins. The
Banking Committee is arguing--rather, the banking community, our banks,
are arguing, very persuasively, that there were some mistakes made in
the GENIUS Act, which, as I just said, regulates stablecoins.
Frankly, I don't know if that is accurate or not. That is what we
need a hearing for. But I think the banks--the banking community--need
to be heard on this issue. If we did make some mistakes in the GENIUS
Act with respect to American banks, I want us to correct it. I am not
saying we did or we didn't; I have heard both sides of the argument.
But my point is that we are going to have to take up that issue as well
in the hearing because the banking community would like us to amend the
larger digital asset market structure legislation to accommodate their
concerns about the mistakes, if any, that we made in the GENIUS Act.
We are going to have to spend a lot of time in these hearings and in
drafting the legislation making sure that we are addressing things like
tokenized securities. This is complicated stuff. It is a way,
basically, to trade a stock using blockchain technology without owning
stock. We have got to make sure that we get that right.
An issue will be raised, I am sure, about deposit insurance.
Cryptocurrency is--well, it is currency in the eyes of many people. And
I can see the day when the American people will ask us to address the
issues: Should deposit insurance cover cryptocurrency and digital
assets?
I am not suggesting to you that it should; I am not suggesting to you
that it shouldn't. I am suggesting to you that, likely, will be a topic
we would want to consider in one of these hearings that we need to have
about this topic.
I also think it would be appropriate in a hearing on this topic
before we draft or vote on legislation to talk about the Clarity Act.
That is the digital market structure and legislation that I just
referred to that was passed by the House.
No one is suggesting this, but I certainly would disagree if they
suggested we just ignore that legislation. A lot of work went into it.
I spent a lot of time reading it, and I am going to have to spend more
time reading it--it is very interesting--but there is some good work
there. And I want to be able to compare the Clarity Act passed by the
House with the Senate's market structure legislation. So perhaps we can
pick the best of each, and that would be an appropriate topic of a
hearing as well.
And these issues I am addressing are illustrative; they are not
exhaustive.
But we also need to address the issue of what, if any, fiduciary
responsibility those who participate in the digital assets markets
have. I am talking about commodity brokers, digital commodity brokers.
I am talking about digital commodity dealers. Should they have a
fiduciary obligation to their customers, to their clients? I am talking
about the digital commodity exchanges. What should their duty to their
clients be? Should it be a fiduciary obligation? Should it be something
less?
These are weighty issues. These are important issues. These are not
issues that you raise and solve over a weekend.
But I wanted to start talking about this bill because it is one of
the most important pieces of legislation that this body will consider.
It may not be the sexiest. It may not be the most interesting to some.
But when one in five Americans own cryptocurrency, it is certainly
important. So I will probably be talking about this issue several more
times on the floor as the Senate moves forward with our digital assets
market structure legislation.
I hope we will move it quickly, but I hope we will move deliberately.
I hope we will take the time to hold the hearings. And, again, I think
it is going to take more than one hearing to address these weighty
topics and then an additional time, once we get a bill, to mark it up,
as we say, to amend it and make sure that we do the job for the
American people.
And with that, 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. KIM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today as Federal servants, civil
servants, will check their mail or check their bank
[[Page S7131]]
accounts and not see the money that they have earned, the money that
they have earned for doing the work of the American people because
hundreds of thousands of civil servants--including roughly three
quarters of a million furloughed government workers--will sit down at
the kitchen table tonight and ask some hard questions: Which bills do
we pay? What do we do to cut back? How long can we go without a
paycheck?
These are tough questions, but they are only being asked because
President Trump and Speaker Johnson and others have decided that they
would rather plunge our government into a shutdown rather than address
the healthcare costs crisis for millions of Americans that are facing,
right now, these incredibly challenging debates.
Now, there are a lot of stories of our public servants struggling in
this moment, and I understand that some of my colleagues haven't had a
chance to hear them. So I wanted to come to the floor today to share my
own story.
I started my career as a public servant, as a State Department
officer. I worked for the Federal Government. It was the honor of my
lifetime. I emphasize that I was career, not a political, appointee. I
swore an oath to the Constitution, and I remember how proud I was to be
able to raise my hand and recite that oath.
I remember very clearly and vividly, in 2013, I was working on
counterterrorism trying to keep our Nation safe. And while I was doing
that work of national security, political leaders on the Hill, at that
time, hit an impasse, and our government went into a shutdown.
I remember how distant that felt for me with the work that I was
doing. I am just trying to show up and do work every day to be able to
keep our country safe, to be able to watch out for terrorist groups
that try to do us and our allies and our partners harm.
Why was it that now I was being asked to show up to work every single
day and not receive a paycheck? And, particularly, I was very early in
my career, not making very much money, turned down high-paying jobs so
I could serve my country. I did it because I was proud to be a public
servant, proud to be amongst the many others that are willing to put
our country before our own families; that we are part of something
bigger than all of us.
But through that period, when we were going through that shutdown--
and to remind people, that one lasted 16 days. At the time, that was
the second longest shutdown in American history. Hundreds of thousands
of Federal employees did not receive their full paychecks during that
shutdown. And at the time, we didn't have a guarantee and promise that
we would actually get backpay for the work that we were doing.
It was challenging. I remember having to call my own family and ask
them what I should be doing, try to think through what I can be doing
to make sure that I can pay the bills when it comes up. I had no idea
how long the shutdown would go for and felt so distant. I had no way,
as a civil servant, to influence the discussions on the Hill and the
leaders that were making this decision.
I remember reading afterward, the Office of Management and Budget
would put together a report following the shutdown, and in that report
they quoted an EPA employee who spoke with the Washington Post. That
employee said:
We love public service. We're very committed to our jobs
and the mission of our agency. But it's just too unstable.
And I remember that instability. My story is not unique. And that is
why, when I was actually sworn into Congress in January 2019--now,
again, I was sworn into Congress in the middle of a government
shutdown, a shutdown that is still, to this day, recognized as the
longest shutdown.
And I remember I was sworn into the government shutdown, and I found
out something that just shocked me, which is that the President and
Members of Congress continue to get paid during a shutdown. I just
could not believe it; that after what I had gone through as a career
public servant, doing the work of the country, continuing to show up to
work each and every day, not receiving the paycheck, then realizing
that 435 people in the House, 100 people in the Senate, and the
President of the United States continue to get a paycheck. They are the
only ones in the entire government that continue to get paid.
I remember, at that point, I decided I was going to refuse my pay
until the shutdown was over, and I am continuing to do that with this
shutdown because I still believe in those old sayings that officers eat
last, that leaders eat last, and that by taking our pay during this
crisis, especially on this day when so many others are not, we are
showing that we are fine having a full plate while others go without.
That is not leadership. That is not acceptable.
If leaders are being paid while others are not, you can see why so
many Americans believe that politicians are playing with other people's
chips; that they don't feel the impact of their actions. And that is
dangerous because it is easy to then think about all of this as a game
and to lose sight of the actual impacts on American families.
It is something I talked about with two public servants in New Jersey
during the first week of the shutdown. These are Federal workers who
have so much on the line in this fight. But it is important to remember
that, for them, this fight didn't begin with the shutdown. The stresses
that Federal workers are facing didn't start on October 1; it started
on January 20. It started with Russell Vought, the scribe of Project
2025 and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying
that he wants Federal workers to be ``in trauma,'' saying that he wants
our public servants--the people that help educate our kids, pave your
roads, keep you safe--to ``not want to go to work because they are
increasingly viewed as villains.'' That is what the current OMB
Director, the mastermind of this shutdown, has said; that he wants our
public servants to be ``viewed as villains.''
And let me tell you something, that is something I heard from those
Federal workers that I sat down with.
So congratulations, Russell Vought. Your dream has come true. These
Federal public servants I talked to said that they wake up every day
feeling like they have been made to be like the enemy, be viewed in
that way by the American people. They talked about the shooting at the
Centers for Disease Control, the attacks upon public servants.
That word ``enemy'' is something we have seen from President Trump
himself. He has repeatedly used the phrase ``enemy from within'' when
talking about people whom he perceives as his enemies, fellow Americans
who he thinks are engaged in a war from within.
I want to be clear. The people I sat down with earlier this month--
they are not the enemy. They are not showing up to work every day to go
to war against Donald Trump. They are showing up to work every day
because they believe in service. They are showing up to work every day
because they believe they have an obligation as Americans to work for
something bigger than themselves. We owe them better than what they are
seeing right now and how they are being treated. We owe them better
than a politics that demonizes them and their work.
What we see right now, though, is that we don't even have--while our
public servants are not getting paid through this shutdown even though
so many of them are showing up for work, I can tell you, they are
furious that we have a House of Representatives that doesn't even show
up, that we have Speaker Johnson continuing to give House Republicans a
paid vacation even though they are not even showing up to work and do
their job.
We also see the President and his mob boss-like cronies, like Russell
Vought and Stephen Miller, continuing to step up and use our
government, weaponizing it as a tool for political retribution and
political extortion.
We owe our public servants better. We owe them not just an end to the
shutdown but an end to the politics that makes our public servants an
enemy or a tool.
Next year is the 250th anniversary of our Nation's independence. It
is a chance to reaffirm who we are as Americans and what we believe in.
I believe in service. I believe in public servants. I believe that the
way out of this tailspin we are in as a country is to try to reignite a
new era of public service
[[Page S7132]]
in this country, have a new ``ask not what this country can do for
you'' kind of moment.
I believe that we must do everything we can right now to support our
public servants. First of all, have the House of Representatives get
back to work so we can have the negotiations, so we can have the
discussions needed to address the healthcare crisis impacting American
families and reopen our government so that every public servant can
have the peace of mind and dignity of knowing that their service has
been recognized.
It is time to support our public servants. It is time that we work to
end this shutdown.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2983
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues--the
ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Peters;
along with Senators King, Gallego, and Slotkin--in support of the
immediate passage of a clean and bipartisan reauthorization of the
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, which has been
introduced by Ranking Member Peters, along with Senator Rounds, this
session.
This law is critical for public-private information sharing and cyber
threat mitigation. But due to the objections of a couple of Republican
Senators, this essential tool has now expired, leaving our private
sector partners in a lurch.
I want to come to this debate with a very, very specific focus. I
also serve as ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, with
oversight of Federal elections administration issues. I am also
California's former secretary of state. So I have seen firsthand how
this cyber security law and the resulting public-private partnership
provide State and local elections officials with the crucial support
they need to mitigate threats to election administration, including the
combating of misinformation and disinformation.
It is timely because voting is already under way in this country in
several important State elections, as we speak, including in my home
State of California; and voting will soon begin in several other key
elections in 10 days.
Private sector partners will be more hesitant to report cyber
security threats to our elections if they are left exposed or feel like
they are left exposed during this lapse in the authority provided by
the law.
It is especially dangerous that this law has expired, as President
Trump and many members of his administration, for that matter, continue
to try to sow doubt about the integrity of our elections, including
undermining the cyber security of our election systems.
Now, following the original passage of this law in 2015, Congress
actually went a step further to provide better Federal coordination by
establishing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency,
better known as CISA. This was coupled with the Department of Homeland
Security's designation at the time of election infrastructure as
critical infrastructure, which has helped ensure that elections offices
received security assistance. And I should specifically point out that
these elections offices are not just State offices; they are local
elections offices throughout the country.
Now, CISA has been the leading Agency to fight against cyber threats
that can impact key industries and infrastructure, and I know that
State and local election officials appreciate and use the resources and
support that CISA provides in fending off bad actors. But instead of
prioritizing the reauthorization of the law and supporting CISA's
important election security work, the administration has actually been
undermining it.
Secretary Noem, DOGE, and Elon Musk have permanently cut over 1,300
staff at CISA--not added capacity; they have cut staff at CISA--while
halting all election security activity and terminating funding for the
election infrastructure center at CISA.
Colleagues, that is not government efficiency; that is government
negligence.
For those who are still, by the way, on CISA's payroll--still
employed, still staff at CISA--who joined the Federal Government with
the aim of helping to protect the homeland from cyber threats, many of
them are now being reassigned to support the President's mass
deportation efforts. And those who don't agree to that assignment--what
happens to them? They are being terminated from their jobs as we speak
during President Trump's government shutdown.
Now, I know that since day one, this administration has not even
tried to hide their contempt for CISA, and it is using any opportunity
it can to gut the pivotal Agency and, in doing so, leaving our cyber
defenses exposed.
As with many other areas where the Trump administration is pursuing
dangerous and unpopular policies, they are ignoring our legitimate
oversight requests. Since we first heard about the first round of job
cuts back in March, several of us have requested a briefing on CISA's
election-related activity, without any real answers or substantive
response from CISA. Meanwhile, the Director of National Intelligence,
Director Tulsi Gabbard, has spread baseless claims of election systems
vulnerability and vote manipulation, including at a White House Cabinet
meeting.
The vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark
Warner, and I have requested that Director Gabbard provide Senators
with an intelligence briefing to clarify her remarks on voting systems
security--so far, to no avail.
This reckless spread of election conspiracy theories--from the head
of the intelligence community, no less--demonstrates that this
administration is not serious about election security and instead
embraces and spreads misinformation to undermine public confidence in
elections and in election results.
So why has this law been allowed to lapse? Because a few Senate
Republicans agree with Trump and want to ban CISA from doing its
important election security work on disinformation and misinformation.
It is a position I personally find very, very hard to believe, and I
hope they will reconsider and move off of that dangerous position.
No, colleagues, we should not codify the Trump administration's
approach to election security, and we certainly should not codify it
permanently. We have a responsibility, an obligation, to support
election officials and provide all the resources we can to keep U.S.
elections secure and allow Americans to vote both freely and securely,
including the disbursement of election security grants, as Congress has
approved on a bipartisan basis, and including the clean reauthorization
of this critical cyber security law.
Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No.
182, S. 2983; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the
desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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 Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, disappointing but not surprising. And I
hope, as the days go on, and not just next year's midterm elections and
not just next year's midterm primary elections but elections in
numerous States this November--literally, just a few weeks away--will
be a reminder of the urgency to revisit this topic, address it,
reauthorize the law, and provide CISA with the funding and proper
guidance, as we have over the last decade. The work is simply too
important.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Health Insurance Premiums
Mr. REED. Mr. President, millions of Americans are starting to get
notices that their monthly health insurance premiums will be going up
by $100 or much more because President Trump and congressional
Republicans are letting critical health insurance tax credits expire.
Donald Trump likes to put his signature on things, and to be fair, he
should be putting his name on each of these premium increases because--
there is no other way to describe it--this is a
[[Page S7133]]
Trump health tax on working families. It is part of the Trump plan.
Think about it. Trump demanded $4.5 trillion--and just to be clear,
that is trillion with a ``t''--in tax giveaways in his deeply unpopular
budget, but in all those tax cuts for billionaires, for gun
manufacturers, for wealthy oil and gas companies, Trump and
congressional Republicans couldn't find any room to extend the tax
credits that help 22 million Americans keep their health insurance.
In fact, to add insult to injury, they also cut $990 billion from
Medicaid for the 70 million Americans who rely on it. Let's take a
second to put Trump and Republican priorities in perspective.
They passed a massive tax giveaway for approximately 902
billionaires. They slashed $990 billion from Medicaid, which covers 70
million Americans. And they decided to let health insurance help for 22
million working Americans just go away.
Trump and GOP leaders are so committed to blocking anything good for
Americans' healthcare that they are shutting down the government to
prevent us from fixing the problem. That is where we are today.
We all know that shutdowns are costly, wasteful, and needlessly
disruptive. But not having health coverage because Republicans ended
it, that is devastating.
I want to be very clear: This is about the healthcare of 22 million
Americans, not undocumented immigrants, as some Republicans have
misleadingly claimed. Those in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for
these tax credits or for Medicaid or Medicare, for that matter.
This is about the healthcare of American families. There is a simple
path forward: fund the government and help Americans keep their
healthcare. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that
we can wait to address this issue, the American people can't wait.
Open enrollment for people who purchase health insurance for
themselves or their families through the State marketplaces starts on
November 1. That is less than a month away, and notices are already
going out the door.
In Rhode Island, these notices start to go out on October 17. If the
Republicans keep us from acting now, premiums will more than double--a
114-percent increase. The new premiums will be so high that many people
will forgo coverage.
Indeed, it is likely that younger and healthier people will forgo
coverage, leaving those under coverage with more complicated and more
expensive healthcare needs, also driving up the costs of healthcare.
In Rhode Island alone, roughly 13,000 people will likely lose their
healthcare coverage for next year because of these price increases. We
need to act.
Last Friday, I met with small business owners in Warren, RI. They
stressed the need for this tax credit. Even with this credit, it is
difficult for them to afford health coverage and keep their businesses
open.
One of these businesspeople made a profound point. I call it the
Uriah Principle after the first name of its proponent. What is the
Uriah Principle? Simply, the most serious side effect or one of the
most serious side effects of the lack of healthcare insurance is
poverty.
Yes. When you have no healthcare coverage and you get ill, you can't
work. When you have no healthcare insurance you are in a very difficult
position, and you are scrambling just to get by.
That is not conducive to the initiative it takes for small businesses
to thrive in this country. And my colleagues are always proclaiming
their devotion and dedication to small businesses everywhere. This is a
blow to small businesses everywhere.
Now, it is unfortunate but Donald Trump and his handlers don't want
to solve this problem, and congressional Republicans seem only to be
interested in what Trump wants.
Since August, right after congressional Republicans rammed through
their $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare programs,
the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have been asking to sit
down and negotiate to resolve this problem. But at President Trump's
direction, Republican leaders ignored the request.
Trump said:
Don't even bother dealing with [Democrats].
And Republican leaders have listened.
At one point, the President agreed to meet but reversed course,
apparently, at the direction of Speaker Johnson, who has kept the House
in recess for the last month.
Finally, the day before the shutdown--the day before the shutdown--
the President finally agreed to meet, not negotiate, just meet. Since
then, nothing. Apparently, he has plenty of time to host the President
of Argentina and has no problem sending him home with 20 billion of
U.S. taxpayer dollars, but he has no time to talk about helping the
American people with their skyrocketing healthcare costs.
While President Trump is ignoring this issue, he is demanding a blank
check so he can run the government exactly how he wants to.
Unfortunately, GOP leaders are willing to hand it to him and not for
the first time.
Late last year, shortly before President Trump took office, Democrats
and Republicans reached a bipartisan agreement on a full-year funding
bill for fiscal year 2025. It would have funded the government for the
entire year, and it would have provided critical disaster relief,
funding for national defense, childcare, the healthcare system,
transportation infrastructure, and much more.
But Donald Trump insisted that Republicans walk away from the
agreement until he came into office so he could call all the shots.
They delivered, and he took advantage.
I didn't vote for the year-long CR that Trump eventually backed last
March because even then, his excesses were already on full display. His
wanton claims of Executive powers, his firing of thousands,
cancellation of grants, misuse of law enforcement, politicalization of
the military, and general lawlessness were apparent.
And true to his nature, under the fiscal year 2025 continuing
resolution he signed into law in March, Trump has illegally--
illegally--delayed or withheld Federal funds for medical research,
including for childhood cancer; for Head Start; for Job Corps; for
disaster recovery and mitigation; for foreign assistance, including
lifesaving therapeutic nutrition for starving children in the world;
for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which provides food and
shelter throughout the country under the auspices of Catholic
Charities, the Jewish Federation, and the United Way.
He has used the so-called pocket rescission to illegally cancel $4.9
billion foreign aid, and he has even tried to close entire Departments
and Agencies without congressional approval.
To have the President sign a bill into law and simply flout its
requirements like this is irksome, to say the least, particularly for
members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle.
Indeed, as a member of the committee, I know how hard we work to
prepare bipartisan bills every year. Some of my Republican colleagues
have been privately outraged by the President's actions. A few of them
have had the courage to speak up publicly. But President Trump's
campaign of petty vindictiveness and hard partisan ideology continues.
Trump and his Budget Director Russ Vought say the shutdown will force
them to fire Federal workers.
That is nonsense.
From day one, President Trump, Mr. Vought, along with Elon Musk and
his minions, have tried to fire Federal workers by the thousands
without cause and without thought. They have terminated experts in
national security and intelligence, and in some cases, they have had to
beg them to return to their jobs because they were, in fact,
irreplaceable.
Just this past Friday, the administration fired hundreds of workers
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But before the
weekend was over, they were scrambling to reinstate an estimated 700
employees who work on critical issues like measles response and
containing the spread of Ebola.
The administration has also fired many other Federal workers
precisely because they have done their jobs with professionalism,
honesty, and integrity, replacing them with loyalists with little
background or expertise to
[[Page S7134]]
do the jobs they have been appointed to do.
Trump has allowed his political appointees to rifle through the
personal data of nearly every American. I asked the FBI Director, after
DOGE had gone through all this data, can he assure us that that data is
not in the hands of anyone unauthorized to have it. He mumbled a
response that was really nonresponsive.
If you stop and step back, DOGE has pilfered the data in every major
Federal Agency, and no one can tell you where it is; who has it. That
could be the greatest crime committed against the American people in
the history of this country.
Trump's tariff taxes are driving up costs for food, electricity,
clothing, and nearly every basic necessity for American families. Small
businesses are facing these same cost increases too. As I said, when
talking to small businesspeople in Warren, RI, they are looking at a
very difficult challenge, and it is not being helped by Trump.
This list goes on and on as does the list of lawsuits against the
administration. And for 9 months, congressional Republicans have had
the chance to show some true independence--to say no to Trump on his
price-rising tariffs, to say no to Trump's misuse of Federal funds, to
stand up to the administration's abuse of the personal data of
Americans, to reject some of the least qualified and most dangerous
Cabinet members in history, to conduct even the most basic taxpayer
oversight of the numerous conflicts of interest and money-making
ventures of the President, his family, and his allies.
But when their votes have mattered, they have gone along with every
bad decision this President has made.
If this capitulation to the executive branch continues, the Senate
will be rendered a hollow, powerless body, with Senators powerless to
represent their constituents and States.
And I would remind everyone that the iron law of the Senate is: What
goes around, comes around. And my colleagues should ask themselves: Do
they want their States and constituents treated this way, the way that
Trump is treating his perceived political enemies, cutting off valuable
public assistance to blue cities, putting U.S. forces into blue cities,
the military, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?
I think the answer would be no. And what is good for one side has to
be good for the other side.
The President is not popular. What he is doing on every issue now is
not popular. Costs matter to Americans in every State of this country,
and this healthcare debate is all about costs.
One of the ironies is that some of the biggest impacts of these
healthcare changes will be on the red States. Everyone suffers across
the country, but there is significant suffering in places that are
prominently Republican. So why are my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle saying, ``Oh, we don't care''?
They should think long and hard about that and remember why they
wanted to be Senators in the first place: to improve the lives of their
constituents, to help, to serve. And that requires compromise here.
We saw that last week when we passed the National Defense
Authorization bill with overwhelming bipartisan support in very
efficient and rapid procedures.
When you get compromise--bipartisan compromise--you get results. When
you get a body that seeks only to carry out the will of one person, you
get what we have now: stalemate, suffering by poor people who can't get
healthcare, but great benefits to the wealthy.
For the last several months, appropriators have been working on bills
to protect and invest in the American people. Together, we passed eight
appropriations bills out of the committee, most on overwhelmingly
bipartisan votes. Three of those bills have been passed by the full
Senate. Throughout this process, Democrats have shown our commitment to
doing the hard work of government.
We have been flexible and willing to compromise. And, frankly, if it
was in the Senate's power, both Republicans and Democrats, we would
have legislation--appropriations legislation--before the President
today, but we have been unable to because of the roadblocks he has
established using his leverage over my Republican colleagues.
In fact, I think it is fair to say that President Trump and Speaker
Johnson don't really want compromise and don't really want Congress to
pass appropriations bills. They want Democrats to go away and give them
another blank check, another CR.
But forget whether it is a CR or an appropriations bill. If the
President doesn't like the program, he just takes the money away, which
is contrary to the Constitution, but that is just a detail.
It takes 60 votes to pass a law here in the Senate. So Democrats are
here, ready to reach a principled agreement on spending and protect the
healthcare of 22 million Americans.
We are ready. We just need the President and the Speaker and the
majority leader to sit down and talk, not about their partisan
interests but the welfare of their constituents.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleague
from Rhode Island, and I join him in his advocacy for healthcare.
We are going into day 15 of the shutdown. No one likes shutdowns. And
people ask me, Peter, why are you shut down? And my answer to them is
that I don't like shutdowns, but things are worth fighting for. Some
things we must fight for. And one of the things that are most essential
to the well-being of the people we represent, whether it is a
Republican State or a Democratic State, is access to affordable
healthcare.
We have a date that is looming--November 1--where people are going to
be getting, across this country, notifications about how much of an
increase they will have to pay if they are getting tax support, tax
credits, for them to buy their own insurance in the private
marketplace. That is the urgency of the moment and why we must resolve
this now. We must resolve this now.
On November 1, everyone will be getting the notice, but in many
States, including Vermont, those notices are going out now, in October,
and I want to show you what is going to happen to a Vermont family.
Keep in mind, this is a family of four where you have two parents
that earn $130,000. They purchase healthcare through the private
marketplace. Right now, that Vermont family pays $1,195, about $1,200 a
month for their healthcare premium. That doesn't include copays and
deductibles.
That is a big expense for that family, who has utility bills, who has
rent or a mortgage, who is facing the inflation we see in the cost of
food, groceries. They have kids in school, and always, some unexpected
expense comes up when you have kids in school--a broken wrist, braces,
a school trip.
That premium of $1,195 is going to increase to $3,035--$3,035--in
2026. That family can't afford it. Where does the money come from to
pay for that healthcare?
You know, the poignancy of this was exemplified when a Vermonter was
with me to talk about this. She has a family of four, two kids, and she
asked herself: If there is this huge spike in premiums, as a mother,
where I am responsible for the well-being of my two children, and it
would be ``irresponsible''--her word--not to have healthcare for my
kids, what do I do if I get a $2,000-a-month increase and I simply
don't have the money to pay for it?
That is not a decision we should be imposing on the people in
Missouri or the people in Vermont.
All of us who have the authority of being in the U.S. Senate and
representing the people who sent us here should not allow that rate
premium shock to crush that family.
By the way, this is not just this family in Vermont; this is families
all across our country.
You know, if these tax premiums, these tax credits expire--and that
is what they do--then we are going to see nearly 5 million people
across this country, in the Presiding Officer's State and mine, lose
their coverage. Twenty-four million Americans will face higher costs.
By the way, that includes about 17 million people in States that
voted for President Trump. Families in red
[[Page S7135]]
States are going to see significant premium increases.
But, you know, this is not about red State-blue State for me; this is
about American families, American small businesses, and whether they
can have access to affordable healthcare. These tax credits are across
the board for people who are eligible and qualify for them, who are
working, who are struggling to pay their bills, and there is no way
they are going to be able to afford these rate shocks.
I will give you another example. Alex from Essex, VT, works in a
small, independent physical therapy practice. He makes $65,000 a year.
With the tax credits, his premium costs $5,500 bucks a year--about 8.5
percent of his annual income. Without the tax credit, Alex's plan is
going to increase by $15,500 next year to $24,000 a year--two grand a
month. It is not possible.
So we have this real-world situation.
You know, the question is, Why are you in a shutdown? It is because
we are fighting for healthcare. The question is, Why can't we do that
after we vote for a continuing resolution? It is because that date of
November 1 is going to be the date where everybody across this country
gets the shocking news about how much their healthcare premiums have
gone up.
So, you know, the question I have is, Why don't we, all of us,
Republicans and Democrats, who care deeply about the people we
represent, really come to their rescue by acting and acting now? There
is absolutely no excuse for us to delay. This is the urgency of now.
I stand before the Presiding Officer knowing that right now in my
State of Vermont, from Bennington to Derby Line, from Brattleboro to
Swanton, people are going to their mailboxes and fainting as they get
the news of these rate shocks.
It is not right, but most importantly for us, it is not necessary
because we, the U.S. Senate, have the power to act and to be fair to
the folks that are working hard in all of our States and are entitled
to have some confidence that the healthcare they have this year, they
will continue to be able to afford next year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the month we are in, the month of October,
is Domestic Violence Awareness Month--the time that we should recognize
the devastating impact domestic violence continues to have on
individuals, families, and communities across our States and the
Nation.
The issue of domestic violence often remains hidden behind closed
doors. It is a reality that affects millions of Americans every year,
both in communities large and small, urban and rural, and unfortunately
across my own home State of Kansas.
While national headlines may briefly focus attention on this issue
when a tragedy occurs or a public figure is involved, our commitment to
ending abuse must remain constant after the news cycle.
The statistics regarding domestic violence are staggering. Domestic
violence that occurs between partners--girlfriends and boyfriends,
husbands and wives--affects more than 12 million--12 million--people
every year. On a typical day, every 9 seconds, a woman is assaulted in
the United States. In Kansas, law enforcement reports nearly 22,000
incidents of domestic violence annually. These aren't statistics from
faraway places; they reflect our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and
family members.
We have a responsibility to bring hope to those who feel afraid to
speak out. I want to recognize the Kansans who dedicate their lives to
that mission, those who work and volunteer in shelters, crisis centers,
advocacy organizations, and law enforcement across the country. Their
compassion and courage make a difference every single day.
In Iola, KS, Hope Unlimited provides a lifeline for victims seeking
safety and support. Working hand in hand with local law enforcement and
first responders, Hope Unlimited's advocates and trained volunteers
deliver services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
human trafficking. Their coordinated response models ensure survivors
are met with care the moment they reach out.
We know that when victims are turned away or forced to travel long
distances for help, 90 percent return to their abuser--a reminder why
access to local support is critical.
Across Kansas, similar organizations, like Safehome in Johnson
County, StepStone in Wichita, and the Crisis Center, Inc., in
Manhattan, are helping survivors rebuild their lives with dignity and
safety.
What happens in Washington, DC, matters, but we change the world one
person--in fact, one soul--at a time. In communities across Kansas and
across America, that is exactly what is happening.
The Federal Government plays a meaningful role in supporting these
efforts. Through programs like the legal assistance for victims grant,
Kansans have access to legal representation that helps survivors
navigate the justice system and reclaim their sense of safety and
stability.
The work is far from over. Domestic violence is more than a law
enforcement or a policy issue; each of us can and must play a role in
ending it. This month and every month, let us recommit ourselves to
breaking the cycle of abuse. Let's do our part to speak out against
violence in all its forms and to stand with those who have been
silenced for too long. Let's raise awareness of this silent and
devastating issue and bring hope to those who need it most.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 218
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Oswaldo Paya
and, as I have done before, to urge this body to honor his legacy.
Paya was a Cuban dissident who fought against the communist regime
and who stood up and fought for free speech, for democracy, and for
human rights. He was a thorn in the side of the Cuban communist regime
his entire life.
Oswaldo Paya was the only person at his school who refused to join
the Communist Youth. Later, at the age of 35, he founded the Christian
Liberation Movement, which called for nonviolent disobedience against
the rule of the Cuban Communist Party. He then founded the Varela
Project, which sought a referendum on Cuba's communist system.
Throughout, he fought for democratic governance, religious liberty,
freedom of suppression, and the freedom to start businesses.
For over three decades, Paya put pressure on the communist regime to
free its political prisoners, to allow for genuine elections, and to
uphold basic human rights. In retaliation, the regime harassed him.
They arrested him repeatedly and, ultimately, in 2012, they killed him.
But in life and in death, they never succeeded in silencing his
message.
Growing up, I heard countless stories from my father about life in
Cuba, and they instilled in me, from a very young age, the desire to
fight for change, to fight for truth, to fight for freedom. The
yearning for liberty and the courage to fight for it is universal and
deeply felt in every Cuban heart.
Since 2015, in every Congress, I have introduced legislation to
rename the street outside the Cuban Embassy the ``Oswaldo Paya Way.''
This body has passed it before, rightly and unanimously. Oswaldo's
legacy matters deeply to Cuba and to the United States. And it matters
to his family, with whom I have worked closely on this resolution.
Over the years, I met many times with his daughter Rosa Maria Paya.
Rosa Maria is herself a formidable and courageous dissident and warrior
for human rights. Renaming the street in front of the Cuban Embassy
would help preserve that legacy.
During the Cold War, President Reagan renamed the street in front of
the Soviet Embassy ``Sakharov Plaza'' after the famed human rights
dissident in the Soviet Union. It was part of a broader strategy to
shine a light on the abuses of the evil empire.
My strategy here is the same. Some might think a street name is not
that big a deal. Well, it is. Anyone who wants to write to the Cuban
Embassy will have to write Oswaldo Paya's name. Anyone who wants to go
there has to look up the address and see his name. The operatives of
the Cuban regime will have to say or write his name.
[[Page S7136]]
Saying his name has power.
In just a moment, I would propound a unanimous consent request to
take up and pass the Oswaldo Paya Way resolution.
I want to point out this is bipartisan legislation. Indeed, I am
joined by Senator Durbin, the Democrat whip, in this legislation. In a
previous Senate, this passed the Senate 100 to nothing. That means
every Republican voted for it, and every Democrat voted for it. I am
hopeful this Congress can demonstrate the same unity and the same
resolve to stand up in support of democracy and in support of human
rights. Right now, we will find out if that is the case.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further
consideration of S. 218 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; I further 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 New
Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I stand in
agreement with my colleague. Mr. Oswaldo Paya is an extraordinary hero,
not just to the Cuban people but to millions of Americans, including
millions of New Jerseyans and especially to the Cuban American
community in my State. He is a freedom fighter who stands for our most
treasured and sacrosanct ideals.
I want to work with my colleague to find a way to honor him. I would
be willing to partner with him in doing something to elevate this cause
and this principle and the noble ideals that my colleague speaks to.
The challenge right now is that we are in different times. This bill
would permit Congress to rename a DC-owned intersection, but the
District of Columbia has the right to self-governance.
When I was mayor of the city of Newark, if my State came in against
my objections to rename streets in my city, I would have objected. The
people of the District of Columbia have the right to control their own
local affairs. Their rights are enshrined in home rule. It is critical
that we reject attempts that infringe upon those rights.
The locally elected DC Council alone has the right to rename DC
streets. And there is no dispute that the intersection in question is
DC owned. Since the beginning of home rule, the council has opposed
congressional efforts to rename its streets. Recently, Representative
Holmes Norton strongly has made her views known that she opposes this
bill on those grounds.
Washington, DC, has no representation in this body. We must respect
the wishes of the locally and democratically elected council and DC
representatives in Congress. Indeed, these democratic ideals are what
we are talking about right now.
This objection is not about recognizing the courageous work of
Oswaldo Paya. I will tell you, I have a deep reverence and respect and
I will offer again that I will do anything I can to support the
elevation of this hero, of this democratic light. Mr. Paya bravely
fought for freedom and democracy in Cuba. He was killed due to his
heroic work.
I hope, perhaps, our Congress can appropriate resources to do
something to honor this noble man and his ideals. I hope we can think
constructively about what else we can do. His work should be recognized
more by our Nation. And I would support the DC Council, their elected
representatives, if it decided, through their democratic process, to
work with the Senator and the Democratic sponsor to rename the street.
My objection is simply right now about Washington, DC's right to
control their own local affairs. This objection is about home rule and
self-governance. It is true, as my colleague said, this has passed
through this Chamber multiple times. But you would understand, DC is
pushing for us not to do it this time because the current
administration in the White House has stepped up their efforts to
undermine home rule. It is looking to DC as a testing ground for
extreme policies.
The fact that DC has been deprived of statehood makes the people of
the District feel even more vulnerable under this President to the
policies of the administration. They are asserting an even stronger way
with me and others who feel a fidelity to the home rule ideals, that we
should take a stand now. We cannot make DC and its residents more
vulnerable still by further eroding and encroaching upon the District
of Columbia's right to self-governance. That is a sacrosanct ideal that
our country has stood for.
``No taxation without representation,'' the ability to elect your
governing officials and entrust upon them to make decisions for your
community.
It is under these principles and ideals, Mr. President, that I
object. And it is with a sincere heart that I offer my colleague the
willingness to work with him on other ways we might be able to bestow
an honor on this extraordinary hero.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. I must say, the objection from my friend from New Jersey is
deeply unfortunate. The remarks that he gave were unfortunately
seriously in error.
The Senator from New Jersey suggested that it is only the DC City
Council that has the power to do this. This is objectively false. DC is
a city unlike any city in America because DC--the Constitution
explicitly gives the authority to govern DC to the Congress of the
United States. That is written into the Constitution.
My friend from New Jersey said he would object if this were done in
Newark, NJ. Well, Newark, NJ, is not in the Federal District of
Columbia, which the Constitution gives to Congress to govern.
It is also objectively disproven by the example I gave. We have done
this before. When Ronald Reagan was President, he signed into law
legislation renaming the street in front of the Soviet Union ``Sakharov
Plaza.'' The author of that legislation is someone you and I still
serve with. He is the senior most serving Member of this body. Senator
Chuck Grassley, then a brandnew Senator, introduced the legislation to
rename the street in front of the Soviet Embassy. It was part of
shining a light on communist oppression.
The legislation that the Senator from New Jersey just objected to is
Cruz-Durbin. Its lead Democrat author is Senator Dick Durbin, the whip
for the Democrat party. This is not partisan legislation.
Indeed, this exact legislation--Senator Booker, who just objected,
voted for it just 2 years ago in this Congress. It passed 100 to
nothing, and 1 of those 100 was my friend Senator Booker. He voted yes.
By the way, one of the most vocal advocates of this legislation was
Senator Booker's former colleague Senator Bob Menendez, another Cuban-
American. And there is a rich irony because, after Florida, the State
of New Jersey has a massive Cuban-American population.
To see a Senator from New Jersey objecting--I know this is not his
intent, but the communist Government of Cuba is cheering right now
because they do not want to acknowledge Oswaldo Paya. They murdered
him, and they don't want to have to say his name. They don't want
anyone to say his name.
I know there are Cuban-American residents of New Jersey whose hearts
are heavy right now. They are hurting to see their elected Senator
object over not just honoring Oswaldo Paya but calling out the regime.
Senator Booker suggests, oh, some other general statement; Paya is a
nice guy; we should do that. That is not the purpose here. I am happy
to support any resolution praising Oswaldo Paya. I have done so many
times. The purpose here is to put pressure on the Cuban communist
regime, and naming the street does that.
As I pointed out, Senator Booker voted for this identical legislation
just 2 years ago, this bipartisan legislation. That leads to the
obvious question: What has changed?
One thing has changed: the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When
Senator Booker voted for this bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden was the
President. Today, Donald J. Trump is the President. Unfortunately, our
Democrat colleagues have decided that bipartisan cooperation is no
longer something they are interested in. Their party is instead unified
behind one principle, which is that they hate Donald J. Trump.
[[Page S7137]]
We are on day 15 of a government shutdown because the Democrats are
unwilling to fund the Federal Government, unwilling to pass a clean
continuing resolution.
By the way, every one of them, including the Senator from New Jersey,
has given speeches about how it is reckless and irresponsible to shut
the government down, not to pass a clean continuing resolution. Yet,
earlier today, almost every single Democrat voted, for the ninth time
in the last 2 weeks, to shut the government down, whereas Republicans
are unified to reopen it.
This weekend, there will be a rally in DC of leftwing radicals, the
so-called No Kings rally. Many, if not most, of us on the Republican
side of the Chamber believe that the reason the government is still
shut down is because Democrat Senators are terrified for that rally to
occur and those leftwing radicals to see that the government is open
because they have to demonstrate that they hate President Trump.
Just this week, President Trump announced a historic Middle East
peace deal. Yet virtually zero Democrats could bring themselves even to
say his name.
Bill Clinton praised President Trump for the Middle East peace deal.
Hillary Clinton praised President Trump for the Middle East peace deal.
I commend Bill and Hillary Clinton. I will say that in my time in the
Senate, that is the first time that sentence has ever come out of my
mouth: I commend Bill and Hillary Clinton. But why is it--indeed,
Senator Booker put out a statement about the Middle East peace deal,
but nowhere in it was President Trump's name to be found.
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that there is power in
saying his name. Just as the Democrats are terrified of saying the name
``Donald J. Trump'' in any way connected to anything positive, so, too,
are the Cuban communists terrified of saying the name ``Oswaldo Paya.''
I am hopeful that my friend the Senator from New Jersey will put
aside the partisan rancor that characterizes the Democrats in this body
and will say: Let's come together and stand for the Cuban people. Let's
stand for Cuban-Americans in this country. Let's stand for freedom.
Let's stand for democracy. Let's stand for human rights.
That ought to be bipartisan. Time will tell whether it continues to
be at the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Pentagon Audits
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the
Pentagon's unending audit failures and to once again call for
corrective action.
People who have been in the Senate a while know that I have been
continually talking about this issue, many times--so many; I don't know
how many--but I think it is something I need to keep beating the drum
about.
The fact is that the Pentagon is the only Government Agency that
can't get what is called a certified audit or sometimes referred to as
a clean audit--the only Agency of the Federal Government.
I have been conducting oversight on this issue since the audit began
in 1993 and have spoken about it many times. Today, I provide my
colleagues with a new update.
Recent Government Accountability Office testimony may have pinpointed
the root cause audit problem. It is called the universe of
transactions. It is a special bucket of transactions manually
transferred from several hundred systems. It should play a pivotal role
in the audit process.
In theory, the universe of transactions is an accurate record of
every transaction in financial statement balances. Auditors should be
able to follow audit trails to verify samples taken from those
balances.
In practice, it doesn't work. The data is inaccurate and incomplete.
Transactions can't be matched. Audit trails don't exist, so audits
fail.
I found essentially the same disconnect in the inspector general's
first audits 30 years ago. Those audits contain these telling words:
``No audit trail found.'' It is the same old problem--no controls over
transactions then; none today.
The Marine Corps recently developed a workaround for the no-audit-
trail. It is a predicament that needed attention, and they gave it some
attention. As a result of giving it some attention, the Marine Corps
earned two clean opinions, but they did it the hard way.
The marines had to create missing audit trails with labor-intensive,
pick-and-shovel work. They dug up, ran down, matched, and verified each
transaction. Obviously, the marines deserve credit for a job done well.
But manual audit trail reconstruction is not a very cost-efficient
alternative to modern accounting systems. Fully integrated systems are
the solution. They are called for in the Chief Financial Officers Act
that mandated the audits that I am talking about.
Instead of investing in modern systems, Pentagon bureaucrats keep
pouring millions year after year into ancient systems that belong in
the junk heap.
Thirty-five years and billions of dollars down the rat hole, and the
DOD is still scratching their heads, wondering how to control
transactions. Surely, they know traders solved that problem thousands
of years ago when records were first kept on clay tablets.
So why is the Pentagon still in the stone age? It is due to
incompetence or deliberate bureaucratic foot-dragging or whatever.
Getting a handle on every transaction is the key to success, and
therein lies the rub. Integrated systems are needed, but there is
relentless resistance to acquiring them.
I call on Secretary of War Hegseth to create a team of independent
system experts to examine and resolve this problem. Controlling
transactions is the heart and soul of every accounting system--except,
as you see, at the Pentagon. Until that truth is accepted, clean
opinions will remain nothing but a pipe dream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The majority leader.
____________________